HoopsGuru
Aquarium Advice FINatic
greenmaji said:
I pity my fish much more than myself, but I did learn a valuable lesson. PH, Alk, calcium and if they are in line with what I normally have I feel very safe. I do the first few water changes of a new bucket this way. I do not test for heavy metals, and personally believe (through no experimentation of my own) that the "toxic heavy metal" bandwagon of a few years ago was a dangerous overstatement. As with other testing, it fell short of a true scientific test involving replication and tests on other species to determine if it was indeed a valid problem. Essentially, it remains a hypothesis (if we are both talking about the Shimek experiment on urchin larvae).
Royal Gramma said:
The system is finally what I consider stable and moving forward again, even though I knew it would not be quick it was a year full of thoughts about tearing it down and starting over. However, I also learned (rather anecdotally) that I believe a sandbed can recover from what is often labeled "old tank syndrome" through better husbandry (replenishing microlife, improving export, etc.).
In regards to your calcium levels RG, I would not be disappointed with your 310 reading. Its important to realize that there are many target number by various hobbyists and that there may be variables such as calcium in tapwater (yes, some folks don't use strictly RO) that makes it safer to provide a stable, reliable reading and to allow aquarists to buffer as they see fit. From a buffering standpoint, it is probably the easiest to do while maintaining equilibrium everywhere else (as opposed to the yo-yo that can occur while trying to balanced out alk and PH, etc.)
Recently, the trend to push the "best" calcium level has steadily been rising to levels of 450ppm or so where it was not so high a few years ago. I find this to be another bandwagon tendency. There really isn't any scientific evidence proving that boosting calcium far higher than NSW(natural saltwater) levels does anything to increase calcification so really I don't see the benefit of wanting or boosting it so high other than getting it close to precipitating out of solution. Really analyze the hobby and you will find that if you anecdotally report a benefit from just about anything, you can really steamroll a trend online (also see the recent price gouging of <insert extreme sarcasm> "rare" Acans0. Its one of the only unfortunate downsides from us all meeting and sharing in such large numbers.
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/apr2002/chem.htm
This is an good read on calcification and its relation to calcium levels in aquaria (some chemistry, which is over my head but it also has a good info throughout and a review of the implication on water chemistry at the bottom for those of us that don't need to know the extreme nuts and bolts of it all with the formulas). The exact "whys" of the ineffectiveness of raised calcium levels on calcification is unknown, but I find it to be a reasonable observation.
