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

[MnFish1]

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

I don't think he is trolling - he has many theories that he has posted in other threads about nitrification, etc.

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

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.

Lets back up - what exactly does a skimmer 'remove'.? mine has (a week after cleaning) - a LOT of junk in it. Dark brown thick junk (I do more dry skimming).

For example when I feed my LRS (Which I don't rinse) - the water becomes slightly cloudy and the skimmer goes into overdrive. I'm ASSUMING - that at least some extra (ie. food thats not yet turned into ammonia) - is removed. This will result in 'lower nitrate'. I'm assuming that skimmers also remove various EXCESS bacteria from the water column. Like heterotrophs - that are not attached. This also removes the potential for nitrate formation (when they eventually die).

IMHO - its clear that the skimmer helps prevent a high nitrate by removing excess nutrients. I do not see at all how it can be a negative. The goal of my tank is to feed the corals and fish - not necessarily all sorts of bacteria.

Very little of this discussion has much to do with the topic of the thread though?

 

[Laith]

This debate keeps cropping up and I don't even understand why it is a debate.

If your fellow reefer has success with method A and you have success with method B then so what? Though I do agree that method A, B (or C and D) have to stand the test of time and even then you don't know exactly why one works and one doesn't... and why the same one that works for one person doesn't work for another.

Previous to my current tank I had a 250l SPS dominated tank and I consistently made 10% weekly WC on that tank. The tank thrived but I got seriously tired of hauling buckets to change about 20liter of water every week... but I kept at it and the tank did fine.

I did look into Triton and DRS and those methods from a intuition point of view do make sense. But then I realized the only reason I was looking into those methods was to stop hauling 20l liters of water in buckets every week. Saving money never entered the picture because it is not really the case that no WC saves money, as long as you also count your time as valuable (it's actually the most valuable commodity one has). As was mentioned previously, no WC takes effort and therefore time.

Any reef tank takes time and effort to make successful, no matter the method used.

Before I could start seriously implementing a no WC method, I upgraded my reef to a 1900 liter tank. Part of the planning for the upgrade was to automate WC. So now the system changes 1% of the water daily without me having to haul any buckets and I love it! .

So I'll keep with what I'm doing as it is working fine in terms of great coral growth etc.

Kudos to those that use other methods and are also successful at it!

 

[Laith]

This debate keeps cropping up and I don't even understand why it is a debate.

If your fellow reefer has success with method A and you have success with method B then so what? Though I do agree that method A, B (or C and D) have to stand the test of time and even then you don't know exactly why one works and one doesn't... and why the same one that works for one person doesn't work for another.

Previous to my current tank I had a 250l SPS dominated tank and I consistently made 10% weekly WC on that tank. The tank thrived but I got seriously tired of hauling buckets to change about 20liter of water every week... but I kept at it and the tank did fine.

I did look into Triton and DRS and those methods from a intuition point of view do make sense. But then I realized the only reason I was looking into those methods was to stop hauling 20l liters of water in buckets every week. Saving money never entered the picture because it is not really the case that no WC saves money, as long as you also count your time as valuable (it's actually the most valuable commodity one has). As was mentioned previously, no WC takes effort and therefore time.

Any reef tank takes time and effort to make successful, no matter the method used.

Before I could start seriously implementing a no WC method, I upgraded my reef to a 1900 liter tank. Part of the planning for the upgrade was to automate WC. So now the system changes 1% of the water daily without me having to haul any buckets and I love it! .

So I'll keep with what I'm doing as it is working fine in terms of great coral growth etc.

Kudos to those that use other methods and are also successful at it!

Just as an additional comment: yes, I also wonder about buildup of organics.... maybe the Triton DOC testing will help with this? Though I admit I don't know near enough about this subject to be able to say one way or the other... time to get the books out! ;Bookworm

 

[Belgian Anthias]

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

Feldman en Co 2010
Feldman en Co 2009

MB eiwitafschuimer CMF de Haes 2016-2022

Is it feasible to remove the skimmer? Could it solve the decades-long problem of nutrient accumulation?​

We try to provide correct information!

 

[N.Sreefer]

Feldman en Co 2010
Feldman en Co 2009

MB eiwitafschuimer CMF de Haes 2016-2022

Is it feasible to remove the skimmer? Could it solve the decades-long problem of nutrient accumulation?​

We try to provide correct information!

That end of the third link cracked me up "randy makes a good attempt at explaining how a protein skimmer works". The link uses nothing but 1969-78 studies! As far as chemistry goes I'm a layman and even I know that studies from the 60s and 70s have alot less credence than one's from THIS MILLENNIA. I was just observing this thread but I had to comment after reading that link. The conclusion seems to make assumptions that are not actually backed up by the linked studies, the suggestion to run ozone through the protein skimmer to reduce pathogens? Saying that a protein skimmer reduces TOC but not nitrate in a significant fashion? At the very least Randy's writing is much easier to understand from a laymans perspective than what was linked.

 

[MnFish1]

Feldman en Co 2010
Feldman en Co 2009

MB eiwitafschuimer CMF de Haes 2016-2022

Is it feasible to remove the skimmer? Could it solve the decades-long problem of nutrient accumulation?​

We try to provide correct information!

Here is an article - more commercial, but I think appropriate:

"One culture system incorporated a protein skimmer. Over an experimental period of 87 days, protein skimming resulted in significantly better water quality, heterotrophic bacterial abundance and abalone growth. Results indicate recirculating abalone culture systems with protein skimmer housed in an air-conditioned, insulated recycle frozen container may provide a viable alternative to current land-based, flow-through systems"

https://scialert.net/fulltext/?doi=jfas.2012.150.161

 

[GARRIGA]

Here is an article - more commercial, but I think appropriate:

"One culture system incorporated a protein skimmer. Over an experimental period of 87 days, protein skimming resulted in significantly better water quality, heterotrophic bacterial abundance and abalone growth. Results indicate recirculating abalone culture systems with protein skimmer housed in an air-conditioned, insulated recycle frozen container may provide a viable alternative to current land-based, flow-through systems"

https://scialert.net/fulltext/?doi=jfas.2012.150.161

Not clear on exactly what was used for biological filtration. One can increase oxygen levels without a skimmer. One can be diligent with cleaning socks daily and get similar export of waste before it breaks down. Any test can be altered to provide different outcomes. One apparent omission is increasing the the filtration capabilities of the skimmerless option.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

That end of the third link cracked me up "randy makes a good attempt at explaining how a protein skimmer works". The link uses nothing but 1969-78 studies! As far as chemistry goes I'm a layman and even I know that I was just observing this thread but I had to comment after reading that link. The conclusion seems to make assumptions that are not actually backed up by the linked studies, the suggestion to run ozone through the protein skimmer to reduce pathogens? Saying that a protein skimmer reduces TOC but not nitrate in a significant fashion? At the very least Randy's writing is much easier to understand from a laymans perspective than what was linked.

Nothing but? We try to keep an open mind!
Why studies from the 60s and 70s have a lot less credence than one's from THIS MILLENNIA? Recent research is based on research done previously.
if you use a skimmer in a marine aquarium this is because of research made in the sixties. A lot of progress has been made this millennium about how things work and what and who is responsible, new players doing things differently than previously assumed. But one still uses a skimmer, and it does NOT perform any better.

The links provide basic info based on available research in reference, not only from those who introduced the skimmer in the sixties and explain how it works, but also about more recent research and about the performance of skimmers. And it still works the same way! The links also contain articles published by Randy Holmes , used in reference. And of a lot others who contributed to what we know about skimmers today. We had nitrate accumulation in the seventies, we still have have the same problem in 2022! It has been shown a simple counter current skimmer from the seventies may perform as good or even better for TOC removal compared to most modern designs.
The production of nitrate depends on the C/N ratio, the balance between organic carbon and nitrogen, about heterotrophic and autotrophic ammonia reduction taking place.. Removing organic carbon leaving inorganic nitrogen behind turns a system more autotrophic, towards more nitrate production. If we only take into account what a skimmer may remove by "air stripping" , using a skimmer promotes nitrate production because most inorganic nitrogen is left behind.
TOC containing protein, nitrogen, becomes largely carried out on the foam, bacteria attracted by their organic food source. My opinion It is about what happens in and on the foam loaded with organic carbon which may be most important if it comes to nitrogen and protein export .

The production of nitrate should not be considered a big problem . +- 15% of nitrate-nitrogen may be exported due to the fact it is produced.

And one may always perform a water change.

If one wants to prevent water changes , then I think that one should take into account the influence of a skimmer in the first place;

Nutrient levels can easily be adjusted using AAM, by using for the target nutrient modified feed media,, clearing the water by managing the rate of growth. It will eliminate the need for water changes which are performed to lower the nutrient content.

 

[MnFish1]

Not clear on exactly what was used for biological filtration. One can increase oxygen levels without a skimmer. One can be diligent with cleaning socks daily and get similar export of waste before it breaks down. Any test can be altered to provide different outcomes. One apparent omission is increasing the the filtration capabilities of the skimmerless option.

The article related to what skimmers remove - not oxygenation. That is what I thought the topic had turned to - i.e. that skimmers do not help reduce nitrate - and do not remove protein. As usual - I agree with your other points

 

[GARRIGA]

The article related to what skimmers remove - not oxygenation. That is what I thought the topic had turned to - i.e. that skimmers do not help reduce nitrate - and do not remove protein. As usual - I agree with your other points

I was commenting on one of the points in the article on increased oxygenation.

Have not understood the discussion on skimmers not removing nitrates. My understanding is that similar to Purigen it removes organics prior to decomposing into nitrates.

My contention with all these skimmer debates is that often what it is compared to is lacking in adequate filtration to replace the affect of removing that which will decompose otherwise. Why removing a skimmer then realizing one is worse off isn’t valid unless they added additional filtration.

I’m surprised this thread is still going strong.

 

[MnFish1]

IMHO - skimmers are an important part of reefing. I have not seen any compelling reason to say they aren't.

EDIT - of course there are other methods that one can substitute.

 

[dvgyfresh]

This thread went crazy , I am still doing no water changes and I don’t do any ICP tests lol this is the easiest method for me. Part of no water changes is having the necessary biome / food web of organisms to balance each other out . I have a refugium for nutrient control / a skimmer. I used to have 1000s of pineapple sponges in my sump, after fixing my skimmer they have disappeared and now there are 100s of little feather dusters , when something changes in the tank - an organism rises to the challenge to correct , I’m sure eventually the feather dusters will fade and the pineapple sponges will come back ( also think a cryptic zone in the tank is necessary with a refugium ) sponges are the best at handling DOC that macro algae releases. I probly wouldn’t go this method if I had an acro focused tank but I am growing one . All this to say I would do a water change is something was off and my tests are in normal range but that has not happened thus far , last water change was in March last year

 

[Daniel@R2R]

Interesting discussion

 

[HB AL]

Not sure how long ago or what I posted but got a notification, probably cuz I don't water changes and the results don't lie. Going on vacation for 40 days in a week to Argentina, and the wife said all I have to do is feed the fish, topoff the sump with freshwater, clean the glass once a week and empty the skimmer? I'm like ya, you know the drill, simple.

 

[UtahReefer]

Water changes tend to correct things that you don't necessarily test for over time (metals, inadvertent chemical build up, etc.). I know they can be a pain, but I automate mine. Automating your water change makes the process easy and not such a chore. I'm currently running 45g cube with a sump and the WC goes off every day at 10AM changing out about 1.3 gallons. That's better than 10% per week and I don't have the hassle of the normal WC process.

 

[Charlie the Reefer]

Interesting discussion

Agreed. I just finished reading this entire thread. While I am running Moonshiner on my tank, I still am very open minded about hearing criticisms of the method and pitfalls. I appreciate how R2R facilitates these (mostly) respectful, thoughtful discussions with good arguments/ideas on both sides of the equation. I feel like a small portion of this debate may have gotten entangled in semantics or fallacies, but at the heart there seems to be two competing philosophies which was referenced by OP.

I don't feel equipped with the knowledge or experience to in good faith argue towards either side, but I really appreciate all the lively discussion and insight gleaned in this thread. Surely if the answer to these questions was obvious, we wouldn't see these strongly held competing opinions.

Some have expressed the sentiment of... beating a dead horse I guess, on an "age old debate". I feel this type of constructive debate should be encouraged, and thanks to all who participated here!

 

[glennf]

I still don't do waterchanges on any of my reeftanks and i can't say that my tanks look like garbage. I don't think ik can do better, cheaper, environmental friendly and more relax than this way. i even have a wide variety of coral in my collection for ages.
Happy with this "Treef1200" tank