Is our goal to mimic natural seawater conditions OR is it something else?

Daniel@R2R · Feb 2, 2015

Ok. I've seen a couple of posts recently that indicate that in this hobby we are obviously trying to recreate or mimic natural seawater conditions for our reef inhabitants. The argument then follows that water should be clean (undetectable nitrates and phosphates). The other side then usually posts examples of systems or vendors which intentionally keep water a little dirtier for better color, etc.

My question is: What is our goal?

Should we assume the ocean is the best possible condition for corals? Is this the logical conclusion? Why? This is not an OBVIOUS thing to me since it would mean that by the same logic, I should probably abandon my air conditioned home and go live in a cave somewhere since that would be man's "natural" environment. I'm NOT saying that NSW is should not be the target...only that this doesn't seem to be an obvious conclusion.

On the other hand, if our goal is not to mimic nature, then we'd better have a pretty good reason for NOT doing so. What would be our goal for our reef inhabitants? How do we qualify whether or not a fish or invert (corals, nems, etc) are "happy"? It doesn't seem like a good qualifier to say "I do it because my tank inhabitants are 'happy.'" ...since I haven't seen my corals smiling, I should probably find a way to determine what would be "better" for them and know when I have achieved optimal conditions.

Thoughts?

PatW · Feb 2, 2015

I would say the goal is the maintenance of certain reef organisms: generally corals and fish. We are not trying to exactly reproduce sea water. We are just trying to give our desired creatures a captive environment that they can flourish in.

phillrodrigo · Feb 2, 2015

I think either way it's impossible to say since none of our animals come from the same place. I've seen a map of the alk of our oceans and it's different every were you go. So you may have one coral that came from a alk of 7 and the next 8. The salinity is also way different in every area. I remember going into the carribbean and the water is so different than in connecticut. There you almost can't drown it's so salty and bouyant. In Connecticut you don't float so easily so I'm guessing the 2 salinity are way different. If all the areas that are collected from were the same I would think starting at those numbers would be a good idea.

Daniel@R2R · Feb 2, 2015

PatW said:
I would say the goal is the maintenance of certain reef organisms: generally corals and fish. We are not trying to exactly reproduce sea water. We are just trying to give our desired creatures a captive environment that they can flourish in.

It's that "flourishing" part that gets elusive isn't it? I think if NSW is what makes them all flourish, then that should be the goal, but from what I read and see in other people's tanks, that doesn't always seem to be the reality.

phillrodrigo said:
I think either way it's impossible to say since none of our animals come from the same place. I've seen a map of the alk of our oceans and it's different every were you go. So you may have one coral that came from a alk of 7 and the next 8. The salinity is also way different in every area. I remember going into the carribbean and the water is so different than in connecticut. There you almost can't drown it's so salty and bouyant. In Connecticut you don't float so easily so I'm guessing the 2 salinity are way different. If all the areas that are collected from were the same I would think starting at those numbers would be a good idea.

This is something I wasn't aware of (guess, I assumed it was the same across the ocean). If true, then this definitely pokes a hole in the idea that we should be trying to pattern our tanks by mimicking NSW...or at least qualifying NSW "from where?"

phillrodrigo · Feb 2, 2015

Here's a map. NDP-094

tyler1503 · Feb 2, 2015

mdbannister said:
Ok. I've seen a couple of posts recently that indicate that in this hobby we are obviously trying to recreate or mimic natural seawater conditions for our reef inhabitants. The argument then follows that water should be clean (undetectable nitrates and phosphates). The other side then usually posts examples of systems or vendors which intentionally keep water a little dirtier for better color, etc.

My question is: What is our goal?

Should we assume the ocean is the best possible condition for corals? Is this the logical conclusion? Why? This is not an OBVIOUS thing to me since it would mean that by the same logic, I should probably abandon my air conditioned home and go live in a cave somewhere since that would be man's "natural" environment. I'm NOT saying that NSW is should not be the target...only that this doesn't seem to be an obvious conclusion.

On the other hand, if our goal is not to mimic nature, then we'd better have a pretty good reason for NOT doing so. What would be our goal for our reef inhabitants? How do we qualify whether or not a fish or invert (corals, nems, etc) are "happy"? It doesn't seem like a good qualifier to say "I do it because my tank inhabitants are 'happy.'" ...since I haven't seen my corals smiling, I should probably find a way to determine what would be "better" for them and know when I have achieved optimal conditions.

Thoughts?

Great post! I've often wondered what NSW actually is. Parameters can change from each body of water and even within a single body of water parameters can differ.
I believe in keeping parameters as stable and "natural" as possible as this is what the livestock are accustomed to. I'm still not 100% sure what natural is though.
Corals and fish have been developing and evolving for millions of years based on three main factors, survival, reproduction and environmental change. They're use to what conditions they've come from in the ocean.
For a human to move out into a cave somewhere, I believe, is not a comparable analogy. Modern humans are conditioned to living in a small building with everything in the pantry and cupboards. We're not out there running from predators, killing to eat, hiding in plain sight or fighting over the ladies to reproduce (well, we still do that last one sometimes lol) like the ocean inhabitants are. It's natural for them, not for us.
I (and most other reefers) believe that keeping things stable is far more important than chasing numbers.
This should be a great discussion!

phillrodrigo said:
I think either way it's impossible to say since none of our animals come from the same place. I've seen a map of the alk of our oceans and it's different every were you go. So you may have one coral that came from a alk of 7 and the next 8. The salinity is also way different in every area. I remember going into the carribbean and the water is so different than in connecticut. There you almost can't drown it's so salty and bouyant. In Connecticut you don't float so easily so I'm guessing the 2 salinity are way different. If all the areas that are collected from were the same I would think starting at those numbers would be a good idea.

This is a very good point. I've been diving in the river mouth near where I live and when the tide is right you can actually see the salinity change. When new ocean water comes into the mouth of the river, it meets the water that was already there you can see the salinity change. It looks like on a hot day when you can see that blurry heat waving off the road. It's a full marine body of water so it can't be argued it's brackish water meeting marine water. I can dive in one spot, swim 5 meters upstream and physically see that the salinity is changing around me. If the salinity can be different within a 5 meter radius, I imagine on the other side of the planet would be quite different too

reefndude · Feb 2, 2015

I think one reason my corals need some nutrients in the water is I simply cannot provide all the nutrients that nsw provides corals and fish.
When I say nutrients in my tank I'm talking about nitrates and phosphates. When it was undectable colors were very dull. Now that I've changed a few things...removed gfo, added more fish, increased feeding, colors have improved. Corals still have a ways to go, but definitely improving.

When I say nutrients in nsw I'm talking about massive amounts of phytoplankton, and zooplankton, that corals feed on. I cannot replicate that in my tank so I must find another source of nutrients.

maroun.c · Feb 3, 2015

Believe there are many aspects to this,
Water parameters,
We try our best to replicate nature but most probably we have limited success, the fact we still struggle to keep certain species like Gonis only tells taht there are some parameters or some nutrients we haven't discovered yet. different regions have different parameters and different nutrients concentrations and temperatures so we try our best to find a second best that works with individual collections of corals. The Phyto Zoo... mentioned above is a grat example where we mix those with "nutrients which is not necessarily the same"

Flow
Believe we now have the tools to replicate nature very close yet we struggle with our smaller tanks to have good spots for High flow and low flow corals add to that they also have different light and nutrient level tolerances or needs.

Lighting
We're shifting to LEDs with very little knowledge on how that replicates nature. the fluorescence we get from corals now does not replicate the sea for sure but its definitely a more pleasant way to look at corals on the other hand.

Hints that corals or fish are doing well:
For corals I'd say good coloration and a decent growth speed is a good sign. Polyp extension is a good indicator but then again corals don't show that much polyps in the sea with fish picking at them during day time. Eventually corals are rather quick to tell you when they are not happy as they lose colors quick and start showing signs of STN or RTN.
Fish are a different story, I've seen very few reefers look at fish signs of health: coloration, growth speed, mating behavior, spawning.
Fish grow at crazy speeds in the sea compared to how fast they do in our tanks and we rarely make the comparison. this will necessitate heavy quality feedings which most our setups filtrations won't be able to keep up with unless we overrate our equipment.

hart24601 · Feb 3, 2015

It is an interesting subject. I think people focus too much on the very basic chemistry parameters when looking at this subject and don't take in the context of the ocean. As others have pointed out these values vary across the ocean, but I feel the bigger issue is, looking at parameters such as nitrate and phosphate and replicating that in our little box of water is too simplistic and doesn't look at the bigger picture of the ocean ecosystem. Reefs have low nutrients but incredibly high food density for coral. We can't come close to replicating this in our systems. Just focusing on the NSW value and not remembering the context is not the way to go imo.

If we start talking about lighting that is a entire other subject!

reefndude · Feb 3, 2015

What about the moon and its gravitational pull? What role does that play on the oceans inhabitants?

hart24601 · Feb 3, 2015

reefndude said:
What about the moon and its gravitational pull? What role does that play on the oceans inhabitants?

I suspect you are not serious, but that is even better.

It creates the tides, so it has a huge importance on reefs. Not only for water movement, but limits the range of coral reefs at low tide.