As I said in my prior post, I do testing. I test for salinity, ammonia, nitrite, nitrate,
PH, calcium and alkalinity. Does that sound like I reject testing? There are countless tests one can do, but it's hardly fair to make it sound like I am simply rejecting testing, or rejecting water changes, or rejecting experimenting, or not putting the time in as part of the hobby, the learning and, yes, the enjoyment.
Please...give me a fair shake on this...all Im trying to do is strike a balance in terms of how much of those things is right for me and for the livestock.
Mike Paletta's book, The New Marine Aquarium, is premised on the recognition that the advances from the use of live rock, live sand, quality salt mixes, filtration equipment and other improvements, have made today's saltwater hobby far simpler than in the past. With all that, and assuming one sticks to relatively hardy, easier livestock (both fish and corals), which I have, he suggests a regimen that is very much akin to what I do. On testing, he lists a handful that he considers important (all of which I do), and rather dismisses most of the others as, at best, for more advanced or sophisticated situations...and, like some other experts, he recognizes that many test results for trace elements are rather unreliable in any case.
While I recognize that my perspective may be somewhat different from some of the longer-time participants on this site, and I may appear somewhat impatient, I must say, respectfully, that I am getting the feeling that diverse viewpoints are not particularly welcome...and that I am getting an undeserving bad rap.
Geez...does this forum consider Paletta to be some sort of betrayer or huckster? And Fenner, too?
Maybe this forum should be called The Old Marine Aquarium!