The Puffer Forum

hadla wrote:

hadla wrote:Yep, I'm the same when I see porkys lol like I posted before, they're only cute and cuddly on the outside, on the inside they're plotting eeeeveeel!
Yup they want you to take them home so they can use their mind control on you

O.o someone added to my post... I didn't type that mind control thing...

Ha ha ha. That was me, was wondering where it went. Obviously added it to yours by editing instead of quoting lmao. I'm laughing my head off here, would you like me to remove it?

DMD123: Historically, SW has been much more expensive than FW or light BW to operate. That was due to the high cost of marine mix and the then-universal need to do largish weekly water changes in all our tanks. With the addition of well-cured Live Rock it was found that the same processes by which water quality is supported in the wild, with both aerobic and anaerobic handling of wastes was possible in captivity. We already had slimmer technology in sw, and limited macroalgae cultivation. The combination of all three of these processes can give up better water quality support than we can currently do in FW and BW tanks. That combination of tecniques means that we can now operate marine systems better than we can FW or light BW tanks. That is an amazing thing for those old-timers among us - it is not cheaper than FW or light BW as yet, but the former high maintenance cost of SW is now ancient history. You use different technologies than those for FW and light BW, but the reduction in required water partials is a huge break-through.

"Skimming" in ineffective in FW or much BW other than in heavily polluted situations (some koi ponds use foam fraction towers), so we cannot use it for most tanks.

We can set specialized plenum tanks as accessories to some FW or light BW tanks, but they do require protection from certain tank inhabitants, so remain unfamiliar to most hobbyist. And water partials in FW and light BW remain cheaper than adding specialized extra tanks.

HTH

No it's ok! Was just wondering where it came from lol

Many eons ago* I read a scientific study about female attractiveness and it noted that larger than average eys and mouths were the most appealing as it linked back to the size ratio of babies faces. I suspect that puffer facial propertions play into the cute factor.


* It used Jacqueline Smith (Charlie's Angels) as a benchmark...

Master of Puffers wrote:Many eons ago* I read a scientific study about female attractiveness and it noted that larger than average eys and mouths were the most appealing as it linked back to the size ratio of babies faces. I suspect that puffer facial propertions play into the cute factor.


* It used Jacqueline Smith (Charlie's Angels) as a benchmark...

It's so creepy but probably true.

Also puffer look like they have a dopey grin sometimes.