Could water changes become a thing of the past? i.e. tank chemistry

[damsels are not mean]

Millions of tanks for decades both fresh and saltwater and full of every possible combination of flora and fauna have relied on water change as a primary nutrient export method. If water changes really didn't work we would know that by now I think...

 

[Rollman]

I like skimming, 2 gallon per day water changes, chaeto, not using chemicals, and feeding my inhabitants lots. It’s tried and true and I’m a follower. you system buckers scare me I guess if I had to lug buckets I would then be against WCs.

So many variables in reefs, like what you are keeping, exporting, bio load, etc. its just rare when you are in SPS forums or reading tanks off the month that they do not do the above mentioned things like WC, skimming, etc. Those are the results I am striving for.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Not sure where you are getting these ideas. Many proteins readily absorb at air/water interfaces and foam fractionation of proteins has been known and used for decades:

Purification of proteins using foam fractionation - PubMed

Purification is an important step in the production of pharmaceuticals from recombinant proteins. The characteristics of industrial-scale purification schemes, such as conventional chromatography, have a significant impact on the cost of production. Foam fractionation, a novel separation...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

For decades a skimmer is used to prevent nitrogen production., nitrogen part of protein.
We do know the principles of skimming.

It is about what is found in the cup , not what theoretically can take place, SHimek did not find much protein to remove. In practice, I think not much DOC is exported without the live forms using it.

Decades ago the device was named a protein skimmer. We now use "skimmer"because it has been shown not much protein is skimmed. We do talk about protein, the compound containing 16% nitrogen, present in all life?

Most protein removed is part of live organisms, attracted to the organic matter they need.

 

[Garf]

For decades a skimmer is used to prevent nitrogen production., nitrogen part of protein.
We do know the principles of skimming.

It is about what is found in the cup , not what theoretically can take place, SHimek did not find much protein to remove. In practice, I think not much DOC is exported without the live forms using it.

Decades ago the device was named a protein skimmer. We now use "skimmer"because it has been shown not much protein is skimmed. We do talk about protein, the compound containing 16% nitrogen, present in all life?

Most protein removed is part of live organisms, attracted to the organic matter they need.

Lol. Folks don’t say skimmer because protein isn’t removed effectively. I’ve got a car, not a horseless carriage.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

For decades a skimmer is used to prevent nitrogen production., nitrogen part of protein.
We do know the principles of skimming.

It is about what is found in the cup , not what theoretically can take place, SHimek did not find much protein to remove. In practice, I think not much DOC is exported without the live forms using it.

Decades ago the device was named a protein skimmer. We now use "skimmer"because it has been shown not much protein is skimmed. We do talk about protein, the compound containing 16% nitrogen, present in all life?

Most protein removed is part of live organisms, attracted to the organic matter they need.

You are opining without evidence.

Ron found 2.6% protein in skimmer sludge and did not even test the skimmate itself (see link below)

What evidence do you have that protein in either location is only in organisms? To make that distinction will be a nearly impossible experiment, and certainly no one has tried that I am aware of.

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-12/rs/feature/index.php

 

[ReeferSamster]

For decades a skimmer is used to prevent nitrogen production., nitrogen part of protein.
We do know the principles of skimming.

It is about what is found in the cup , not what theoretically can take place, SHimek did not find much protein to remove. In practice, I think not much DOC is exported without the live forms using it.

I don't know. It could potentially be miscommunication, but with all due respect, I don't agree with a lot of what you are saying regarding protein skimmers.

I don't even use a protein skimmer but I do know that it has been a beneficial tool for reefing since the hobby first took off and your posts have been the only one I have ever read with your assertions. In fact, the only opposite "anti-skimmer" threads I have seen through the years have been complaints about OVER skimming for NPS corals, for example.

Decades ago the device was named a protein skimmer. We now use "skimmer"because it has been shown not much protein is skimmed.

Actually, the correct term is "foam fractioning". Skimmers aren't really selective in just taking out protein. (Anyone know how they were coined "protein skimmers" in the first place??)

For lack of better words and to get to the point: It removes lots of stuff, including organic stuff. Because that's the problem with having a limited volume of water. Organic stuff builds up and we need to dilute or remove stuff.

Now I'm considering using one because I'm getting the itch to upgrade or tinker with something in my tank.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Does a skimmer prevent nitrate formation or is it responsible for the opposite due to removing organic carbon compounds, creating a more autotrophic environment?

It is difficult to deduce from the C/N ratio of what ends up in the jar that a skimmer prevents nitrate formation. In case there must be proportionately more nitrogen than organic carbon, After ingestion of the food, part of the carbon present has already been used for energy production and discharged as CO2. This can be reintroduced by photoautotrophic growth, phytoplankton.
In most reef aquarium systems, the growth of benthic and macroalgae is limited. Together with the phythoplankton they take care of nitrate absorption and the input of organic carbon and usually have a high C/N ratio (protein +- 26%), of which can also end up in the jar. The organic carbon in the jar does not only come from the feed and therefore making of a correct estimate based on the above is not for today. The research of Feldmand (FeldmanK2010-02) shows that the C/N ratio in the jar during his test approaches natural values. The tank was not supplied with food during the test and this is a test in a few days. There was no nitrate buildup in the tank with nitrate levels below 0.5ppm, as I like it. This assumes that the organic matter mainly comes from living organisms and a very low DOC content is obtained by effective remineralization in the tank. This confirms that not much DOC ends up in the jar and most of it is processed naturally. Too few organics are selectively removed to worry about selective evolution, most of it is already decomposed and recycled when it ends up in the jar. I assume that the neck of a skimmer performs an important function as a remineralization filter.
The measured TOC content present in the tank after each feeding is completely reduced without significant nitrate build-up. We know that this happens just as much without using a skimmer.
Finally: what happens in the jar while waiting for the sample to be taken, a jar containing mainly organic material with the bacteria attached to it? If everything can run normally, a lot of organic carbon will have been converted into energy and into new growth, especially if you let everything run its course for a few days. To what extent are test results influenced in this way, especially if it concerns a measurement of the C/N ratio? ref: MB eiwitafschuimer.

Should the use of a skimmer be discouraged? I see no reason why, it cost money. Am I still going to spend money on it? No, definitely not. Why would I? What are the benefits, worth the money?

Does a skimmer prevent the production of nitrate? No definitely not. Is the skimmer jointly responsible for any nitrate build-up? That is possible, especially in combination with the use of high-quality food, high in protein.

As it has been claimed that an BIO is responsible for nitrate build-up, a skimmer is considered to prevent the formation of nitrate.
Nitrate formation depends on availability of organic carbon and a skimmer is considered to be very good at removing it.

Enough material to think about how to promote a skimmer.

 

[GARRIGA]

Something to consider. We don’t do WC to remove ammonia or nitrite. We filter them out. We can filter out most of what a WC would solve. Even toxic issues produced by our inhabitants. Although there are unknowns but are we just going to change water for fear of not knowing? That’s up to each person to decide. Do know this. Not aware of anything a skimmer removes that can’t be filtered out.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Does a skimmer prevent nitrate formation or is it responsible for the opposite due to removing organic carbon compounds, creating a more autotrophic environment?

I think you are confounding two different issues. Skimmers remove lots of organic matter, and that organic matter contains N and C. THAT IS where the nitrate lowering effect comes from.

You are suggesting, without evidence, that removal of the organic carbon somehow causes nitrate to rise. if you were removing readily metabolized organic compounds without any N in them, then that might be plausible. But that s not the case.

There is a huge amount of nitrogen in skimmate.

Since you referenced Ron's analysis, lets look: 421 mg/kg of N in skimmate he analyzed (not counting the solid sludge)

Since it is 93.675 water, then of the dry weight, it is 6.4% (64,000 ppm) other stuff, and so the N is 0.6% nitrogen by weight of the dry weight of skimmate.

Just for comparison, how much nitrogen is in seawater with 10 ppm nitrate (2.3 ppm N)?

That 2.3 ppm is out of 35,000 ppm solids in seawater, so it is 0.0066% N by weight.

Thus, nitrogen is massively over represented in skimmate by a factor of 100x.

To me it seems skimmers are a big exporter of N, and to somehow suggest that despite exporting N that it causes nitrate to rise would seem to warrant an explanation with some sort of data. You have not provided that.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Does a skimmer prevent the production of nitrate? No definitely not. Is the skimmer jointly responsible for any nitrate build-up? That is possible, especially in combination with the use of high-quality food, high in protein.

Not? Of course, you have shown ZERO evidence of that.

Or does it result in decreased nitrate? Likely. Don't forget the most likely scenario based on actual N export. lol

 

[ReeferSamster]

Does a skimmer prevent nitrate formation or is it responsible for the opposite due to removing organic carbon compounds, creating a more autotrophic environment?

Ok, I'll bite. I feel like I'm getting ADD reading these posts. I get a spidey sense that you are just trolling , so I feel like taking the bait. I'll bite.

What would be the alternative? If you leave the organic carbon compounds in the water without removal by skimmer or water changes, they would be processed further down to nitrate if left alone in the enclosed reeftank. Some of it could be processed by completing the nitrogen cycle. However, unless you have a ton of natural live rock or other complete denitrification method, nitrate will still accumulate.

Conversely, if the skimmer removes the organic compound, they would not be in the water anymore to be broken down to nitrate, eliminating the scenario before it even happens. You really think that a skimmer has that much influence to shift the entire autotrophic environment into your theorized scenario? In tanks of a hundred gallons, I don't think accumulation of said organic carbon compounds into a little cup will influence an entire realm millions of organisms to increase autotrophic behaviour in such a major way that you described.

In my opinion, you make a lot of assertions that don't actually have any focused relation to the main question at hand. There are traces of a relationship in each of them, but they're all over the place, and don't make sense. They just pose newer questions instead of coming together to form any sort of conclusive evidence to substantiate anything you write.

I'll give examples for the heck of it:

After ingestion of the food, part of the carbon present has already been used for energy production and discharged as CO2. This can be reintroduced by photoautotrophic growth, phytoplankton.

What can be reintroduced by photoautotrophic growth? The carbon?
Furthermore, what is the conclusion and importance of reintroduction by photoautotrophic growth? Where are you going with this? After that statement there's a leap onto another assertion with no evidence:

In most reef aquarium systems, the growth of benthic and macroalgae is limited.

Why is growth of benthic and macroalgae limited? The growth of everything is limited in reef aquarium systems. And what is the point?
And then another leap bouncing off somewhere randomly:

The research of Feldmand (FeldmanK2010-02) shows that the C/N ratio in the jar during his test approaches natural values. The tank was not supplied with food during the test and this is a test in a few days. There was no nitrate buildup in the tank with nitrate levels below 0.5ppm, as I like it.

The tank was not supplied with food and no nitrate is built up in the tank? Ok. That is a profound conclusion.

In fact, I was looking up Feldman's research. I learned alot about testicular cancer.
https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/102/15/1114/2515938?login=true
Were you referring to a different Feldman? Can you share the link?

This assumes that the organic matter mainly comes from living organisms

What? Of course organic matter mainly comes from organisms. Ya think it comes from outer space? There is no need to a reference "(Feldman 2010-02)" for you to say the number 2 comes from 1+1.

I'll stop now. I have to get back to work.
No seriously, Touche' if this is a troll post.
I hope it is.

 

[ReeferSamster]

No seriously. This has to be a troll post. Well, work is slow and I love taking baits.

If I was a trout fish in a lake, I'd get reeled in immediately.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I think I've said all I'm going to here unless and until there's some actual data showing skimmers increase nitrate. Since this isn't even a skimmer thread, not sure why its here now. I can certainly imagine negative effects from skimming, such as lowering pH or exporting needed trace elements when bound to organics, but I think the benefits of oxygenation outweigh those concerns in most cases.

 

[Seneca]

I have a 7 gallon tank where I do 100% water changes every 2 weeks, and a 1000 gallon system where I never do water changes (for 2 years now)

Both grow SPS well.

 

[MnFish1]

Because organisms have a limited live span and will release their content.

Because a water change will cause a sudden change in the availability of nutrients and life conditions, organisms adapted to the present conditions may response by releasing all they have stored or die.

Skimmers removes stuff but only some organic compounds and does this very selective, it removes only apolar and hydrophobic DOC and some TOC ( +- 35%). Most nitrogen( +-85%) present in feed will be released after first use as inorganic nitrogen, phosphate and organic carbon compounds. if the released organic compounds once part of the feed are removed, the inorganics can not be used up and will accumulate, more nitrate will be produced, which is a good thing.

Good water changes remove what is in the changed water, nothing else, Most nutrients have accumulated and are stored in sediments and will be released back in the water when fresh water is added,
If one has 1ppm of a certain nutrient after a 50% water change still 0.5 ppm will be present, the nutrient content is diluted, not removed. Most probably the level will increase again due to leaking out of the sediments to restore equalization.The effect of having 0.5 ppm or 1ppm on the growth rate is nihil, there is still enough to support growth. If it is about life bacteria ( TOC) it will take less a day for the population to reach the same population,

Waterchanges help diluting what should not be there in the first place.

This sounds good but doesn’t make complete sense. What happens when there is a 10 inch rain on the reef? What if your doing continuous water changes? In reality with the tide nutrient upwellings etc on the reef the nutrients change all the time. There is no Ill effect. Iagee with you if you take a tank with a Nitrate of 160 and do a 100 percent water change there could be an imbalance problem. Changing water say 10% weekly imho will do nothing negative to the tank

the skimmer comments do not make sense to me

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Does a skimmer remove proteins ( the organic compound) from the tank by foam fractioning, by "air stripping"?

After consumption most nitrogen( +- 85%) present in the food ( part of protein) is released as ammonia, nitrogen to be reused for new growth, building up the protein of new cells. The nitrogen not used ,once part of proteins, may build up.
Assume the compound protein, containing the nitrogen source, comes available in the system water, it will be used immediately, leaking ammonia.

Data published by Shimek ( 2002)from a survey of 23 hobbyist aquariums report protein concentrations of 0.00+-0.00. They were not demonstrable. Which is logic.

A skimmer does not remove proteins by foam fractioning, protein is removed being part of live cells carried on the foam produced by foam fractioning.

it has been shown ( Feldman and Maers) a skimmer does not remove a lot of stuff, what it does remove it does in a selective way.

Most stuff is reminerelized, also a lot of the skimmed stuff, where it is atached to the produced organic foam, before it ends up in the cup.

Is a skimmer able to remove proteins by foam fractioning? yes, if available

Does a skimmer remove proteins? yes, being part of living cells.

To export protein ( nitrogen) we just have to harvest growth, and there are more effective and more reliable ways to do this, including the possibility for managing the export rate as desired by the user.

No water change needed to dilitue what should not accumulate in the first place.
Good nitrogen management starts with the feed. The C/N ratio of the feed ( protein content) is the main factor a system becomes autotrophic or heterotrophic, will produce more or lees nitrate . ( this without a skimmer)

 

[Belgian Anthias]

This sounds good but doesn’t make complete sense. What happens when there is a 10 inch rain on the reef? What if your doing continuous water changes? In reality with the tide nutrient upwellings etc on the reef the nutrients change all the time. There is no Ill effect. Iagee with you if you take a tank with a Nitrate of

I don't know. It could potentially be miscommunication, but with all due respect, I don't agree with a lot of what you are saying regarding protein skimmers.

I don't even use a protein skimmer but I do know that it has been a beneficial tool for reefing since the hobby first took off and your posts have been the only one I have ever read with your assertions. In fact, the only opposite "anti-skimmer" threads I have seen through the years have been complaints about OVER skimming for NPS corals, for example.


Actually, the correct term is "foam fractioning". Skimmers aren't really selective in just taking out protein. (Anyone know how they were coined "protein skimmers" in the first place??)

For lack of better words and to get to the point: It removes lots of stuff, including organic stuff. Because that's the problem with having a limited volume of water. Organic stuff builds up and we need to dilute or remove stuff.

Now I'm considering using one because I'm getting the itch to upgrade or tinker with something in my tank.

160 and do a 100 percent water change there could be an imbalance problem. Changing water say 10% weekly imho will do nothing negative to the tank

the skimmer comments do not make sense to me

Talking about managing a closed life support recirculation system.
Finally , to prevent chock effects, one may use a continuous top off system , replacing water all the time, making the dealers happy.
One may use instead a bio filtration chain, clearing the water by growth, by which clear and clean seawater is added continuously, without sponsoring the dealers , But one will miss the fun making fresh seawater,

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Does a skimmer remove proteins ( the organic compound) from the tank by foam fractioning, by "air stripping"?

....

Data published by Shimek ( 2002)from a survey of 23 hobbyist aquariums report protein concentrations of 0.00+-0.00. They were not demonstrable. Which is logic.

You draw me back to this thread with more misinformation.

Of course Ron showed 0.00 +/- 0.0 % protein in tank water.

http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-02/rs/feature/index.php

HOW COULD IT BE OTHERWISE?

What would it mean to be detectable by this method?

What amount is 0.01%, which he would not detect?

0.01% = 100 ppm

Seriously, do you think seawater or reef tank water might contain 100 ppm of protein?

Of course not. But that does not mean there isn't plenty of protein to skim out.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

You draw me back to this thread with more misinformation.

Of course Ron showed 0.00 +/- 0.0 % protein in tank water.

http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-02/rs/feature/index.php

HOW COULD IT BE OTHERWISE?

What would it mean to be detectable by this method?

What amount is 0.01%, which he would not detect?

0.01% = 100 ppm

Seriously, do you think seawater or reef tank water might contain 100 ppm of protein?

Of course not. But that does not mean there isn't plenty of protein to skim out.

where all the nitrogen, released as ammonia after consumption, is coming from? About 85 % of the nitrogen present in the feed ( proteins) is released as ammonia, some is used to produce new protein to grow, and the rest, the bio-waste, is immediately colonized, to retrieve the carbon, releasing the rest of the nitrogen to be used up fast. How much protein is left over to be skimmed?

Must one be blind for reality or does it all depend on the accurancy of the method used For measuring wich may lead to the assumption there plenty. Does it or not?

The first thing what will be colonized are proteins, because everything needed is on hand to start up the creation of DOC needed to produce the energy and grow . I would not like to have a tank where a skimmer can remove a lot of proteins.

The protein a skimmer may remove, if any, is of no importance when looking to the complete picture. It is not about what theoretically may take place, it is about what actually happens what will make the difference.

 

[ReeferSamster]

I think I've said all I'm going to here unless and until there's some actual data showing skimmers increase nitrate. Since this isn't even a skimmer thread, not sure why its here now. I can certainly imagine negative effects from skimming, such as lowering pH or exporting needed trace elements when bound to organics, but I think the benefits of oxygenation outweigh those concerns in most cases.

Randy, you got baited back! even though you swore you woudn't
I know the feeling. I get the itch to reply to Mr Anthias.

But my "troll" alert alarm is ringing. Nothing makes sense! I don't even find the studies he references in the ADD posts. Research by Feldman 2010? The only Feldman 2010 I found was Feldman's research on testicular cancer. ;Woot
Feldman 2010 research