“The solution to pollution is dilution” Do larger tanks still have this advantage?

[Fishurama]

IMO larger tanks are more forgiving, more water equals less swings, more stable, basically everything you heard of is true. But the opposite is also true, it's more work to lug more water, if something goes wrong while it maybe easier to correct, it's also more expensive since you have more water... Lets also not forget about basic things like dry rock or even the tank itself... If you want more water its going to cost more overall. Everything has their pros and cons.
IMO the best tank size for an "easy" tank is between 75 and 150 gallons. That is the sweet spot, anything in-between there you will have stability, not to expensive(if you aren't buying the tank new lol) or if anything goes wrong, and is not to much work to overwhelm you.

 

[Miller535]

I think it has more to do with the individual reefer then it does with the tank size. So no, I do not think a larger tank is more forgiving when we're talking nutrients. For example, let's say a reefer has a 10 gallon and is feeding let's say 10 grams of food when then should feed 2. I think that same reefer would do the same thing to a 100 gallon and feed 5 times too much.

End result is the reefer in my example will pollute both small and large tanks because their husbandry and habits are the same.

 

[dbowman5]

I voted other.
Once again, my vote did not address the underlying questions or the introducing paragraph. I see the multiple choice QOTD on the right side and answer it before i read the comments. i guess i need to go to the QOTD, read it, then answer. luckily, in this case, the 'other' answer stands.
Industrially if you create a substance that is dangerous at some concentration, you cannot avoid responsibility for mitigating that by adding water to reduce the concentration to below the regulatory limit. you must remove the component from the waste stream. This came about because of the widely held belief that heavy metals were not a problem if diluted. this led to streams that had heavy metal sediments of high concentrations downstream from industrial plants.
In an aquatic environment, the capacity to tolerate substances is generally tied to the concentration of those substances. this can either be independent or dependent on the level of other components. it can also depend on the history of the system. The same way hyposalinity, copper treatments, or changes in hardness can be tolerated if done gradually. Since this is the case, a larger system would seem to be an advantage.
I subscribe to the philosophy that says that a successful process is one where all inputs are used in the process. that each byproduct of the process is an input for some part of the process and minimal energy/and mass are lost from the process.
in this, ideally, there is a purpose for everything and therefore no pollution. all energy is returned to the process, gasses are captured and fed into the process and outputs are the useful results of the process.
granted, nowhere is the ideal reached, but where an ecology is created there is an organism or chemical reaction that can benefit from everything we think of as pollution. Our job is to foster a system that can run efficiently.

 

[dryworm]

I think a large sump or refugium will help. A larger display tank means more room for more bioload.

 

[H3rm1tCr@b]

From what I have observed, it does seem that larger tanks are more stable and sometimes look better than nanos. But honestly, it isn't that hard to do a water change on something like a twenty gallon or smaller, compared to a 300 gallon.

 

[beaslbob]

IMHO dilution is never the solution to pollution. Eventually you have to make the pollutants safe. In our tanks a balanced stable ecosystem is needed.
My .O2

 

[Smarkow]

If keeping a saltwater tank is all about keeping water of a certain quality and keeping that water stable for our creatures to grow, then YES big tanks offer a big advantage. In the sense of being resilient to change, seawater is chemically a buffer, where changes in the properties of the solution happen at a rate disproportionately slower than the addition of the waste/pollutant/consumption. With a larger volume of buffer solution, the same polutants/waste cause even smaller changes. Chemically, large tanks are more resilient to change due to the laws of nature.

The flip side of this is that once you have let a large volume of seawater become very polluted, it becomes practically much harder to fix than it would if it were a smaller volume. Most nano/pico owners have the ability to rapidly change out large percentages of their water volume and reset the solution/seawater. Large tank owners rarely have this ability.

 

[LesPoissons]

My tank is 220 gallons and I still have to do water changes every two weeks, I still struggle to maintain the proper balance of nitrates and phosphates and keep the tank stabilized, but my water changes are 50 gallons and everything is much more work. I would imagine these tasks are a lot easier on a smaller scale. a big tank is stocked the same way as a small tank- just on a larger scale- so problems in my opinion are exactly the same, Just a lot more work on a big tank. If I had a nitrate issue in a small tank, how I would love to do a 50% water in a few hours or simply reach in and remove rocks as needed or be able to catch alll the fish. Lol

 

[Vette67]

If you believe your 100 gallon tank is more stable than a 10 gallon tank, go dump one gallon of saturated kalk into your tank right now, how about 3 gallons or whatever volume your kalk batch is mixed up to. It will mess things up just as fast as in a 10 gallon tank.

Funny you say that. I literally just did that this morning. Watched my pH swing from 7.94 to 8.54. In my sump. Then as the gallon of kalk circulated around my 150 gallon sump, it slowly got back to normal, and I'm 100% positive that my 180 tank saw minimal swing. pH settled right at 8.00. I had a total upswing of .06 with a gallon of kalk. I mix my kalk in a 5 gallon bucket and dump it in one quart at a time. I needed just under 4 quarts to fill up my makeup water. I even dumped in the crust that forms on the top of the kalk. Been doing this for a long time. SPS and clam seem to love it. Kalk is just a supplement to my calcium reactor.

Now as far as the original question, I believe it has more to do with small changes. Things like a dead lawnmower blenny had no effect on my tank. I had one die a couple months ago, I saw it, and left it there as a treat for my hermits. Nothing in my system changed, except the hermits enjoyed the treat. I also don't wash my hands before I put them in my tank, unless they have visible dirt and grease on them. Everything else is a matter of scale. I add the same percentage of alk and calcium as anyone else. I do the same percentage of water changes. It's just 10% to me is 40 gallons. So, definitely more stable. Nobody would leave a dead lawnmower blenny in their 10 gallon tank.

 

[schuby]

Previously, I'd never heard the phrase, "The solution to pollution is dilution". But I'll say it sounds very similar to another phrase that I fully believe in, "Dilute, dilute, dilute", to minimize the effect of an overdose whether it be by you or by something in your tank. I voted "Yes" to the poll (same as question #1).

To me, question #2 does not imply that larger tanks are automatically diluted. That doesn't make any sense. We want the parameters to be the same. The question was, "Do large tanks still have the advantage of being more forgiving?" I firmly believe this is true. As someone previously mentioned, it is because the larger amount of water acts as a larger buffer than the water volume of a small tank. A larger tank can absorb the death of a snail or fish better than a small tank. No size tank can avoid the disaster that the tank's steward, us reefers, can dish out by mis-dosing (manual or automated).

 

[ErehwoN]

1) Yes, is as true today as it ever was. However, ("the big however"), we are also better able to dial in the nutrient input/export, replenish trace elements, and more precisely check our water parameters. In short, a water change is, and will always be, your best hammer for correcting issues that going sideways in your aquarium. This is especially true for novice reef keepers and folks that can't afford some of the pricier tools now available. It is possible to keep water parameters optimal for longer periods of time sans water changes. However, corals respond to nothing better than a nice big water change, especially if you're using a high quality trace element rich aquarium salt.

As a new reefer I answered "Not Sure". But what @littlebigreef states is definitely true for this novice. I've done the best I can with the money I have--a sump with a refugium and a decent protein skimmer for my 55 gallon tank. I'm doing 15 gallon (~25% including sump) water changes once a week until I get better control over my nitrates. Right now I'm running between 5-10ppm which is higher than what I want. Since the sump was installed just a couple of weeks ago, I'm still in the learning curve of how that affects my maintenance. I just got the Red Sea Nitrate test kit and I'm off their scale (> 4 ppm) so there's work to be done. My hope is for fewer water changes in the future as the refugium starts to take off, but until I can effectively stabilize everything, water changes are a necessity and the best "hammer" in my toolkit as I figure out my screwdrivers and socket set.

Jim

 

[drblakjak55]

First. The quote is mine. I used it a while back on R2R and it came from a surgical colleague. Second, yes, I’m a believer in water changes to get rid of accumulated byproducts of feeding and keeping parameters stable without need for dosing.

 

[schuby]

@drblakjak55 The quote is an interesting, rhyming statement. I can't imagine its context from a surgeon's point-of-view.

An advantage of a small/nano tank is the ability to use water-changes to completely replenish parameters without dosing.

 

[Ksmmike]

I realize that every tank is different even slightly. I have a 120 gallon that when new I did water changes every week for over a year. I then eventually went to every other week and after more than 2 years I do them every 3 weeks. I'm about to go to once a month. I think once your tank matures and stabilizes with a good skimmer and refugium (at least in my case) I only dose ALK every day. Almost all my other parameters stay pretty constant during the 3 weeks that I don't do water changes. I had all the same issues of algae outbreaks ect with a new tank (started with dry rock) but after about 2 years, it really settled in and the corals seem pretty happy now. Its a mixed reef and the acros would die or wouldnt grow (I began adding them after about a year) but now, I havent lost an acro in over a year and they are beginning to become colonies. I still for some reason cant keep duncans but my chalices thrive as do the acros and zoas. I have one zoa that seems to double in heads almost monthly. I have to keep giving them to the LFS or to someone I met here a few months back. I rarely put my hands into the tank (except for taking the pumps out for cleaning or trimming coral) and I think that keeps it more consistent too. My nitrates are almost always at 10 no matter what I do and the phos is very low. .oo2 or somewhere close to that. Many of my snails have either died from old age or the crabs killed them for the shells. So I guess you dont need to do as many changes once your tank has found its own way. IMO But when the tank was new, I had to do them to get any type of consistent parameters.

 

[Rogueaquariums]

1. To an extent I would imagine that yes, greater water volume would help dilute “pollution”. That’s a big part of how creating appropriate solutions is done. Does that mean greater water volume is the be all end all answer? No, but it does play a part in overall stability.

2. To some extent, yes.

I agree and with proper husbandry that helps to a large extent

 

[ca1ore]

Voted 'other' also ….

Dilution can work, certainly ….. it's really just math. Just seems to me that there are much better tools available to the reefer than doing a big 'ol water change. Large tanks are more forgiving to a specific 'event', but they are much harder to get back on a good track from longer-term issues. Drop a metal screw in a large tank and likely nothing will be affected. Drop it into a nano and you may well have a problem. Let nitrates build up in a nano and a few gallons of NSW and you're golden. Let nitrates build up in a 600 gallons system like mine, and controlling it with dilution is really not realistic.

 

[MiniCoco]

There are a lot of good responses to this query, but a basic fact remains. While advances have been made in both equipment and the husbandry techniques of modern reef keeping, a larger volume of water means more time to react. If equipment failure occurs, then time is of the essence. Having a small tank would require much less time to heat up with a heater failing in the on position. That is just one example,. I could go on, but I think you get the point. Yes, new technology mitigates the problems, but having time to react is priceless.

 

[braxtonc38]

No because water changes are key to diluting pollutants you may have less water changes with a larger tank so what is the smallest tank to do a small tank water changes have to be done more frequently so I don't think there is really an advantage at all

 

[725196]

I keep thinking about today’s question and I think I want to add to it. I am quoting what I wrote earlier so no one needs to look for it if the want to understand what I said this morning.

I believe that helps, however good management of what goes into the tank via feeding and dosing. Further good export of what comes out of the tank, filtration, skimming etc is a better solution overall. Water changes are a key part of this, but not the end all be-all.

Okay, so I go to my mother-in-laws house on Sunday’s after work. I go to do her shopping and check in on her. My mother-in-law is a chain smoker. When I get there I’ll open the The door for a little bit before I will go in. That will allow some of the smoke to escape.
However, the house still smells of smoke and to be honest it’s still billowing in the rooms. So opening the doors for a few minutes really does not do anything but kind of makes it so that I feel better about going inside. It does not make it any better going inside. But I feel it does. She continues to smoke while I’m there and the room continues to fill with more smoke.

Think about this in terms of a Fishtank. When we do a water change we are taking out a little bit of the pollutants. The cause of the pollutants are still there and are still being increased. Much like me opening the door and allowing some smoke to escape it may make me feel better. But opening the door alone is not going to change the situation much. Just like doing a water change is not going to do much to change the situation. What is needed is good filtration, good husbandry skills, and of course I do believe that water changes will help. But it takes all of these things together. The inhabitants of our tanks cannot escape what is in our tanks. They live in that water and they live in whatever is in the water. It is up to us to take every precaution and do everything we can to make their living environment is clean and safe as we can.

As I said I had more on my mind. So now I’ve got it off my mind and I will read some other peoples comments. Have a great day and enjoy the hobby.

 

[mtfish]

First. The quote is mine. I used it a while back on R2R and it came from a surgical colleague. Second, yes, I’m a believer in water changes to get rid of accumulated byproducts of feeding and keeping parameters stable without need for dosing.

Hey, I believe you, and I actually used this quote sometime back myself here on R2R, but this quote has been used since the early 70's at least to my knowledge. It was the major industrial polluters answer to releasing really nasty stuff... but that is off topic.

I do believe that larger water volume will shield against pollution until it doesn't. Then is is many times harder to fix it versus a small tank.