Are water changes over rated?

[GARRIGA]

Doesn’t need to be complex. Here’s one option where UV housing enlarged to allow captured air through Venturi exposed to 185nm wavelength creating ozone which is then fed back to same UV to be exposed to 253nm which dissipates it into OH. Simultaneously creates and dissipates although unknown if GAC still needed to handle OPO and why another option might be to dose peroxide vs depending on ozone.

Only thing more powerful than OH being fluorine.

Reefers already utilize UV and option for them might be as simple as feeding ozone or peroxide into it. Especially for those already combining ozone but instead of passing it though GAC post skimmer or reactor have it first pass through their existing UV.

BTW, not sure with this idea one needs a skimmer to introduce ozone because it seems simple Venturi solves introduction and have seen it used for wastewater in that fashion.

Unknown being how much UV-C needed per mg of ozone introduced but seems based on what is produced by that Aqua UV that can be used as a baseline yet ORP can be used to fine tune dosage used.

 

[GARRIGA]

 

[Faurek]

Water changes are the one single thing most proven by time.
Yes you can get away without water changes in certain systems like LPS and softies, and sometimes SPS if you spend way too much on bottles.
But water changes are not only to replenish traces, which they do, but if you never take gunk off the aquarium you will get serious buildup of things deteriorating and your water gets fowl. When you WC you get detritus and contaminants out and replenish with nice clean water. How is that overrated? Have you ever kept a tank for 20 years without WC? I haven't and probably nobody has, there is a reason why. Even people with goldfish in a bowl understand this simple thing "water get dirty, need to change it". Yes you can run carbon and dose all triton, moonshiners or whatever bottles but it will never be the same as good clean water.

 

[Timfish]

Reference - please

Sincerely Lasse

In my post #190 there's a paper under the "Sponge" section that shows sponge differentially processing the DOC from corals. There's this paper. This line from this paper seems to me to put it in a nutshell although it's not specifically looking at cryptic sponges.

"Studies of coral-algae and coral-sponge interactions often show competitive dominance of algae and sponges over corals"

 

[Timfish]

That's not a term I'd typically use, but those molecules in the ocean (see details below) are not going to be very effectively removed by skimming, when present. They are just too hydrophilic and do not absorb at an air/water interface.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304420397000029#:~:text=These%20data%20suggest%20that%20dissolved,quite%20uniform%20throughout%20the%20ocean.

These data suggest that dissolved combined neutral sugars are a reactive component of the DOC pool. The molecular composition of these combined sugars was generally similar for surface waters ranging from marsh effluents to oligotrophic oceanic waters; glucose, galactose, mannose + xylose (coeluted), and fucose were the dominant sugars. Our data suggest that the molecular composition of dissolved neutral sugars in surface waters is quite uniform throughout the ocean.

Multiple researchers have been using the term DCNS for awhile so I don't usually see any reason to use something else when I'm referencing a researcher that's using that term. Haas showed DCNS is what allows bacteria to utilize refractory DOC so it's obviously reactive. Your link was interesting. Haas' research on global microbializtion found reefs overrun with algae had reduced levels of DOC and as it's microbial utilization of DCNS that creates those conditions.

"Algae always release more dissolved organic carbon than corals, . . . but in the reefs with more algae you see less DOC."

 

[Lasse]

How are you determing you have healthy microbiomes? Bright colors and growth can't be used as the standards for healty corals. To borrow a freinds non-PC phrase, it's like using what Victoria's Secret or Ambercrombie's runway models look like as the standard to judge whether a person is healthy or not.

I have yet seen any system that has been running and has coral not have cryptic sponges. So a fundamental problem in using established systems as examples is it has to be shown these systems didn't have any cryptic sponges removing labile DOC AND the labile DOC was not impacting the coral's immune systems and health.

An additional problem is determining the innate immune system of the individual coral. Just because an system has corals apparently thriving doesn't mean it's a healthy system that is good for other coral, een of the same species. Wright, et al, showed a coral's immune system varied significantly at the genotype level. A pathogen that would kill 100% of one genotype had no effect on another genotype of the same species*. The "success" of the systems you're refferencing may have more to do with the resiliance of the species involved than the methodology.

Feldman, et al, (1) (2) developed two metrics skimmer manufactuers could use so consumers could see how one skimmer stacked up against the another. Using these metrics there wasn't much difference between skimmers and they didn't take much out. Refferencing back to the links I mentioned earlier, a primary culprit is the Dissolved Combined Neutral Sugars, DCNS. I have spent hours searching and haven't found any research showing they are directly removed by skimmers. They are removed by sponges very quickly. And as they are forms of labile DOC sponges can be removing 1000X times faster than the bacterialplankton that is only partially removed by skimmers.

You miss the basic question (or my claim) that these system is - in spite of internal labil DOC production - the bacteria is labil DOC limited cause dosing of external labile DOC will improve the growth of heterotrophic bacteria.

But you end up with some nasty byproducts that you don't want in a healthy ecosystem

Which is the nasty biproducts of a total disinfection by Ozone?

Every link you have come up with report the change in microbial fauna when the algae have take over because of lack of grazers. Nothing about systems there algae, sponges and corals exist together un balance.

Somewhere you mention that sponges convert a of of labile DOC to detritus which carbon´s only benthic organisms could use. IMO - that´s a good thing.

I do not dose labile DOC directly in my DT - I let my algae and corals manage that. I dose ethanol but in my denitrification filter.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Multiple researchers have been using the term DCNS for awhile so I don't usually see any reason to use something else when I'm referencing a researcher that's using that term. Haas showed DCNS is what allows bacteria to utilize refractory DOC so it's obviously reactive. Your link was interesting. Haas' research on global microbializtion found reefs overrun with algae had reduced levels of DOC and as it's microbial utilization of DCNS that creates those conditions.

"Algae always release more dissolved organic carbon than corals, . . . but in the reefs with more algae you see less DOC."

Not saying you should, but I suspect very, very few readers, even chemists, will know what exactly those sugars are without looking them up. I’d just call them sugars. lol

 

[Timfish]

You miss the basic question (or my claim) that these system is - in spite of internal labil DOC production - the bacteria is labil DOC limited cause dosing of external labile DOC will improve the growth of heterotrophic bacteria.

This is exactly the problem Lasse! Multiple papers by multiple researchers show the growth of bacteria from an increase in DOC kills corals. Specifically the growth of heterotrophic bacteria from an increase in labile DOC creates anoxic conditions in coral microbiomes and surface boundary layers. Even the a coral's own DOC, when collected and reapplied to the coral causes it problems! If you look back, some of Randy Holmes-Farley's posts when carbon dosing started he was warning aquarists the growth of heterotrophic bacteria causing drops in oxygen. Now we have research that shows this is exactly what kills corals (see post #190 for links to the papers).

Every link you have come up with report the change in microbial fauna when the algae have take over because of lack of grazers. Nothing about systems there algae, sponges and corals exist together un balance.

No. It's not every link. There's links just looking at sponges. There's links just looking at the effects of DOC on microbial populations or growth. Rohwer's book among other items looks at the importance of sharks for a healthy ecosystem and how nutrient enhancement from sewage can upset the balance by allowing algae to proliferate which puts more DOC into the ecosystem. Balance is obviously very important, and what research shows is increasing DOC upsets the balance in coral microbiomes.

Somewhere you mention that sponges convert a of of labile DOC to detritus which carbon´s only benthic organisms could use. IMO - that´s a good thing.

This is a very good thing. In light of the research I've read, it's what's saving animals when people carbon dose.

I do not dose labile DOC directly in my DT - I let my algae and corals manage that. I dose ethanol but in my denitrification filter.

Sincerely Lasse

My mentor who owned an LFS back in the 80s, 90s and 2000s was a big fan of DAS systems that had integrated denitrating filters. My experience in the 90's and early 2000s was maintaining them long term following the reccommendation of just once yearly (20% - 30%) water change they would have more problems than systems with weekly or monthly water changes. The last one I mantained that way lasted about 14 or 15 years before we had a very recalcatrant algae problem.

 

[GARRIGA]

@Lasse runs a separate filter where he doses carbon. Wouldn't that reduce the affects of heterotroph oxygen robbing bacteria on corals? Plus do we definitively know these bacteria based on carbon dosing are utilizing dissolved oxygen vs the bound oxygen which occurs in denitrification?

Not sure failures with denitrification and 30% annual WC can be paralleled today with ICP supplemented trace.

Field papers are amazing trough of knowledge but do they always translate to aquarium confinement?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

@Lasse runs a separate filter where he doses carbon. Wouldn't that reduce the affects of heterotroph oxygen robbing bacteria on corals? Plus do we definitively know these bacteria based on carbon dosing are utilizing dissolved oxygen vs the bound oxygen which occurs in denitrification?

Not sure failures with denitrification and 30% annual WC can be paralleled today with ICP supplemented trace.

Field papers are amazing trough of knowledge but do they always translate to aquarium confinement?

Yes. Using organic carbon in a denitrator limits this concern.

That said, I think the concern may be overblown and dosing organics does not seemingly lead to coral deaths in the great majority of reef tanks.

 

[GARRIGA]

Yes. Using organic carbon in a denitrator limits this concern.

That said, I think the concern may be overblown and dosing organics does not seemingly lead to coral deaths in the great majority of reef tanks.

Glad that's solved.

Now can we dispense with AOP used infrequently causing the great demise of corals or formulating new more evil DOC because my basic rudimentary knowledge says all DOC gets solved by AOP. Fingers crossed on this :)

 

[Lasse]

Plus do we definitively know these bacteria based on carbon dosing are utilizing dissolved oxygen vs the bound oxygen which occurs in denitrification?

Yes some of them - they first use oxygen for the basic energy process (as electron acceptors) - when oxygen is gone they can change to using NO3 for the same purpose. The old thinking was that they use O in NO3 but that´s not valid today - they use the whole NO3 molecule as electron acceptor. In the anaerobic phase they also switch the electron donor from H to the DOC in use. The actual DOC serve both as biomass builder and as an electron donor in the anaerobic phase.

Yes - the basic idea with my system is that I want to place the processes there I can control them.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[GARRIGA]

Yes some of them - they first use oxygen for the basic energy process (as electron acceptors) - when oxygen is gone they can change to using NO3 for the same purpose. The old thinking was that they use O in NO3 but that´s not valid today - they use the whole NO3 molecule as electron acceptor. In the anaerobic phase they also switch the electron donor from H to the DOC in use. The actual DOC serve both as biomass builder and as an electron donor in the anaerobic phase.

Yes - the basic idea with my system is that I want to place the processes there I can control them.

Sincerely Lasse

Now I'm confused. Thought they used the O and then left N behind which would exit at the gas exchange interface although in nature there might be fixers that convert that to plant food.

Isn't the process from NO3 that as O as is utilized it goes to NO2 then NO then N?

 

[Lasse]

Aerobic metabolism O2 is used as final electron acceptor and will be reduced to H2O (water)
Anaerobic metabolism with available NO3 - NO3 (as molecule) is the final electron acceptor and the result will be N2 plus H2O in the end

That how I understand it at least

Sincerely Lasse

 

[MnFish1]

@Lasse runs a separate filter where he doses carbon. Wouldn't that reduce the affects of heterotroph oxygen robbing bacteria on corals? Plus do we definitively know these bacteria based on carbon dosing are utilizing dissolved oxygen vs the bound oxygen which occurs in denitrification?

I wouldn't think it would - since there is a given amount of bacteria growing in the water and a given amount of oxygen in the water. Now locally, around corals, there may be more oxygen in the Lasse system than the other - but I don't think any of the referenced provide can help prove or disprove it other than theoretical/best guess?

Not sure failures with denitrification and 30% annual WC can be paralleled today with ICP supplemented trace.

I'm not sure there is a huge amount of evidence that ICP and supplemental trace is consistently better than any other method. Especially given the multiple differences in results seen in different tanks using the same ICP - there are some great tanks - and failed tanks. With water changes there are great tanks and failed tanks. With carbon dosing, there are great tanks and failed tanks.

Field papers are amazing trough of knowledge but do they always translate to aquarium confinement?

True.

 

[GARRIGA]

I'm not sure there is a huge amount of evidence that ICP and supplemental trace is consistently better than any other method. Especially given the multiple differences in results seen in different tanks using the same ICP - there are some great tanks - and failed tanks. With water changes there are great tanks and failed tanks. With carbon dosing, there are great tanks and failed tanks.

My point being that cause of failure 25 years ago can't necessarily be attributed to lack of water changes just because other tanks having more frequent changes were successful. You'd have to run each tank identical and to that aspect, 25 years ago we didn't have ICP and although trace was known and relatively well understood we had no way of administering it properly therefore would those tanks have failed had they been properly supplemented?

Fast forward to present and ICP hasn't been around long enough to prove my theory but also not long enough to be dismissed.

First we had Trident and their approach which was modified by the Dutch Method by looking at lesser elements then Moonshiner (could be wrong in order but not level of complexity) which flew the cooks nest with 20 plus bottles required to get precise balancing yet we don't have evidence to suggest corals require alignment with NSW daily versus perhaps access to these elements at certain volumes. Randy spoke of this.

I'm not going to be persuaded to abandon my path because of events in the past knowing no one that I know of has taken the exact same path. ICP supplemented trace wasn't even a thought by most of us, if any. Recall seeing Jake Adams where it appeared he was astounded this existed. If that guy was surprised then I'm calling it for everyone else as well. Can't find a single reference of others outside of HumbleFish considering AOP and not sure those guys grasp it's AOP. Seems they ran into it seeking ways to dissipate peroxide for large tank treatments. To some extent, that's how I found it. Cryptic zone seems newish. At least to me. Carbon dosing I've tested and confirmed and now taking a new direction dosing it directly into media vs display. Thank you Lasse.

There's so much being learned and being advanced that I refuse to just accept rest of my life tied to buckets because most know that and have been successful yet same group for the most part don't seem to have gone down my path. Why my dilemma stuck on what exactly was removed because assuming changing water adds anything ICP can't provide seems illogical. Did the WC remove coral warfare remnants? Did it remove DOC deemed harmful (that's new to me and still confusing)? Did it remove some foreign object we can't fathom because it's produced by certain organism that science hasn't discovered. Seems to me latter the only concern and yet can't grasp how AOP which supposedly destroys all carbon matter by robbing it's hydrogen atom (as I understand it) wouldn't solve that as well. Changing 40% based on one diagram isn't convincing this old dude that questions everything.

As I've mentioned. Worse case, I'll perform a periodic transfusion by parking a truck outside my house every few years and have them replace 5x to 10x my volume which should equate to one full tank turnover. Think I recall the magic number is 9x. Know for a fact several have pointed out their tanks have gone 3 plus years without spilling a drop of bucket water.

Luckily for me in South Florida there used to be a service that would deliver actual NSW. Have considered doing that to start my tank vs playing with RODI and salt hoping to match required parameters. Going to be a challenge just filling up this beast with RODI to the point only solution I have is go tap then run AOP then sediment plus GAC then spends dollars wasting DI to clean it up and I'm going to need full size Big Blue filters because those 2-1/2 canisters aren't getting that resolved quick enough. Big Blue will be in place as they have their purpose on my path but do I really want to play with DI because last I'm doing is wasting hundreds of gallons waiting to fill her up. Don't even have the feasibility to add that volume while handling the waste produced. Might as well just forgo that challenge and fill it to the brim with NSW.

Honestly. I've science the crap out of this to the point I feel like I'm Matt Damon lost on Mars and I've already ran out of ketchup :crying-face:

 

[MnFish1]

My point being that cause of failure 25 years ago can't necessarily be attributed to lack of water changes just because other tanks having more frequent changes were successful. You'd have to run each tank identical and to that aspect, 25 years ago we didn't have ICP and although trace was known and relatively well understood we had no way of administering it properly therefore would those tanks have failed had they been properly supplemented?

Fast forward to present and ICP hasn't been around long enough to prove my theory but also not long enough to be dismissed.

First we had Trident and their approach which was modified by the Dutch Method by looking at lesser elements then Moonshiner (could be wrong in order but not level of complexity) which flew the cooks nest with 20 plus bottles required to get precise balancing yet we don't have evidence to suggest corals require alignment with NSW daily versus perhaps access to these elements at certain volumes. Randy spoke of this.

I'm not going to be persuaded to abandon my path because of events in the past knowing no one that I know of has taken the exact same path. ICP supplemented trace wasn't even a thought by most of us, if any. Recall seeing Jake Adams where it appeared he was astounded this existed. If that guy was surprised then I'm calling it for everyone else as well. Can't find a single reference of others outside of HumbleFish considering AOP and not sure those guys grasp it's AOP. Seems they ran into it seeking ways to dissipate peroxide for large tank treatments. To some extent, that's how I found it. Cryptic zone seems newish. At least to me. Carbon dosing I've tested and confirmed and now taking a new direction dosing it directly into media vs display. Thank you Lasse.

There's so much being learned and being advanced that I refuse to just accept rest of my life tied to buckets because most know that and have been successful yet same group for the most part don't seem to have gone down my path. Why my dilemma stuck on what exactly was removed because assuming changing water adds anything ICP can't provide seems illogical. Did the WC remove coral warfare remnants? Did it remove DOC deemed harmful (that's new to me and still confusing)? Did it remove some foreign object we can't fathom because it's produced by certain organism that science hasn't discovered. Seems to me latter the only concern and yet can't grasp how AOP which supposedly destroys all carbon matter by robbing it's hydrogen atom (as I understand it) wouldn't solve that as well. Changing 40% based on one diagram isn't convincing this old dude that questions everything.

As I've mentioned. Worse case, I'll perform a periodic transfusion by parking a truck outside my house every few years and have them replace 5x to 10x my volume which should equate to one full tank turnover. Think I recall the magic number is 9x. Know for a fact several have pointed out their tanks have gone 3 plus years without spilling a drop of bucket water.

Luckily for me in South Florida there used to be a service that would deliver actual NSW. Have considered doing that to start my tank vs playing with RODI and salt hoping to match required parameters. Going to be a challenge just filling up this beast with RODI to the point only solution I have is go tap then run AOP then sediment plus GAC then spends dollars wasting DI to clean it up and I'm going to need full size Big Blue filters because those 2-1/2 canisters aren't getting that resolved quick enough. Big Blue will be in place as they have their purpose on my path but do I really want to play with DI because last I'm doing is wasting hundreds of gallons waiting to fill her up. Don't even have the feasibility to add that volume while handling the waste produced. Might as well just forgo that challenge and fill it to the brim with NSW.

Honestly. I've science the crap out of this to the point I feel like I'm Matt Damon lost on Mars and I've already ran out of ketchup :crying-face:

Agreed - and I wasn't trying to convince you to change anything:)

 

[SomeHappyFish]

I haven't performed a water change in nine months, so I prepared a 5-gallon bucket to exchange water and check for any noticeable or significant change in my corals.

Would you guys like to see what is left after 9 months in my 50G system?

 

[MnFish1]

I haven't performed a water change in nine months, so I prepared a 5-gallon bucket to exchange water and check for any noticeable or significant change in my corals.

Would you guys like to see what is left after 9 months in my 50G system?

sure

 

[kenchilada]

Would you guys like to see what is left after 9 months in my 50G system?

No