Simple Tank Life Facts

[jef4y]

IMHO differences and contradictions in general come because people fail to address the endless variables in each given setup. Even in books or articles by well reputed professionals. They contradict themselves and each other continually.

I've personally found that my best path is to take in as much info as possible and try to evaluate it to see whether it makes sense in my aquarium or not, and then try it out.

 

[fish scales2]

Just a thought, corals will adapt themselves to there conditions. If his corals were all propagated in systems that were maintained with minimal variations this could be of effect.

cr500_af;575012 wrote: I don't profess to know the answer, but I can relate one story. Ansley (in his 120) could not keep any SPS alive. None. Frag after frag died. His water chemistry was in the "normal" zone. CA, alk, and MG were kept in line dosing BRS products. 2x250w Radiums, so light was fine. The only thing that was abnormal to me was his daily temp swing (around 4-7 degrees depending on the ambient temp, maxing around 84). I talked him into letting me build a small "riser" for the canopy as an experiment that was mostly open, and adding a couple of small fans (these plus his heaters were run off of an RK2, by the way).

Doing this dropped his daily temp swing to around 1.5-2 degrees most of the time, and all of a sudden he could keep SPS alive.

Anecdotal, I know, but that was the only change made to the system, and the end result was SPS lived.

Very well said, as is everything you say!

JeF4y;575016 wrote: IMHO differences and contradictions in general come because people fail to address the endless variables in each given setup. Even in books or articles by well reputed professionals. They contradict themselves and each other continually.

I've personally found that my best path is to take in as much info as possible and try to evaluate it to see whether it makes sense in my aquarium or not, and then try it out.

 

[jmaneyapanda]

JennM;574747 wrote: Well, Barry - Jeremy said the other day that dripping linckias may not be necessary. (We still drip 'em and don't plan to discontinue that practice, BTW)

Instead of "simple facts" it should be "simple anecdotes or observations".

You will inevitably get differences of opinion, so to label them as "fact" will only lead to trouble

IME, brittle stars are NOT reef safe, in fact they can and will prey on your fish, especially the larger they get. Serpent stars (smooth legs) seem less likely to do this.

I've heard people say that sand stars will eat all your sand fauna. Ever see how fast a pod can move? Ever see how slowly a sand star moves? (I'd put more money on a serpent or brittle being fast enough to eat sand fauna...)

I even disagree with the notion posted earlier (respectfully, of course) that clowns "need" an anemone. Sometimes they can be provided with one and take months to take up residence in it - if ever. Tank raised clowns typically never saw one before so they are no worse off without one, and they can host just as well in an empty flowerpot. But that's just my *opinion* based on my own experiences over the years.

I've seen folks "break all the rules" (of thumb) and be successful - not all critters read the textbooks we use as guides

Jenn

Well, thats not quite what I said. I said that Linkias die too frequently, and people always seem to blame it on improper acclimation. When I bel;ieve, it ahs just as much to do with improper housing (in terms of foraging and food intake). We have NO IDEA what these animals eat, yet, we are convinced that the ONLY thing that couldve killed them is improper acclimation. To me, thats faulted. For the record, I DO think that stars need to be salinity acclimated.

Heres another point on this topic- the term "reef safe" is, realistically and functionally GARBAGE. It does not mean anything consistant between people. For some it means "coral safe". For others, "sessile invert safe". For others, "mobile invert safe". Eseentially, it can mean anything, at any point.

 

[jmaneyapanda]

Hackman72;574748 wrote: I've always been told that you can only keep one Dwarf Angelfish. I debunked that myself and kept 4 in a 120 for a while. I also know of someone that had 6 in a 56 gallon. Best results are that they are introduced at the same time and kept in groups of 3 or more...never only 2.

ummm.......why not only two? I have done "only two" numerous times.

 

[cr500_af]

jmaneyapanda;575079 wrote:
Heres another point on this topic- the term "reef safe" is, realistically and functionally GARBAGE. It does not mean anything consistant between people. For some it means "coral safe". For others, "sessile invert safe". For others, "mobile invert safe". Eseentially, it can mean anything, at any point.

True. Not to mention that there is always an exception to "normal" behavior of any given species. A fish that is reef safe (pick your definition) in 99.9% of cases could always prove not to be someday.