It is very interesting how we do not ‘like’ Mr. Kalkwasser. It seems to be a lot because of his personality, lack of scientific backing or background, loud mouth, insistence on a light we do not like to run, and/or just not being in the good guy camp.
@ReyDeFarts, thank you for sharing other thoughts out there, even if they go against the mainstream line of thinking.
It makes no sense to me why we would not listen to Meckley. Are we not constantly referring to great-looking corals as a sign of success? Now we are saying some more successful people run their tanks and farms differently, so he must be wrong? It all seems to come back to who we ‘like’ and who we do not ‘like’. I have observed this more recently here and do not think this is a healthy trend.
There is a difference between listening to someone and following their advice. I agree; some stuff is hard to listen to (or to read, like this), and others sound better, but this does not determine the quality of what is being said. For the record, I do strongly support a friendlier tone, though (by the way, well done, Andy
).
I apologize in advance for this controversial statement. After a short time in this hobby, I feel that everyone gives bad advice, but never intentionally.
Some provide sound advice, in some cases. So it is more important than ever to listen and collect ideas, evaluate why it is said, and determine if this is one of the rare good advice.
It does not matter if I align with someone or not, like or dislike someone, if it is outrageous against mainstream thinking, or if it aligns with 20-year-old proven practices or not. If it did matter, I would keep living in a bubble where my perspective just grows in height but not width.
So, what are the evaluation criteria for sound advice? That is more difficult IMO. Some quick and dirty leading questions and opposing thoughts:
(Big one) Can science support it? Counter: Do we understand all the science that plays out in a small glass container, all its contents, and their interactions, so that we can judge whether this is scientific or not?
Can this be observed in the ocean? Counter—Is the ocean truly the most meaningful benchmark, or is the ‘ocean’ an incomplete term in which we look at aspects in isolation due to a lack of knowledge?
What do their tanks look like? Counter - Fancy cameras, photo editing, short-term clean up, and prepped up their tank for good looks?
How long have they been doing this? Counter—how many mistakes were made along the way, and has the tank's content just adopted these practices?
What is their incentive in providing this advice? Counter—Does it matter if it shows results?
Are they hobbyists or pros? Counter - could it be more helpful to listen to a hobbyist than a pro, as the objectives and challenges to navigate are often very different and directly applicable?
Lots more questions and counters to bring up.
Coming back to Meckley. I am not a fan at all, but again, it does not matter. What are the big things he advocates, and what do I think about the quality of the advice?
Topic 1—Lights—MH / T5 old-school lighting is the best for corals. From what I have seen elsewhere, in public aquariums and the best tank in Europe (separate post), it is probably true that it is the best light. But it does not matter. I will not use it; it is impractical or unnecessary since the second-best is good enough with far fewer downsides. Still, if I could, I would probably use it.
Topic 2 - Kalkwasser - Best way to supplement the tank with significant elements and keep PH high. I know some folks believe that this advice he shared in hours and hours of YouTube videos has destroyed more tanks than anything else. I am worried about the precipitation concerns in a standard reef tank, and the artificial pushing of pH up, which makes me not use it. I also think that many people do not use it properly or are not being told about the downsides; therefore, it probably hurts so many more people than it helps. But no one talks about those who left the hobby because of misuse, only those who run their tank with it successfully. But his advice on keeping PH stable (ideally higher) seems reasonable. PH above 8.3, less so though. This has some nuggets, but his Kalkwasser praise could easily put me off.
Topic 3 - Importance of trace elements - I am most interested in his thoughts about this (despite my significant dislike for him). Ignoring the importance of trace elements for long-term health in corals or further improvement to bring the reefing to the next level is missing a key improvement in the hobby. Someone like me, who has not had time yet to spend a ton of time learning the names of corals, does not care about ultra corals or common corals as long as I like their looks or growth, and can grow many corals now relatively easily, early on in my reefing journey. I do not believe this would have been the case 10 years ago. The thought about some traces being much higher for better results is a trial-and-error endeavor, and he has all the opportunity to try and fail, so listening to his recommendations can be valuable. I might still not take action on it.
Topic 4 -1000 - tons of other ideas, such as the nutrient-related and many other (maybe crazy) thoughts. But he is a professional, has a large farm, with seemingly good-looking and growing corals, who does, all day, think about this and what is best for his business. How does his hands-on practical experience not carry weight compared to other people's experience, just because he does not have a PHD in this stuff? Is there a PHD that helps you being a better reefer?
So, I hope we keep a more open mind when someone brings up other thoughts and not just go down the same chain of thoughts that where brought up many times before (and do not conflate this discussion with broader discussions in the human medical field, where I am also in favor of 100% science back up).
