BUT as Mark Twain said....there are lies, dang lies and then there's statistics, like averages. It can be tricky to draw conclusions from them – even deceiving.Going through the thread, I took some averages of members who had posted results and parameters that stuck to the original posts criteria and dropped the results into a spreadsheet.
ive found ca and mg to be the most common errors with hobby grade test kits compared to triton. The easiest way to sort that is to test the way you normally would and get a triton test. Just figure in that inaccuracy. Triton may help you sort an underlined issue also.Salt is Fritz, which I can't recall offhand what parameters on that are supposed to be. I don't put a ton of stock in any Mg test really, as I don't think any of them are super accurate. No "buddy" around to test and nearest LFS is over an hour away so...I'll just roll with it for now. If nothing else helps sps color then I'll worry more. I think on the spectrum of things that could be causing issues, Mg isn't as high as some others.
I agree specifically to the later. I got to the point I was chasing low values just because everyone else was. Once I stopped all the nonesense, including gfo, I realized I was trying to fix a problem I didn't have. That said, that same tank once ran half the nutrients with a lot more problems. So I think the key for people struggling is to give the tools for them to best analyze their own system. If they are experiencing a problem there is a scientific reason behind it every time. We all know what works for one may not work for others. And no two tanks run the same, even in the same house. Heck, that's half of the fun. If we didn't have something to mess with we'd collectively finding a cure for cancer, or somethingVery interesting to see all the data in one place!!
I do think it's noteworthy how many near-zero entries there are for no3 and po4 on the r2r list and how many (comparatively) high-nutrient entries there are in the other list.
It's also noteworthy how few conclusions were drawn in the article from the Paletta data. It seemed striking to me.
I don't know what conclusions can be drawn and I know it would even more interesting to see a list replete with lighting and flow data. It would be really interesting if there was a more useful way to list flow than GPH which is a very aseptic number....but it's all we have.
All I can add is that ever since GFO and carbon-dosing became ubiquitous in reefing I've been dubious of them. To put it simply, I just don't think you can turn a high-nutrient ecosystem into a low-nutrient ecosystem just by throwing in a little vinegar and rust. That would be equivalent to magic.
Some related thoughts here:
The only problem I see it that you need to quit wasting growth and get them off the rack and on to the rocks!Some pics of some sps. Only alteration was orange filter to cut the blue:
This one has the best color by far and oddly enough started completely bleached. Supposed to be a de fuego:
Red dragon looking...I don't know:
I don't think it's a misstep other then that extra growth on the rack would have been permanent on a rock. Maybe use the lux meter to give them the same readings after they are moved. You may be surprised that they get more light on the side of the tank due to reflection off the glass then at the same depth on the rocks.
I think it's fair to say anyone that's been in the hobby has dabbled with each form of lighting at one point or another. Many jumped on the led bandwagon early on and and went back to what they were using prior. Once led technology got better switched again. I think we can also agree that each form has advantages and disadvantages. If done correctly any form works well. It really comes down to how much do you want to spend, and what is visually attractive to you.
Exactly right. I just bought myself a radios xr15 gen 4 and love it only had it a few days now... My sps liked my giesman bulbs better but hopefully the acclimation goes well... New to sps side of corals they haven't been kind as of yet
Par meter for acclimation. Or lux meter at least. A lot cheaper then replacing corals
FWIW flow is much lower near the glass (useful cross flow). That's more important than light, chances are your well above the amount they need to thrive PAR wise. Get them off the rack or put the rack out into better flow. secured to the rocks if you're not sure where to mount yet. With that said the "time it takes" to get where you want will be a lot longer in a poor flow area. 2 MP10's (not sure your tank size) are OK, but those are very directional with flow. Personally, I have at least one gyre in all my frag tanks (no display right now).
