What is "stable"

[JBNY]

People are confusing idea parameters with stability, but they are not the same thing. People are successful with lots of different parameters on their tank. The important thing is that those parameters don’t drift over time, that is stability.

New tanks tend to be unstable because it can take a while until the system reaches an equilibrium. Before that happens things like Alk, Nitrates, phosphates, even calcium are used up at different ratios than they are when the tank is more established. That is why we often say that older tanks are more mature, but we really mean stable. Even things like salinity changing from manual top off can have a dramatic effect on stability. So the numbers you are chasing matter less than the fact that they land in roughly the same range every time you test. Of course there is some implied test kits error, but the results should be in the same range every time you test. Routine dosing to replace tank consumption is normal. But every time you have take corrective action because of a drift that is instability, how often that happens is how stable the tank is.

 

[X-37B]

People are confusing idea parameters with stability, but they are not the same thing. People are successful with lots of different parameters on their tank. The important thing is that those parameters don’t drift over time, that is stability.

New tanks tend to be unstable because it can take a while until the system reaches an equilibrium. Before that happens things like Alk, Nitrates, phosphates, even calcium are used up at different ratios than they are when the tank is more established. That is why we often say that older tanks are more mature, but we really mean stable. Even things like salinity changing from manual top off can have a dramatic effect on stability. So the numbers you are chasing matter less than the fact that they land in roughly the same range every time you test. Of course there is some implied test kits error, but the results should be in the same range every time you test. Routine dosing to replace tank consumption is normal. But every time you have take corrective action because of a drift that is instability, how often that happens is how stable the tank is.

Nice!
If you adjust in range it keeps the system quite stable over time.

I keep po4 now between .1-.2.
When it gets close to .2 I use 1/2 cup of gfo. I know it will bring it close to .1 and it will slowly rise to .2.

Specific gravity will over a 1-2 week period drop from 1.0265-1.026.
I run 2 oversize skimmers in my 150.
I add 2 tbs of salt to the overflow and its back to 1.0265.
My range is 1.026-1.027.

 

[Paul B]

I started mine more than 30 years ago. I stopped it after 20 years due largely to electricity costs going through the roof.

That's why I installed solar panels on my roof.

Of course I moved since then and couldn't take the panels with me.

 

[Mark Goode]

'Stable' means "I haven't tested anything for a while".

 

[BeanAnimal]

I have yet to see any definitive proof that “stability” -- from temperature, or ions, or other parameters -- is beneficial or detrimental. The idea of stability It certainly sounds good and logical, and we see comments every day equating stability with success. The prevailing wisdom is to promote the idea that the ultimate goal should be stability. But why?

My reef used to track room temperature and was heavily influenced by seasonal AC and heat. Daily and seasonal swings were substantial -- some days the temperature would go from 73°F to 83°F and back over a 24 hour period. I dosed alkalinity and calcium every few days or once a week, with large alkalinity swings from the low 6s to the high 9s regularly. I did 50% to 90% water changes when I felt like it, never testing the new water for parameters and "top off" was a manual 10-15 gallon fill from the RO/DI when I notices the return pump sucking air. Ohh and the membrane and resin were exhausted for a few years. My system ran like this for the better part of a decade.

My reef and fish thrived for much of that time. Toward the end of that period I lost most of my SPS due to an extend power outage and RTN event. As a result I stopped dosing ANYTHING for 3-4 years. My LPS and soft coral and fish still thrived. No skimmer, no water changes, no dosing, no filtration at all.

Would it have been better or worse with “stable” parameters? I have no idea. The system is far more "stable" now due to dosing pumps, but major ions and salinity still drift a good bit when I don't pay attention.

So, is stability important? I have no idea, but my system is "stable" in the sense that it is old and healthy, even if parameters have been anything but stable.

Happy Reefing

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

So, is stability important? I have no idea, but my system is "stable" in the sense that it is old and healthy, even if parameters have been anything but stable.

While I, of course, do not subscribe to the many follow on claims made by Fauna Marin with respect to their bolus alk dosing "method" (add alk once a day in the morning), the fact that people switching to it do not generally report bad organism outcomes suggests that perhaps the age old mantra of alk stability being important is not clearly supported by evidence.

As you well understand, there are commercial players in the reefing world that push all sorts of ideas that benefit them. The world of controllers and dosers benefit from claims of the importance of stability. The decision of a reefer to buy one may be different if it is merely a convenience rather than a true benefit to measure and/or dose something multiple times a day.

 

[ReefGeezer]

My tank is not as old as Paulb's, but much like his, it has developed to a point that the systems themselves keep the important things, measurable of not, from changing too quickly.

I think "stability" could be demonstrated if we were to imagine that we could keep a graph where the measurement of things that can be measured and observations of things that can't were placed on the time axis. These imaginary graphs in an unstable system might look more like a square wave over time, where things measured or observed would change (rise and fall) quickly. In a stable system, that same graph would be more of a wave where things change slowly over time and the change delta would be less.

 

[BeanAnimal]

While I, of course, do not subscribe to the many follow on claims made by Fauna Marin with respect to their bolus alk dosing "method" (add alk once a day in the morning), the fact that people switching to it do not generally report bad organism outcomes suggests that perhaps the age old mantra of alk stability being important is not clearly supported by evidence.

The time tested concept of bolus dosing arguably worked very well. I would even entertain the argument that it worked better. That is what makes Claude’s and FM’s attempt to repackage it and bolt on exaggerated claims so insanely frustrating. They obfuscate an interesting discussion about stability by drowning it in pseudo-science aimed at self promotion and product sales.

As you well understand, there are commercial players in the reefing world that push all sorts of ideas that benefit them. The world of controllers and dosers benefit from claims of the importance of stability. The decision of a reefer to buy one may be different if it is merely a convenience rather than a true benefit to measure and/or dose something multiple times a day.

I certainly agree. FWIW, I am in the convenience camp.

 

[Euphylliaphyle]

However, if You ask 10 people, you will likely get 10 different answers as to what is ideal for them.

Maybe as many as 15 different answers.

 

[winzig]

stable is relative when the term refers to saltwater tanks....
there are successful tanks with a huge difference in numbers

 

[Paul B]

I think the last time I tested parameters or dosed much of anything, I had hair.