Marine Fish Monthly
Richard Link
Well, now that Aquarium Frontiers has bit the dust,I'm wondering if I should
get Marine Fish Monthly on a regular basis. I'm not too familiar with this
magazine, having picked up only my second copy today. It seems a bit pricy
for the number of pages (price is same as FAMA & TFH), but I'm willing to
spend the money if the advice is good. Any recommendations out there?
I notice that in the current issue (July 1997), in the article by Tom
Miller (page 9),he uses a Skilter 250 on a 150 gal reef tank. From the
discussion in this newsgroup, I get the impression that Skilters are not
too popular. Does anyone have an opinion regarding tthe magazine and
the qualifications of the writers?
TIA,
Rick
David Tallant
Hello Rick,
I was wondering if you realized that Aquarium Frontiers has gone
online. You can find their publications at
http://www.aquariumfrontiers.com/
Regards, David Tallant
TWCoral
Whoa,
YesI used the EXACT same setup as Tom Miller did for an entire year. There
are others out there that are doing it now. Bob Stark, owner of ESV, has a
tank with absolutely NO skimmer on it. It can work, but you mustbe
diligent in keeping the thing clean and contraru to what Tom says, buy
about 1 scarlett hermit for every two galllons of water, 1 astrea snail
per gallon of water, a brittle star for every 50 gallons , and a couple of
sea cucumbers(NOT the filter feeders). I had phenomenal acropora growth
with this set up. ANd you MUST have RO/DI water to keep your water
CLEAN!!!!
There is more to it than Tom lets on, but it can be done. The secret is in
the sand plenum and an open rock formation. DO NOT PILE the live rock in
your tank.- about 1/3 full is ALL you need and have it opened up in there
for better current flow. I had maybe 50 lb of Fiji in my 90. But now I
have gone back to a small Lifereef Skimmer and a refugium and my tank is
more stable and little work. But it looks no different than when I ran the
Handy Reef.
TONY
TONY
Wlcohen
>Well, now that Aquarium Frontiers has bit the dust,I'm wondering if I
should
>get Marine Fish Monthly on a regular basis. I'm not too familiar with
this
>magazine, having picked up only my second copy today. It seems a bit
pricy
>for the number of pages (price is same as FAMA & TFH), but I'm willing to
>spend the money if the advice is good. Any recommendations out there?
>
>I notice that in the current issue (July 1997), in the article by Tom
>Miller (page 9),he uses a Skilter 250 on a 150 gal reef tank. From the
>discussion in this newsgroup, I get the impression that Skilters are not
>too popular. Does anyone have an opinion regarding tthe magazine and
>the qualifications of the writers?
>
>TIA,
>Rick
>
>
MFA is a great magazine! I highly recomend it. Tom Miller's articles are
some of the best. It is not a large magazine but it has a lot of great
content. Some of the writers suck, but most are excellent. It is a way
better magazine then anything else out there.
Bill Cohen
Ace Aquatics
http://members.aol.com/aceaquatic
Bob & Terri Odenweller
wlc...@aol.com (Wlcohen) wrote:
>MFA is a great magazine! I highly recomend it. Tom Miller's articles are
>some of the best. It is not a large magazine but it has a lot of great
>content. Some of the writers suck, but most are excellent. It is a way
>better magazine then anything else out there.
>
>Bill Cohen
>Ace Aquatics
I assume you mean MFM, Marine Fish Monthly. I'm bored with that
magazine. Too much editorial content and articles with no scientific
data to back up claims. If your into skilter skimmers and algae
scrubbers, then this magazine is for you. The typographical errors
are annoying as well. People can learn a whole lot more by reading
this newsgroup!
Just my 2 cents. ;-]
Bob Odenweller
Wlcohen
noticed the typographical errors. They are very annoying and there are 1
or 2 really terrible writers but over all I feel it is a magazine worth
reading, it beats the other stuff out there.
Bill
Jamie
>I assume you mean MFM, Marine Fish Monthly. I'm bored with that
>magazine. Too much editorial content and articles with no scientific
>data to back up claims. If your into skilter skimmers and algae
>scrubbers, then this magazine is for you. The typographical errors
>are annoying as well. People can learn a whole lot more by reading
>this newsgroup!
>
>Just my 2 cents. ;-]
>
>Bob Odenweller
>
I disagree with you Bob, I think editorial content is whats this is
all about. Breaking everything down to scientific data and "your
nitrates MUST be this, your calcium level MUST be that" is all too
typical of this newsgroup.
I have seen many examples of that in this newsgroup. Terrible threads
of people discussing how many moles of calcium should be in every ml
of water, and sometimes these threads reach 20 or 30 replies.
My reef system is more than a bunch of gadgets and a chemistry set. I
enjoy it for the beauty.
I think Tom Miller and the people at GARF have a much more "natural"
system. Their systems don't have all the gadgets and trinkets that
many of the people on this newsgroup INSIST you MUST have.
I like the fresh point of view and believe we should take more time
looking at the inhabitants of our reef instead of the water they swim
in.
BTW: Favorite enhabitant of my tank - My $3:00 arrow crab... He's got
personality!
Sanjay Mani
Jamie (ja...@digiscape.net) wrote:
: >I assume you mean MFM, Marine Fish Monthly. I'm bored with that
: >magazine. Too much editorial content and articles with no scientific
: >data to back up claims. If your into skilter skimmers and algae
: >scrubbers, then this magazine is for you. The typographical errors
: >are annoying as well. People can learn a whole lot more by reading
: >this newsgroup!
: >
: >Just my 2 cents. ;-]
: >
: >Bob Odenweller
: >
: I disagree with you Bob, I think editorial content is whats this is
: all about. Breaking everything down to scientific data and "your
: nitrates MUST be this, your calcium level MUST be that" is all too
: typical of this newsgroup.
And I disagree with you ;)
The ng does not have a persona, at last count, it has about a zillion.
The horde of recent calcium posts are more along the lines of dragging
people towards grasping that Ca and dKH are intertwined, and certain
correction techniques (like balanced additions) aren't going to work
sometimes. I've seen easily 1 post/day saying MFM style stuff (I use
no protein skimmer and my tank looks wonderful !!! I've kept
Catallyphyllia alive for 9 whole monthes !!!). OK this is
inflammatory, but I'm hoping to drag the opinionated NG hordes to at
least an inane discussion about MFM instead of PETA.
: I have seen many examples of that in this newsgroup. Terrible threads
: of people discussing how many moles of calcium should be in every ml
: of water, and sometimes these threads reach 20 or 30 replies.
So. Some people think that Ca has some relation to reef beauty in a
stony coral tank.
: My reef system is more than a bunch of gadgets and a chemistry set. I
: enjoy it for the beauty.
My reef is just a bunch of gadgets and a chem set. I keep it covered
in cloth so I never can look at it. I'm going to add a bunch of
plastic scuba divers and crap so I can take the cloth off but still
ignore it's natural beauty.
Yeah, so the net has a bias towards dorks who like computers and
figure their reefs would be more fun if the computers ran them. BFD.
It's not like they're keeping reefs because they enjoy paying power
bills.
: I think Tom Miller and the people at GARF have a much more "natural"
: system. Their systems don't have all the gadgets and trinkets that
: many of the people on this newsgroup INSIST you MUST have.
Really. Which people and when ?? How did they insist ?? What
gadgets ?? Big skimmers ?? Lights ?? Nuclear reactors ??
Why the phrase 'natural system' is in any way applicable to a cube of
salt water sitting in somebody's living room is beyond me. As I
recall, GARF uses skimmers. They also use 2-4 NO bulbs, right, much
less light than occurs naturally. They also have much higher nutrient
levels than 'natural' stony reefs. So I guess natural is from the
perspective of the person viewing the tank, not the coral.
Personally, I think it's cool that GARF is so into propagating coral.
I don't find it exactly startling that they have had their greatest
success with soft coral, which grow in the higher nutrient lower light
conditions they run. And I'd be surprised if they had a problem with
someone else successfully growing coral with a downdraft and halides.
Reefs need light. They need salt water, a tank, and water motion.
Then you have to keep the water clean and replenish Ca/Alk which is
used up by coral/coralline algae. How you want to do this is your
deal, and strangly enough, many people on the NG push their very own
set-ups on the net. The thing is, with the exception of algae
scubbers, virtually every reef approach is being carried out by people
on the net. Yes, most people who've kept reefs for a couple years or
kept SPS coral end up disenchanted with the no skimmer approach. You
try for a while and maybe you'll prove some of us wrong. Most of the
things that go wrong with reefs involve too many nutrients, or
sometimes too little gas exchange. Skimmers tend to fix these
problems.
Many, many (most ??) people run moderate skimmers (Bakpak on up) on
Berliners with solid results. They post a lot too. And I know (since
I got zinged by a couple) that people run tanks via water changes.
They properly pointed out that for some it's a less complex (does that
equal natural ??) method of reef-keeping. Works best for LPS/soft
tanks, I'd guess.
Perhaps you have the patience to keep very few fish or do 25% water
changes semi-weekly. Keep what you want to keep, if it's SPS,
with this approach the alumina resin bill will be a little high.
: I like the fresh point of view and believe we should take more time
: looking at the inhabitants of our reef instead of the water they swim
: in.
This is your point of view. You're on the net. You're not alone ;)
MFM, however is not fresh. It's the same point of view over and over
and over. With no controls, no data, no long term info, no proof at
all, we're going rec the same technique which consists of aragonite
sand, cured LR, and RO/DI water. With big pumps. With little pumps.
With a little skimmer. With 60 clownfish. With alumina resin. With
a skimmer we keep off 1/2 the time.
Isn't their latest thing the whole plankton stuff (I admit, I glance
through it at the LFS, after a tough day at work, it provides a good
laugh.) You'd think they were trying to keep whales, "I used the
Natural method on my Grey Whale tank in the back yard. Things really
picked up when I took out the skimmer, 'cause then there was tons more
krill. The whale looked perkier. Too bad I didn't measure a darn
thing." Apparently the concept that a higher nutrient load may
support a wider variety of marine life in general, if not stony coral
in particular, occured to no one at MFM.
Why they chose to branch out with an algae scubber and not "a big ol'
skimmer driven by a 2000 gal/hr pump" is sort of a bummer.
Maybe I could write an article for MFM, "I took the MFM natural system
(which is startlingly like all the other freakin' systems out there
except without a big skimmer) and added a big skimmer. It was cool.
My coral grew really well. I'd like to thank Aquarium Manufacturers
Inc. for giving me that skimmer (1-800-buymenow)."
Then I could like the thing.
: BTW: Favorite enhabitant of my tank - My $3:00 arrow crab... He's got
: personality!
Good for you. Like most of us, calcium is just a means to an end.
I just had to make an opinion post, thank G*d somebody praised MFM.
To quote Bloom County "OK, maybe it's not that bad, but Lord it isn't
good."
Sanjay M.
ry...@aecom.yu.edu
Sanjay Mani wrote:
> Jamie (ja...@digiscape.net) wrote:
>
> clip....
While we are on the topic of Magazines.. I've been a bit disappointed
lately with FAMA. I'm wondering if anyone has the same feelings.
Couple of months in a row now, - no articles from Julian. He's still
listed on the masthead as a contributing editor. My guess is that he is
absorbed in getting the new edition of his book out. What I'm concerned
about is that some of the articles in the latest edition of FAMA appear
to have missed the editors red pencil. Some of the english is awful and
could mean almost anything. The most disappointing part for me is that
one of the articles (on SPS corals) which was a feature article of the
edition (and why I bought the copy) was one of the worst. Moreover, some
of the quasi-scientific explanations bandied about in regular columns
that have been there since I got my first copy (about 6 years ago) are
dreadful, egregious disinformation - from people in places where we
expect that they should know better. Im thinking especially about some
of the warped ideas about evolution. I'm not going to dig out the
examples but there have been many in the last 12 months.
Does anyone know if there is a difference in the editorial process at
FAMA and Aquarium Frontiers, which on the whole seems to have more 'well
presented' articles. The articles in FAMA cover quite wide areas and are
sometimes contradictory. I don't mind that (I enjoy it) I can sort out
what makes sense to me, but is there any peer review at all at FAMA? Is
the FAMA editorial staff stretched over a pile of magazines from radio
controlled airplane models to whatever? Is that what it takes today to
keep a magazine going? Does anyone agree that there is a decline or is
it just me being a bit more intolerant in my old age?
However, in FAMA's defense, the density of the ads is great. Since there
is currently little advertising in Frontiers on the web I guess I will
get a copy of FAMA now and then, (or read it in Barns and Noble) but I'm
not going to get a subscription. If most of the MOFS get web interfaces
then I will not need even the ads, providing someone collects and
maintains a list of the relevant working URLs.
Greg
Michael C. Moore
article was published verbatim (spelling errors and all) as I submitted it.
There was no editorial input at all. Of course my article may have simply
been that great:-). Over the years, it seems clear FAMA will publish any ones
(reasonably) well considered opinion. This attitude lead to the formation of
Frontiers to try a more scientific approach. Unfortunately, as a practicing
scientist myself, I believe this attempt at a scientific approach will never
be entirely successful until hobbiest start using repetition as a means of
verifying observation. As a hobby, this will always be part science, part
anectodote and part myth. The best approach still seems to be to read
everything you can and to filter it with a little common sense. Until someone
starts setting up 30 identical aquaria (perhaps not even possible) to
scientifically test some of the ideas, we will always be dependent on copying
something that works and then post hoc trying to figure out why.
Mike Moore
DMBVision
> In <33D6213B...@aecom.yu.edu> ry...@aecom.yu.edu writes:
> >Kenric Hwang wrote:
> Question about a new ad. Did anyone see the new ad about the "the
> wave" wavemaker thing by Tidaltronic, page 68. It looks like you use a
> powerhead and it pumps into a small box that diverts the flow to other
> tubing at regular intervals. Just wondering, if anyone has one of
> these yet.
Yeah I wonder what’s inside that box? There are other diverters (Ads in
FAMA) on the market how do they work? How do they keep mechanical things
sealed and reliable in the salty environment. ?
Thinking about crappy magazine articles and new equipment.....
The article that finally made me get off my bum and say something about
the quality of FAMA was the one about the new Dialysis based water
changer from Dailyseas or something. At first I couldn’t work out if it
was an ad (which would excuse the editors for that one) or an article.
There was no mention of "Advertisement" in or around the article as is
the standard practice for those kinds of print info-mercials. So we are
left to imagine it as a review. There is no statement about the
affiliations of the author and the manufacturer so we are encouraged, by
our respect for FAMA and the editors intentions, to think that there is
no conflict(s) of interest. So why the excited sycophantic nature of the
article?
Can anyone tell us properly how it works? I’m really intrigued. I read
the article twice but it was painful the second time. I think that there
might be two related functions of the "contrivance". 1, Automatic water
change and top-up and 2, Dialysis of tank water to remove pollutants.
OK, so automatic replacement of SSW with RO water and salt concentrate
is no great leap (although not exactly a no-brainer). Anyone know what
are the major pitfalls of this method of doing water changes?
I can only guess that the RO system in this "contrivance" is used to
dialyze the tank water to remove low Mr. pollutants. I think the article
states that there is a 10kDa cutoff membrane. That should allow
everything (from ions, amino acids and peptides) up to the size of
small proteins to be removed. How efficiently I wonder? This wouldn’t be
so hard to test. Then a small embedded controller replaces the
dialyzed salts with fresh concentrated synthetic sea water to maintain
the resistivity of the tank water at a pre-determined set point. The
most compelling question is how much RO water does this system use, per
day, for the dialysis step?
I have a meter that is rather expensive but my hydrometer is certainly
better than the meter for reliability and accuracy. Do other people have
problems with continuous resistivity measurements, probe fouling and
plating etc.? If not, what probe/meter combinations do you all recommend
for _continuous_ measurement. Does any company make a non electrical
(non-plating, non-fouling) system for determining Water density. Maybe
something like a photodetector that detects light transmission through a
V shaped slit on the shaft of a hydrometer? Just wondering.
Alternatively, either concentrated or normal synthetic sea water could
be used for the dialysis step. The FAMA reviewer likens the system to
that of a haemodialysis system, suggesting this second scheme. In that
case a whole lot of salt might be used each day in the dialysis step to
make it at all efficient. Take Phosphates for example, we would like
Zero. To reduce PO4 by just 50% you might have to continuously circulate
an equal tank volume of the dialyzing buffer (Water _or_ SSW) until
equilibrium was reached. That’s a lot of SS water for some of us with
big tanks. If the dialyzing solution was passed through the membrane
chamber but the phosphate ions don’t reach equilibrium then that’s a lot
of wasted water too. On the other hand, you might be dialyzing Ca in.
Now, maybe, there’s and idea? But how would you keep the membrane from
fouling with precipitated carbonates on the tank side where there is
more CO^2. mmm... OK, so my example is too stringent. In any case (an
not taking into account the concurrent water changes) if you could
remove just the daily increase in phosphate, and a little more, then
eventually the phosphates would fall. I wonder if this is the principle
that is being sold. Frustratingly, I’m no more the wiser after having
read the FAMA review. I know some of you are already saying that If I
call the manufacturer maybe Ill get a different picture. Probably.
Does anyone know if dialysis has been tested in tanks for the removal of
pollutants before? In humans and animals its a last ditch effort. And
what an effort, it plays havoc with the system even though we know much
about it. Moreover there has been quite a lot of research dollars spent
on talented researchers to improve haemodialysis over the last 20 years.
Many of the inherent problems associated with haemodialysis would not be
obviated in SSW dialysis and most of us know less about the parameters
of our expensive reef tanks.
There was no mention of use of this system for fresh water tanks?
Wouldn’t the same principles be involved?
Of course I don’t believe everything I read especially if it is
suspiciously hyped but it would be nice to understand most of what you
read in FAMA, maybe I’m just thick.
like 2 short planks, Greg
Kenric Hwang
JABEINJI
> As a hobby, this will always be part science, part anectodote and part
myth. The best approach still seems to be to read everything you can and
to filter it with a little common sense.
Michael, where can I get one of these filters? What size do I need? Which
is the best, cheapest one? Should I buy it at my LFS or mailorder?
Jonathan Bein
Gary Brown
Ryan,
Back in February I rejoined the hobby after a 10 year hiatus. One of the
first things I did was to pick up a copy of FAMA to catch up on the
technology. What a surprise!! The only "technology" was provided by
advertising, not by articles. The total domination of the magazine by
advertising and mail order (don't get me wrong, I like mail order!) was a
big surprise. As a check on reality, I dug back through some old boxes and
found my old fish books (Spotte, Moe, Steele & Allen, etc) as well as a few
old FAMA's. One (Feb 85 or 86) had an article on a brand new way of keeping
marine aquariums, using "live rocks" collected from the reefs and placed in
a sump under the aquarium. Quite a change from the current content.
The point of this message is that although you may be getting old, your
impressions of FAMA are not yours alone.
Gary
ry...@aecom.yu.edu wrote in article <33D6213B...@aecom.yu.edu>...
Will Brink
In article <19970722112...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
wlc...@aol.com (Wlcohen) wrote:
> >wlc...@aol.com (Wlcohen) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>MFA is a great magazine! I highly recomend it. Tom Miller's articles
> are
> >>some of the best. It is not a large magazine but it has a lot of great
> >>content. Some of the writers suck, but most are excellent. It is a way
> >>better magazine then anything else out there.
> >>
> >>Bill Cohen
> >>Ace Aquatics
> >
> >I assume you mean MFM, Marine Fish Monthly. I'm bored with that
> >magazine. Too much editorial content and articles with no scientific
> >data to back up claims. If your into skilter skimmers and algae
> >scrubbers, then this magazine is for you. The typographical errors
> >are annoying as well. People can learn a whole lot more by reading
> >this newsgroup!
> >
> >Just my 2 cents. ;-]
> >
> >Bob Odenweller
> >
> >
> Yes I did mean MFM, I agree with your criticisms of the mag. I have also
> noticed the typographical errors. They are very annoying and there are 1
> or 2 really terrible writers but over all I feel it is a magazine worth
> reading, it beats the other stuff out there.
Like any mag on any topic you have some good stuff and some bad stuff. I
think the good stuff generaly outweighs the bad stuff in MFM. I have
written two articles for them so far and i recieved a bunch of posative
letters-so I hope it was among the good stuff :-)
WayneSalle
In article <5r5ljc$f...@news.asu.edu>, michae...@asu.edu (Michael C.
Moore) writes:
>I wrote an article for FAMA on algae control a couple of years back. The
>article was published verbatim (spelling errors and all) as I submitted
it.
But that's better than over-editing. Like imagine how you would have felt
if you read your article and saw that they had changed something that you
wrote, thinking that you had made an error in typing it out, thus
completly changing the meening of what you had written.
Wayne Sallee
WayneSalle
>Couple of months in a row now, - no articles from Julian. He's still
>listed on the masthead as a contributing editor.
Yea we with the intenet are not missing much, but those that don't have
the internet, I imagine are quite disapointed in Julian's absence.
Wayne Sallee
Doug Bora
: But that's better than over-editing. Like imagine how you would have felt
: if you read your article and saw that they had changed something that you
: wrote, thinking that you had made an error in typing it out, thus
: completly changing the meening of what you had written.
The magazine's editors should send corrected copies back to the authors
for approval. Simple enough to do. I to have seen the obvious errors,
and I remember thinking how amateur it looked. I mean, this is a
publication, not a bunch of people chatting on a newsgroup.
--
Doug Bora
stig...@wwa.com
Sean Bradley
Hey, buddy. Don't knock it till you try it alright! By the way, what more
do you need than water test info and SPS Coral growth??? Tom Miller and
the people at GARF have some of the smoothest running reefs in the world.
--
Sean Bradley
kin...@bellsouth.net
Bob & Terri Odenweller <oden...@cyberramp.net> wrote in article
<33d424db....@newshost.cyberramp.net>...