Are water changes over rated?

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I'll read the article shortly but my main concern is the actual toxicity of that we don't know actually exists since every tank is different and we won't all keep the same organisms. Nature must process these toxins and I don't believe it's just time which dissipates them considering how long corals have existed. Since ozone and specifically hydroxyl radicals oxidize organics then wouldn't it be logical this would also oxidize these toxins? My mind races back to the fact there are successful keepers performing minimal if any water changes and the only conclusion being their corals don't produce enough to cause concern or somehow they are being naturally resolved. How? No clue but if success is being accomplished by those sticking to the old ways as well as those dosing to replenish without a routine of buckets then it would seem to me that for all change isn't good.

As it stands now. I'm designing my main build with no intention of ever performing a water change and spending time learning all I can then putting it to practice to find a way to combat any and all concerns. Sometimes you have to sink the ships to get the commitment needed to accomplish a dream.

You might also get more on the relationship between organic and corals from the posts of timfish where he posts many articles.

 

[Miami Reef]

@Timfish

 

[GARRIGA]

You might also get more on the relationship between organic and corals from the posts of timfish where he posts many articles.

Please answer this. Since organics are comprised of carbon and hydrogen then won't all organics that would be of concern in the reef aquarium not be oxidized and rendered harmless from turning them into co2 by ozone or peroxide or either or both ran through UV-C to create hydroxyl radicals? My focus being the elimination of that of concern.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Please answer this. Since organics are comprised of carbon and hydrogen then won't all organics that would be of concern in the reef aquarium not be oxidized and rendered harmless from turning them into co2 by ozone or peroxide or either or both ran through UV-C to create hydroxyl radicals? My focus being the elimination of that of concern.

Answer:no.

Neither uv nor ozone nor hydrogen peroxide convert organics into CO2 under the conditions used. Studies show no reduction in doc with ozone, for example.

They attack the most easily oxidized chemical bonds, which fortunately for reefers, those are often the same ones that cause the water to be yellow. So the yellowness goes away, but the organics remain.

 

[GARRIGA]

Answer:no.

Neither uv nor ozone nor hydrogen peroxide convert organics into CO2 under the conditions used. Studies show no reduction in doc with ozone, for example.

They attack the most easily oxidized chemical bonds, which fortunately for reefers, those are often the same ones that cause the water to be yellow. So the yellowness goes away, but the organics remain.

That sucks :crying-face:

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Such processes may damage toxins, making them less toxic, so it’s not all bad. :)

 

[topjimmy]

I'll read the article shortly but my main concern is the actual toxicity of that we don't know actually exists since every tank is different and we won't all keep the same organisms. Nature must process these toxins and I don't believe it's just time which dissipates them considering how long corals have existed. Since ozone and specifically hydroxyl radicals oxidize organics then wouldn't it be logical this would also oxidize these toxins? My mind races back to the fact there are successful keepers performing minimal if any water changes and the only conclusion being their corals don't produce enough to cause concern or somehow they are being naturally resolved. How? No clue but if success is being accomplished by those sticking to the old ways as well as those dosing to replenish without a routine of buckets then it would seem to me that for all change isn't good.

As it stands now. I'm designing my main build with no intention of ever performing a water change and spending time learning all I can then putting it to practice to find a way to combat any and all concerns. Sometimes you have to sink the ships to get the commitment needed to accomplish a dream.

And then die of a simple disease.

 

[GARRIGA]

And then die of a simple disease.

That’s only because they didn’t discover hydroxyl radicals

 

[GARRIGA]

Such processes may damage toxins, making them less toxic, so it’s not all bad. :)

Perhaps I worded it incorrectly. Goal is diminish the negative affect of that I can and can’t measure.

 

[Timfish]

I've had a 30 gallon reef tank setup with all soft corals and 5 fish for almost 2 years. I think the best advice I got over this time was to stop doing routine water changes. The first year of my tanks life I was on a weekly water change schedule and was constantly battling fluctuations with readings and corals being happy and then unhappy. Then I stopped doing water changes, and my tank has flourished over the past year! Haven't done one in months and i just took readings. Nitrates are at 0 and the corals and fish couldn't be happier! So are water changes over rated? What do you think?

My first thought is it can take a 8 to 12 months for a system to mature so it could be entirely a coincedance. You've also left out a whole lot of detail about how your system was setup and what happened during that first year and what other maintenance was done. I wonder because I've set up multiple systems and done weekly water changes and not seen what you've described. And just FYI, "good" coloration and "good" growth can be indicators of a problem, not health. Do you need to do weekly water changes to have a healthy system? No. But as you can see with the below info there's a lot going on in our systems we can't test for. In light of all that is going on that we can't test for I don't see how we can keep reef systems long term without routine water changes.

. . . All I need is knowledge and testing theories. Why until there's verifiable scientific data that only a water change will solve my problem I will seek other venues because to change or not to change seems at the moment purely based on anecdotal self reporting and runs the gamut with each camp challenging the other and all I seek is knowledge. . . .

First a question. Have those systems that claim they've gone years without water changes demonstrated they've been able to complete the life cycles of the animals they are keeping? Since it can ttake decades for some species to become sexually mature and reproduce It seems to me that should be the standard we use to determine if we are successful. Not just keeping them a few years.



Here's a data bomb but to give a simple answer first it really has to do with promoting healthy microbiomes. Corals, algae, sponges, fungii and every organism is dumping Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC, aka carbon dosing) into the water around them. This DOC comprises thousands and thousands of compounds but can be crudely divided into labile (easily consumed or broken down by microbial processes), semi-refractory (difficult to be broken down by microbial processes) and refractory (not normally available to be used by microbial processes). The ratios of these three vary in the oceans with deep waters being a sink for refractory DOC with over 95% refractory and reefs having a higher ratio with roughly one third labile, a tiny amuont of semi-refractory and roughly two thirds refractory. The labile DOC promotes differing groups of microbial processes and here is where there is a devil in the details. DOC from corals promotes autotrophic (oxygen conserving) microbial processes. DOC from algae promotes hetertrophic (oxygen consuming) microbial processes. Some sponges consume DOC and depending on the source of DOC rellease combounds that may be favorable to corals or favorable to algae.

There's two ways excess labile DOC can directly impact corals. One is by promoting heterotrophic shifts in coral microbiomes which include pathogenic species. The other is by creating anoxic conditions in coral microbiomes with uncontrolled microbial growth and this can happen with coral labile DOC as well as algae labile DOC. An important point is excess labile DOC allows some species of heterotrophic microbes to utilize refractory DOC as a food source using metobolic processes that can create anoxic condition around corals.

First is a few videos, and a book.

"Coral Reefs in the Microbial Seas " This video compliments Rohwer's book of the same title (Paper back is ~$20, Kindle is ~$10), both deal with the conflicting roles of the different types of DOC (carbon dosing) in reef ecosystems and how it can alter coral microbiomes. While there is overlap bewteen his book and the video both have information not covered by the other and together give a broader view of the complex relationships found in reef ecosystems


Changing Seas - Mysterious Microbes


Microbial view of Coral Decline


Nitrogen cycling in hte coral holobiont


BActeria and Sponges


Maintenance of Coral Reef Health (refferences at the end)


Optical Feedback Loop in Colorful Coral Bleaching



Rohwer devotes a chapter to this research but here is agian. It shows how labile DOC promotes pathogens in coral microbiomes, and even the coral DOC causes problems.

Pathologies and mortality rates caused by organic carbon and nutrient stressors in three Caribbean
coral species
https://www.int-res.com/articles/meps2005/294/m294p173.pdf
Role of elevated organic carbon levels and microbial activity in coral mortality
https://people.uncw.edu/szmanta/200... 2006 Elevated DOC and microbes on corals.pdf
ALGAE DOC

Indirect effects of algae on coral: algae‐mediated, microbe‐induced coral mortality
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00937.x
Influence of coral and algal exudates on microbially mediated reef metabolism.
Coral DOC improves oxygen (autotrophy), algae DOC reduces oxygen (heterotrophy).
https://peerj.com/articles/108/?utm_source=TrendMD&utm_campaign=PeerJ_TrendMD_0&utm_medium=TrendMD
Role of elevated organic carbon levels and microbial activity in coral mortality
http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps2006/314/m314p119.pdf
Effects of Coral Reef Benthic Primary Producers on Dissolved Organic Carbon and Microbial Activity
Algae releases significantly more DOC into the water than coral.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0027973
Visualization of oxygen distribution patterns caused by coral and algae
https://peerj.com/articles/106/
Biological oxygen demand optode analysis of coral reef-associated microbial communities exposed to algal exudates
Exposure to exudates derived from turf algae stimulated higher oxygen drawdown by the coral-associated bacteria.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3719127/
Microbial ecology: Algae feed a shift on coral reefs
https://www.nature.com/articles/nmicrobiol201661
Coral and macroalgal exudates vary in neutral sugar composition and differentially enrich reef bacterioplankton lineages.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23303369
Sugar enrichment provides evidence for a role of nitrogen fixation in coral bleaching
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.13695
Elevated ammonium delays the impairment of the coral-dinoflagellate symbiosis during labile carbon pollution
(here's an argument for maintaining heavy fish loads if you're carbon dosing)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166445X19307192
Excess labile carbon promotes the expression of virulence factors in coral reef bacterioplankton
https://www.nature.com/articles/ismej2017142
Unseen players shape benthic competition on coral reefs.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22944243
Allelochemicals Produced by Brown Macroalgae of the Lobophora Genus Are Active against Coral Larvae and Associated Bacteria, Supporting Pathogenic Shifts to Vibrio Dominance.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27795310
Macroalgae decrease growth and alter microbial community structure of the reef-building coral, Porites astreoides.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22957055
Macroalgal extracts induce bacterial assemblage shifts and sublethal tissue stress in Caribbean corals.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23028648
Biophysical and physiological processes causing oxygen loss from coral reefs.
https://elifesciences.org/articles/49114.pdf
Global microbialization of coral reefs
DDAM Proven
https://www.nature.com/articles/nmicrobiol201642
Coral Reef Microorganisms in a Changing Climate, Fig 3
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7096749/figure/fig3/
Ecosystem Microbiology of Coral Reefs: Linking Genomic, Metabolomic, and Biogeochemical Dynamics from Animal Symbioses to Reefscape Processes
https://msystems.asm.org/content/msys/3/2/e00162-17.full.pdf

SPONGES

Element cycling on tropical coral reefs.
This is Jasper de Geoij's ground breaking research on reef sponge finding some species process labile DOC 1000X faster than bacterioplankton. (The introduction is in Dutch but the content is in English.)
https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/files/14555035/13completethesis.pdf
Sponge symbionts and the marine P cycle
https://www.pnas.org/content/112/14/4191
Phosphorus sequestration in the form of polyphosphate by microbial symbionts in marine sponges
https://www.pnas.org/content/112/14/4381
Differential recycling of coral and algal dissolved organic matter via the sponge loop.
Sponges treat DOC from algae differently than DOC from corals
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2435.12758
A Vicious Circle? Altered Carbon and Nutrient Cycling May Explain the Low Resilience of Caribbean Coral Reefs
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/66/6/470/2754308
Surviving in a Marine Desert The Sponge Loop Retains Resources Within Coral Reefs
Dissolved organic carbon and nitrogen are quickly processed by sponges and released back into the reef food web in hours as carbon and nitrogen rich detritus.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279061640_2013_deGoeij_Science_Sponge_loop
Natural Diet of Coral-Excavating Sponges Consists Mainly of Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3934968/
The Role of Marine Sponges in Carbon and Nitrogen Cycles of COral Reefs and Nearshore Environments.
https://search.proquest.com/openvie...9d1e5/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
Since we're discussing favorable and not so favorable bacteria here's a paper looking at how different corals and polyps are influencing the bacteria in the water column.
Aura-biomes are present in the water layer above coral reef benthic macro-organisms
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28828261

 

[GARRIGA]

First a question. Have those systems that claim they've gone years without water changes demonstrated they've been able to complete the life cycles of the animals they are keeping? Since it can ttake decades for some species to become sexually mature and reproduce It seems to me that should be the standard we use to determine if we are successful. Not just keeping them a few years.

Thank you for the information and with time I'll digest it but I have a real simple question. Not knowing what unknown lurks below the waves of our tiny slice of the ocean then how does one know how much change needed to dilute these issues faster than they are produced within? Can't just go off an online calculator stating x amount of water by y amount of frequency completes one full tank turnover because the excretion by our organisms might still be faster than just completing one tank turn over every few months. Your tank chock full of corals going to excrete more than my mini pool with 1" frags. That's my conundrum with this blind placebo that exchange solves what may or may not exist.

I understand the ocean sink process but there's up-welling that bring nutrients to the surface and something I seek when fishing offshore in 1600 feet of water. To what extent that affects the coral reefs unknown yet am I to believe that these corals excreting since before recorded time have not exhausted that sink? How would anyone know that considering little of our oceans have been explored? Extrapolation helps but not definitive.

As for decade sample then let's consider what Paul has done last 50 plus years. According to him he limits change to about 5 times annually along with DE filtration to remove that normally not solved by mechanical including skimming. Perhaps that's enough but fact is only that removed is fixed and rest diluted. This goes back to my inability to calculate how much and how often is enough to fight that ever growing issue before it becomes toxic.

Fact as it pertains to life in a box. We just don't know. Therefore neither side can say it works. At best. One big guess.

This is why I said that I could argue that not knowing what exists, how quickly it is released or how much before it becomes toxic that I could argue nothing short of 100% daily will ever solve this concern. No one can provide proof my argument is flawed because no one can show these issues actually exist in my slice of water or that I've removed them to the level before becoming toxic regardless if 100% daily, 10% weekly, 30% monthly of 1% daily as some do with AWC. As it pertains to those of us without access to the testing that would prove levels then it's just a feel good guess.

Why I went down the rabbit hole with AOP. Lot's of conflicting thoughts yet the science says that when OH is produced it's indiscriminate and will affect all organic and some inorganic. To me. That's more practical if applied judiciously and with caution then to rely on some mythical belief that the amount of change I'm performing at the interval it's being performed will guarantee me the required results. This is why I plan on conducting several tests in my 20H from it's affect on straight tap to biological filtration to treating pathogens to then seeing how it impacts inverts. I understand there's some negative effects yet not fully understanding them the only way to see how it impacts my box is to just try it.

I know of no one that has applied this to reef aquariums yet there's literature on it's use in waste water and aquaculture. I'm not exactly flying blind yet solely relying on x out over some predetermined time where no tests can tell me what was there and what has now been removed to me is flying blind. To me that's mostly a placebo because few have been in the hobby long enough to talk about decades and those that have would have needed to have never changed any variables and best they ran various identical systems with varying amount of change with base being no change and that would still be purely anecdotal unless somehow the same tests that have confirmed these toxins exist in the ocean can be tested in these trials.

Final note that might just put my view in better light. Just as we don't know what problems swim with our fish. How do we know that new salt hasn't been contaminated? If ICP-MS isn't telling us what's in our tank then how's it telling us what's in the new mix? We have fish in the lower keys swimming in circles that have scientists baffled. Endangered saw-fish are dying at an alarming rate. Cause believed to be run off from all the fertilizer and pesticides used in farming and by Joe the self gardener wanting a Green Thumb approval from his friends. These shallows also contain CUC that are sold in the hobby. How do we know next shipment not bringing more than purchased? From talking to the owner at ICP-Testing he educated me on DI used in nuclear plants that remove well below the color changing resins employed today. Could be every top off and new water contaminated because the TDS meter reads ppm and containment in ppb. You'd argue latter more reason for change yet I go right back to the salt possibly being the source of new contaminants. Recall the Turkey concern with a well known brand. Last I read they tested and found no issues. Perhaps their test not comprehensive enough. Do recall reefers claiming deaths after the change.

Will concede this much. I'm starting to see value again in skimming, if it's able to attract what GAC doesn't remove although outside of finding a filtration method that guarantees removal of toxins there is in my mind no guarantee change is good. If I can't prove I didn't filter it out then how can I blinding assume it did and still keep going back to the fact that beautiful mythical new fresh salt isn't my actual concern?

Wouldn't what companies like AquaBiomics not provide the level of testing that can confirm what toxins might exist as that like ICP would provide the required formula to determine how much and how often or what dosing needed. Clueless to what exactly all those tests confirm but then I'm not trying to be a chemist or biologist. Just want a printout that tells me x is bad and how to best solve it. I think holistically and not literally and that's how I've been able to solve that which wasn't solved in the past. Why I read the conclusion or abstract on scientific paper. My brain loses focus reading scientific papers. You might as well have written them in another language yet I can abstractly squeeze out the pertinent details and connect the dots once enough has been digested. What I can't do is follow a path that seems illogical just because many do. After 40 plus years being told I won't succeed because others haven't I've learned that often it's because we were too busy following the past vs risking failure to gain new success. Doing tomorrow what was done yesterday isn't evolution. Might be survival but only until conditions change and with all the pollution world wide and us Joe Reefers relying on that supplied with no clue what stringent testing if any was conducted it seems like blind faith that new batch of salt better than what was thrown away. Don't get me started on tin.

 

[areefer01]

Thank you for the information and with time I'll digest it but I have a real simple question. Not knowing what unknown lurks below the waves of our tiny slice of the ocean then how does one know how much change needed to dilute these issues faster than they are produced within? Can't just go off an online calculator stating x amount of water by y amount of frequency completes one full tank turnover because the excretion by our organisms might still be faster than just completing one tank turn over every few months. Your tank chock full of corals going to excrete more than my mini pool with 1" frags. That's my conundrum with this blind placebo that exchange solves what may or may not exist.

I understand the ocean sink process but there's up-welling that bring nutrients to the surface and something I seek when fishing offshore in 1600 feet of water. To what extent that affects the coral reefs unknown yet am I to believe that these corals excreting since before recorded time have not exhausted that sink? How would anyone know that considering little of our oceans have been explored? Extrapolation helps but not definitive.

As for decade sample then let's consider what Paul has done last 50 plus years. According to him he limits change to about 5 times annually along with DE filtration to remove that normally not solved by mechanical including skimming. Perhaps that's enough but fact is only that removed is fixed and rest diluted. This goes back to my inability to calculate how much and how often is enough to fight that ever growing issue before it becomes toxic.

Fact as it pertains to life in a box. We just don't know. Therefore neither side can say it works. At best. One big guess.

This is why I said that I could argue that not knowing what exists, how quickly it is released or how much before it becomes toxic that I could argue nothing short of 100% daily will ever solve this concern. No one can provide proof my argument is flawed because no one can show these issues actually exist in my slice of water or that I've removed them to the level before becoming toxic regardless if 100% daily, 10% weekly, 30% monthly of 1% daily as some do with AWC. As it pertains to those of us without access to the testing that would prove levels then it's just a feel good guess.

Why I went down the rabbit hole with AOP. Lot's of conflicting thoughts yet the science says that when OH is produced it's indiscriminate and will affect all organic and some inorganic. To me. That's more practical if applied judiciously and with caution then to rely on some mythical belief that the amount of change I'm performing at the interval it's being performed will guarantee me the required results. This is why I plan on conducting several tests in my 20H from it's affect on straight tap to biological filtration to treating pathogens to then seeing how it impacts inverts. I understand there's some negative effects yet not fully understanding them the only way to see how it impacts my box is to just try it.

I know of no one that has applied this to reef aquariums yet there's literature on it's use in waste water and aquaculture. I'm not exactly flying blind yet solely relying on x out over some predetermined time where no tests can tell me what was there and what has now been removed to me is flying blind. To me that's mostly a placebo because few have been in the hobby long enough to talk about decades and those that have would have needed to have never changed any variables and best they ran various identical systems with varying amount of change with base being no change and that would still be purely anecdotal unless somehow the same tests that have confirmed these toxins exist in the ocean can be tested in these trials.

Final note that might just put my view in better light. Just as we don't know what problems swim with our fish. How do we know that new salt hasn't been contaminated? If ICP-MS isn't telling us what's in our tank then how's it telling us what's in the new mix? We have fish in the lower keys swimming in circles that have scientists baffled. Endangered saw-fish are dying at an alarming rate. Cause believed to be run off from all the fertilizer and pesticides used in farming and by Joe the self gardener wanting a Green Thumb approval from his friends. These shallows also contain CUC that are sold in the hobby. How do we know next shipment not bringing more than purchased? From talking to the owner at ICP-Testing he educated me on DI used in nuclear plants that remove well below the color changing resins employed today. Could be every top off and new water contaminated because the TDS meter reads ppm and containment in ppb. You'd argue latter more reason for change yet I go right back to the salt possibly being the source of new contaminants. Recall the Turkey concern with a well known brand. Last I read they tested and found no issues. Perhaps their test not comprehensive enough. Do recall reefers claiming deaths after the change.

Will concede this much. I'm starting to see value again in skimming, if it's able to attract what GAC doesn't remove although outside of finding a filtration method that guarantees removal of toxins there is in my mind no guarantee change is good. If I can't prove I didn't filter it out then how can I blinding assume it did and still keep going back to the fact that beautiful mythical new fresh salt isn't my actual concern?

Wouldn't what companies like AquaBiomics not provide the level of testing that can confirm what toxins might exist as that like ICP would provide the required formula to determine how much and how often or what dosing needed. Clueless to what exactly all those tests confirm but then I'm not trying to be a chemist or biologist. Just want a printout that tells me x is bad and how to best solve it. I think holistically and not literally and that's how I've been able to solve that which wasn't solved in the past. Why I read the conclusion or abstract on scientific paper. My brain loses focus reading scientific papers. You might as well have written them in another language yet I can abstractly squeeze out the pertinent details and connect the dots once enough has been digested. What I can't do is follow a path that seems illogical just because many do. After 40 plus years being told I won't succeed because others haven't I've learned that often it's because we were too busy following the past vs risking failure to gain new success. Doing tomorrow what was done yesterday isn't evolution. Might be survival but only until conditions change and with all the pollution world wide and us Joe Reefers relying on that supplied with no clue what stringent testing if any was conducted it seems like blind faith that new batch of salt better than what was thrown away. Don't get me started on tin.

How did we manage a reef all the years prior to affordable ICP or eDNA testing?

 

[Garf]

How did we manage a reef all the years prior to affordable ICP or eDNA testing?

Well, if our DI resin is that bad, we had better stop topping off, also. Nobody had a nice tank prior to 2008, obviously.

 

[GARRIGA]

How did we manage a reef all the years prior to affordable ICP or eDNA testing?

Depends on what you define as managed and who you refer to. 80s/90s knew of many that crashed. Lost track of that as I was no longer in the business but kept up on current events hoping we'd one day solve nitrates and denitrification then came the reef forums where often you'd read about many failures. Today it's consensus that pertains to dry rock yet most customers back in the day were all about live rock. Only dry rock I knew then was some porous rock who's name eludes me and no longer found in the hobby. Today we still have many failures and mostly I've concluded by those doing changes therefore that wasn't stopping it. Likely lack of elements vs excess.

Can't dispute an established tank creates more toxins then six months in with frags starting to take hold. Both should follow the same routine?

 

[GARRIGA]

https://www.icp-analysis.com/products/icp-analysis-ultra-grade-stage-2-di-resin
Food for thought on DI although laughing at the mere mention likely more entertaining yet lacks substance. If all we are going to do is laugh. I'm out. Too old for nonsense.

 

[Garf]

https://www.icp-analysis.com/products/icp-analysis-ultra-grade-stage-2-di-resin
Food for thought on DI although laughing at the mere mention likely more entertaining yet lacks substance. If all we are going to do is laugh. I'm out. Too old for nonsense.

I've one question before you disappear, you have obviously researched this ICP thing rigourously. If pure water is contaminated with say a toxin, does the ICP spit out a number of elements that say nothing about it's origin, or does it say there is a problem? I think I know the answer, just want to make sure, thanks.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Thank you for the information and with time I'll digest it but I have a real simple question. Not knowing what unknown lurks below the waves of our tiny slice of the ocean then how does one know how much change needed to dilute these issues faster than they are produced within? Can't just go off an online calculator stating x amount of water by y amount of frequency completes one full tank turnover because the excretion by our organisms might still be faster than just completing one tank turn over every few months. Your tank chock full of corals going to excrete more than my mini pool with 1" frags. That's my conundrum with this blind placebo that exchange solves what may or may not exist.

I understand the ocean sink process but there's up-welling that bring nutrients to the surface and something I seek when fishing offshore in 1600 feet of water. To what extent that affects the coral reefs unknown yet am I to believe that these corals excreting since before recorded time have not exhausted that sink? How would anyone know that considering little of our oceans have been explored? Extrapolation helps but not definitive.

As for decade sample then let's consider what Paul has done last 50 plus years. According to him he limits change to about 5 times annually along with DE filtration to remove that normally not solved by mechanical including skimming. Perhaps that's enough but fact is only that removed is fixed and rest diluted. This goes back to my inability to calculate how much and how often is enough to fight that ever growing issue before it becomes toxic.

Fact as it pertains to life in a box. We just don't know. Therefore neither side can say it works. At best. One big guess.

This is why I said that I could argue that not knowing what exists, how quickly it is released or how much before it becomes toxic that I could argue nothing short of 100% daily will ever solve this concern. No one can provide proof my argument is flawed because no one can show these issues actually exist in my slice of water or that I've removed them to the level before becoming toxic regardless if 100% daily, 10% weekly, 30% monthly of 1% daily as some do with AWC. As it pertains to those of us without access to the testing that would prove levels then it's just a feel good guess.

Why I went down the rabbit hole with AOP. Lot's of conflicting thoughts yet the science says that when OH is produced it's indiscriminate and will affect all organic and some inorganic. To me. That's more practical if applied judiciously and with caution then to rely on some mythical belief that the amount of change I'm performing at the interval it's being performed will guarantee me the required results. This is why I plan on conducting several tests in my 20H from it's affect on straight tap to biological filtration to treating pathogens to then seeing how it impacts inverts. I understand there's some negative effects yet not fully understanding them the only way to see how it impacts my box is to just try it.

I know of no one that has applied this to reef aquariums yet there's literature on it's use in waste water and aquaculture. I'm not exactly flying blind yet solely relying on x out over some predetermined time where no tests can tell me what was there and what has now been removed to me is flying blind. To me that's mostly a placebo because few have been in the hobby long enough to talk about decades and those that have would have needed to have never changed any variables and best they ran various identical systems with varying amount of change with base being no change and that would still be purely anecdotal unless somehow the same tests that have confirmed these toxins exist in the ocean can be tested in these trials.

Final note that might just put my view in better light. Just as we don't know what problems swim with our fish. How do we know that new salt hasn't been contaminated? If ICP-MS isn't telling us what's in our tank then how's it telling us what's in the new mix? We have fish in the lower keys swimming in circles that have scientists baffled. Endangered saw-fish are dying at an alarming rate. Cause believed to be run off from all the fertilizer and pesticides used in farming and by Joe the self gardener wanting a Green Thumb approval from his friends. These shallows also contain CUC that are sold in the hobby. How do we know next shipment not bringing more than purchased? From talking to the owner at ICP-Testing he educated me on DI used in nuclear plants that remove well below the color changing resins employed today. Could be every top off and new water contaminated because the TDS meter reads ppm and containment in ppb. You'd argue latter more reason for change yet I go right back to the salt possibly being the source of new contaminants. Recall the Turkey concern with a well known brand. Last I read they tested and found no issues. Perhaps their test not comprehensive enough. Do recall reefers claiming deaths after the change.

Will concede this much. I'm starting to see value again in skimming, if it's able to attract what GAC doesn't remove although outside of finding a filtration method that guarantees removal of toxins there is in my mind no guarantee change is good. If I can't prove I didn't filter it out then how can I blinding assume it did and still keep going back to the fact that beautiful mythical new fresh salt isn't my actual concern?

Wouldn't what companies like AquaBiomics not provide the level of testing that can confirm what toxins might exist as that like ICP would provide the required formula to determine how much and how often or what dosing needed. Clueless to what exactly all those tests confirm but then I'm not trying to be a chemist or biologist. Just want a printout that tells me x is bad and how to best solve it. I think holistically and not literally and that's how I've been able to solve that which wasn't solved in the past. Why I read the conclusion or abstract on scientific paper. My brain loses focus reading scientific papers. You might as well have written them in another language yet I can abstractly squeeze out the pertinent details and connect the dots once enough has been digested. What I can't do is follow a path that seems illogical just because many do. After 40 plus years being told I won't succeed because others haven't I've learned that often it's because we were too busy following the past vs risking failure to gain new success. Doing tomorrow what was done yesterday isn't evolution. Might be survival but only until conditions change and with all the pollution world wide and us Joe Reefers relying on that supplied with no clue what stringent testing if any was conducted it seems like blind faith that new batch of salt better than what was thrown away. Don't get me started on tin.

The idea is to minimize risks at reasonable cost and effort, not to totally eliminate any risks. :)

 

[GARRIGA]

The idea is to minimize risks at reasonable cost and effort, not to totally eliminate any risks. :)

I agree. Yet without the ability to test there is a risk that said cost and effort has succeeded then to me it's blindly believing it did.

 

[GARRIGA]

I've one question before you disappear, you have obviously researched this ICP thing rigourously. If pure water is contaminated with say a toxin, does the ICP spit out a number of elements that say nothing about it's origin, or does it say there is a problem? I think I know the answer, just want to make sure, thanks.

I'm pretty sure you know we all have the same answer. Want to debate the points I made or just poke? I'm hoping to advance the hobby. Not get mocked. Stopped being 12 a long time ago.

 

[Garf]

I'm pretty sure you know we all have the same answer. Want to debate the points I made or just poke? I'm hoping to advance the hobby. Not get mocked. Stopped being 12 a long time ago.

I'm no spring chicken myself. Personally I went through the no / extremely limited waterchange phase around the same time algae scrubbers were DIY only, which I embraced fully, until I didn't.