JF, You can't offend me so no worries! I didn't take it that way at all. just thought that it required some additional 'splanation. I feel the same that this topic is probably one of the grayest and possibly the most interesting yet... Thanks to Tomason for starting it! Because when you get right down to it, no one really knows.

Still love ya man!

Hey, no blood no foul!  (although I almost lost my ear last friday night due to a high stick to the head... I'll never play skateless ice hockey again!  BTW, not only can super glue be used to attach coral to rock, it also keeps gaping wounds shut )

It's sometimes hard to properly express ones "emotion" though a forum such as this.  If we were sitting face to face having this disscussion, you would see that I am not really that attached to this topic and the mood would be much more jovial.  I find this topic interesting and as such have a few opinions and was just expressing them not meaning to offend. 

JF,

Possibly I expressed myself incorrectly, but there is no reason to yell at me.

I misspoke if I too directly compared our small aquatic ecosystems to the ocean. I believe that I tried to draw comparrison only to tidal pools or lagoons where the influent and water exchange is minimal on a comparative scale to the ocean. The reason that I tried to do this was to demonstrate that contaminant deposits have existed in these bodies of water for millions of years. I know of no one that has had a system set up that long. With runoff, contaminants are continually introduced, settled and adsorbed. Yet, these ecosystems continue to thrive.

I simply had a strong opinion about the comments referred to in the original post and had no other way of conveying my thoughts other than to try and draw a comparrision. Sorry if I didn't do it well. But, I think that it was close enough.

In with the good air, out with the bad... OK, I am better now.

My evaporative losses do vary from summer/fall/winter/spring.  I've got one 250 watt MH and two 24 inch vho actinics (I think they're 75 watts apiece).  They do generate a lot of heat.  I've got a fan in the hood that comes on when the MH comes on and a fan in the stand/sump that's on all the time.  In the summer my tank runs about 80-82°F and in the winter 78°F.  My lighting cycle is actinics from 11 am to 10 pm, MH from noon to 9:30 pm.

Jon

   I am wondering what kind of lights and other conditions you have on your basement 20 gal

jfinch wrote:  I add about a gallon of top-off water per day to a 20 gallon tank.  That's 5% of the tank volume,

     I have a 55gal that everyone is telling me that I run the lights ( 55PC x2) too long  (11 1/2 hrs) and I am only losing right around a gallon a week.   Perhaps I do need a fan in my canopy.....

   Sorry the distraction ...great thread...I just thought I would ask....if that kind of loss is typical.........

Mark and Carl,

You guys are comparing the complete ocean biosystem with a 20 gallon tank sitting in my basement.  IMO, caution should be exersised when doing that.  The chemistry, biology and ecology of the oceans are not, even today, fully understood.  I add about a gallon of top-off water per day to a 20 gallon tank.  That's 5% of the tank volume, I doubt that the ocean receives that kind of water influx from rivers.  I have more fish (per sq ft) then a typical reef.  I have less algae then a typical reef.  I sometimes feed flake food which the ocean does not receive.  I add B-ionic, baking soda, pickling lime, ect to my tank that the ocean doesn't.  I don't have near the same lighting as the ocean.  I don't have a vast volume of deep, cold (strange) water connected to my reef.  Like I said earlier, this is a very interesting topic but with few answers (at least for me).

I agree with Mark that tank neglect will almost certainly lead to disaster.

Well said Mark

I would especially be concerned with areas in nature with relatively low water exchange such as tidal pools or lagoons. I would believe that a tidal pool or lagoon would be the closest simulation to a captive reef setup. The argument would be made that volume is so much greater, but I think that the similarities are far greater than most would think. The aquarist typically provides over-filtration for their systems to compensate for the lack of true water volume exchange. I would believe that with this over filtration, water exchanges, etc that our ability to handle the metals and other contaminants in the water column may even be greater than mother nature . Find someone with a tidal pool or lagoon where the metals, minerals and other contaminants have adsorbed, precipitated, settled out (or whatever term that you want to use) over the last couple million years and I will put money down that their tidal reef is still successful. How often does mother nature replace her LR? The last thing that this hobby needs is another fear factor.

Just my "Rant Of The Day".