PDA

View Full Version : I don't do water changes


Pages : [1] 2

houstonhobby
08/08/2013, 10:11 AM
Everyone,

I have been in the fresh-water hobby for 45 years, in planted tanks since the early 80s, but in salt water such a short time that I don't own any fish or corals yet. Just a 90 gallon tank with some live rock and apitasia. :xlbirthday:

That said, I stopped doing water changes a number of years ago. And I did not stop because I am a lazy bum (although I don't deny the charge). I stopped because a water change is an admission that you are doing something wrong. A water change means your fish don't live in optimal conditions all the time, just right after the water change. A water change, especially a big one, is very stressful for the animals.

So I changed my practices so that my nitrates are never out of range, and my phosphates are never out of range, and my tank always has the micro nutrients that it needs, and therefore there is no reason to stress everybody out by doing a water change.

I use bio-remediation, denitrators, GFO reactors, activated carbon. On salt water you guys have this cool thing called a skimmer. What a great thing for getting rid of DOC! I could not be happier.

So, I know this is controversial, but I don't think a water change every week is something to be proud of.

Allmost
08/08/2013, 10:20 AM
and how do you deal with other 72 elements that make salt water that you didnt mention in your post ?

note that you have no fish or corals ... so of course you have almost no bioload, and nothing using up trace elements, so why do a water change ?

when you have corals growing at crazy rates, taking up ALOT of elements with them while they grow ... then you need to replenish the lost elements, how much of each 72 elements ? some we can test like KH and CA++ .. but how about others we do not test for ? we do water changes to REPLENISH those :) we dont do water changes to clean up water.

Kyle918
08/08/2013, 10:25 AM
Well then you must not have a huge bioload in the tank. Performing a water change replenishes serval trace elements that unless you are dosing, your tank will eventually be deprived off.

For fresh water, it makes sense. For saltwater, it may work but only if your tank doesn't need those trace elements. I believe there are well over 50 of them in common salt mixes. I perform water changes not because I want too or to gloat that I do when someone else does not but because there is invaluable major and minor elements and trace elements that your tank won't get unless its supplemented.

Kyle918
08/08/2013, 10:28 AM
and how do you deal with other 72 elements that make salt water that you didnt mention in your post ?

note that you have no fish or corals ... so of course you have almost no bioload, and nothing using up trace elements, so why do a water change ?

when you have corals growing at crazy rates, taking up ALOT of elements with them while they grow ... then you need to replenish the lost elements, how much of each 72 elements ? some we can test like KH and CA++ .. but how about others we do not test for ? we do water changes to REPLENISH those :) we dont do water changes to clean up water.

Well put in the last sentence. The OP is assuming water changes are to clean something or remove filth but really it's to replenish what we don't measure and/or supplement.

rbarn
08/08/2013, 11:33 AM
Water changes are simply a way to remove the toxins that you are removing with chemical media. They are not a sign of doing something wrong, just another way of skinning a cat per se. They are just one way of dealing with closed system with a heavy bio load when compared to nature.

There are lots of people that have stopped water changes because they did not think they were needed. The tank prospers for a while but eventually starts a gradual decline that is hard to reverse.

jorda9095
08/08/2013, 11:36 AM
fish and other animals poop and it will eventually build up in your tank till it crashes

houstonhobby
08/08/2013, 12:21 PM
For those discussing trace elements in a reef I make two points. First, you are correct when you say I don't have enough experience to know about this issue. Second, if I need to do this once I get the reef going I will drip new saltwater into the tank continuously and take a bit out continuously, not do 10% water changes in a single day. In the planted tank world we drip fertilizers continuously, often using systems adapted from the medical industry.

For people talking about fish excreta etc. that is what good filtration and bioremediation is about.

jerpa
08/08/2013, 12:52 PM
For those discussing trace elements in a reef I make two points. First, you are correct when you say I don't have enough experience to know about this issue. Second, if I need to do this once I get the reef going I will drip new saltwater into the tank continuously and take a bit out continuously, not do 10% water changes in a single day. In the planted tank world we drip fertilizers continuously, often using systems adapted from the medical industry.

For people talking about fish excreta etc. that is what good filtration and bioremediation is about.

Many people do continuous water changes just as you describe. This hobby also relies on peristaltic pumps for dosing and continous water changes.

Your filtration can deal with the detritus that reaches it but it is impossible to design a system that includes live rock and a substrate that won't have detritus accumulation somewhere. It will eventually need to be dealt with.

Water changes help rectify ionic imbalances from 2 part dosing, restore trace elements that are depleted, reduce heavy metal accumulation from salt mixes and food, and reduce organics that are not dealt with through skimming and GAC/GFO use. They aren't very effective as a means of nutrient export but they do accomplish that as well.

Needing large weekly changes to deal with N&P may indicate inadequate filtration but as a general premise I would not agree that they are a sign of bigger problems.

Nina51
08/08/2013, 12:57 PM
I will drip new saltwater into the tank continuously and take a bit out continuously

first question that comes to mind is how are you gonna keep your salinity stable this way? the method sounds like a pain in the butt.

DragKnee
08/08/2013, 01:26 PM
first question that comes to mind is how are you gonna keep your salinity stable this way? the method sounds like a pain in the butt.

Agreed.
I do a 10% water change once every week which takes up 10 minutes of my time. Hardly something to complain about.

If you don't have 10 minutes a week to devote to upkeep, why even keep a salt water aquarium.

ninja66999
08/08/2013, 02:30 PM
i dunno if this method would works for me as i tend to overfeed lol.

fshlover
08/08/2013, 02:35 PM
You would need to drip RO water continuously...contiuos salt water would just run your salt levels up. the salt doesnt evaporate, only the water

Allmost
08/08/2013, 02:41 PM
For those discussing trace elements in a reef I make two points. First, you are correct when you say I don't have enough experience to know about this issue. Second, if I need to do this once I get the reef going I will drip new saltwater into the tank continuously and take a bit out continuously, not do 10% water changes in a single day. In the planted tank world we drip fertilizers continuously, often using systems adapted from the medical industry.

For people talking about fish excreta etc. that is what good filtration and bioremediation is about.

http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-10/rhf/

some graphs in this article help alot. but yes, what you are describing is continuos water change. which is very good, for those that have the room for it :)

we dose calcium, carbonated, magnesium and some other trace elements through the day as well, and the water changes at the end of the week [for me at least] is to balance everything I added off. if I could do this daily, I am sure my corals would love me more :)

houstonhobby
08/08/2013, 03:07 PM
Thanks for the link. This is really helpful.

houstonhobby
08/08/2013, 10:18 PM
Hope everybody who wasn't aware took the time to read the link that Allmost supplied. In my case, it's gonna be dual dosing pumps, probably the Reef Filler 2000-2 from Champion Lighting (something funny about the name and the product list with this company, but a site that is really worth looking at). $350 for the pump but it gets good reviews on the reef forums and has the power that I need. And I'll dose calcium and magnesium, plus vitamins, via the top-off water.

OTOWN78
08/08/2013, 11:05 PM
When using Denitrators and a GFO, your really not fixing the problem with the water its putting a band aid on the problem. If your water is requiring a denitrator or a GFO there is something in the tank driving up the nitrates and or phosphates. With a good sump, substrate and abundant live rock you should be able to do a water change in the range of every 30-45 days.

Josh40996
08/09/2013, 06:41 AM
I would like to address the opinion of water changes and stressing the livestock. I agree that it may cause some stress, but I do not believe that it will be stressful if conducted properly. A lot of people including Anthony Colfo suggest that 100% water changes in a reef aquarium can be VERY beneficial by replacing minor and trace elements that we do not test for that promote huge coral growth and polyp extension and as drastic as this may seem, it happens in natural habitats. In nature for X amount of time, some corals are exposed to the air as the tides retreat. In shallow reefs where it is not exposed to the air, the water level will still fall and rise twice a day with the tides.

A 10% or so water change is not going to cause (in my opinion and experience) any noticeable stress on the livestock.

billsreef
08/09/2013, 05:27 PM
Continuous input with continuous output is what we in the biz call flow-through. Best way to go, but you need a lot of SW and someplace acceptable to dump it all. About 10% water exchange daily works very well. However, it's still a water change ;) With static tanks, i.e. the typical hobbyist set up, a water change with well aged artificial SW should not cause any real stress.

SpartaReef
08/09/2013, 05:56 PM
This is interesting.... I like the flow through idea, but how do you keep the critters that float in the water in your DT? How do you NOT waste water that way?

billsreef
08/09/2013, 06:02 PM
This is interesting.... I like the flow through idea, but how do you keep the critters that float in the water in your DT? How do you NOT waste water that way?

You'll definitely have some stuff wash out the overflows. It's also does use lots of water. Not really a viable option for land locked areas or keeping non native species ;)

dixiedog
08/09/2013, 10:08 PM
I don't own any fish or corals yet. Just a 90 gallon tank with some live rock and apitasia.

I suggest you keep it that way. ;)

Lsufiregal
08/09/2013, 11:04 PM
Also since you don't own fish you may not know that for some fish, constantly running carbon is not good for some fish and can cause HLLE. If you ask me it is way easier to make a batch of water and change 10% once a week or more biweekly than constantly monitor the salinity and amount of saltwater I needed on hand. You would need several holding vessels bc you couldn't mix saltwater in the same container you are flowing from bc it needs to mix and have the salinity pinpointed before it could make it into your system.

Also if you think needing a weekly water change somehow indicates your tank is I trouble then I would think needing what amounts to a constant water change would indicate a bigger issue.

Another issue to think about is the more pumps you have, the more places you have to fail. In fresh water that wouldn't be as big of a worry, but in saltwater you would need to ensure your water level would drop low enough to trigger your ato etc. Managing salinity could become a real nightmare.

It is very easy to come into this hobby and think you are going to have the epiphany that will somehow make it easier. "Everyone" does it this way bc it works, if there were short cuts that worked long term that would just be how it was done. In my experience saltwater concepts seem to be easier for people who didnt do freshwater first.

Glad you are thinking about how to make improvements though. I guess that is how we make advances.

houstonhobby
08/10/2013, 08:06 AM
One of the things I always tell my people is that you don't innovatte by doing things just like everybody else dkes them. Thanks for the tip on carbon and HLLE. My main thought at the moment is shallow grass beds above the level of the tank water to provide both bioremediation and food.

houstonhobby
08/10/2013, 08:07 AM
I apologize for some of the words there. That comes from a gray cat pushing on my elbow

baringcs
08/10/2013, 08:17 AM
Hope everybody who wasn't aware took the time to read the link that Allmost supplied. In my case, it's gonna be dual dosing pumps, probably the Reef Filler 2000-2 from Champion Lighting (something funny about the name and the product list with this company, but a site that is really worth looking at). $350 for the pump but it gets good reviews on the reef forums and has the power that I need. And I'll dose calcium and magnesium, plus vitamins, via the top-off water.


You might also look at SpectraPure and GenisysReefSystems they both have continuous water change systems. If your going to be using a controller you can come up with a DIY with Apex and I'm pretty sure Profilux has a feature for doing continuous water changes.

houstonhobby
08/10/2013, 08:27 AM
Thanks for the search terms. Always welcome.

SpartaReef
08/10/2013, 08:51 AM
Can a link be posted regarding running carbon and problems, I run carbon 24/7, changed out every two weeks... From what I read, other than the absorption of some trace elements, carbon is good for our systems.

Lsufiregal
08/10/2013, 11:32 AM
Just one of many links that discuss the use of carbon and HLLE. I also run carbon almost 24/7 and have no signs of HLLE but I buy very high quality carbon.

http://www.coralmagazine-us.com/content/activated-carbon-hlle-smoking-gun-found

Dapg8gt
08/10/2013, 12:07 PM
It's also about what type of carbon you run. The cheap dusty lignite carbon is more of a chance to cause HLLE from the study that was ran. I'll try to link it if I can find it.

I think it's a good thing to do a continuous water change but it's not for every tank space wise. If you have the space do it. The genesis system seems to be a great option along with the spectrapure one.

IMO you should be very methodical and confident in your diy ability if you plan to go that route. A failure can cause some serious damage to your livestock and even your house.. Building failsafe into the system is a must. I think a cheaper and close to bullet proof method is the large medical peristaltic pumps. One shaft spinning both pumps.

Gill_bucket
08/10/2013, 03:04 PM
You should look up DSB (deep sand bed) and anaerobic bacteria. You might find it interesting.

billsreef
08/10/2013, 06:02 PM
One of the things I always tell my people is that you don't innovatte by doing things just like everybody else dkes them.

Considering that people have been trying to get away with the no water change idea like your talking about for decades, pretty hard to consider the idea innovative ;)

IMO the no water change idea is an innovation akin to to trying to improve on the wheel...by making it square.

Dapg8gt
08/10/2013, 06:04 PM
Your also not an innovator if you fail =)..

SpartaReef
08/10/2013, 06:51 PM
I've heard people claim to not having done a water change in over a year, but they dose... So I guess that's the difference.

SpartaReef
08/10/2013, 07:55 PM
I do water changes every two weeks. Once a week is too often and more than two weeks is not enough. But every tank is different.

rich850
08/10/2013, 11:30 PM
Well houston if you just need to sustain aiptasia sure you don't need to change water or really even keep the rocks with aiptasia on them in water all the time you could probably set them outside for a couple hours a day throw them back in your innovative tank....I am being sarcastic obviously but seriously this is not an innovative idea to not do water changes and I think you are in for an expensive lesson if and when you add difficult to keep livestock

Decadence
08/11/2013, 01:36 AM
I don't do water changes. I feed heavily for 16 fish in a 90 gallon tank and have SPS colonies out the wazoo. The "trick" is pretty simple: don't let detritus accumulate. Get it out before it can become a problem. As for dosing, I run all of my ATO through a kalk stirrer and still have to run a calcium reactor. Magnesium is tested once a month and adjusted by hand.

houstonhobby
08/11/2013, 08:08 AM
Everyone,

I think this thread has been very successful, for my purposes. I got a lot of responses, most of them on target and thoughtful, I learned something from some of them, got some good links to various things I didn't have before . . . and now I do water changes.

In fact, I changed one third of the water in my freshwater 210 this weekend because the sulfur denitrator has been having trouble this week (those things are a breeze when they are young but get cantankerous as they get older . . . and more effective) and I changed 11 liters in my 90 gallon. And like any newbie, bought three clown fish as my first fauna (nitrates still above zero so I have to stay with fish).

I have started a thread over in the newbie section about my water change experience. I'd be glad to hear from everyone on it.

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?p=21796823#post21796823

Hope the link works. I'm not sure how to do this particular piece of wizardry. I expected that the link would show some kind of perma-link for me to copy/paste.

Thanks,
Rod

billsreef
08/11/2013, 10:31 AM
FYI with a tank that has gone so long with no water changes (your FW), it's best to start on those water changes with small frequent ones. Things that you can't even measure can be far enough out of whack that large water changes can indeed be stressful to the fish that have acclimated (but typically not thriving) to the out of whack water chemistry. Typically once you've done enough water changes to straighten out water chemistry it is common for people to notice improved coloration and behavior in their fish ;)

houstonhobby
08/12/2013, 06:56 AM
Not to brag but my chocolates have three hundred babies every 3 to 4 weeks. I think they are doing okay.

Anybody want some? I use them as live food. I love chocolates. They are mu favorite fish. But enough is enough

FlyPenFly
08/21/2013, 07:37 AM
There are some very successful heavily stocked tanks on this forum that don't do water changes. They do use some algae export models.

The trace elements argument never really seemed very good to me. Exactly which trace elements are people claiming get depleted besides the commonly available ones?

The amount of trace elements is also not going to be replenished much in a demanding system with a small water change. If it did, I wouldn't need to dose calcium and alkalinity and mg. I can just rely on water changes... yet we all know that doesn't work unless you're doing huge water changes.

A lot of times, I think we do water changes to make ourselves feel better, it's cathartic.

FlyPenFly
08/21/2013, 07:49 AM
Here's some more on trace elements

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2004/9/aafeature

The results of this study demonstrate that the vast majority of synthetic sea salts for use in marine aquaria do not have concentrations of the trace elements examined that are substantially greater than that of the natural seawater available to the marine hobbyist. Furthermore, for some trace elements natural seawater had a greater value than some of the synthetic sea salts. Moreover, Catalina Water Company, which is a natural seawater product, had a lead value that was one to two orders of magnitude higher than other samples. It is clear that most synthetic sea salts do not add substantial amounts of trace levels to aquaria when compared to the natural seawater available to the majority of hobbyists.

So lets say like most people you use a 5 gallon bucket for a 50 gallon system so it turns out to be about a 10% change, diluted down you're adding in a tiny amount of trace elements and you will never be at the same levels you were at the start. Not to mention, NSW and the trace elements found in synthetic salt are pretty different anyway.

SpartaReef
08/21/2013, 08:18 AM
Good point, we should be using natural seawater if we can... But for those of us who can't then water changes are needed. Also, I believe it was mentioned that smaller more frequent changes are better, frequent changes would add more of the trace elements we are looking for... I went a month without doing a water change and my tank looked like crap...

FlyPenFly
08/21/2013, 08:29 AM
No, if you read the article, using NSW has it's own problems.

There's probably ancillary reasons why your tank looked like crap, it sounds like general neglect.

SpartaReef
08/21/2013, 08:31 AM
Lol, neglect was not the issue.

Decadence
08/21/2013, 08:55 AM
Lol, neglect was not the issue.

Really though? If you put a system in place to remove the nutrients and replenish lost elements, it would not have looked like crap. If you don't have this system in place and you don't do water changes, that is neglect.

I use a lot of chaeto, GFO, huge skimmer and filter socks to remove nutrients. The tank is BB and has 9,000gph flow so barely anything settles. What does settle get syphoned into the filter sock before changing. The only water which gets replaced in my tank is from water lost from cleaning equipment or changing media. Occasionally I will do a large water change to remove a medication. Over the last year, I have changed 75 gallons of water total from a system volume over 100 gallons and still have <0.03ppm phosphate and <0.1ppm nitrate.

Regular water changes add unnecessary stress to the animals.

billsreef
08/21/2013, 09:04 AM
No, if you read the article, using NSW has it's own problems.

All of which are readily avoided by a little common sense when it comes to collecting that NSW for use ;) Keep in mind, that article was written by two people who were working at the time for a company that manufactures artificial salt mix ;)

SpartaReef
08/21/2013, 10:15 AM
Really though? If you put a system in place to remove the nutrients and replenish lost elements, it would not have looked like crap. If you don't have this system in place and you don't do water changes, that is neglect.

I use a lot of chaeto, GFO, huge skimmer and filter socks to remove nutrients. The tank is BB and has 9,000gph flow so barely anything settles. What does settle get syphoned into the filter sock before changing. The only water which gets replaced in my tank is from water lost from cleaning equipment or changing media. Occasionally I will do a large water change to remove a medication. Over the last year, I have changed 75 gallons of water total from a system volume over 100 gallons and still have <0.03ppm phosphate and <0.1ppm nitrate.

Regular water changes add unnecessary stress to the animals.
And do you know what I have setup in my tank?

Decadence
08/21/2013, 10:50 AM
And do you know what I have setup in my tank?

By reading your build thread.

SpartaReef
08/21/2013, 11:00 AM
Really though? If you put a system in place to remove the nutrients and replenish lost elements, it would not have looked like crap. If you don't have this system in place and you don't do water changes, that is neglect.

I use a lot of chaeto, GFO, huge skimmer and filter socks to remove nutrients. The tank is BB and has 9,000gph flow so barely anything settles. What does settle get syphoned into the filter sock before changing. The only water which gets replaced in my tank is from water lost from cleaning equipment or changing media. Occasionally I will do a large water change to remove a medication. Over the last year, I have changed 75 gallons of water total from a system volume over 100 gallons and still have <0.03ppm phosphate and <0.1ppm nitrate.

Regular water changes add unnecessary stress to the animals.

I also have chaeto, a huge skimmer, filtersock with carbon, ato from rodi reservoir and at the time I was dosing to replace trace elements... So please explain where I was neglecting my tank? For me water changes are necessary.

FlyPenFly
08/21/2013, 01:07 PM
So it basically comes down to, we do the typical recommended 10% weekly water changes because that's what everyone's been doing for a long time.

Unless you're doing ~50% weekly water changes each time...

The trace elements idea is bunk.

The pollution diluting idea is bunk.

So why do we do water changes again? And how is it possible there are some very impressive SPS reefs in this forum that don't do water changes or do them extremely rarely.

FlyPenFly
08/21/2013, 01:12 PM
Here's another anomaly

http://www.ultimatereef.net/forums/showthread.php?t=555963

Look at what that guy's readings are. Look how colorful and healthy and high growth his SPS are. His test readings were confirmed by Red Sea after he sent them a sample. There's far too much about reef keeping we don't know and conventional wisdom seems to be bunk in many cases.

jerpa
08/21/2013, 03:01 PM
So it basically comes down to, we do the typical recommended 10% weekly water changes because that's what everyone's been doing for a long time.

Unless you're doing ~50% weekly water changes each time...

The trace elements idea is bunk.

The pollution diluting idea is bunk.

So why do we do water changes again? And how is it possible there are some very impressive SPS reefs in this forum that don't do water changes or do them extremely rarely.

We have far too many questions and not enough answers to call an idea bunk IMO. While trace elements may decline they will reach an equilibrium above zero assuming they are being consumed and replenished with water changes. The level may be below NSW but perhaps that doesn't matter as long as some trace amounts are available. The same argument can be made for toxins that may buildup. The levels will rise and then reach a point where water changes are keeping the levels lower than in a tank without water changes.

The ionic imbalance that occurs due to 2 part dosing may also be inconsequential but it is a hypothesis I prefer not to test when it is of no concern if water changes are done.

billsreef
08/21/2013, 04:16 PM
Here's another anomaly

http://www.ultimatereef.net/forums/showthread.php?t=555963

Look at what that guy's readings are. Look how colorful and healthy and high growth his SPS are. His test readings were confirmed by Red Sea after he sent them a sample. There's far too much about reef keeping we don't know and conventional wisdom seems to be bunk in many cases.

The key word is anomaly.

FlyPenFly
08/21/2013, 04:41 PM
Seems like there are a number of anomalies.

He has a very mature tank and an unsual filtration setup if you read his new build thread. Sort of a reverse flow setup. There are just weird things we don't know about coral reef ecosystems and what SPS actually need to thrive. I think our obsession with nitrates and phosphates might be misplaced or just accidentally correct in a small way that misses the big picture.

billsreef
08/21/2013, 04:42 PM
So far I can count the verifiable anomalies without taking off my shoes ;)

blanden.adam
08/24/2013, 08:08 PM
So it basically comes down to, we do the typical recommended 10% weekly water changes because that's what everyone's been doing for a long time.

Unless you're doing ~50% weekly water changes each time...

The trace elements idea is bunk.

The pollution diluting idea is bunk.

So why do we do water changes again? And how is it possible there are some very impressive SPS reefs in this forum that don't do water changes or do them extremely rarely.

This is simply untrue, and with a little bit of math, we can calculate where you will reach steady state at any given consumption level. In fact, I just had the same argument earlier this week, so I'll just re-post from that thread:



If we start with the assumption that our synthetic sea salts contain the appropriate elemental composition for our livestock (which I think is entirely reasonable, and if not you should pick a different salt ), and we accept that there are many things required by our livestock and that could potentially harm our livestock that we can't reliably measure for (trace elements, compounds form coral alleopathy, etc.), then a few things become plainly evident. 1) We cannot "prove" they are depleted without sophisticated laboratory equipment that can measure very small quantities of each compound reliably, 2) Even if we did that we cannot monitor all of these compounds to ensure they are within their required ranges cost effectively (i.e. we cannot reliably test for and dose them by themselves) and 3) No matter how their concentration varies while in our tank, by removing a proportion of the water and adding new synthetic sea water, we by definition move them closer to their target ranges.

Mathematical explanation. English translation below. Feel free to skip the math if you trust me or hate algebra.

With regard to your second question, lets do some math. Lets take a tank of some volume "V" and change 10% of the volume at some time interval and track what happens to our mystery trace element, call it element X.

Element X is kept at a constant level over time when the amount brought into the system by a water change is equivalent to the amount consumed between water changes plus the amount removed by the water change itself. Obviously, if the element is being consumed without replacement, it will have to achieve steady state at some concentration lower than the level found in your freshly mixed ASW (barring a 100% water change of course.) Lets say element X has a concentration "Cb" in your freshly mixed water (in the bucket) and "Cs" for the water in your system. Between water changes, your tank uses up some fraction "f" of that element in your system. We can then write the equations:

0.1*V*Cb = mass of element X added by a water change
f*Cs*V + (Cs*V - f*Cs*V)0.1 = the mass of element X consumed by the tank plus the mass of element X removed during the water change

By the law of conservation of mass and steady state assumption we get

0.1*V*Cb = f*Cs*V + (Cs * V - f*Cs*V)0.1

When solved, this leaves us with:
Cb = Cs * (9f + 1)

For explaination's sake, lets say the level in your tank is 50% of the level in your freshly mixed seawater (idk, just picking a number there).

We can then add the equation
Cs = 0.5 * Cb

Which when substituted into the above equation, leaves us with

f = 0.11

English resuming. Thanks for your cooperation

Which means a 10% water change will keep the level present in the tank constant when the amount consumed by the tank between water changes is about 11% of that found in your tank (assuming the level in your tank is at 50% of that in your bucket). Where that "steady state" happens is determined by the concentration in your salt an consumption, which is usually related to the concentration in your tank, so it gets more complicated than what I've shown based on a number of variables, but the concept is always true. I guess my point is, it's not nothing, mathematically we can see water changes have a non-trivial effect.

Finally, with regard to the statements regarding SPS tanks without water changes for years. Even if it is true, citing the exception to a rule when dealing with populations doesn't mean the rule is wrong, it just means you're citing the exception. My grandfather ate bacon and eggs every day of his life and lived to be 80 years old, completely able to move on his own and completely mentally in-tact -- that doesn't mean that bacon isn't bad for you.

Ligershark
08/25/2013, 09:02 AM
although I believe in water changes I would have to think the only reason we don't see more "anomalies" of people not doing water changes is because it isn't the norm.

we are taught from the get go that we need to do water changes.

i would be interested in hearing from people who have been in reef keeping for 20 or so plus years. key word being reef, and not saltwater fish.

vitz
08/25/2013, 02:58 PM
Also since you don't own fish you may not know that for some fish, constantly running carbon is not good for some fish and can cause HLLE. If you ask me it is way easier to make a batch of water and change 10% once a week or more biweekly than constantly monitor the salinity and amount of saltwater I needed on hand. You would need several holding vessels bc you couldn't mix saltwater in the same container you are flowing from bc it needs to mix and have the salinity pinpointed before it could make it into your system.

Also if you think needing a weekly water change somehow indicates your tank is I trouble then I would think needing what amounts to a constant water change would indicate a bigger issue.

Another issue to think about is the more pumps you have, the more places you have to fail. In fresh water that wouldn't be as big of a worry, but in saltwater you would need to ensure your water level would drop low enough to trigger your ato etc. Managing salinity could become a real nightmare.

It is very easy to come into this hobby and think you are going to have the epiphany that will somehow make it easier. "Everyone" does it this way bc it works, if there were short cuts that worked long term that would just be how it was done. In my experience saltwater concepts seem to be easier for people who didnt do freshwater first.

Glad you are thinking about how to make improvements though. I guess that is how we make advances.

there is ABSOLUTELY no proven link between carbon use and hlle, other than a certain hobby author's anecdotal and limited experience w/ both.

HLLE is a SYMPTOM of any of a myriad of possible causes. i've seen it caused by fluke damage and subsequent 'infection' of the skin, and i've seen fish reverse 'hlle' completely in very heavy carbon use systems.

carbon is to hlle what garlic is to ich-nothing but 'urban legends' based on mere impressions of one or a few individuals, w/ absolutley no causal relationship proof between one and the other, turned into 'gospel' by hordes of 'bandwagon followers'. ;)

SpartaReef
08/25/2013, 03:02 PM
:celeb2:Vitz... +1

vitz
08/25/2013, 03:15 PM
Everyone,

I have been in the fresh-water hobby for 45 years, in planted tanks since the early 80s, but in salt water such a short time that I don't own any fish or corals yet. Just a 90 gallon tank with some live rock and apitasia. :xlbirthday:

That said, I stopped doing water changes a number of years ago. And I did not stop because I am a lazy bum (although I don't deny the charge). I stopped because a water change is an admission that you are doing something wrong. A water change means your fish don't live in optimal conditions all the time, just right after the water change. A water change, especially a big one, is very stressful for the animals.

So I changed my practices so that my nitrates are never out of range, and my phosphates are never out of range, and my tank always has the micro nutrients that it needs, and therefore there is no reason to stress everybody out by doing a water change.

I use bio-remediation, denitrators, GFO reactors, activated carbon. On salt water you guys have this cool thing called a skimmer. What a great thing for getting rid of DOC! I could not be happier.

So, I know this is controversial, but I don't think a water change every week is something to be proud of.


for someone that''s been keeping closed system environments for awhile, you seem to understand very little about the biological and environmental dynamics of aquaria. ;)

water changes are multi-purposeful. they both remove waste substances, and replenish certain elements of the water mix to be replenished.



fwiw-weekly isn't necessary, nor is it anywhere near an 'admission' of anything.

if it(water changes) was an admission of any kind, it would be that one is doing something absolutely right and correct.

how many waste products are produced in a closed aquatic system, and how many are 'sinkable' (e.g. phosphate bonding to calcium, or ferrous oxide, is a 'sink' for PO4, as it chemically removes it/ neutralizes it from the system) that you are aware of ?

how do you remove the ones that aren't 'sinkable' ? food for thought ;)

if you're aware of the concept of letting some 'fresh air' into a room by opening a window, it should be painfully obvious what benefits water changes provide.

for the actual math of what % wc removes what amount of 'garbage', this link explains things rather well

http://www.reefs.org/library/article/t_brightbill_wc.html

note that the garbage discussed in the article deals with some of the more well know and obvious waste products. there are certainly dozens more compounds, if not hundreds/thousands-albumens and phenols, terpenes first come to mind).

skimmers do NOT remove all doc's, btw. ;)

vitz
08/25/2013, 03:53 PM
although I believe in water changes I would have to think the only reason we don't see more "anomalies" of people not doing water changes is because it isn't the norm.

we are taught from the get go that we need to do water changes.

i would be interested in hearing from people who have been in reef keeping for 20 or so plus years. key word being reef, and not saltwater fish.

my first reef tank was in 1977-ish. (i hope that qualifies ;-p )

it's my personal opinion that anyone who advocates the superiority of a totally closed system over a 'semi-closed' one is someone w/no real world experience on any appreciable scale to be able to make any statements about the merits of one over the other ;)

as an example:

all fish produce an 'anti growth' hormone as part of their biological arsenal to foster the development of the first biggest growing fishes over the 'runners up. it's why fry grow in 'spurts' of a sort (e.g.-remove the 10 biggest fry, and some of the smaller fry will then 'spurt' in growth). when doing wc's, you get alot more fry 'spurting' constantly as a percentage of the whole population. ;)

there are many other hormones that fish release into the water throughout their life, that we can't measure. that's but one very tiny example of a class of organic compounds where we don't know if they're 'sinkable' or not. to say nothing of the probable thousands of compounds produced by corals/inverts-some of which we've discovered, and some of which we know are HIGHLY toxic to other corals/inverts.



i wouldn't take a risk of a probable waste product POSSIBLY rising ad infinitum, and not knowing what the effects MIGHT be,when there's a profoundly simple way of eliminating that as a variable. ;)

it's about doing what's most prudent, and 'covering one's butt', given our present knowledge base of what's going on.

eliminating variables and unknowns in a closed/semi-closed system is fundamentally one of the most important concepts/practices of disease prevention and control of any animal husbandry in a closed/semi closed system.

on the whole, it's been my direct experience that wc's are a preferable way to go, and nothing substitutes for something so simple that provides as much benefit all around. (assuming, of course, that the water being used has the proper parameters/quality needed, natch - this doesn't mean that various dosing and 'artificial sinking' isn't useful or improper-the best success is achieved using BOTH methodologies, together, ime/imo).

my healthiest most productive reef tank got a 90% (!) wc every week to two weeks. (w/ properly aged/mixed/adjusted sw).

constant damsel spawning, and phenomenal coral growth, in spite of keeping large leathers w/ large lps's in a relatively small (75gal) tank, along w/ nightly plankton/zooplankton/copepod/gammarid 'population explosions/blooms'. there was also dosing and skimming going on-but the tank ALWAYS looked it's best following a large wc.

i've yet to see non wc systems, as a whole, come close to wc'd systems, w/ regards to polyp expansion and overall system health (including the fish). not saying there aren't any, or that it can't be done, but wc's definitely make it easier to obtain that objective, by and large.

this is the conclusion i've come to after working w/ many different size systems-from 2.5 gallon guppy tanks, to commercial hatcheries (fw) to lfs's, and large closed system husbandry on the wholesale/import side of things.

hth ;)

vitz
08/25/2013, 04:06 PM
btw, i do wonder how tangs in the ocean get hlle, since no one's running carbon in the world's oceans ;)

vitz
08/25/2013, 04:08 PM
considering that people have been trying to get away with the no water change idea like your talking about for decades, pretty hard to consider the idea innovative ;)

imo the no water change idea is an innovation akin to to trying to improve on the wheel...by making it square.


this :)

billsreef
08/25/2013, 07:37 PM
i would be interested in hearing from people who have been in reef keeping for 20 or so plus years. key word being reef, and not saltwater fish.

:wavehand:

In addition to Vitz and myself in this thread, I know of a number of people on RC that have been doing this for 20 or so years....all that I know do routine water changes ;)

SaltWater226
08/25/2013, 07:51 PM
Everyone,

I have been in the fresh-water hobby for 45 years, in planted tanks since the early 80s, but in salt water such a short time that I don't own any fish or corals yet. Just a 90 gallon tank with some live rock and apitasia. :xlbirthday:

That said, I stopped doing water changes a number of years ago. And I did not stop because I am a lazy bum (although I don't deny the charge). I stopped because a water change is an admission that you are doing something wrong. A water change means your fish don't live in optimal conditions all the time, just right after the water change. A water change, especially a big one, is very stressful for the animals.

So I changed my practices so that my nitrates are never out of range, and my phosphates are never out of range, and my tank always has the micro nutrients that it needs, and therefore there is no reason to stress everybody out by doing a water change.

I use bio-remediation, denitrators, GFO reactors, activated carbon. On salt water you guys have this cool thing called a skimmer. What a great thing for getting rid of DOC! I could not be happier.

So, I know this is controversial, but I don't think a water change every week is something to be proud of.

live rock and aptasia ? why would you need water changes?

odst223
08/26/2013, 01:01 AM
The educational qualities from Vitz and others have been phenomenal and answered alot of tank questoins I get asked at the LFS I work at. This should be stickied, if only to submit the idea of hormones in the water and so-on. Great thought!

Decadence
08/26/2013, 01:15 PM
I don't believe that just be ause X level of X element is found in sea water, the corals actually use it. A calcium reactor should perfectly portion essential elements back into the water. As for waste, what can't be organically or chemical bound and removed?

I'm not a huge proponent for the "zero water change" crowd but I definitely don't feel that they are necessary in any regular frequency. I would prefer to only do one large water change per year.

MKsreef
09/15/2013, 08:00 AM
I change 15 gallons in my 92 gal every week. Takes me 15 minutes and the tank has been doing well. I used to test the water every week. Not anymore, my tank has been very stable for the last six years.

SantaMonica
10/04/2013, 08:21 PM
Speaking of trace elements, you should see the list of vitamins, amino's etc that algae put into the water.

Reef Raf
10/05/2013, 03:17 PM
I'm trying to think of ANY living system that you'd want to keep closed? Could there be a system that you don't want open in some way. Even in the example of a fresh water system where you are not doing a water change...don't you need to replace evaporated water? I'm under the understanding that RODI water wont sustain fresh water fish over the long haul without additions of trace elements? If that is the case, then how can that be said to be a closed system entirely?

Decadence
10/05/2013, 03:51 PM
I'm trying to think of ANY living system that you'd want to keep closed? Could there be a system that you don't want open in some way. Even in the example of a fresh water system where you are not doing a water change...don't you need to replace evaporated water? I'm under the understanding that RODI water wont sustain fresh water fish over the long haul without additions of trace elements? If that is the case, then how can that be said to be a closed system entirely?

No fish tank is a truly closed system. When water evaporates, that is open. Nitrogen gas fizzes away, open. RODI being topped off, open. Feeding, open. Supplementation... you get the point.

power boat jim
10/05/2013, 06:08 PM
No fish tank is a truly closed system. When water evaporates, that is open. Nitrogen gas fizzes away, open. RODI being topped off, open. Feeding, open. Supplementation... you get the point.

All I need know about water changes can be summed up like this, if you left your bath water in the tub, and just added soap and replaced the evaporated water when you wanted a bath you would realize how closed the system really is. Unless you remove the water and repalce it, everything that is in solution in that water stays there.

SpartaReef
10/05/2013, 06:25 PM
All I need know about water changes can be summed up like this, if you left your bath water in the tub, and just added soap and replaced the evaporated water when you wanted a bath you would realize how closed the system really is. Unless you remove the water and repalce it, everything that is in solution in that water stays there.

Best explanation ever...

blanden.adam
10/05/2013, 06:40 PM
No fish tank is a truly closed system. When water evaporates, that is open. Nitrogen gas fizzes away, open. RODI being topped off, open. Feeding, open. Supplementation... you get the point.

Well sure, by definition because it interacts with the surrounding environment so it's not precisely closed, but that's really more of a technicality as the only truly closed system is the universe.

What people mean when they say that a reef tank is a "closed" system is that for the things we typically care about (nitrates, phosphates, other nutrients, calcium, alk, etc), nothing enters unless you put it there, and nothing leaves unless you take it away.

Sure, water vapor leaves without your intervention, heat energy will transfer between the stand/room air and the tank, and in the case of a DSB nitrogen can bubble away, but that's really about it. The rest requires you.

Phixer
10/06/2013, 10:40 PM
This is simply untrue, and with a little bit of math, we can calculate where you will reach steady state at any given consumption level. In fact, I just had the same argument earlier this week, so I'll just re-post from that thread:



If we start with the assumption that our synthetic sea salts contain the appropriate elemental composition for our livestock (which I think is entirely reasonable, and if not you should pick a different salt ), and we accept that there are many things required by our livestock and that could potentially harm our livestock that we can't reliably measure for (trace elements, compounds form coral alleopathy, etc.), then a few things become plainly evident. 1) We cannot "prove" they are depleted without sophisticated laboratory equipment that can measure very small quantities of each compound reliably, 2) Even if we did that we cannot monitor all of these compounds to ensure they are within their required ranges cost effectively (i.e. we cannot reliably test for and dose them by themselves) and 3) No matter how their concentration varies while in our tank, by removing a proportion of the water and adding new synthetic sea water, we by definition move them closer to their target ranges.

Mathematical explanation. English translation below. Feel free to skip the math if you trust me or hate algebra.

With regard to your second question, lets do some math. Lets take a tank of some volume "V" and change 10% of the volume at some time interval and track what happens to our mystery trace element, call it element X.

Element X is kept at a constant level over time when the amount brought into the system by a water change is equivalent to the amount consumed between water changes plus the amount removed by the water change itself. Obviously, if the element is being consumed without replacement, it will have to achieve steady state at some concentration lower than the level found in your freshly mixed ASW (barring a 100% water change of course.) Lets say element X has a concentration "Cb" in your freshly mixed water (in the bucket) and "Cs" for the water in your system. Between water changes, your tank uses up some fraction "f" of that element in your system. We can then write the equations:

0.1*V*Cb = mass of element X added by a water change
f*Cs*V + (Cs*V - f*Cs*V)0.1 = the mass of element X consumed by the tank plus the mass of element X removed during the water change

By the law of conservation of mass and steady state assumption we get

0.1*V*Cb = f*Cs*V + (Cs * V - f*Cs*V)0.1

When solved, this leaves us with:
Cb = Cs * (9f + 1)

For explaination's sake, lets say the level in your tank is 50% of the level in your freshly mixed seawater (idk, just picking a number there).

We can then add the equation
Cs = 0.5 * Cb

Which when substituted into the above equation, leaves us with

f = 0.11

English resuming. Thanks for your cooperation

Which means a 10% water change will keep the level present in the tank constant when the amount consumed by the tank between water changes is about 11% of that found in your tank (assuming the level in your tank is at 50% of that in your bucket). Where that "steady state" happens is determined by the concentration in your salt an consumption, which is usually related to the concentration in your tank, so it gets more complicated than what I've shown based on a number of variables, but the concept is always true. I guess my point is, it's not nothing, mathematically we can see water changes have a non-trivial effect.

Finally, with regard to the statements regarding SPS tanks without water changes for years. Even if it is true, citing the exception to a rule when dealing with populations doesn't mean the rule is wrong, it just means you're citing the exception. My grandfather ate bacon and eggs every day of his life and lived to be 80 years old, completely able to move on his own and completely mentally in-tact -- that doesn't mean that bacon isn't bad for you.

Pretty cool Adam. How do you calculate rate of consumption when conditions are constantly changing? I.e, add 1 new fish Monday, add 10lbs live rock Tuesday etc... Wouldnt the change in bioload and the addition of LR affect these parameters? Probably why for many the solution to pollution is still dilution.

When an anomaly exceeds 50% does it then become the norm? :lol:

ClippersTown
10/07/2013, 11:39 PM
All I need know about water changes can be summed up like this, if you left your bath water in the tub, and just added soap and replaced the evaporated water when you wanted a bath you would realize how closed the system really is. Unless you remove the water and repalce it, everything that is in solution in that water stays there.

I didn't read the entire thing, but if he runs a skimmer then that stuff gets removed. so it's not totally closed.

blanden.adam
10/08/2013, 02:52 AM
Pretty cool Adam. How do you calculate rate of consumption when conditions are constantly changing? I.e, add 1 new fish Monday, add 10lbs live rock Tuesday etc... Wouldnt the change in bioload and the addition of LR affect these parameters? Probably why for many the solution to pollution is still dilution.

When an anomaly exceeds 50% does it then become the norm? :lol:

Well, rate of consumption is just the change in level over time, so delta(Level)/time. However, that we can't reliably measure most of the trace elements in a reef kinda makes that calculation impractical.

The big complicated calculation is just a back-of-the-envalope calculation do demonstrate that waterchanges at a typical level can have a significant impact on the concentration of trace elements in a reef.

And your final point is entirely correct. We cant reliably measure everything, so the solution is indeed dilution :beer:.

DavidinGA
10/08/2013, 06:30 AM
All I need know about water changes can be summed up like this, if you left your bath water in the tub, and just added soap and replaced the evaporated water when you wanted a bath you would realize how closed the system really is. Unless you remove the water and repalce it, everything that is in solution in that water stays there.


Yeah except for all the ways nutrients (soap in your illustration) is removed other than changing out the water - skimming, algea, bacteria, mechanical, biological, gfo, etc...

Your example is a bit flawed.

power boat jim
10/08/2013, 06:49 AM
Yeah except for all the ways nutrients (soap in your illustration) is removed other than changing out the water - skimming, algea, bacteria, mechanical, biological, gfo, etc...

Your example is a bit flawed.

Its not that those things cant be removed , they often cant be removed as fast as they build up in many cases. Also running pellets or GFO come with a risk of doing it improperly. Water changes can help fix a number of things without that risk and the effect is immediate.

The bath example isnt that flowed if you put a little thought into it.

SpartaReef
10/08/2013, 09:09 AM
Yeah except for all the ways nutrients (soap in your illustration) is removed other than changing out the water - skimming, algea, bacteria, mechanical, biological, gfo, etc...

Your example is a bit flawed.

Gfo and other "filters" get clogged over time... What's easiest and cheaper? A water change or changing media?

DavidinGA
10/08/2013, 10:53 AM
Gfo and other "filters" get clogged over time... What's easiest and cheaper? A water change or changing media?

Easier depends on if you have a 50gal or 500gal tank....

billsreef
10/08/2013, 10:55 AM
Its not that those things cant be removed , they often cant be removed as fast as they build up in many cases. Also running pellets or GFO come with a risk of doing it improperly. Water changes can help fix a number of things without that risk and the effect is immediate.

The bath example isnt that flowed if you put a little thought into it.

The bath example is basically what my old Chemical Oceanography professor called a box model. What sum contents of the box are what's already in the box, plus what is added the box, minus what leaves the box. Pretty darn good description of an aquarium ;)

Phixer
10/09/2013, 12:57 AM
Well, rate of consumption is just the change in level over time, so delta(Level)/time. However, that we can't reliably measure most of the trace elements in a reef kinda makes that calculation impractical.

The big complicated calculation is just a back-of-the-envalope calculation do demonstrate that waterchanges at a typical level can have a significant impact on the concentration of trace elements in a reef.

And your final point is entirely correct. We cant reliably measure everything, so the solution is indeed dilution :beer:.

Great work none the less.

vitz
10/13/2013, 03:05 PM
Speaking of trace elements, you should see the list of vitamins, amino's etc that algae put into the water.


i would love to see that list. can you provide a link/source ? :)

SantaMonica
10/14/2013, 09:21 PM
Well on hand here right now I only have an abbreviated list:

Vitamins:

Vitamin A
Vitamin E
Vitamin B6
Beta Carotene
Riboflavin
Thiamine
Biotin
Ascorbate (breaks chloramines into chlorine+ammonia)
N5-Methyltetrahydrofolate
Other tetrahydrofolate polyglutamates
Oxidized folate monoglutamates
Nicotinate
Pantothenate


Amino Acids:

Alanine
Aspartic acid
Leucine
Valine
Tyrosine
Phenylalanine
Methionine
Aspartate
Glutamate
Serine
Proline


Carbohydrates (sugars):

Galactose
Glucose
Maltose
Xylose



Misc:

Glycolic Acid
Citric Acid (breaks chloramines into chlorine+ammonia)
Nucleic Acid derivatives
Polypeptides
Proteins
Enzymes
Lipids


Studies:

Production of Vitamin B-12, Thiamin, and Biotin by Phytoplankton. Journal of Phycology, Dec 1970:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1529-8817.1970.tb02406.x/abstract

Secretion Of Vitamins and Amino Acids Into The Environment By Ochromanas Danica. Journal of Phycology, Sept 1971 (Phycology is the study of algae):
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1529-8817.1971.tb01505.x/abstract

Qualitative Assay of Dissolved Amino Acids and Sugars Excreted by Chlamydomanas Reinhardtii (chlorophyceae) and Euglena Gracilis (Euglenophyceae), Jounrnal of Phycology, Dec 1978:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1529-8817.1978.tb02459.x/abstract

vitz
10/14/2013, 10:24 PM
Well on hand here right now I only have an abbreviated list:

Vitamins:

Vitamin A
Vitamin E
Vitamin B6
Beta Carotene
Riboflavin
Thiamine
Biotin
Ascorbate (breaks chloramines into chlorine+ammonia)
N5-Methyltetrahydrofolate
Other tetrahydrofolate polyglutamates
Oxidized folate monoglutamates
Nicotinate
Pantothenate


Amino Acids:

Alanine
Aspartic acid
Leucine
Valine
Tyrosine
Phenylalanine
Methionine
Aspartate
Glutamate
Serine
Proline


Carbohydrates (sugars):

Galactose
Glucose
Maltose
Xylose



Misc:

Glycolic Acid
Citric Acid (breaks chloramines into chlorine+ammonia)
Nucleic Acid derivatives
Polypeptides
Proteins
Enzymes
Lipids


Studies:

Production of Vitamin B-12, Thiamin, and Biotin by Phytoplankton. Journal of Phycology, Dec 1970:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1529-8817.1970.tb02406.x/abstract

Secretion Of Vitamins and Amino Acids Into The Environment By Ochromanas Danica. Journal of Phycology, Sept 1971 (Phycology is the study of algae):
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1529-8817.1971.tb01505.x/abstract

Qualitative Assay of Dissolved Amino Acids and Sugars Excreted by Chlamydomanas Reinhardtii (chlorophyceae) and Euglena Gracilis (Euglenophyceae), Jounrnal of Phycology, Dec 1978:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1529-8817.1978.tb02459.x/abstract


can you provide a link establishing the uptake (especially the lipid based substances in your list, like vitamin a, for example) of what's on your list from macroalgaes, not phytoplankton, to corals and fish via the water column, from a macroalgae source ?

this time w/an actual link to the actual information-anyone can paste a link to a book. i'll wager you never read those books ;)

vitz
10/14/2013, 10:28 PM
Speaking of trace elements, you should see the list of vitamins, amino's etc that algae put into the water.

do you know what phycotoxins are ?

SpartaReef
10/15/2013, 09:06 AM
This is interesting...

FlyPenFly
10/15/2013, 11:23 AM
Water changes, while I do them remind me a lot of blood letting.

It was practice #1 and everyone was Convinced it was the best thing to do for the vast majority of ailments for 2000 years. People just didn't understand what was going on with the body yet humongous volumes of medical literature was written about it's benefits and how it purifies the body.

Today, we do it for a very limited number of diseases and it's considered horribly counterproductive. We understand much better how the human body functions and we've grown past it. When for the most of human history, blood letting was considered an Of Course treatment, nowadays people are disgusted that humanity as a whole could have been so stupid.

I think reef keeping today, we're still in the blood letting stage of development. We don't really know what's going on, how different corals interact, how other symbiotic organisms work in a closed aquarium. So we don't really know any better so we're just going to remove everything by taking a arbitrary percentage of the water out at arbitrary intervals.

It's horribly unscientific yet we just don't really know any better. Examples of thriving reefs that don't do water changes are simply dismissed because nobody really knows what's going on and can't explain it easily. This is how just about everyone has been perpetuating this hobby.

SpartaReef
10/15/2013, 01:15 PM
Water changes, while I do them remind me a lot of blood letting.

It was practice #1 and everyone was Convinced it was the best thing to do for the vast majority of ailments for 2000 years. People just didn't understand what was going on with the body yet humongous volumes of medical literature was written about it's benefits and how it purifies the body.

Today, we do it for a very limited number of diseases and it's considered horribly counterproductive. We understand much better how the human body functions and we've grown past it. When for the most of human history, blood letting was considered an Of Course treatment, nowadays people are disgusted that humanity as a whole could have been so stupid.

I think reef keeping today, we're still in the blood letting stage of development. We don't really know what's going on, how different corals interact, how other symbiotic organisms work in a closed aquarium. So we don't really know any better so we're just going to remove everything by taking a arbitrary percentage of the water out at arbitrary intervals.

It's horribly unscientific yet we just don't really know any better. Examples of thriving reefs that don't do water changes are simply dismissed because nobody really knows what's going on and can't explain it easily. This is how just about everyone has been perpetuating this hobby.

The difference is we put fresh water back in, just like when we give fresh blood... It works

FlyPenFly
10/15/2013, 01:42 PM
How healthy is a person that requires a weekly or monthly blood transfusion? Would you recommend that for the general population? That would be crazy.

vitz
10/15/2013, 02:03 PM
Water changes, while I do them remind me a lot of blood letting.

It was practice #1 and everyone was Convinced it was the best thing to do for the vast majority of ailments for 2000 years. People just didn't understand what was going on with the body yet humongous volumes of medical literature was written about it's benefits and how it purifies the body.

Today, we do it for a very limited number of diseases and it's considered horribly counterproductive. We understand much better how the human body functions and we've grown past it. When for the most of human history, blood letting was considered an Of Course treatment, nowadays people are disgusted that humanity as a whole could have been so stupid.

I think reef keeping today, we're still in the blood letting stage of development. We don't really know what's going on, how different corals interact, how other symbiotic organisms work in a closed aquarium. So we don't really know any better so we're just going to remove everything by taking a arbitrary percentage of the water out at arbitrary intervals.

It's horribly unscientific yet we just don't really know any better. Examples of thriving reefs that don't do water changes are simply dismissed because nobody really knows what's going on and can't explain it easily. This is how just about everyone has been perpetuating this hobby.


not even remotely analogous, both from the standpoint of *why* they're/were done, how they're done, their impact or results.

the reasons for doing wc's are well established, known, documented, and very well based in logic and science. hardly the case for bloodletting.

i'm amazed that to this day, there's an argument going on anywhere re: wc's, the reasons behind them, and the effects/results they produce.

power boat jim
10/15/2013, 02:18 PM
not even remotely analogous, both from the standpoint of *why* they're/were done, how they're done, their impact or results.

the reasons for doing wc's are well established, known, documented, and very well based in logic and science. hardly the case for bloodletting.

i'm amazed that to this day, there's an argument going on anywhere re: wc's, the reasons behind them, and the effects/results they produce.

I always thought a better question was state what harm may come to the tank from doing regular water changes.

FlyPenFly
10/15/2013, 02:19 PM
It's about the same logic/reasoning as bloodletting.

Hey, you're really sick? Okay your blood is bad, we gotta take some of it out. How much, let me refer to this arbitrary chart based on maths that don't account for about a million variables.

I can appreciate that the reason we do water changes is that there might be some "bad stuff" that we don't really know the composition and quantity of that we want to remove. There just hasn't been a filtration system that we know of that has been invented that can remove them. Yet we also can't explain some of the healthy growing SPS systems that don't follow recommended best practices.

My challenge is, maybe we should move to figure out what we need to do instead of just doing the same thing that seems horribly inefficient and not very green.

What we've come to is that we need the equivalent of a dialysis machine for reefing instead of constantly just replacing someone's blood.

blanden.adam
10/15/2013, 05:55 PM
So, here's a primer on how hemodialysis works.

You have a selectively permeable membrane that allows diffusion of small things (like salts and small organics), but not big things (like proteins and cells). On one side of that membrane, you have a mixture of salts and water that is essentially protein-free serum, or as close an approximation we can get to it. On the other side of the membrane, you connect a persons blood supply. You run them counter-current to one another to optimize salt and water exchange. The water and the salts equilibrate across the membrane, but the cells and proteins stay on the blood-supply side, which is then pumped back into the person. It's a "gentle" way of swapping out serum and restoring ionic balance.

So, dialysis is, in essence, the removal of some volume of large-molecule free fluid, and replacement by a volume of fluid of different composition you apply to it. In fact, if there are no large molecules held back by the dialysis membrane, dialysis is precisely equivalent to a "water change" of lesser volume.

A second thing to note is that dialysis is horrifyingly inefficient on a per-volume basis -- particularly in a medical hemodialysis setting, but also with just regular, run of the mill dialysis bag in a reservoir setting as you approach larger and larger exchanges.

Lets assume you have a 10 mL dialysis bag with some impurity in it. Here's a table for the minimum volume of impurity-free solution you need to dialyze it against to remove different percentages of that impurity:

1% -- 0.1 mL (1% volume)
10% -- 1.1 mL (11% volume)
25% -- 3.4 mL (34% volume)
50% -- 10 mL (100% volume)
90% -- 100 mL (1000% volume)
99% -- 1000 mL (10000% volume)

For comparison, here's what volume of water change you would have to do (again, barring any larger molecules)


1% -- 0.1 mL (1% volume)
10% -- 1 mL (10% volume)
25% -- 2.5 mL (25% volume)
50% -- 5 mL (50% volume)
90% -- 9 mL (90% volume)
99% -- 9.9 mL (99% volume)

So you see? On an efficiency-basis, dialysis is categorically worse than a water change. The only reason to do dialysis is to keep certain desirable molecules from escaping, but beyond that dialysis IS essentially a water change :). Much more so than blood letting.

Also, I would point out that if you believe a 5-10% water change per week isn't green, please not that a 10 minute shower takes on the order of 50 gallons of water, and I still plan to take one every day :)

blanden.adam
10/15/2013, 05:57 PM
How healthy is a person that requires a weekly or monthly blood transfusion? Would you recommend that for the general population? That would be crazy.

Healthy people have kidneys. Tanks do not. So in this extended example, a tank would not be a healthy person, it would be a dialysis patient with end-stage renal failure. In which case I would recommend water changes 3x a week and a horribly restricted diet. (for real, the dialysis diet is the worst)

SantaMonica
10/15/2013, 08:58 PM
Healthy people have kidneys. Tanks do not.

Ah, yes they do... algae :)

Anyway, I'll try to get the more macro-specific info and texts and stuff into order; it's been on the to-do list for a while. It sucks when you remember the tables/layouts/graphs etc, but did not copy/paste it down so you can search for it later.

vitz
10/15/2013, 09:30 PM
Ah, yes they do... algae :)

Anyway, I'll try to get the more macro-specific info and texts and stuff into order; it's been on the to-do list for a while. It sucks when you remember the tables/layouts/graphs etc, but did not copy/paste it down so you can search for it later.


while you're at it, can you explain to me what phycotoxins are ?

SantaMonica
10/16/2013, 06:49 PM
They are consumed by bacteria and are the same things that algae release on the reef.

billsreef
10/16/2013, 07:48 PM
while you're at it, can you explain to me what phycotoxins are ?

They are consumed by bacteria and are the same things that algae release on the reef.

You might want to do a tad more research into that subject ;)

vitz
10/16/2013, 08:04 PM
They are consumed by bacteria and are the same things that algae release on the reef.

once again, can you explain what phycotoxins are ? please explain which ones you think are 'consumed by bacteria', which bacteria consume them, etc.

why doesn't the same happen to all of the items on your posted lists earlier in this thread?

(i.e.-please back up your assertions-something tells me you cannot, other than by way of smokescreens for rubes)

you purport yourself to be an expert on the substances that macro/micro algaes released into the water column,and where those substances end up (the insinuation that algaes release vitamins into the water, and that there's some form of uptake of said vitamins) as evidenced by your earlier posts, (and your constant shilling of your 'algae scrubbers'-one of the biggest scams in this hobby, along with miracle mud and the eco aqualyzer), which were merely links to technically oriented books.

can you at least explain how the lipid based items in your above mentioned lists (like vitamin 'a') get absorbed by fish or corals via the water column ?

an algae releasing some vitamins into the water column, does not, unfortunately, mean that those substances are available for uptake by anything. many vitamins, etc., need to be *ingested* by the organism in an actual food item because they *aren't water soluble* ;) (this is why liquid vitamin supplements for fish dosed into the wc are a crock, btw.) ;)

if you really don't know what phycotoxins are, i can provide you w/ an excellent and educational wiki link.

i'm still waiting for you to back up any assertion you've made on multiple forums that a: algaes release anything of benefit into the water column that are *actually usable*, and b: to finally admit that your*scrubber* releases all sorts of quite poisonous substances/toxins into the water column. something which has been established scientific fact for decades, and that you constantly ignore, *every* time your confronted w/ this information.

i would expect someone selling a product to have at least the basic science knowledge behind that product. or to be able to *properly* defend their assertions ;)

so let's hear what you have to say about 'absorbability' of the beneficial items you claim your scrubbers produce, and the phycotoxins they pollute the water column with (some of which severely impede coral and fish health).

i'll be patient :)

Phixer
10/16/2013, 08:20 PM
SantaMonica vitz does this all the time, you can tell because he's never wrong, it's quite amusing. Ask him about plastic bags.

Phixer
10/16/2013, 08:22 PM
:spin2::spin2:Vitz, I see your in denial mode again and are on the path to have this thread closed as well. This seems to be a trend for you.

Why dont you do your own footwork and look the information up for yourself? That way you will have no one to argue with but yourself. No one has any responsibility to provide you with websites or anything else your too lazy to look up irregardless of what opinion they may state. Anything can be proven or disproven depending upon who you ask, even the existence of unicorns. I would have though you learned after your last lesson.

Stop being lazy and do your own footwork. A Wiki link, :spin2: now that's a credible source.

Do I need to take you to school again?

blanden.adam
10/16/2013, 08:39 PM
Certainly no one is under any obligation to prove anything to anyone, but if someone wants to be believed it is in their best interest to provide information to back their claims, particularly when challenged.

As an example, I can claim to be a dragon. People can choose to believe that or not, but should I want people to believe I am a dragon, I should provide evidence as such. If I fail to provide sufficient evidence that I am a dragon, it doesn't then become your job to do the footwork to demonstrate that I am not dragon. Particularly when you point out that it is unlikely that I am a dragon because dragons can't type.

Phixer
10/16/2013, 08:46 PM
Adam, I've enjoyed reading your posts by the way.

How do you know dragons cant type? Have you observed this? Do you know this is factual? How? See what I mean. One can only say I dont know as there is no way to prove it without a dragon. Is perception reality only if it can be measured, presented and accepted on the terms one chooses to believe? And does universal acceptance make it real? It only makes it popular.

Remember Nicholas Copernicus?

Getting people to accept what is proven is next to impossible because so many things are subjective and there is no universally accepted method of proof other than individual personal experience. Especially when dealing with pride which routinely fosters ignorance and denial.

billsreef
10/16/2013, 08:52 PM
[flamealert]...

billsreef
10/16/2013, 08:53 PM
Don't make me pull over this thread...

SpartaReef
10/16/2013, 08:55 PM
I side with vitz on this one

vitz
10/16/2013, 08:56 PM
Certainly no one is under any obligation to prove anything to anyone, but if someone wants to be believed it is in their best interest to provide information to back their claims, particularly when challenged.

As an example, I can claim to be a dragon. People can choose to believe that or not, but should I want people to believe I am a dragon, I should provide evidence as such. If I fail to provide sufficient evidence that I am a dragon, it doesn't then become your job to do the footwork to demonstrate that I am not dragon. Particularly when you point out that it is unlikely that I am a dragon because dragons can't type.


THIS

it's far more egregious when the statements being challenged are patently false and misleading, simultaneously used to sucker unwitting folk into investing time and money into something absolutely useless, and actually damaging to the systems they're using it in, under the false pretense of things like 'some algaes produce vitamins, therefore we should use them,(scrubbers) even if there's no way for those vitamins (or whatever) to be used by the system's inabitants', while simultaneously ignoring a huge body of scientific research establishing the toxicity of said 'scrubbers' ;)

it never really worked for adey, and it doesn't really work the way santa monica claims, either. myself and others have presented the information to him many times on other forums. he just ignores it and keeps shilling/scamming hobbyists into wasting their time and money to his benefit.and he's been doing it for years.

so i'm asking him yet again. giving him the benefit of the doubt even, to actually, for once and for all, provide *some* type of reasonable proof to back up the things he's insinuating or stating outright. he hasn't been able to do so in all the years myself and others have 'challenged' his statements-he simply floods threads w/selective 'spam' for pages that really don't say anything.

really gets my goat :furious:

Phixer
10/16/2013, 09:10 PM
Makes sense. That should be interesting.

blanden.adam
10/16/2013, 09:19 PM
Adam, I've enjoyed reading your posts by the way.

How do you know dragons cant type? Have you observed this? Do you know this is factual? How? See what I mean. Is perception reality only if it can be measured?

Getting people to accept what is proven is next to impossible because so many things are subjective and there is no universally accepted method of proof other than personal experience.

Clearly I was using dragons can't type as an example of a challenge :P It's a hypothetical, fictional situation. I have never seen a dragon, nor have I seen one type. (In this fictional example, that dragon's can't type would be a well know fact)



Now to the rest of the post. Certainly reality isn't "real" only if it can be measured. Molecules existed long before we could measure their existence, and trees still fall in the woods even when we don't see them. We can also certainly perceive phenomena without measuring them and that doesn't make them false.

The issue becomes that our personal experiences are inherently subjective and therefore biased by nature, so when trying to validate our experiences and present them as convincing to others, we need to present objective evidence. I have seen the Eiffel Tower and I've seen the Statue of Liberty. It could be my perception that the Eiffel Tower is taller, or the Statue of Liberty is taller for whatever reason based on my experience (how I perceived it based on what was surrounding it, how far away I was at the time, my emotional status at the time, etc). However, when we measure the height we find that the Eiffel Tower is 1063 ft tall, and the Statue of Liberty is 151 ft tall, so it is an objective truth that the Eiffel Tower is taller than the Statue of Liberty. Do you see the difference?

That is just one example, but there are countless others. I think your assertion that personal experience is the only universally accepted method of proof is really off base. I would argue the converse is true -- that personal experience is not proof at all, it's just personal experience. It certainly is useful and definitely has value, particularly in situations where there is no good way to systematically measure outcomes (many situations in medicine come to mind), but personal experience isn't nearly as rigorous as appropriately done research.

jinks
10/16/2013, 09:31 PM
This bloodletting analogy seems kind of thin. Just because to things are similar does not make them or the results the same. By this logic any two things that share similarities are comparable. Cows and Bulls are both cattle. If i milk a cow i get a tasty drink. This way of thinking would lead to a great deal of disappointment when you got to the bull.

Boboli
10/16/2013, 09:37 PM
Sooo !
Dont do water changes.
I dont give a piece of fecal matter. Good Luck.
I will have another beer ;-)

Phixer
10/16/2013, 10:06 PM
Clearly I was using dragons can't type as an example of a challenge :P It's a hypothetical, fictional situation. I have never seen a dragon, nor have I seen one type. (In this fictional example, that dragon's can't type would be a well know fact)



Now to the rest of the post. Certainly reality isn't "real" only if it can be measured. Molecules existed long before we could measure their existence, and trees still fall in the woods even when we don't see them. We can also certainly perceive phenomena without measuring them and that doesn't make them false.

The issue becomes that our personal experiences are inherently subjective and therefore biased by nature, so when trying to validate our experiences and present them as convincing to others, we need to present objective evidence. I have seen the Eiffel Tower and I've seen the Statue of Liberty. It could be my perception that the Eiffel Tower is taller, or the Statue of Liberty is taller for whatever reason based on my experience (how I perceived it based on what was surrounding it, how far away I was at the time, my emotional status at the time, etc). However, when we measure the height we find that the Eiffel Tower is 1063 ft tall, and the Statue of Liberty is 151 ft tall, so it is an objective truth that the Eiffel Tower is taller than the Statue of Liberty. Do you see the difference?

That is just one example, but there are countless others. I think your assertion that personal experience is the only universally accepted method of proof is really off base. I would argue the converse is true -- that personal experience is not proof at all, it's just personal experience. It certainly is useful and definitely has value, particularly in situations where there is no good way to systematically measure outcomes (many situations in medicine come to mind), but personal experience isn't nearly as rigorous as appropriately done research.

Orson Welles war of the worlds....people thought that was real too because thats what they were told by a credible source. I dont want to derail the thread but have to say your one of the best around here when it comes to rational logic based discussion. I see both sides of it and for that reason only accept what my experience tells me. The more I learn the more I realize there is so much I do not know.

Sure molecules existed before they could be measured but they only existed as theory until they could be measured at that point they became realty to people. We say dragons cant type because we have not experienced this but do we know this for a fact, silly of course but fact is we dont know. So we accept an unfounded belief as factual. So many examples, many think they are healthy because medicine has not detected their illness. Does this mean they are healthy? To that person yes.

Perception is what we think, experience is what we know and for this reason the height comparison of the Eiffel Tower and Statue of Liberty wont work when using the based on personal experience analogy. This is because if one experiences both there is only one answer unless the definitions are not accepted by both parties before hand. One could perceive the statue to be taller but one could not experience this. When something is repeated using the scientific method it becomes experience and no longer theory. Until this happens is remains theory.
Another example, extraterrestrial life or life after death? Science routinely denies life after death but cannot prove it. So what do you accept?

Truth is limited to what we can detect? If a tree falls in the forest and no one sees it dos it still happen? Naturally we want to believe this, we are conditioned to believe this but it remains theory until it becomes reality until we actually see it. One of the oldest examples but still remains a theory. I believe it happens but cannot prove it, therefore cannot state it as factual.

Absolutely subjective and biased by nature.


Please see attached, what do you see?

What if you asked the same question to someone who was colorblind?

Who is correct?

Research is necessary for advancement but can only provide a perishable and temporary truth in the grand scheme of things. Especially in terms of medicine or biology.

And what if your agenda is not to convince others?

GhostCon1
10/17/2013, 12:19 AM
Orson Welles war of the worlds....people thought that was real too because thats what they were told by a credible source. They heard it as a radio broadcast, did not check any other sources, and panic set in.I dont want to derail the thread but have to say your one of the best around here when it comes to rational logic based discussion. I see both sides of it and for that reason only accept what my experience tells me. The more I learn the more I realize there is so much I do not know.

Sure molecules existed before they could be measured but they only existed as theory until they could be measured at that point they became realty to people No, they still existed before us humans came along and said oh hey these things are here.. We say dragons cant type because we have not experienced this but do we know this for a fact, silly of course but fact is we dont know. So we accept an unfounded belief as factual. So many examples, many think they are healthy because medicine has not detected their illness. Does this mean they are healthy? To that person yes.

Perception is what we think, experience is what we know and for this reason the height comparison of the Eiffel Tower and Statue of Liberty wont work when using the based on personal experience analogy. This is because if one experiences both there is only one answer unless the definitions are not accepted by both parties before hand. One could perceive the statue to be taller but one could not experience this. When something is repeated using the scientific method it becomes experience and no longer theory. Actually, from then on it is no longer a hypothesis, but either becomes theory or law. Until this happens is remains theory.
Another example, extraterrestrial life or life after death? Science routinely denies life after death but cannot prove it. So what do you accept?

Truth is limited to what we can detect? If a tree falls in the forest and no one sees it dos it still happen? Yes, it still falls even if one doesn't observe it. However, if a tree falls and nothing is there to interpret the vibrations from the fall into sound, no. Naturally we want to believe this, we are conditioned to believe this but it remains theory until it becomes reality until we actually see it. One of the oldest examples but still remains a theory. I believe it happens but cannot prove it, therefore cannot state it as factual.

Absolutely subjective and biased by nature.


Please see attached, what do you see?

What if you asked the same question to someone who was colorblind?

Who is correct?

Research is necessary for advancement but can only provide a perishable and temporary truth in the grand scheme of things. Especially in terms of medicine or biology.

And what if your agenda is not to convince others?

Sorry, just nit picking lol

Dino
10/17/2013, 05:12 AM
Orson Welles war of the worlds....people thought that was real too because thats what they were told by a credible source.

LOL, I don't want to muck up this thread as I'm sure Bill has a good handle on it, but I can't resist commenting on this^.

The whole War of the Worlds panic story is almost entirely a myth. ;) The overwhelming majority of people at the time knew exactly what they were listening to.

vitz
10/17/2013, 06:19 AM
Well on hand here right now I only have an abbreviated list:

Vitamins:

Vitamin A
Vitamin E
Vitamin B6
Beta Carotene
Riboflavin
Thiamine
Biotin
Ascorbate (breaks chloramines into chlorine+ammonia)
N5-Methyltetrahydrofolate
Other tetrahydrofolate polyglutamates
Oxidized folate monoglutamates
Nicotinate
Pantothenate


Amino Acids:

Alanine
Aspartic acid
Leucine
Valine
Tyrosine
Phenylalanine
Methionine
Aspartate
Glutamate
Serine
Proline


Carbohydrates (sugars):

Galactose
Glucose
Maltose
Xylose



Misc:

Glycolic Acid
Citric Acid (breaks chloramines into chlorine+ammonia)
Nucleic Acid derivatives
Polypeptides
Proteins
Enzymes
Lipids


Studies:

Production of Vitamin B-12, Thiamin, and Biotin by Phytoplankton. Journal of Phycology, Dec 1970:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1529-8817.1970.tb02406.x/abstract

Secretion Of Vitamins and Amino Acids Into The Environment By Ochromanas Danica. Journal of Phycology, Sept 1971 (Phycology is the study of algae):
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1529-8817.1971.tb01505.x/abstract

Qualitative Assay of Dissolved Amino Acids and Sugars Excreted by Chlamydomanas Reinhardtii (chlorophyceae) and Euglena Gracilis (Euglenophyceae), Jounrnal of Phycology, Dec 1978:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1529-8817.1978.tb02459.x/abstract


you're aware that ochromanas danica is a freshwater algae, yes? :rolleyes:

Reeferz412
10/17/2013, 10:56 AM
while you're at it, can you explain to me what phycotoxins are ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phycotoxin

:reading:

FlyPenFly
10/17/2013, 12:15 PM
Wait, is Vitz claiming that algae scrubbers are poisonous?

vitz
10/17/2013, 02:14 PM
Wait, is Vitz claiming that algae scrubbers are poisonous?

it's not a 'claim', and it's not just me ;)

vitz
10/17/2013, 02:15 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phycotoxin

:reading:

that was the 1st link i was going to provide santamonica in an effort to show him part of what i'm talking about :)

vitz
10/17/2013, 03:17 PM
it's the presence of the very phycotoxins produced by algaes (macro,and micro) *and* corals that's one of THE best arguments for regular large water changes, imo. ;)


(there's that whole allelopathy thing rearing its ugly head again ;) )

billsreef
10/17/2013, 06:05 PM
Addey's turf scrubber tanks were notorious for yellow water and the need for constant replacement of corals due to the substances released by the turf algae. While algae is certainly good at removing nutrients, it's not a magic bullet end all and be all filtration method. There are things to consider, not just the good of nutrient removal ;)

vitz
10/17/2013, 06:47 PM
Addey's turf scrubber tanks were notorious for yellow water and the need for constant replacement of corals due to the substances released by the turf algae. While algae is certainly good at removing nutrients, it's not a magic bullet end all and be all filtration method. There are things to consider, not just the good of nutrient removal ;)

i've read both adey and jaubert, extensivley, decades ago (i'm fairly certain you have too, heh-all these young whippersnappers don't know a thing. can you say 'plenum'? ;) ).


it's just so darn annoying when i see people trying to re-invent a wheel that so many have already tried to re-invent, and failed, simply because they're ignorant of that particular wheel's history. even more annoying when their ignorance is willfully self imposed. and even more annoying when they sucker other's just as ignorant on the subject into thinking they have something, when there's nothing to be had. :(

billsreef
10/17/2013, 06:55 PM
Had a plenum once upon at time. Even met Addey way back in the undergrad days, also had friends that interned with him at the Smithsonian...learned a few things about water quality issues with that set up from those friends ;)

Hmm, I'm starting to feel an old timer...

power boat jim
10/17/2013, 07:52 PM
;)

Hmm, I'm starting to feel an old timer...

You must be one of those late starters:D

DavidinGA
10/17/2013, 08:05 PM
I think there's something fishy in the water....

billsreef
10/17/2013, 08:09 PM
You must be one of those late starters:D

Hoping for a free get out of a banning card? :D

I think there's something fishy in the water....

Better be :D

power boat jim
10/17/2013, 08:41 PM
Hoping for a free get out of a banning card? :D





It would make a great Christmas gift.

Phixer
10/17/2013, 10:21 PM
LOL, I don't want to muck up this thread as I'm sure Bill has a good handle on it, but I can't resist commenting on this^.

The whole War of the Worlds panic story is almost entirely a myth. ;) The overwhelming majority of people at the time knew exactly what they were listening to.

Sorry but thats false. The overwhelming majority of people at the time thought it was really happening. They were highly irate when the hoax was revealed.

N.E.O.
10/17/2013, 10:38 PM
Long time lurker, first post.

Phixer is right, most people actually believed this was happening. My Grandparents lived thru this.

vitz
10/17/2013, 11:24 PM
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0617_050617_warworlds_2.html

;)

vitz
10/17/2013, 11:29 PM
"But historians also claim that newspaper accounts over the following week greatly exaggerated the hysteria. There are estimates that about 20 percent of those listening believed it was real. That translates to less than a million people"


a quick google search places the estimate from many/most sources at being at most about what's mentioned in that n.g. article, btw, and many state the press greatly exaggerated the % of the populace who believed it.

it's those pesky objective facts rearing their ugly heads again ;)

vitz
10/17/2013, 11:43 PM
from wiki:

"Later studies suggested the panic was less widespread than newspapers had indicated at the time. During this period, many newspaper publishers were concerned that radio, a new medium, would render them obsolete. In that time of yellow journalism, print journalists took the opportunity to suggest that radio was dangerous by embellishing the story of the panic that ensued.[14]
Hand cites studies by unnamed historians who "calculate[d] that some 6 million heard the CBS broadcast; 1.7 million believed it to be true, and 1.2 million were 'genuinely frightened'". NBC's audience, by contrast, was an estimated 30 million.[11]
Robert E. Bartholomew grants that hundreds of thousands were frightened but calls evidence of people taking action based on their fear "scant" and "anecdotal".[15] Indeed, contemporary news articles indicate that police were swamped with hundreds of calls in numerous locations, but stories of people doing anything more than calling authorities mostly involve only small groups. Such stories were often reported by people who were panicking themselves.[12]"

i can go on... :p

N.E.O.
10/18/2013, 12:12 AM
from wiki:

"Later studies suggested the panic was less widespread than newspapers had indicated at the time. During this period, many newspaper publishers were concerned that radio, a new medium, would render them obsolete. In that time of yellow journalism, print journalists took the opportunity to suggest that radio was dangerous by embellishing the story of the panic that ensued.[14]
Hand cites studies by unnamed historians who "calculate[d] that some 6 million heard the CBS broadcast; 1.7 million believed it to be true, and 1.2 million were 'genuinely frightened'". NBC's audience, by contrast, was an estimated 30 million.[11]
Robert E. Bartholomew grants that hundreds of thousands were frightened but calls evidence of people taking action based on their fear "scant" and "anecdotal".[15] Indeed, contemporary news articles indicate that police were swamped with hundreds of calls in numerous locations, but stories of people doing anything more than calling authorities mostly involve only small groups. Such stories were often reported by people who were panicking themselves.[12]"

i can go on... :p

Please dont take this the wrong way as this is only my 2nd post. But from an outsiders perspective and looking over your posts, it seems like you like do not respect differences of opinion or maybe you just know everything.

Phixer
10/18/2013, 12:50 AM
http://thetruthseekersguide.blogspot.com/2013/10/75-years-on-war-of-worlds-psyop-part-2.html

I suppose it depends upon the area as initial newspaper reports exaggerated the number. Even so if it was only a million, thats still a lot of people who believed it to be true.

vitz
10/18/2013, 02:30 AM
i simply have no tolerance for opinions presented as facts or dogma. especially in this particular hobby.;)

"Phixer is right, most people actually believed this was happening. My Grandparents lived thru this."

THAT is an opinion presented as fact. happens to NOT be a fact. i'm not judging YOU-just your method of making a completely unfounded assertion-something that tends to run rampant on bulletin boards. :)

vitz
10/18/2013, 02:39 AM
speaking of which, it would be nice if santamonica 'manned up' and adressed HIS assertions intelligently, with actual data to support his claims.

until he does that, he's selling snake oil (but many of us already know this ;) ).

the same goes for the un-necessarily endless debate on water changes- take two systems setup as identically as possible, down to the inhabitants.

leave one alone as far as water changes go-add supplements, do top offs, chemical sinking of organics via carbon, gfo, etc etc. even setup an algae scrubber, heh.

on the other, do everything identicall BUT also perform regular large water changes.

the system w/ the wc's will be overall, healthier, more vibrant and productive.

every. single. time. :)

dc
10/18/2013, 05:09 AM
Please dont take this the wrong way as this is only my 2nd post. But from an outsiders perspective and looking over your posts, it seems like you like do not respect differences of opinion or maybe you just know everything.

:lol: Phixer, you should probably not post from the same computer when you're trying to pretend to be new.

Sugar Magnolia
10/18/2013, 06:55 AM
Doh! :lol:

rogersb
10/18/2013, 07:01 AM
:lol: Phixer, you should probably not post from the same computer when you're trying to pretend to be new.

2 minutes ago I thought there was someone agreeing with Phixer. Now you're telling me my reality was wrong??!!

power boat jim
10/18/2013, 07:14 AM
:lol: Phixer, you should probably not post from the same computer when you're trying to pretend to be new.

Creating an alter ego to agree with yourself, that IS classic.

vitz
10/18/2013, 10:55 AM
wow, i got scammed by an 8 yr old :( ;)

Decadence
10/18/2013, 11:49 AM
This argument is a mute point. There are so many factors at work here that no single "scientifically proven" fact could possibly back up the entire debate. The reality is, we observe and report. There are for more people observing success with doing regular water changes because there are far more experienced reefers doing regular water changes as this is what they learned. You do your water changes, you see your success and then you attribute it to the water changes and give a million scientific reasons why it is so. Similarly, myself and many other experienced reefers go months or years between water changes if even doing them at all. We observe our success, we report our results and find a million scientific reasons why it is so.

Now take into consideration the newcomer who is not doing regular water changes with a brand new tank and has absolutely no significant removal method for nutrients. Their tank crashes... "It's because you weren't doing water changes." Nobody ever mentions the fact that there are numerous other ways to remove nutrients and avoiding a nutrient-fueled crash. That person then starts doing water changes, their tank looks better and then they start preaching water changes. In the odd chance that someone says "You could achieve the same thing by running a turf scrubber" they are chastised. It isn't good enough for someone to be correct, someone else has to also be wrong for having a different way to achieve the same thing.

The oldest reef tank that I am aware of (PaulB's) uses algae to remove nutrients and goes through one or two massive detritus clean-ups every year. The nicest tank in my area (Copps') gets a 50 gallon water change every week. The nicest tank that I have ever seen (amfynn's) uses a whole lot of chaeto and a turf scrubber.

Why does somebody have to be wrong? Why can't both sides of the debate be correct? I see nobody explaining why going water-changeless works well for so many people in actual practice. I only see people saying that it doesn't and can't work.

THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES WITH THE ACCUSER.

vitz
10/18/2013, 12:06 PM
...

Decadence
10/18/2013, 12:10 PM
Three years of growth with Adee's scrubbed tank:

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-pDDwmf0kJYw/USCynSUcxLI/AAAAAAAADko/X-_fblVPcmE/s800/DSC_0014.JPG

blanden.adam
10/18/2013, 01:34 PM
Hey Decadence, glad you popped back in, and brought the conversation back to water changes :). Although the thread has gotten perhaps more heated than it should have I don't think that anyone is on trial, but I do agree that the burden of proof lies on someone making a claim.

My point with water changes is and has always been that the reason we do them is not just for nutrient export (although that is the primary conceived reason for them by new aquariests), but because there are so many things going on in our water that we can't reliably measure and correct for, so out with the old and in with the new, presumably better, water. It's cheap, it's easy, and it does everything you could possibly want for correcting your water chemistry. I disagree with your assertion that going without water changes works for so many people. Even you do a 50% water change a couple times a year, which isn't a lot but it's not nothing either. I would argue that for the vast majority of healthy tanks, water changes are the routine and they play a role in the health of those tanks.

Now to the point of algae as a filtration method. I would agree with you that algae can be a good method of nutrient export. I run chaeto myself, growing wild and dark green under the Red and Blue LED's (originally experimented with by the ATS crowd, thanks for fueling the mad scientist in me guys). But like anything else the devil is in the details. Different species of algae may produce more harmful compounds than others, so we might want to shy away from those species in favor of others. I would also point out that the purported benefits of ATS earlier in this thread earlier seem inflated to say the least.

As a final comment, I would point out that many things can work, but be non-ideal. I know this is certainly true in my tank, as I am not perfect and don't know everything, so we are all engaged in a constant learning process to hopefully get more "ideal." Considering this, the argument over what works and what doesn't work is very different than what is best practice and is not best practice.

vitz
10/18/2013, 02:48 PM
Three years of growth with Adee's scrubbed tank:

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-pDDwmf0kJYw/USCynSUcxLI/AAAAAAAADko/X-_fblVPcmE/s800/DSC_0014.JPG

just out of curiosity-if you took 2 tall cylindrical beakers, filled one with water from your tank, and one w/ freshly prepared sw, placed them over a piece of white paper, and looked down, do you notice a visible difference between the two in color ?

fwiw-NO ONE is saying that you CAN'T run a tank using adey's, (or even jaubert's), methodolgy-there's always 37 different ways to skin a cat, sometimes more.

the issue (and the most fundamental of my argument)-is that when honestly compared to a far simpler and cheaper method, it's not the best alternative.

the 1st lfs i worked in had ALL ug filters, and this was considered the highest 'tech' of it's time. we had a beautiful thriving reef display 125 gal, iirc, in the fish room bill's wonderland of pets in south jersey, circa '78-79

it doesn't mean anyone's trying to compel anyone who still uses one to trash it simply because there are 'newer' or 'better' or 'more proven methods.

the only thing i'm taking exception to are baseless claims that truly mislead the unaware. there's currently a plethora of relative noobs in this country who think their tanks look 'awesome' when they really haven't a clue as to how awesome they could really be, in the same time frame. and many of them cannot distinguish between coincidence and causality, when it come to what they *think* they're seeing happen in their tanks.

and *no one* can deny or refute that any algae scrubber releases substances into the water column that are undesirable-leading to yet another class of waste products that need to be 'worried about'. why anyone would want to take the route of adding a filter that then needs to be 're-filtered' is simply beyond me ;)

and you have a nice tank, btw :)

vitz
10/18/2013, 02:52 PM
Hey Decadence, glad you popped back in, and brought the conversation back to water changes :). Although the thread has gotten perhaps more heated than it should have I don't think that anyone is on trial, but I do agree that the burden of proof lies on someone making a claim.

My point with water changes is and has always been that the reason we do them is not just for nutrient export (although that is the primary conceived reason for them by new aquariests), but because there are so many things going on in our water that we can't reliably measure and correct for, so out with the old and in with the new, presumably better, water. It's cheap, it's easy, and it does everything you could possibly want for correcting your water chemistry. I disagree with your assertion that going without water changes works for so many people. Even you do a 50% water change a couple times a year, which isn't a lot but it's not nothing either. I would argue that for the vast majority of healthy tanks, water changes are the routine and they play a role in the health of those tanks.

Now to the point of algae as a filtration method. I would agree with you that algae can be a good method of nutrient export. I run chaeto myself, growing wild and dark green under the Red and Blue LED's (originally experimented with by the ATS crowd, thanks for fueling the mad scientist in me guys). But like anything else the devil is in the details. Different species of algae may produce more harmful compounds than others, so we might want to shy away from those species in favor of others. I would also point out that the purported benefits of ATS earlier in this thread earlier seem inflated to say the least.

As a final comment, I would point out that many things can work, but be non-ideal. I know this is certainly true in my tank, as I am not perfect and don't know everything, so we are all engaged in a constant learning process to hopefully get more "ideal." Considering this, the argument over what works and what doesn't work is very different than what is best practice and is not best practice.

THIS!:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

StinkyBunny
10/18/2013, 03:45 PM
Please dont take this the wrong way as this is only my 2nd post. But from an outsiders perspective and looking over your posts, it seems like you like do not respect differences of opinion or maybe you just know everything.

:lol: Phixer, you should probably not post from the same computer when you're trying to pretend to be new.

http://www.freakyshiat.com/upload/files/312/banhammer.jpg

Decadence
10/20/2013, 02:09 AM
Hey Decadence, glad you popped back in, and brought the conversation back to water changes :). Although the thread has gotten perhaps more heated than it should have I don't think that anyone is on trial, but I do agree that the burden of proof lies on someone making a claim.

My point with water changes is and has always been that the reason we do them is not just for nutrient export (although that is the primary conceived reason for them by new aquariests), but because there are so many things going on in our water that we can't reliably measure and correct for, so out with the old and in with the new, presumably better, water. It's cheap, it's easy, and it does everything you could possibly want for correcting your water chemistry. I disagree with your assertion that going without water changes works for so many people. Even you do a 50% water change a couple times a year, which isn't a lot but it's not nothing either. I would argue that for the vast majority of healthy tanks, water changes are the routine and they play a role in the health of those tanks.

Now to the point of algae as a filtration method. I would agree with you that algae can be a good method of nutrient export. I run chaeto myself, growing wild and dark green under the Red and Blue LED's (originally experimented with by the ATS crowd, thanks for fueling the mad scientist in me guys). But like anything else the devil is in the details. Different species of algae may produce more harmful compounds than others, so we might want to shy away from those species in favor of others. I would also point out that the purported benefits of ATS earlier in this thread earlier seem inflated to say the least.

As a final comment, I would point out that many things can work, but be non-ideal. I know this is certainly true in my tank, as I am not perfect and don't know everything, so we are all engaged in a constant learning process to hopefully get more "ideal." Considering this, the argument over what works and what doesn't work is very different than what is best practice and is not best practice.

I would never argue that water changes are harder than other means of nutrient control. I would also never argue that water changes don't have their place. I do water changes (as you stated) as a means to remove excess contaminants which we can't test for. When I remove water, it has no measurable phosphate or nitrate in it. With the system that I had in place, I was able to go up to six months before seeing negative side effects to not doing water changes and that turned out to be due to a potassium deficiency. I would expect that I could go much longer if I wanted to. I don't.

To state that it isn't ideal is kind of like saying that a motorcycle isn't the ideal form of transportation. It really all depends on what your views of "ideal" are. You may want safety while I want fuel mileage. Likewise, you may want a weekly "reboot" to Instant Ocean's standards while I want utmost stability to my own chosen levels of XYZ. I have had no shortage or arguments about the place of an ATS or macro algae in a reef tank, each side claiming that science is on their side. On either side of the debate, there are eccentrics who will misapply every study which they can possibly skew to fit an agenda. Never once have I seen anybody positively identify the type of algae on a turf scrubber and confidently state that the existence of that particular algae anywhere in the same volume of water of X coral will have a negative or positive effect on it's growth. Too many generalizations are being thrown around.

What we can say positively is that with the ability to control the environment which the algae on the screen is in, we can create the optimal conditions for the particular type of algae to grow. These conditions are so much better that the algae in the display will starve out. In my personal experience, I was able to keep inorganic phosphate levels in the water column bellow 0.015ppm and nitrate levels below 1ppm utilizing an algae turf scrubber and a small amount of GFO. I used the GFO to keep phosphate as the growth limiter for algae on the screen rather than nitrate in effort to avoid any possible build up of phosphate bound to rocks. For me, it worked. For me, it was ideal. The only reason that I no longer have a turf scrubber is because the screen got covered in kalk paste when my reactor back-purged paste into the display after a "doh" moment. In a bind, I put cheato into the tank in its place to continue the job of nutrient removal. Later, I killed off the cheato with heavy carbon dosing and daily detritus removal/large frequent water changes to try and starve out an extremely fine filamented algae (ghost algae) which traps detritus and is impossible to starve out with a lot of fish. An ATS would have never worked to do this for me. I had to resort to chemical removal with Algaefix and have continued water changes and carbon dosing in the time being as a means of export.

I don't believe that an ATS is ideal or best. I don't believe that frequent water changes are ideal or best. In my opinion, what is ideal is detritus removal and being proactive. Sometimes, it feels ridiculous arguing with people over the effectiveness of algae as a source of nutrient removal when I know that most of the nutrients which my tank produces don't even get a chance to break down because of the efficient organic waste removal employed. As long as my water column maintains undetectable nitrate and inorganic phosphate levels, you can't tell me that the methods which I use to get there aren't the best for me. Being proactive, no matter how you decide to do it, is ideal.

Decadence
10/20/2013, 02:37 AM
just out of curiosity-if you took 2 tall cylindrical beakers, filled one with water from your tank, and one w/ freshly prepared sw, placed them over a piece of white paper, and looked down, do you notice a visible difference between the two in color ?

fwiw-NO ONE is saying that you CAN'T run a tank using adey's, (or even jaubert's), methodolgy-there's always 37 different ways to skin a cat, sometimes more.

the issue (and the most fundamental of my argument)-is that when honestly compared to a far simpler and cheaper method, it's not the best alternative.

the 1st lfs i worked in had ALL ug filters, and this was considered the highest 'tech' of it's time. we had a beautiful thriving reef display 125 gal, iirc, in the fish room bill's wonderland of pets in south jersey, circa '78-79

it doesn't mean anyone's trying to compel anyone who still uses one to trash it simply because there are 'newer' or 'better' or 'more proven methods.

the only thing i'm taking exception to are baseless claims that truly mislead the unaware. there's currently a plethora of relative noobs in this country who think their tanks look 'awesome' when they really haven't a clue as to how awesome they could really be, in the same time frame. and many of them cannot distinguish between coincidence and causality, when it come to what they *think* they're seeing happen in their tanks.

and *no one* can deny or refute that any algae scrubber releases substances into the water column that are undesirable-leading to yet another class of waste products that need to be 'worried about'. why anyone would want to take the route of adding a filter that then needs to be 're-filtered' is simply beyond me ;)

and you have a nice tank, btw :)

I don't know if I would say that frequent water changes are simpler or cheaper than running an algae scrubber. This was one of the most rewarding pieces of equipment that I have ever used and the operating cost was just pennies. Even running a scrubber and moving from weekly to monthly water changes would make like easier for a lot of reefers.

I do believe that their are a lot of baseless claims, some with hidden motives. This statement could be said for both side of the debate.

Having about 11 years in the hobby, I'm extremely well aware of what a nice tank is, what a bad tank is and every variance in-between. Most of the "science" associated with methodology is an incomplete model of the scientific method. There are lots of people constructing hypotheses and lots of people analyzing data and drawing conclusions but not a whole lot of people doing testing. Most of the people testing with algae scrubbers have expatriated from the mainstream reefing sites because of the taboo nature of not doing frequent water changes. Have the time in the hobby that I have and having experienced the use of a scrubber myself, I can tell you that there was absolutely no noticeable difference in color or growth from SPS corals between frequent water changes and scrubbing.

Yes, a scrubber will release organics back into the water. This organic waste originated as inorganic waste, arguably more harmful. Every week, the screen get a fresh start so anything that may fall off in that week as organic waste was already in the water column in inorganic forms. You look at this scenario and think it's silly to allow organic waste to fall away, I look at it and think it's silly to leave it inorganic! The added benefit is that the organic waste will be most likely hydrophilic and as a results, skimmable. On the contrary, inorganic waste such as orthophosphate would not be skimmable.

Thank you for the compliments on my own tank. It is quite literally my pride and joy which is the main reason that I try so hard to defend methods which have worked well for me. :beer:

tmz
10/20/2013, 02:51 AM
I just feel old.
So is the ATS sales scam and the junk that's being sold as ATS systems.

Distorted science. misrepresentations of scientific literature. Pick a study, cite it, misrepresent what it says ; just prop up an image of smart and concerned about the hobby to mask the true snake oil sales approach.
When that still meets with resistance sling out personal attacks or get someone to do it for you Generally a waste of time ;if you are an easy sell a waste of money too.

I has nothing to do with the subject of water changes ; pretty blatant shilling in my book.

Decadence
10/20/2013, 03:07 AM
I just feel old.
So is the ATS sales scam and the junk that's being sold as ATS systems.

Distorted science. misrepresentations of scientific literature. Pick a study, cite it, misrepresent what it says ; just prop up an image of smart and concerned about the hobby to mask the true snake oil sales approach.
When that still meets with resistance sling out personal attacks or get someone to do it for you Generally a waste of time ;if you are an easy sell a waste of money too.

I has nothing to do with the subject of water changes ; pretty blatant shilling in my book.

I think that the scientific study thing is a byproduct of pressure. There are no studies of the use of an ATS and the type of algae which grows on it. The eccentric proponents are trying to give you what you are asking for even though it doesn't exist. The reality is that an ATS is as much snake oil as chaeto is. In my experience, it was actually a little easier to use because chaeto was a little messy to remove under the compact stand and because removal of a gallon of chaeto affected the top off chamber of the sump and the ATO add limewater if you don't top it off again with saltwater. I'm not selling anything. An ATS costs very little to build yourself.

billsreef
10/20/2013, 10:30 AM
There are no studies of the use of an ATS and the type of algae which grows on it.

Look up the aforementined Adey, Dr. Walter Adey. He pioneered ATS and did much research. The problem with his systems wasn't that the ATS didn't remove nutrients, but rather that he refused to acknowledge it's deficiencies as a sole filtration method. Had he been willing to utilize other methods such as carbon, protein skimming, water changes, etc., alongside the scrubbers, I expect the Smithsonian system wouldn't have been suffering chronic yellow water (all those substances released by the algae) and the need for constantly replacing dieing corals.

tombone86
10/20/2013, 01:58 PM
wow im new but I change water every week. is that must?

SpartaReef
10/20/2013, 04:03 PM
Depends on your system... Read this whole thread and form your own opinion...

Reeferz412
10/20/2013, 06:42 PM
wow im new but I change water every week. is that must?

Size plays a big role. Among many other variables. It's not just a yes or no answer because it varies from system to system and what you choose to use as nutrient export. Hence, the discussion you should skim over :thumbsup:

Decadence
10/20/2013, 08:39 PM
wow im new but I change water every week. is that must?

This depends on if water changes are a primary source of nutrient reduction or major/minor ion replenishment. This is one of those questions where if you have to ask, it is probably better that you just do them.

Calappidae
10/20/2013, 10:08 PM
IMO just do the 10% water changes.. no big deal, Everyone else already explained the scientific stuff but its no big deal. Saltwater aquariums are ment to be maintained by well devoted, and determained hobbiest willing to take time to do anything for their live stock. If a ten minute water change is too much to handle.. then a pond might suit you better.. JMHO

I'm 15 and my parents are worried about me with how much I work around the 3 small setups I have right now.. Its all worth it too me :)

tmz
10/20/2013, 10:11 PM
I think that the scientific study thing is a byproduct of pressure. There are no studies of the use of an ATS and the type of algae which grows on it. The eccentric proponents are trying to give you what you are asking for even though it doesn't exist. The reality is that an ATS is as much snake oil as chaeto is. In my experience, it was actually a little easier to use because chaeto was a little messy to remove under the compact stand and because removal of a gallon of chaeto affected the top off chamber of the sump and the ATO add limewater if you don't top it off again with saltwater. I'm not selling anything. An ATS costs very little to build yourself.

I think a macro algae refugium or an ats are about the same; when run properly and sized appropriately either can help reduce inorganic phosphate and dissolved nitrogen . Neither is "snake oil" ;I've never called either of them that nor do I ask for scientific studies unless some apparent nonsensical claim about what they do or don't is made.

There is a downside as there is for other methdos of nutrient control; , they both also add refractory organics, some of which discolor the water, as well as some allelopathic compounds. Skimming gac and water changes can offset those to a point .
Macro refugia or ATSs need to be large enough ,well lit and have with proper flow and have growing harvested algae to be of much use ,ime( I used a large chaeto refugium for many years on my main system and use an ats on seahorse fry and grow out tanks . The chaeto waned when PO4 dropped and I dedided to remove it several months ago. I've not observed any ill effects.
A benefit not noted so far is the production of oxygen which helps nightime hypoxia when the algae is healthy and running on opposite photo period. Fro this reasonI'm considering reestablishing a macro reugium or building in an ats but I'll likel y just run one of my coral tanks on opposite photoperiod
Beyond that the rest of it vitamins etc , dialysis functions et alia are unsubstantiated marketing hype. I've only seen these types of claims made for the commercial ats units; often in thread highjacks vaguely related to subject matter at best.

The contraptions being sold as ATS which are claimed to do everything and replace most everything else are small and mostly useless,imo. It's not difficult or expensive to build or add either a macro algae refuguim or an ats, though flow issue may be trickier with the ats.Either can help with PO4 issues but the added organics should be accounted for when algae are gown . The vertical oreintation of most ats designs can save some space but significant surface area is still needed. Many very nice reef tanks do fine without either one.

tmz
10/20/2013, 10:40 PM
Whether or not water cahnges are necesary is debateable and dependent on the effort and ability of the aqaurist to maintain ionic balances as well as major, minor and trace element levels without them. Personally. I prefer do 1% changes daily for stability .

Growing macro algae or turf will not lessen the need for water cahnges. if anything the extra organics produced by the algae if not otherwise accounted for may be helped by water changes.

Yes, a scrubber will release organics back into the water. This organic waste originated as inorganic waste, arguably more harmful. Decadence

No it didn't. The organic carbon is made via photosynthesis and the net TOC is increased.

KafudaFish
10/21/2013, 07:09 AM
IMO just do the 10% water changes.. no big deal, Everyone else already explained the scientific stuff but its no big deal. Saltwater aquariums are ment to be maintained by well devoted, and determained hobbiest willing to take time to do anything for their live stock. If a ten minute water change is too much to handle.. then a pond might suit you better.. JMHO

I'm 15 and my parents are worried about me with how much I work around the 3 small setups I have right now.. Its all worth it too me :)

Or you design a system that does not rely on the keeper having "to do anything and everything" for it. Many people try and keep a 5 hour a week system on 30 minutes of available time and fail. Then issues arise and they wonder why they have so many problems.

If you want to spend all of your time caring for your systems then great because you have found a wonderful and possible lifelong hobby but if not then you have to find a different method.

Decadence
10/21/2013, 07:32 AM
Yes, a scrubber will release organics back into the water. This organic waste originated as inorganic waste, arguably more harmful. Decadence

No it didn't. The organic carbon is made via photosynthesis and the net TOC is increased.

I could I should specifically state that organically bound phosphate is released back into the water. You are right, the organic carbon wasn't already in the tank; it is a byproduct of photosynthesis. I'm not sure that this is too much of a bad thing because usually the organic waste is going to be skimmable or will be food for something else in the tank. The norm amongst hobbyists is to wage a war on inorganic phosphate and I would consider the conversion into harmless organics to be a positive thing. I'm aware that too high of a level of organic carbon in the water is a bad thing but it isn't often that we see that problem with our efficient filtration systems.

houstonhobby
10/21/2013, 08:53 AM
Life advice

houstonhobby
10/21/2013, 08:56 AM
To the 15 year old who worries his parents with the amount of time he spends with his tanks I would say...it is important for you to know what you think. Not so important what other people think.

tmz
10/21/2013, 09:02 AM
You are right, the organic carbon wasn't already in the tank; it is a byproduct of photosynthesis. I'm not sure that this is too much of a bad thing because usually the organic waste is going to be skimmable or will be food for something else in the tank. The norm amongst hobbyists is to wage a war on inorganic phosphate and I would consider the conversion into harmless organics to be a positive thing. I'm aware that too high of a level of organic carbon in the water is a bad thing but it isn't often that we see that problem with our efficient filtration systems.


The organics from algae exudate contain allelopathic compounds as well as fulvic and humic acids which discolor the water . Much of the organic material released is refractory; ie, it is not easily degraded for for food ,etc by living organisms. They can just hang around for a long time and clog things up including sand beds. Coral slime is another nutrient source but it is more degradeable. the are several studies linking coral morality to excess TOC;it is not harmless.

We don't see it as a problem because we don't measure it.

houstonhobby
10/21/2013, 09:08 AM
I doubt if a 10% water change would keep ahead of TOC. Protein skimmers or Purigen are probably a better strategy.

Calappidae
10/21/2013, 09:09 AM
To the 15 year old who worries his parents with the amount of time he spends with his tanks I would say...it is important for you to know what you think. Not so important what other people think.

most of my relatives think I'm nuts :D I spend 20 dollars a month just on feeding my harlequin shrimp (my money of course)

Usually when I go for a ride somewhere (usually for more livestock :lol:) I just point at all the bad things and they all realize this is better than alot of other 15 years olds are doing nowadays. :)

Its what I think matters, not what they think, +1

tmz
10/24/2013, 08:28 AM
Here are some clear examples of the hype for the commercial ats's being hyped into this discussion in posts 69, 79, 85.etc.

The list of vitamins etc attributed to an ats (which relies on turf algae) is allegedly supported by 3 studies. Trouble is they are all about single celled phytoplanters not turf algae and they all live in fresh water or the soil. Further there is no plausible mechanism described for uptake by desireable organisms in the tank even if they could live there.

In one post it is claimed that bacteria consume algal exudate implying a food function for a turf scrubber. In past discussions, he used to cite a Red Sea study on algae exudate to support the benefits ats. In fact when one reads the study it actually says something quite different, highlighting the refractory nature of the exudate vs other organics like coral slime. The later being much more bioavailable .

I still think a scrubber might be useful if its large enough, has the right algae , flow and light and is supported by other filtration to account for the potentially harmful organics that will inevitably build up,imo.

tmz
10/24/2013, 08:57 AM
there is ABSOLUTELY no proven link between carbon use and hlle, other than a certain hobby author's anecdotal and limited experience w/ both.

HLLE is a SYMPTOM of any of a myriad of possible causes. i've seen it caused by fluke damage and subsequent 'infection' of the skin, and i've seen fish reverse 'hlle' completely in very heavy carbon use systems.

carbon is to hlle what garlic is to ich-nothing but 'urban legends' based on mere impressions of one or a few individuals, w/ absolutley no causal relationship proof between one and the other, turned into 'gospel' by hordes of 'bandwagon followers'. ;)

That's an overstatement and it's overly dismissive and disrepectful of the work and thoughts of others.

However, I do not think there is a "smoking gun" linking gac use and HHLE as the article headlines.

The study summarized in the article cited in an earlier post involved large mounts of lignite carbon which breaks up easily and is quite dusty .There were large amounts of gac dust in the water in the tanks where HHLE developed. I suspect organics settling on the fish's skin and spawning some harmful microbial activity has something to do with HHLE whether it occurs when gac is used or not. GAC does attract organics so the dust settling on the fish could irritate the skin or actually provide sites for some forms of infection.

I keep 7 surgeon fish including a Paracanthurus Hippocampus, Blue Hippo, that I've had for about 9 years All are fat and healthy with no HHLE after many years of 24/7 gac. Rinsing the gac and limiting dust is important , imo. After reading the article it seems even more so. I prefer rox 8 carbon for this and other reasons.

vitz
10/24/2013, 09:22 PM
That's an overstatement and it's overly dismissive and disrepectful of the work and thoughts of others.

However, I do not think there is a "smoking gun" linking gac use and HHLE as the article headlines.

The study summarized in the article cited in an earlier post involved large mounts of lignite carbon which breaks up easily and is quite dusty .There were large amounts of gac dust in the water in the tanks where HHLE developed. I suspect organics settling on the fish's skin and spawning some harmful microbial activity has something to do with HHLE whether it occurs when gac is used or not. GAC does attract organics so the dust settling on the fish could irritate the skin or actually provide sites for some forms of infection.

I keep 7 surgeon fish including a Paracanthurus Hippocampus, Blue Hippo, that I've had for about 9 years All are fat and healthy with no HHLE after many years of 24/7 gac. Rinsing the gac and limiting dust is important , imo. After reading the article it seems even more so. I prefer rox 8 carbon for this and other reasons.


from my direct experience, i'll state right here and now that anyone that attributes the SYMPTOM hlle to any one cause is talking from the region of their body where the sun don't shine, and are maybe victims of that whole 'coincidence/causality' thing ;)

in today's vernacular, one person w/pneumonia and one w/bronchitis both have 'copd'. saying they have copd means nothing, and is as relevant to the respective diseases causing each unique condition as 'hlle' is to fish w/ erosive pitting at the head and lateral line.

i've seen thousands of dwarf angels get 'hlle' after heavy fluke infestations, when the only other known pathogen they recently had in common was flukes. w/no carbon in that system.

i've had hundreds of fish recover from flukes w/no hlle in a q system that ran heavy carbon w/some dust issues occasionally. (top row drained to sock filled w/pelletized carbon-had a black dust storm or three from too fast drainage flow from top row, heh. never caused hlle across multiple species, for me.).

plenty of fish still get hlle in the ocean, btw ;)

i'm NOT saying that fish didn't get hlle while under carbon exposure, but that doesn't, in light of everything i've seen, make any remarkable connection to carbon and hlle, imo. too many possibilities still exist. i'm leaning heavily into some type of really small flesh eating/dissolving bacteria that hitch hikes into a primary wound of any sort-whether caused by a fluke, or a grain/crystal of carbon. ;) flukes by themselves can make a fairly deep wound, and their results can look like 'classic' hlle. then there's the hlle fish that recover completely vs those that 'scar' for life. even w/in the same species. hlle is still a mystery, and not you, nor i, nor anyone claiming 'carbon', is any closer to knowing what it actually is or what causes it.

i'm sure some disagree with that :)

tmz
10/24/2013, 11:16 PM
i'll state right here and now that anyone that attributes the SYMPTOM hlle to any one cause is talking from the region of their body where the sun don't shine,

Just checking; now I know you like deriding points of view other than your own. Too bad you might actually have a couple of things to share but anyone with any sense of comportment won't listen or talk to you. The tone generally poisons a learning discussion.It's offensive and irritating. You need to work on it.

I'd be more careful with carbon dust and flukes btw even though the link to HHLE is dubious,imo .I still guess water quailty in terms of organics plays a role.Skin lesions from flukes might set up infection sites if it's a microbial infection.

DavidinGA
10/25/2013, 08:08 AM
My opinion is that anyone with a "proper" filtration setup can do quarterly water changes and have the same level of growth and health of a tank that gets a weekly water change.

(actually I think you could do semi-annual or annual water changes and be fine but that tends to freak people out with the modern day water changes are a must mentality)

SpartaReef
10/25/2013, 10:30 AM
I think it depends on tank age.... Mine is still aging and is fairly new so I do weekly water changes... It doesn't do as well if I don't.

But I also have a heavy bioload and overfeed daily.

Calappidae
10/25/2013, 11:49 AM
I think it depends on tank age.... Mine is still aging and is fairly new so I do weekly water changes... It doesn't do as well if I don't.

But I also have a heavy bioload and overfeed daily.

+1.. some of my small setups almost need a daily water change because of the bio-load in them...

Thankfully I got amquel as my RO couldn't keep up with it...

KafudaFish
10/25/2013, 03:58 PM
Describe your systems please.

SpartaReef
10/25/2013, 05:00 PM
55g DT with 29g sump half full... Chaeto/skimmer chamber with rubble and liverock I syphon clean every week. Return has three flex nozzles. Have one 1400gph power head and one jebao wp25.

2 clowns, chromis, diamond goby, helfrichi firefish, tomini tang, leopard wrasse and green mandarin. One red fire shrimp and two sexy shrimp. One giant turbo snail, several smaller snails (3 different species), 10 blue leg hermits, 10 red leg hermits (the hermits have been eating each other, not really sure about quantity). Stocked 8k pods since started the tank... Unknown how many exist now... They are like roaches in there. Rbta. Cocoworm. Various corals.

Calappidae
10/25/2013, 07:43 PM
10g with softies, marineland penguin bio-wheel 100, tetra heater, t5 ho duel fixture 30" aqualight, 20 lbs of black hawaiian sand, 10 lbs of live rock, toadstool leather, red ricordae shrooms, Green star polyps, lots of macro (growing on premium decorative live rock), neon blue brain coral (hitchhiked on same rock), 2 harlequin shrimp (pair), 2 sexy shrimp, 3 blue leg hermits, 2 nassarius, 2 bumble bee snails, 1 peppermint shrimp (moving to bigger tank). 1 small yellow tang (petco recuse.. full of internal parasites.. moving to bigger tank when finished setting it up)

My 30 gallon originally housed a peacock mantis shrimp... but some odd "events" occured in my 29 and i had to move everything in there into his home and move him into a smaller tank. Explaination for my current tank info is a mess..soo... currently..

30g acrylic, tetra heater, 2 penguin biowheel-100 powerfilters, 50 lbs of aragonite sand (guessing.. sand is high on one side and slopes down..), 30lb of LR, container submerged into aquarium housing a small pink wrennerae mantis shrimp (only thing in container.. everything else is free in the tank), 2 ocellarus clowns, 2 scooter blennies (petco recuse), 4 turbo snails, 1 nerite snail, 4 orange tip hermits, 1 yellow watchman goby, 1 bangai cardinal, and a sailfin tang (sailfin tang was also a petco rescue... upgrading to a bigger tank soon.)

6.6 gallon bookshelf aquarium, back-pak skimmer, 5 lbs of aragonite sand, a decorative log (to hide in) and a heater.. tank dementions are 24Lx7Hx9W

DavidinGA
10/25/2013, 09:34 PM
210gal lps, softies, fish
75gal sump
Skimmer, fuge, 175lb lr, 3" oolite, gfo, gac (occasionally), dosing 2 part and kalk, 2 WP40'S for flow.

Did one water change in last 6 months. Tank is now 8 months old.

No issues and all livestock is healthy.

SpartaReef
10/25/2013, 09:48 PM
There's a guy in my local reef club who hasn't done a water change (aside from a recent upgrade) in five years... But his tank crashed just before the upgrade

Calappidae
10/26/2013, 09:05 AM
There's a guy in my local reef club who hasn't done a water change (aside from a recent upgrade) in five years... But his tank crashed just before the upgrade

I never knew to do water changes when my 29 was up in running... I had hair algae and cyano like you wouldn't believe! Eventually, my magic toothbrush and a small petco recused sailfin tang cleaned it all up. I knew I was setting up a bigger tank soon so I figured to recuse it.

Anyway, my 29 crashed also. I tested my water, added reef buffer, and did what I normally do as always and then all of a sudden the scooter blennies stopped scooting.. the upside down jellyfish stopped pulsing, and the sailfin tang was breathing really hard and began to lean on it's side.

No loses thankfully, but I had to take out my mantis and invade his home with these fish and tore down the 29... maybe I had something on my hands? I never use buffers anymore.. only WC...

Also the skimmer broke weeks before the events happened..

mate209
10/26/2013, 09:19 AM
[QUOTE=Calappidae;22028300] then all of a sudden the scooter blennies stopped scooting.. the upside down jellyfish stopped pulsing, and the sailfin tang was breathing QUOTE]

:sad1::sad1::sad1: No more scooting :sad1::sad1::sad1:

Calappidae
10/26/2013, 09:23 AM
[QUOTE=Calappidae;22028300] then all of a sudden the scooter blennies stopped scooting.. the upside down jellyfish stopped pulsing, and the sailfin tang was breathing QUOTE]

:sad1::sad1::sad1: No more scooting :sad1::sad1::sad1:

Thank fully they are all alive and healthy to this day. Just keep on scooten. :bounce1:

Although the huge bioload thrown in there at one time didn't help the water qualilty.. but we got past that

vitz
10/26/2013, 07:37 PM
I never knew to do water changes when my 29 was up in running... I had hair algae and cyano like you wouldn't believe! Eventually, my magic toothbrush and a small petco recused sailfin tang cleaned it all up. I knew I was setting up a bigger tank soon so I figured to recuse it.

Anyway, my 29 crashed also. I tested my water, added reef buffer, and did what I normally do as always and then all of a sudden the scooter blennies stopped scooting.. the upside down jellyfish stopped pulsing, and the sailfin tang was breathing really hard and began to lean on it's side.

No loses thankfully, but I had to take out my mantis and invade his home with these fish and tore down the 29... maybe I had something on my hands? I never use buffers anymore.. only WC...

Also the skimmer broke weeks before the events happened..

hate to break the bad news to you, but every time you do a wc, you're using buffers. ;)

even with wc's, most coral containing systems need some type of supplemental buffering, and/or dosing, of something, at some point.

only their improper use leads to issues ;)

Calappidae
10/26/2013, 08:06 PM
hate to break the bad news to you, but every time you do a wc, you're using buffers. ;)

even with wc's, most coral containing systems need some type of supplemental buffering, and/or dosing, of something, at some point.

only their improper use leads to issues ;)

I highly disagree. Buffers mess up other parameters. If you dose with reef buffer, it will raise your alk and mess up your calcium. when I first tested DKH I got a reading of 27 :eek: and that was 6 months of reef buffer's doing. The alk raising from the buffer was also screwing up my Ph which caused daily dosing of reef buffer to keep everything in check..

My calcium, alk, ph, mag, and everything else is perfectly fine in my 10 gallon mini reef strictly on weekly WC

Even when using buffers, your still going to have to WC to fix the other parameters they screw up.

WC isn't a buffer, its a natural, good remedy for water quality issues.

Decadence
10/27/2013, 03:33 AM
I highly disagree. Buffers mess up other parameters. If you dose with reef buffer, it will raise your alk and mess up your calcium. when I first tested DKH I got a reading of 27 :eek: and that was 6 months of reef buffer's doing. The alk raising from the buffer was also screwing up my Ph which caused daily dosing of reef buffer to keep everything in check..

My calcium, alk, ph, mag, and everything else is perfectly fine in my 10 gallon mini reef strictly on weekly WC

Even when using buffers, your still going to have to WC to fix the other parameters they screw up.

WC isn't a buffer, its a natural, good remedy for water quality issues.

To an extent, doing a water change is buffering the system but you would have to be going off of unnecessary technicalities. With any decent quantity of stony corals, not using any additives will be detrimental due to alk swings. My own tank loses will hit 6dkh if I don't add kalk for a day.

billsreef
10/27/2013, 07:02 AM
I highly disagree. Buffers mess up other parameters.

Only if your incorrectly dosing them. Alk, pH, Ca, Mg are all interrelated. Mg not high enough and the water can't hold enough Ca. Alk too low, your pH is going to have issues. Alk too high, and again issues with both pH and Ca...and so on. The trick is to measure parameters and add what is needed accordingly, not dose for 6 months and then measure. Getting whacked out parameters like that is not the buffers fault, it's the users fault.

blanden.adam
10/27/2013, 07:30 AM
I think an important point here though is that the word "buffer" in the technical sense is used haphazardly in the aquarium industry. To a scientist, all alk solutions provide buffers, water changes provide buffers, when you drip in limewater or run a calcium reactor you are adding buffer etc. BUT, things typically marketed as "buffers" that advertise pH control are essentially very expensive alk products, and when using any buffer to chase a pH in a saltwater aquarium, that's when you run into trouble.

So, it is just much more economical and better defined to dose alk as an alk solution and let pH take care of itself rather than using a product marketed as a reef "buffer" to control pH. That's why we say don't use buffers -- not that we don't use buffers, all of us do, but that the products marketed as buffers are expensive, not as well defined, and their purported use to control pH leads to problems.

tmz
10/27/2013, 09:25 AM
Terms can be confusing.

I agree that salt mixes contain "buffers" like carbonate, bicarbonate, borate and others. These are also known as total alkalinity.


Akalinity is a measure not a specific thing . Adequate total alkalinity
(7 to 11dkh) minimizes pH swings.

About 96% of the alkalinity in nsw is carbonate and bicarbonate which is what we are most intersted in since it's what calcifying organisms use to make calcium carbonate for their skeletal structure. Test kits give us total alkalinity which we use in the main as a surrogate measure for carbonate alkalinity. As these organisms use carbonate/ bicarboante to make calcium carbonate or some precipitates abiotically ; supplementation of both calcium and carbonate( alkalinity/ buffers) is needed.

I also agree that using " buffers" to raise pH is a poor strategy which may bump the pH for an hour or two and leave higher alkalinity behind. Managing CO2 levels in the water is the key to controlling pH; not buffer additions.

Calappidae
10/27/2013, 10:00 AM
Only if your incorrectly dosing them. Alk, pH, Ca, Mg are all interrelated. Mg not high enough and the water can't hold enough Ca. Alk too low, your pH is going to have issues. Alk too high, and again issues with both pH and Ca...and so on. The trick is to measure parameters and add what is needed accordingly, not dose for 6 months and then measure. Getting whacked out parameters like that is not the buffers fault, it's the users fault.

Actually, the 10 gallon I have has never seen a buffer before. I ONLY have done weekly water changes on the 10 gallon since it was setup. Everything is just fine the way it is. LR I heard has an influence on Cal and mag, and the alk is pretty stable at 11DKH with the water changes.

10lbs. Premium decorative LR
20lbs. Black hawaiian LS
Mag: 1320
Alk: 11
Cal:460
Ph: 8.1

My bio-load in there is pretty heavy so I still have to keep up with the other parameters. I only use a HOB penquin bio-wheel 100, No media, only carbon.

blanden.adam
10/27/2013, 10:06 AM
Actually, the 10 gallon I have has never seen a buffer before. I ONLY do weekly water changes on the 10 gallon. Everything is just fine the way it is. LR I heard has an influence on Cal and mag, and the alk is pretty stable at 11DKH with the water changes.

10lbs. Premium decorative LR
20lbs. Black hawaiian LS
Mag: 1320
Alk: 11
Cal:460
Ph: 8.1

My bio-load in there is pretty heavy so I still have to keep up with the other parameters. I only use a HOB penquin bio-wheel 100, No media, only carbon.


LR does not have an effect on cal or mag at pH > 7.6 -- at higher pHs the rock is more or less inert. With large water changes and low consumption it's certainly possible to just keep up with the cal and alk demands with just water changes. At higher consumptions this becomes impractical though.

Calappidae
10/27/2013, 10:09 AM
LR does not have an effect on cal or mag at pH > 7.6 -- at higher pHs the rock is more or less inert. With large water changes and low consumption it's certainly possible to just keep up with the cal and alk demands with just water changes. At higher consumptions this becomes impractical though.

2 gallon WC are performed on it. Do to the bio-load and phosphates, I do waters change a little more to keep up with it.

tmz
10/27/2013, 11:45 PM
Live rock and substrate may have an effect on calcium or alkainity(buffer) at pH <7.7.That's the point at which it may start to dissolve .

vitz
10/28/2013, 06:39 AM
I highly disagree. Buffers mess up other parameters. If you dose with reef buffer, it will raise your alk and mess up your calcium. when I first tested DKH I got a reading of 27 :eek: and that was 6 months of reef buffer's doing. The alk raising from the buffer was also screwing up my Ph which caused daily dosing of reef buffer to keep everything in check..

My calcium, alk, ph, mag, and everything else is perfectly fine in my 10 gallon mini reef strictly on weekly WC

Even when using buffers, your still going to have to WC to fix the other parameters they screw up.

WC isn't a buffer, its a natural, good remedy for water quality issues.

er- buffers are an integral part of salt water. ergo, when you do a water change, you're replacing buffers with the new salt water you're using. w/out buffers, you're alk and ph will plummet.

the only reason for buffer additives messing up a tank is user error. they're an integral part of reefkeeping for most, and only their misapplication can cause problems, not their proper and judicious use :)

in other words - YOU use buffers and recommend them ;)

Fixer.
10/29/2013, 03:00 PM
Mission accomplished.

vitz
11/04/2013, 08:59 PM
once again, can you explain what phycotoxins are ? please explain which ones you think are 'consumed by bacteria', which bacteria consume them, etc.

why doesn't the same happen to all of the items on your posted lists earlier in this thread?

(i.e.-please back up your assertions-something tells me you cannot, other than by way of smokescreens for rubes)

you purport yourself to be an expert on the substances that macro/micro algaes released into the water column,and where those substances end up (the insinuation that algaes release vitamins into the water, and that there's some form of uptake of said vitamins) as evidenced by your earlier posts, (and your constant shilling of your 'algae scrubbers'-one of the biggest scams in this hobby, along with miracle mud and the eco aqualyzer), which were merely links to technically oriented books.

can you at least explain how the lipid based items in your above mentioned lists (like vitamin 'a') get absorbed by fish or corals via the water column ?

an algae releasing some vitamins into the water column, does not, unfortunately, mean that those substances are available for uptake by anything. many vitamins, etc., need to be *ingested* by the organism in an actual food item because they *aren't water soluble* ;) (this is why liquid vitamin supplements for fish dosed into the wc are a crock, btw.) ;)

if you really don't know what phycotoxins are, i can provide you w/ an excellent and educational wiki link.

i'm still waiting for you to back up any assertion you've made on multiple forums that a: algaes release anything of benefit into the water column that are *actually usable*, and b: to finally admit that your*scrubber* releases all sorts of quite poisonous substances/toxins into the water column. something which has been established scientific fact for decades, and that you constantly ignore, *every* time your confronted w/ this information.

i would expect someone selling a product to have at least the basic science knowledge behind that product. or to be able to *properly* defend their assertions ;)

so let's hear what you have to say about 'absorbability' of the beneficial items you claim your scrubbers produce, and the phycotoxins they pollute the water column with (some of which severely impede coral and fish health).

i'll be patient :)

hello? santamonica? are you there?

jimmyj7090
11/05/2013, 03:06 PM
hello? santamonica? are you there?

Give the guy a break, he's busy collecting money from his buisness based on those things he can't explain.

Dapg8gt
11/05/2013, 03:19 PM
Lol =).. I thought he was gonna say his piece.. Guess being quiet says all we need to know .

dppitone
11/05/2013, 05:02 PM
Everyone,

I have been in the fresh-water hobby for 45 years, in planted tanks since the early 80s, but in salt water such a short time that I don't own any fish or corals yet. Just a 90 gallon tank with some live rock and apitasia. :xlbirthday:

That said, I stopped doing water changes a number of years ago. And I did not stop because I am a lazy bum (although I don't deny the charge). I stopped because a water change is an admission that you are doing something wrong. A water change means your fish don't live in optimal conditions all the time, just right after the water change. A water change, especially a big one, is very stressful for the animals.

So I changed my practices so that my nitrates are never out of range, and my phosphates are never out of range, and my tank always has the micro nutrients that it needs, and therefore there is no reason to stress everybody out by doing a water change.

I use bio-remediation, denitrators, GFO reactors, activated carbon. On salt water you guys have this cool thing called a skimmer. What a great thing for getting rid of DOC! I could not be happier.

So, I know this is controversial, but I don't think a water change every week is something to be proud of.

If it works for you, then it's workable. There are very few rules in this hobby, though many folks that tout so-called rules.

power boat jim
11/05/2013, 05:10 PM
If it works for you, then it's workable. There are very few rules in this hobby, though many folks that tout so-called rules.

There are not many hard fast rules because we tend to compare apples and oranges. I cant say the same maintenance should apply to someone with a tank full of aptasia and fish vs someone with a tank full of sps, but we do it all the time though. We dont always know what type tank someone is running when we offer advice. We tend to offer help based on our inhabitants not the persons asking the question.

dppitone
11/05/2013, 05:26 PM
There are not many hard fast rules because we tend to compare apples and oranges. I cant say the same maintenance should apply to someone with a tank full of aptasia and fish vs someone with a tank full of sps, but we do it all the time though. We dont always know what type tank someone is running when we offer advice. We tend to offer help based on our inhabitants not the persons asking the question.

well said, very well. i wouldn't say "we" though. it's analogous to the expression "there's many ways to skin a cat." there are many schools of thought, yet a common thread of successes, and failures, through all of them.

houstonhobby
11/06/2013, 04:04 PM
As the original poster, I want to say two things.
(1) I have enjoyed this post and
(2) I do water changes all the time.

In fact, I do it a little differently from everybody else. What I do is I leave my skimmer set on maximum, and collect the skimate in a bucket. Sometimes I get 5 gallons a day, or even more, sometimes, not much seems to be happening.

I check the salinity 1 or 2 times a day using a refractometer and when it drops below 1.025 by a detectable amount I give the tank a squirt of pre-made salt water that is at 1.025, filling up the approximately 3/4 of an inch of headspace in the tank between the low-water mark and the high-water alarm of my Tunze ATO.

I make water in two 34-gallon Bruts that are in a closet near my tank. One is always "resting" with new-made water, the other is in use. I have things setup so all I have to do to give the tank a squirt is press a button. Toughest part is remembering to turn it off again before high-water alarm starts going off.

Thanks,
Rod

dppitone
11/06/2013, 04:08 PM
tricky

55willys
11/11/2013, 07:57 AM
Good point, we should be using natural seawater if we can... But for those of us who can't then water changes are needed. Also, I believe it was mentioned that smaller more frequent changes are better, frequent changes would add more of the trace elements we are looking for... I went a month without doing a water change and my tank looked like crap...

Is using water from the beach a good idea for changes? or will it throw off balance

billsreef
11/11/2013, 08:11 AM
Is using water from the beach a good idea for changes? or will it throw off balance

Considering artificial seawater mixes are man's best attempt at recreating natural seawater, if you have a good clean natural seawater source your good to go with it. For collecting directly off the beach, only on an incoming tide during good weather.

vitz
11/11/2013, 08:45 AM
Considering artificial seawater mixes are man's best attempt at recreating natural seawater, if you have a good clean natural seawater source your good to go with it. For collecting directly off the beach, only on an incoming tide during good weather.

(and there lies the rub ;) )

i would also recommend giving nsw a 'full sterilization' protocol w/ bleach, and/or uv, before using it in a 'home' system. it's easy, safe, and prevents ALOT of pathogens (presumably) found in nsw from getting into the system.

i worked for awhile for a (now defunct) small importer/whoresaler near oxnard ca, and they used water pumped in directly from port hueneme. the water was treated w/chlorine bleach for a day or so, then the bleach was removed, iirc, by using sodium thio and carbon. worked very well, never an issue :)

having said that, ...

given the present configuration of some of the salts available today, i can't see any major benefit in using nsw over artificial salt mixes. if anything, the avoidance all of the pathogens and organics of nsw, along w/the risk of introducing pollutants (known and unknown), makes using an artificial mix a 'no brainer', for most.

(and given the success w/ so many species being captive bred using salt mixes, that whole 'toxicity of salt mixes' thing/'theory' of which shimek was such a shill for has pretty much been proven to be absolute 'bunk', for all intensive purposes). :)

sadly, today there are alot more unknowns for the hobbyist re: what's in nsw, compared to what hobbyists know about what's in artificial sw.

when you use nsw, you're also introducing (for example) 'micro plastics' into your system. that can't be good, for anything. (just one of many examples of the 'modern ocean's' ingredients list) :(

bigdookie
11/12/2013, 01:11 AM
great thread on something i've been struggling with. i admit, im pretty lazy about water changes too, probably why my tank is struggling with algae right now, and its only stocked with snails, crabs and 1 fish.

Calappidae
11/21/2013, 07:04 AM
great thread on something i've been struggling with. i admit, im pretty lazy about water changes too, probably why my tank is struggling with algae right now, and its only stocked with snails, crabs and 1 fish.

Nutrients (phosphates and nitrates) influence algae blooms which is what's removed during water changes. Also make sure your tank isn't close to a window with direct sunlight.

houstonhobby
11/21/2013, 07:35 AM
I have three crabs. I bought two emerald green ones and got one brown one as a hitchhiker. Just wish they weren't so secretive.

tmz
11/21/2013, 09:25 AM
I keep my display tanks in direct sunlight from a bay window and skylight without any issues. I know of others with successful reef tanks who do as well. There is no plausible reason not to do so, ime. I don't know where the notion that sunlight is bad for reef tanks originated.
Water changes are more about maintaining useful levels of trace, minor and major elements . Since they add them and steady levels are what I'm after , small frequent water changes are preferred even though they have a very limited effect on nutrient export.
If dissolved nitrogen and/or phosphate and /or organics is/are issue(s)., there is an imbalance between nutrient import and export.

Less food or smaller bio load reduces the import;

more aggressive filtration/removal methods increase the export ,such as: cleaning accumulations of detritus, skimming, granulated activated carbon, denitrators, PO4 adsorbents like gfo, macro algae refugia,organic carbon dosing and to a lesser degree small water changes.

Complicating the nuteint question a bit more is the fact that differnt orgnisms use more or less nutrients( organics, N and P ) than others or at least vary in tolerance for higher levels . Xenia, capnella and some other leathers lps do better with less skimmiong ,ime ,as exmples

houstonhobby
11/21/2013, 09:36 AM
Interesting point about the sunlight. I think the idea probably comes from freshwater, where the notion that sunlight will cause unwanted algae is well ingrained, warranted or not.

For a nano, too much sunlight might cause a temperature spike.

Calappidae
11/21/2013, 10:52 AM
Sunlight will help algae grow in any aquarium, salt, reef, fresh, whatever. If your water quality is up to scratch, then the algae won't have the nutrients inorder to grow. Usually in saltwater we do keep up to scratch so we don't notice it as much as in freshwater. Basicly what the OP said.

My old 29, sad to say, would be a perfect example of not having up to scratch water quality and in direct sunlight:
http://i42.*******.com/33lpgk1.png

And this photo was taken when it first started..

SpartaReef
11/21/2013, 10:56 AM
If our lights are the correct quality, why would direct sunlight make a difference?

KafudaFish
11/21/2013, 11:09 AM
Nutrients (phosphates and nitrates) influence algae blooms which is what's removed during water changes. Also make sure your tank isn't close to a window with direct sunlight.

Sunlight will help algae grow in any aquarium, salt, reef, fresh, whatever. If your water quality is up to scratch, then the algae won't have the nutrients inorder to grow. Usually in saltwater we do keep up to scratch so we don't notice it as much as in freshwater. Basicly what the OP said.

My old 29, sad to say, would be a perfect example of not having up to scratch water quality and in direct sunlight:
http://i42.*******.com/33lpgk1.png

And this photo was taken when it first started..

The direct sunlight is not the problem in your tank. It is simply a driver. I could argue that your water is "perfect": nutrient levels are where they should be according to testing; however, though numbers don't lie they don't tell the entire story either.

Calappidae
11/21/2013, 11:11 AM
If our lights are the correct quality, why would direct sunlight make a difference?

Sunlight offers the proper spectrum for algae to grow as well as corals. Others algae wouldn't survive. When we have our lighting we try not to provide the spectrum for algae. (example: red leds etc.)

The direct sunlight is not the problem in your tank. It is simply a driver. I could argue that your water is "perfect": nutrient levels are where they should be according to testing; however, though numbers don't lie they don't tell the entire story either.

Nitrates would sometimes spike to 180 in that tank.. I'm well aware of what I'm doing now but back then I had no experience. That photo was when I first started the hobby. I eventually upgraded to a skimmer, did weekly WC, and a toothbrush.. all gone now. I also upgraded the lighting system (still with sunlight..) and I got a mangrove seedling to soak up the nutrients. never had a prob since.

SpartaReef
11/21/2013, 11:37 AM
Sunlight offers the proper spectrum for algae to grow as well as corals. Others algae wouldn't survive. When we have our lighting we try not to provide the spectrum for algae. (example: red leds etc.)


Coral uses algae to make energy from sunlight... If our lights won't grow algae they won't grow coral... Your point is pointless...

Algae is going to grow no matter what, minimize the available nutrients is all we can do... Sunlight from a window isn't going to hurt your tank, nor will it cause algae to grow faster than a normally lighted tank....

houstonhobby
11/21/2013, 11:39 AM
The amount of par value in direct sunlight is way above what we usually provide, plus the spectrum issue which has ready been mentioned.

SpartaReef
11/21/2013, 11:43 AM
And corals have been proven to grow faster in our tanks under our specialized lighting than in the wild, where they get significantly less light as they are typically in deeper water than our tanks...

Again, if our lights are insufficient, then our corals wouldn't grow either.... When it comes to algae, its not the light that is the problem.... In fact remove the light that grows the algae and your corals will loose their color (from algae).

Calappidae
11/21/2013, 11:51 AM
Coral uses algae to make energy from sunlight... If our lights won't grow algae they won't grow coral... Your point is pointless...

Algae is going to grow no matter what, minimize the available nutrients is all we can do... Sunlight from a window isn't going to hurt your tank, nor will it cause algae to grow faster than a normally lighted tank....

Zooxanthella, the symbiotic algae in live corals requirs a different spectrums of light. Algae can grow in a tank without a light sometimes, corals cannot. Thats because corals need a different, stronger spectrum or color intensity then algae that only proper fixtures can provide. I've had this discussion a while back when choosing my LEDs. I've heard too many red LED's can help nuisance algae grow. I think green also helps but I'm not too sure there. Sunlight is full spectrum, Our fixture's spectrum depends on what we put on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorophyll
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoozanthellae

Chlorophyll needs certain spectrums. Usually the coloring of corals and plants is based on the chloroplast from what I read.

SpartaReef
11/21/2013, 02:27 PM
Thats because corals need a different, stronger spectrum or color intensity then algae that only proper fixtures can provide.
So you are saying that the lights on our tanks are so good that sunlight is irrelevant?
And corals have been proven to grow faster in our tanks under our specialized lighting than in the wild, where they get significantly less light as they are typically in deeper water than our tanks...

Again, if our lights are insufficient, then our corals wouldn't grow either.... When it comes to algae, its not the light that is the problem.... In fact remove the light that grows the algae and your corals will loose their color (from algae).

One of us is wrong...

jcarman81
11/21/2013, 02:40 PM
(and there lies the rub ;) )

i worked for awhile for a (now defunct) small importer/whoresaler near oxnard ca, and they used water pumped in directly from port hueneme. the water was treated w/chlorine bleach for a day or so, then the bleach was removed, iirc, by using sodium thio and carbon. worked very well, never an issue :)
:(

Sorry, but this is the funniest thing I've read in this thread. Was it Heidi Fleiss? :D

jimmyj7090
11/21/2013, 02:40 PM
And corals have been proven to grow faster in our tanks under our specialized lighting than in the wild, where they get significantly less light as they are typically in deeper water than our tanks...



Where are you getting this from? Got a source?

Calappidae
11/21/2013, 02:42 PM
Sunlight is full spectrum and supports everything. We can agree on that.

But, our fixtures for our systems are different then the sun. The sun has every color wavelengh, certain colors like reds and I believe greens is what algae thrives off of. For corals, we aim for more of the Blues, and whites, such as 10,000k daylights and atinics. I'm not wording it properly, but you could have a metal halide over a macro only tank and recieve very little growth compared to having a metal halide over a SPS reef tank. Thats because most metal halide support UV, atinic, and 10,000k daylight spectrums which corals need that algae doesn't. Reason why we don't have ridicously high lighting on FW planted setups for superior growth that we got in our reef tanks, because it wouldn't work anyway.

SpartaReef
11/21/2013, 02:43 PM
Read it somewhere, an article that someone referenced in one of the threads here.... I don't remember... Check for threads about too much light over our tanks. It had to do with how our lights are actually too strong for the corals and fish, compared to what they get in the wild.

vitz
11/21/2013, 02:44 PM
there are higher light, and lower light algaes. both share the same type limiter vis-a-vis nutrients, though.

jimmyj7090
11/21/2013, 02:44 PM
Nutrients (phosphates and nitrates) influence algae blooms which is what's removed during water changes. Also make sure your tank isn't close to a window with direct sunlight.

Many reef tanks / systems have nutrient input and export balanced well enough that water changes are not needed for nutrient control at all. In such systems, water changing's primary benfiit is to replenish what we can't accurately monitor or supplement.

No offense, but if you need water changes for nutrient removal, this may not be the thread for you :)

jimmyj7090
11/21/2013, 02:46 PM
Read it somewhere, an article that someone referenced in one of the threads here.... I don't remember... Check for threads about too much light over our tanks. It had to do with how our lights are actually too strong for the corals and fish, compared to what they get in the wild.

Photo inhibition can happen in some cases, but it's a BIG stretch to say that the possibility of photo inhibition means that corals in reef tanks grow faster than on the real reefs.

jimmyj7090
11/21/2013, 02:49 PM
Sunlight is full spectrum and supports everything. We can agree on that.

But, our fixtures for our systems are different then the sun. The sun has every color wavelengh, certain colors like reds and I believe greens is what algae thrives off of. For corals, we aim for more of the Blues, and whites, such as 10,000k daylights and atinics. I'm not wording it properly, but you could have a metal halide over a macro only tank and recieve very little growth compared to having a metal halide over a SPS reef tank. Thats because most metal halide support UV, atinic, and 10,000k daylight spectrums which corals need that algae doesn't. Reason why we don't have ridicously high lighting on FW planted setups for superior growth that we got in our reef tanks, because it wouldn't work anyway.

Are you saying that nusiance algae won't grow under MH?

Calappidae
11/21/2013, 02:53 PM
Are you saying that nusiance algae won't grow under MH?

It can grow under it, but it wouldn't thrive as much as under a weaker lighting system.

Have you ever done those type of experiments where they place plants under different lighting colors and some grew faster then others? basicly I'm trying to explain that.

jimmyj7090
11/21/2013, 02:55 PM
There is something to that ^ but in the end if you have excess nutrients in a reef tank algae will grow. Some lighting might encourage it more than others, but either way it will be a problem.

sonoma2nv
11/21/2013, 02:55 PM
as a live rock tank yes u dot need to do water changes,reef stocked tank u will cal and mag will deplete fast depinding on ur load and what u have.i have over 50 nems in my 90 so i have to since i dont trust dosin pumps i do bi weekly water changes since i dont want to dose .but for only lr ur good keep it up if thats all u want.but isnt my cup of tea watching something that doesnt do anything.

vitz
11/21/2013, 03:33 PM
Sunlight is full spectrum and supports everything. We can agree on that.

But, our fixtures for our systems are different then the sun. The sun has every color wavelengh, certain colors like reds and I believe greens is what algae thrives off of. For corals, we aim for more of the Blues, and whites, such as 10,000k daylights and atinics. I'm not wording it properly, but you could have a metal halide over a macro only tank and recieve very little growth compared to having a metal halide over a SPS reef tank. Thats because most metal halide support UV, atinic, and 10,000k daylight spectrums which corals need that algae doesn't. Reason why we don't have ridicously high lighting on FW planted setups for superior growth that we got in our reef tanks, because it wouldn't work anyway.


as someone whos been doing fw heavily planted tanks for quite awhile, and considers himself to be very experienced in the fw plant world, i call absolute bs on your bolded above statement.

there are tons of high intensity lighting fw planted tanks out there. most of mine were run by halides. there are MANY hi intensity light requiring plants/systems, some running over 4-5 watts/gallon, on not so tall tanks. fw plants do MUCH better under halides than they do under fluoros, all other things being equal, ime. most failures w/ fw plants by starting hobbyists, initially, is due to INSUFFICIENT lighting. (the crappy fluoro setups and bulbs most new systems come with)

in fw, it's just more 6500-10k as opposed to 10-20k.

even my fw planted nanos have had way more lighting than most people use, using fluoros-no one seemed to get that that was the main driver behind my great plant growth, heh.

billsreef
11/21/2013, 04:21 PM
And corals have been proven to grow faster in our tanks under our specialized lighting than in the wild, where they get significantly less light as they are typically in deeper water than our tanks...


That has more to do with what's not happening in our tanks that does happen on the reef...namely predation, destructive storms, ship groundings, etc.

As for sunlight, has anyone noticed that coral reefs naturally grow under direct sunlight? ;)

SpartaReef
11/21/2013, 07:50 PM
That has more to do with what's not happening in our tanks that does happen on the reef...namely predation, destructive storms, ship groundings, etc.

As for sunlight, has anyone noticed that coral reefs naturally grow under direct sunlight? ;)

Lol

tmz
11/22/2013, 07:58 AM
There are thousands of species of marine algae ; protists/dinoflagelltes like zooxanthelae encopmass over 1500 idientified species alone. They all grow in natural sunlight as do cyanobacteria; they also grow under leds, power compacts, t5's, t 12's,, metal halide form 6K to 20K , ordinary daylight spiral fluorescent lights etc.

Generally, spectral shifts play a relatively insignificant role in selectively growing one or the other relative to nutrient control ,ime.

While all algae require nutrients , some algae are more or less limited by lower levels of nutrients, particularly inorganic phosphate. Green algae for example is usually limited ( ie can't grow) at levels of PO4 under 0.03ppm while red algae( rhodophyta) ,brown algae don't seem to care about PO4 levels in the water. Bryopsis does better with low PO4 than hair algae as an example of variation in limiting effects even within the green species.

Since we've moved the discussion (originally on water changes ) back to natural reefs;it's worth noting natural reefs are exposed to enormous amounts of water volume flowing through over and around them. A cubic meter of space( which holds about 210 gallons of water) on the Great Barrier Reef has approximately 1 million gallons of water flow through it daily.
Many of the corals there are exposed to intense sunlight in very shallow depths and often left high and dry for periods of time when tides drop.
Shifting context back and forth from natural reefs to the minute droplets packed with life in a small amount of water in a teeny tiny closed system just doesn't wash as a useful comparison most of the time.

vitz
11/22/2013, 09:26 AM
There are thousands of species of marine algae ; protists/dinoflagelltes like zooxanthelae encopmass over 1500 idientified species alone. They all grow in natural sunlight as do cyanobacteria; they also grow under leds, power compacts, t5's, t 12's,, metal halide form 6K to 20K , ordinary daylight spiral fluorescent lights etc.

Generally, spectral shifts play a relatively insignificant role in selectively growing one or the other relative to nutrient control ,ime.

While all algae require nutrients , some algae are more or less limited by lower levels of nutrients, particularly inorganic phosphate. Green algae for example is usually limited ( ie can't grow) at levels of PO4 under 0.03ppm while red algae( rhodophyta) ,brown algae don't seem to care about PO4 levels in the water. Bryopsis does better with low PO4 than hair algae as an example of variation in limiting effects even within the green species.

Since we've moved the discussion (originally on water changes ) back to natural reefs;it's worth noting natural reefs are exposed to enormous amounts of water volume flowing through over and around them. A cubic meter of space( which holds about 210 gallons of water) on the Great Barrier Reef has approximately 1 million gallons of water flow through it daily.
Many of the corals there are exposed to intense sunlight in very shallow depths and often left high and dry for periods of time when tides drop.
Shifting context back and forth from natural reefs to the minute droplets packed with life in a small amount of water in a teeny tiny closed system just doesn't wash as a useful comparison most of the time.


but water changes are bad!!!! :p

SpartaReef
11/22/2013, 09:31 AM
ROFLOL!!! There are more reasons to do water changes than there are not too.

Ive seen images of tanks that have no artificial lights and use only sunlight. They look superb due to the limitation of nutrients that would fuel algae growth.

vitz
11/22/2013, 10:46 AM
i do think that reefs aren't nearly as nutrient limited as many people might think.

algaes don't overrun a reef because they don't grow there. it's under (or should be) a constant barrage of herbivores mowing it down constantly. (remember diadema ? ). tangs, urchins, etc etc work constantly and help keep it 'coral friendly'.

it's also now known that there's a HUGE sink of nutrients/bacteria/flock provided by sponges-they may actually be the most important 'garbagemen' of the reef (at least in many areas, mebbe not all).

and you do get that i was joking about water changes being bad ;)

vitz
11/22/2013, 10:51 AM
It can grow under it, but it wouldn't thrive as much as under a weaker lighting system.

Have you ever done those type of experiments where they place plants under different lighting colors and some grew faster then others? basicly I'm trying to explain that.

have you ever done an experiment to back up your statement ?

pure twaddle.

nuisance algaes in BOTH fw and sw easily thrive under halides. if anything, the stronger the light source, the BETTER nuisance algaes will do, if the nutrients are there. cyano can explode under halides as well.

why do you think adding or increasing light would slow down anything that is light dependent, or light requiring ? does your car run slower when the octane level of gas increases ? ;)

Calappidae
11/22/2013, 12:46 PM
have you ever done an experiment to back up your statement ?

Specifically reguarding the algae, no. Halides may have not been the best example to throw out there since they pretty much are the sun in spectrum. Although I heard Chlorophyll a and b are different with lighting requirements and lives in different types of algaes, macro, and corals/anems. They showed that plants/marco/algae grow better in certain color wavelengths compared to others. I'm saying, if you setup an LED system, and only put atinic on it that certain corals prefer, then algae wouldn't thrive as well as it would in a system that has red, green, yellow, and other leds. I'm just not wording or explaining it properly :rolleye1:

But yeah, this did get a little off topic with the thread :D IMO its water quality before lighting when it comes to algae problems.

why do you think adding or increasing light would slow down anything that is light dependent, or light requiring ?

If I remember correctly, we often bleach corals in our reef tanks as well from too much light (or not photoacclimating?).

blanden.adam
11/22/2013, 01:08 PM
why do you think adding or increasing light would slow down anything that is light dependent, or light requiring ? does your car run slower when the octane level of gas increases ? ;)

With regard to this statement specifically, photoinhibition is a real phenomenon. Each organism has a range of intensities that it will be happy in, for some it's rather narrow, for others its quite broad. The understood mechanism for this is leak of electrons from the photosystems when more light is being absorbed than can be "processed", causing oxidative stress to the cells and a shunting of resources to repair rather than growth. So it would be akin to increasing the octane in your car to the point where you damage the engine, twist the axles, or cause an explosion :)

This is not to comment on the specific instances being discussed, just as a phenomenon in general.

rich850
11/22/2013, 01:45 PM
Specifically reguarding the algae, no. Halides may have not been the best example to throw out there since they pretty much are the sun in spectrum. Although I heard Chlorophyll a and b are different with lighting requirements and lives in different types of algaes, macro, and corals/anems. They showed that plants/marco/algae grow better in certain color wavelengths compared to others. I'm saying, if you setup an LED system, and only put atinic on it that certain corals prefer, then algae wouldn't thrive as well as it would in a system that has red, green, yellow, and other leds. I'm just not wording or explaining it properly :rolleye1:

But yeah, this did get a little off topic with the thread :D IMO its water quality before lighting when it comes to algae problems.



If I remember correctly, we often bleach corals in our reef tanks as well from too much light (or not photoacclimating?).

Try acclimatting corals from your tank to natural sunlight. It's so hard for some people to say they don't really know.

SpartaReef
11/22/2013, 08:04 PM
Sorry I stirred the pot, I just wanted to point out that the lighting isn't an issue... And is off topic anyway...water changes help reduce algae as it provides clean water to the system.

Calappidae
11/22/2013, 08:12 PM
Sorry I stirred the pot, I just wanted to point out that the lighting isn't an issue... And is off topic anyway...water changes help reduce algae as it provides clean water to the system.

Actually I take the blame as I commented "check your lighting" to the OP :D

But, +1 to the water changes keeping the water quality less nutrient rich for algae to feed off of anyway.

jimmyj7090
11/22/2013, 08:22 PM
That is ^ if your system isn't managing those nutrients through other means.

For example my system employs a small daily dose of vinegar as a carbon source and a pretty efficient skimmer. Nitrate stays undetectable and phosphate low and not incresing. I only do water changes to replace micronutrients and to generally reset the ionic clock so to speak. Every system is different, but many are better managed than mine (ie there are plenty of reef systems that don't need water changes to control those nutrients).

SpartaReef
11/22/2013, 08:24 PM
Poop has to go somewhere... If it isn't syphoned out during a water change what then?

power boat jim
11/22/2013, 08:43 PM
[QUOTE=New56man;22110826]Removed spam/QUOTE]

Thats news to me, what do you base that on?

jimmyj7090
11/22/2013, 09:22 PM
Poop has to go somewhere... If it isn't syphoned out during a water change what then?

Read up on "nutrient export". Refugims (with active growth and removal of algae), skimmers, organic carbon dosing, turf scrubbers, zevoit systems....

SpartaReef
11/22/2013, 09:57 PM
I have a skimmer and algae export... With refugium... I still syphon poo out of my sump every week...