subsea Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 I do not consider this a permanent solution. If a system requires replacement of water as a solution to reducing nutrients, then that system lacks sufficient nutrient processing. To dilute is a short term fix to a long time problem. I address the nutrient processing as the solution to the problem. While it is true that partial water changes are an accepted reefkeeping practice. Using a resource such as water in a drought area as the Texas Hill Country may not be viewed as environmentally responsible by most people on the outside of the hobby. In my case, it is all about economics. Having several thousand gallons that cost up to $.50 a gallon to replace does not make money for me. On my permit to operate, I have included zero discharge. This makes me a better neighbor and friend to the Aquifier. Patrick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
victoly Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Mmmmk I'll take the bait. Water changes are the only 100% effective method of nutrient reduction. It is impossible for skimmers, biopellets, DSBs or any other method to have complete reduction. This does not take into account the added bonus that water changes replenishes all of the necessary minerals. It is a single tier that a vast majority of successful hobbyists take to ensure the health of their tank. With respect to conservation, the amount of water used by hobbyists in central Texas even with the largest tanks, even losing 4:1 on wastewater vs RODI water, is infinitesimally small compared to the total overall water budget. I would posit that you could supply all the RODI water necessary to every reef tank in Austin, simply by having a single street cease watering their yards for a summer. I'm not saying conservation isn't worthwhile (it is), it's just that hobbyist use almost nothing when compared to residential usage. The pattern that I have observed is that you make generalized recommendations based on your operation. An operation which is unlike almost every other reef keeper on this board. You have large tanks, producing macro algae, with tons of NO3/PO4. There is literally only one other person that does this in the area. You are proof positive that it can be done, but for nearly everyone else, water changes are a valid longterm solution in the hobby. Furthermore, to have new members come to the board and read that they shouldn't be doing water changes is, in my opinion, not in the best interest of the hobby. When they fail because their tank becomes an algae farm, and they leave, it's one less person to support local industries and this club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subsea Posted October 8, 2012 Author Share Posted October 8, 2012 I'll take the bait is an aggressive attitude that shows you think that this is a debate to be won or lost. Not so. I wish to illuminate the logic behind the method. I reread my post to see where I said new hobbiest should not be doing water changes. I could not find those words. Who is generalizing here? Patrick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subsea Posted October 8, 2012 Author Share Posted October 8, 2012 After rereading your first paragraph, please tell me the source of your knowledge that says. " water change are the only 100% effective method of nutriant reduction". There are numerous factual errors to this statement. To begin with, it is mathematically impossible to replace 100% of the water in your tank with 50% water changes every day until "dooms day". Patrick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
victoly Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 It's 100% effective in terms of reducing the amount of nutrients in your water by whatever percentage that you take out. You can diet all you want, but the only way to lose 30 pounds for sure is to chop off your leg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
victoly Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 I'll take the bait is an aggressive attitude that shows you think that this is a debate to be won or lost. Not so. I wish to illuminate the logic behind the method. I reread my post to see where I said new hobbiest should not be doing water changes. I could not find those words. Who is generalizing here? Patrick I guess I just don't see the point of going on a monologue about a particular subject with the expectation that there won't be any response. And if there is response, that it is somehow combative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mFrame Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 I think the point to be made here is that there are differing philosophies on how to run a tank. I've seen Patrick's tanks and know that his extensive use of macros and lagoon-style tanks are effective and are his preferred method of dealing with excess nutrients. For most reefers in the club, myself included, the only macros I have in my tank are in my sump and are used an an export mechanism along with water changes and a protein skimmer. I use water changes to replenish depleted elements and as a method to "freshen" the tank. Things can go wrong with either method and there isn't a question of "right or wrong" any more than someone can be right or wrong about running an SPS versus an LPS tank. We each have our preferences and are free to follow them in our tanks. I'd prefer to see discussions focus on the pros/cons of methodologies so that members are able to objectively evaluate which method works best for them rather than taking swipes at each other. We've been talking about setting up a tank "Mentor" section to the club and have a proponent of differing tank methodologies run a separate forum for each. That way members who wish to pursue Lagoon Style versus DSB versus Mechanical methods each have a home to discuss what works for them and allow others who disagree to have their own forum. Let's keep it friendly guys. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subsea Posted October 8, 2012 Author Share Posted October 8, 2012 I could as easily have posted this subject matter in my forum or perhaps specialized reefkeeping. I choose to post it in reefkeeping because I feel that more biology/less technology is a valid reef keeping method that has been used on nano tanks as well as 100K gallon tanks. When I viewed Eric Bornneman's large lagoon display tank at his home, I knew that this was my preferred style of reefkeeping. Anything can be made to work. I choose to use the least demanding technique to produce satisfactory results. In a 10 gallon or 10K gallon system it is always about nutrient control. Nutrients in equal nutrients out. Consider that biomass of coral, fish,micro inverts in the sandbed, macro in the refugium must grow. That means we need more nutrient input to get stuff to grow. This is the balancing act that every reefer must deal with. If nutrients get too high during this balancing act, then the wrong biomass becomes the dominant life form. It does not really matter which nutrient export mechanism is used. Use the method that suites you. I choose multiple nutrient pathways, nutrient recycling and nutrient export with harvesting macro and corals to export nutrients. Patrick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wesreyn Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 I have to agree with Victoly here. People have been doing water changes since the beginning of reef keeping, granted everyone does not. I havent in about 4 months but im not going to come on here saying they are just a fix for a problem. Not everyone has or wants a lagoon tank full of macro. While you might like the look, I quite honestly do not. I do have chaeto in my sump but i dont litter my tank with every species I can find. While traveling to Caribbean destinations 1-2 times a year, I am going for more of the look of the reefs I frequently visit. The reefs are clean with well manicured rock from the constant picking by tangs and other algae eating fish and inverts. It is not crammed full of macros. You say use whatever method you would like but any time anyone posts about a different method, you chime in saying there is something flawed with every other method. Your way is not the only way. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subsea Posted October 8, 2012 Author Share Posted October 8, 2012 I have to agree with Victoly here. People have been doing water changes since the beginning of reef keeping, granted everyone does not. I havent in about 4 months but im not going to come on here saying they are just a fix for a problem. Not everyone has or wants a lagoon tank full of macro. While you might like the look, I quite honestly do not. I do have chaeto in my sump but i dont litter my tank with every species I can find. While traveling to Caribbean destinations 1-2 times a year, I am going for more of the look of the reefs I frequently visit. The reefs are clean with well manicured rock from the constant picking by tangs and other algae eating fish and inverts. It is not crammed full of macros. You say use whatever method you would like but any time anyone posts about a different method, you chime in saying there is something flawed with every other method. Your way is not the only way. Viva la difference. Patrick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subsea Posted October 8, 2012 Author Share Posted October 8, 2012 In my attempt to talk about cause and effect, I have ruffled some feathers. I will not focus on the personnel. As an engineer for 40 years as project manager and design system engineer, I solved problems. As a rule, when symptoms appear, I look for the cause. So it is with my analysis of nutrient control using partial water change. If biological filtration is insignificant to control nutrients, adding a skimmer and doing partial water changes does not increase bio filtration. It merely masks the symptom. The root cause is still there and it will continue to produce excess nitrates. The long term solution is to increase biological filtration. I like complete solutions that follow thru, that are compatible with other methods and that produce dependable results. When required, I do partial water changes. I merely look at cause and effect to provide for long term solutions. Patrick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
victoly Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 If biological filtration is insignificant to control nutrients, adding a skimmer and doing partial water changes does not increase bio filtration. It merely masks the symptom. The root cause is still there and it will continue to produce excess nitrates. Why is running a skimmer with water changes not a long term solution? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subsea Posted October 8, 2012 Author Share Posted October 8, 2012 If biological filtration is insignificant to control nutrients, adding a skimmer and doing partial water changes does not increase bio filtration. It merely masks the symptom. The root cause is still there and it will continue to produce excess nitrates. Why is running a skimmer with water changes not a long term solution? It is a long term solution if you do two things that both cost money. I choose to increase biodiversity. Patrick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
victoly Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 If biological filtration is insignificant to control nutrients, adding a skimmer and doing partial water changes does not increase bio filtration. It merely masks the symptom. The root cause is still there and it will continue to produce excess nitrates. Why is running a skimmer with water changes not a long term solution? It is a long term solution if you do two things that both cost money. I choose to increase biodiversity. Patrick Using a skimmer and water changes are not mutually exclusive to building biodiversity.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subsea Posted October 8, 2012 Author Share Posted October 8, 2012 If biological filtration is insignificant to control nutrients, adding a skimmer and doing partial water changes does not increase bio filtration. It merely masks the symptom. The root cause is still there and it will continue to produce excess nitrates. Why is running a skimmer with water changes not a long term solution? It is a long term solution if you do two things that both cost money. I choose to increase biodiversity. Patrick I think I look at skimmers and water change as good husbandry practices that are addittioal insurance. If your bio filtration is not right, you will have to get bigger skimmers and do larger water changes. Patrick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timfish Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 I certainly of the opinion that skimming is not necessary and Feldmans1 research shows skimming negatively impacts the bacterial populations in a reef system that uses skimming compared to what is found in nature. Is this bad? Feldman's comment in the conclusion of his research expresses it best "At present, it is not possible to go beyond speculation on these points - further research is needed." What I know is I do not need skimming to maintain a reef system for decades. A caveot is a friend of mine has been able to keep a cocoa worm in magnificent shape, growth and color for over 3 years using skimming, something I have not had success with. As far as water changes go when Delbeek and Sprung2 first wrote about Dr. Juaberts DSB research Dr. Jaubert had been able to maintain excellent water parameters for over 4 1/2 years without pumps or skimming. This was in 1990 and still, to the best of my knowledge, no one has been been able to maintain a system without water changes for nearly as long as with with water changes. The longest I've heard of is 7 years without water changes and with water changes it's over 40 years (search Paul B). There is still a lot going on in our aquariums we still do not understand and while I certainly support experienced aquarists "testing the limits" I am not going to stop doing my water changes on my tanks and I am not going to advise otherwise. One point that seems to get left out in these discusions is the biomass to water volume in our aquariums is A LOT higher than what is found in nature (I don't have any estimates but it's huge). It would be interesting to try Dr. Jauberts system with a more natural biomass to water volume ratio to see just how long a system could be maintained. I think though the vast majority of aquarists would not be happy with the stocking ratios. Something else that seems to be overlooked is algae actually makes up the majority of biomass on a reef, not fish, not corals (the lowest estimate I've seen is 55% highest is over 85% are algae species). Notably Dr. Moe's3 research for NOAA has shown the cause of the coral decline in the Caribean can be directly tied to the die off of Diadema sp. urchins which kept agaes under control so they would not outcompete corals. 1 http://www.advanceda...011/3/aafeature 2 C. Delbeek and J. Sprung. 1990. New Trends In Fish Keeping. Fresh and Marine Aquarium. 13(12) 8-22 3 http://www.diadema.org/diadema-sea-urchin-research-synopsis.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wesreyn Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 I certainly of the opinion that skimming is not necessary and Feldmans1 research shows skimming negatively impacts the bacterial populations in a reef system that uses skimming compared to what is found in nature. Is this bad? Feldman's comment in the conclusion of his research expresses it best "At present, it is not possible to go beyond speculation on these points - further research is needed." What I know is I do not need skimming to maintain a reef system for decades. A caveot is a friend of mine has been able to keep a cocoa worm in magnificent shape, growth and color for over 3 years using skimming, something I have not had success with. As far as water changes go when Delbeek and Sprung2 first wrote about Dr. Juaberts DSB research Dr. Jaubert had been able to maintain excellent water parameters for over 4 1/2 years without pumps or skimming. This was in 1990 and still, to the best of my knowledge, no one has been been able to maintain a system without water changes for nearly as long as with with water changes. The longest I've heard of is 7 years without water changes and with water changes it's over 40 years (search Paul B). There is still a lot going on in our aquariums we still do not understand and while I certainly support experienced aquarists "testing the limits" I am not going to stop doing my water changes on my tanks and I am not going to advise otherwise. One point that seems to get left out in these discusions is the biomass to water volume in our aquariums is A LOT higher than what is found in nature (I don't have any estimates but it's huge). It would be interesting to try Dr. Jauberts system with a more natural biomass to water volume ratio to see just how long a system could be maintained. I think though the vast majority of aquarists would not be happy with the stocking ratios. Something else that seems to be overlooked is algae actually makes up the majority of biomass on a reef, not fish, not corals (the lowest estimate I've seen is 55% highest is over 85% are algae species). Notably Dr. Moe's3 research for NOAA has shown the cause of the coral decline in the Caribean can be directly tied to the die off of Diadema sp. urchins which kept agaes under control so they would not outcompete corals. 1 http://www.advanceda...011/3/aafeature 2 C. Delbeek and J. Sprung. 1990. New Trends In Fish Keeping. Fresh and Marine Aquarium. 13(12) 8-22 3 http://www.diadema.org/diadema-sea-urchin-research-synopsis.php Very good info. 40 years? Wow, that is amazing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bannerfish Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 In my own experience, growing macro in the sump has by far been the best solution to my nitrate and phosphate issues that I've had in my tanks. I do not use a skimmer but I still do water changes to replenish elements that the sps deplete. I saw that post on one of the reef forums about the 40year old tank, that's something to be proud of! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.