I was Wrong

[mindme]

I did the math.

Here are my corrections for this month, and my daily doses.

Corrections:
Strontium: 11.05 ml for 1 day
Boron: 8.99ml for 1 day
Rubidium: 71.92ml for 2 days
Barium: 45.10ml for 4 days
Molybdenum: 17.88ml for 5 days
Zinc: 1.20ml for 3 days

Daily:
Manganese: 1.44ml
Chromium: 0.28ml
Cobalt: 0.28ml
Iron: 0.14ml
Rubidium: 0.79ml
Iodine: 16 drops

I'm keeping the Strontium, Potassium(not needed this month) and Iodine off the list. They are brightwell products, and so the cost is going to be less than $1 a month for all of them combined due to the really small amounts. And iodine I do by the drop, so tough to calculate, but still no real cost for it.

Anyway, here are my costs this month:

Boron: 11.05ml = $0.36
Rubidium: 167.54ml = $13.40
Barium: 180.4ml = $7.21
Molybdenum: 89.4ml = $3.57
Zinc: 3.6ml = $0.14
Manganese: 43.2ml = $1.73
Chromium: 8.4ml = $0.36
Cobalt: 8.4ml = $0.36
Iron: 4.2ml = $0.17

So for these elements, my cost was $27.30. However, I really want to add another $5 on here. This month I didn't have to dose Fluoride, normally I have to dose a lot of it. It's hard to say how much I will need month to month after my big initial dose, but I expected more. So, I'm going to assume $32.30 for the month as an estimate.

He does have 2 other products that are optional. I got them on my first order, not sure I'm going to keep doing them due to costs. I guess if I see a difference after I run out(haven't so far) I'll order again, but right now I'm leaning towards not.

Vitamin Carb-X: 0.5ml daily, 15ml = $10
Liqui-Mud: 2ml daily, 60ml = $12

Not really outrageous, actually a little cheaper than I expected. But I don't know what these things really do and it's $22 a month, nearly half the total cost of the full program.

So full program cost for this month: $54.30 in elements. Throw in $15 for ICP test every 3 months and total cost: $69.30 for a 180g tank. If I dump the optional as planned, I'll be spending roughly $50 a month. Not bad, and the ICP tests I think add their own value.

 

[ReefGeezer]

I did the math.

Here are my corrections for this month, and my daily doses.

1. How did you know what corrections to make?
2. How do you dose such small volumes?

 

[Toob]

Well, I was correcting your assumption I was hooked on "old school ways" when in reality I'm constantly reviewing research to better understand what's happening in my systems. And apparently you missed the point it is excess labile DOC, aka carbon dosing, that causes coral disease and death. You're right, we don't see people mentioning DOC when they have problems, but for a long time smoking was never mentioned as a cause of lung until research showed the link. We now have lots of research showing labile DOC casues significant problems with corals and I do not see the wisdom of adding labile DOC. And to reiterate, the forms of labile DOC that causes the most harm, Dissolved Combined neutral Sugars is not removed by skimmers and is not removed by GAC, water changes are the best way to remove it.

I’m relatively new to this hobby and still undecided on the water change debate, but it seems to me that all of research you posted has nothing to do with water changes. You’re making the implication that WCs reduce DOCs (harmful according to the research) but that’s different than providing “proven research” that water changes are necessary. In fact I didn’t see water changes mentioned at all, anywhere, in what you posted.

Honest, noobie question - can we test for DOCs? If we can, it would be easy to settle the debate, no? If not, then you’re making a big leap with your assertion that WCs reliably solve this problem.

 

[jda]

How do you test for all of those things that you add? You rely on the 3 month ICP?

 

[ReefGeezer]

I’m relatively new to this hobby and still undecided on the water change debate, but it seems to me that all of research you posted has nothing to do with water changes. You’re making the implication that WCs reduce DOCs (harmful according to the research) but that’s different than providing “proven research” that water changes are necessary. In fact I didn’t see water changes mentioned at all, anywhere, in what you posted.

Honest, noobie question - can we test for DOCs? If we can, it would be easy to settle the debate, no? If not, then you’re making a big leap with your assertion that WCs reliably solve this problem.

You have discovered the conundrum we all struggle with. There is not enough reliable, peer reviewed research about what is really happening inside our reef tanks. We are forced to try to extrapolate and theorize what is going on based on research about marine processes. There a lot of that sort of peer reviewed information out there. Unfortunately, we (well, me anyway) just don't have the capacity to properly interpret and make decisions based on that data. We end up listening to others interpretation of what the data means for our reef tanks. I some cases, the people we listen to know what they are doing. In others though, they don't have a clue and are cherry picking data that backs up what they think is going on.

It is not practical to try to test DOC's in the hobby world. However, math applies... if you change 10% of the water, you remove 10% of DOCs, 10% of the built up ions, 10% of the good trace elements, and etc.. I won't give you any cherry-picked data to back up my statement. I'll just say this... In my experience, the water change/no water change decision is for people with established tanks, not new ones.

 

[jda]

Just know that you cannot do nothing and have long term success. Decide on whether or not to change water based on the cost, how much time you want to put into things, testing that you want to do, risk factor, etc. There is no method of just not doing squat that works.

All of what mindme wrote up in post 41 can work. I don't want to work that hard. Eight dollar, 50 gallon bag of IO into a trashcan to mix for a day or two works for me... 2 minutes over a few days. To each their own, so find your own.

Your personality and goals should factor into this. If you choose well, you will be more engaged and likely have more success.

I still have not found a really awesome reef with 3+ years without a single water change. However, I am not dumb enough to know that not everybody wants a totally awesome reef.

If you do decide to go with no water changes, change the lingo to limited water changes - be open to doing them if you need to or if something just seems out of whack. This is where the people in the hobby have moved to, which makes a lot of sense, IMO.

Lastly, although we do not have a lot of super strong research specifically for this hobby on nearly anything, we do have some expert chemists and biologists who have some strong opinions about how things would translate and how things work. For example, if Dr. Holmes-Farley says that he feels that DOC can be an issue over time, then you might want to listen rather than pick and choose something from someplace else or just say take the opinion of "where is the study?" and brush it off Some of these people have been right for a long time and are worth betting on. If you are not willing to make big leaps by listening to successful, long-term hobbyists or the expert biologists and chemists that are around, then this might not be the hobby for you. The truth is that everybody does take those leaps when it fits their narrative, but only the most successful take them for more than just what they like.

 

[mindme]

1. How did you know what corrections to make?
2. How do you dose such small volumes?

To make corrections you do an ICP test to get the current levels of the elements in your water.

Then you use the calculator you can find here: https://www.reefmoonshiners.com/handbook-tools. You can also check out the handbook on that page for more information, both are free. But you need excel to use the calculator, which I dislike. I use google sheets however and it works. But I wish it was a webpage.

When you buy the elements, the ones you need to dose in small amounts come with a 1ml syringe. And then the bottles have a cap with a syringe hole in it that seals if off when the syringe is in. Turn the bottle upside down, extract the amount you want, and there you go. It's really quick and easy, the entire daily dosing probably takes less than 2 minutes. Within a few days the amounts you need to dose gets into memory.

Here's a pic. I took the picture to show how I feed nori, but you can see the bottles in the background with the syringe sticking out. Each of those big lines on the syringe = 0.1ml

 

[ReefGeezer]

To make corrections you do an ICP test to get the current levels of the elements in your water...

Thank you.

 

[mindme]

I’m relatively new to this hobby and still undecided on the water change debate, but it seems to me that all of research you posted has nothing to do with water changes. You’re making the implication that WCs reduce DOCs (harmful according to the research) but that’s different than providing “proven research” that water changes are necessary. In fact I didn’t see water changes mentioned at all, anywhere, in what you posted.

Honest, noobie question - can we test for DOCs? If we can, it would be easy to settle the debate, no? If not, then you’re making a big leap with your assertion that WCs reliably solve this problem.

A good bit of this has to do with what size tank you have, and what you have in your tank. I don't think there is a 1 size solution for everything.

Currently I am running 2 different tanks, and both are maintained in extremely different manners. My 180g tank is the one I'm doing all this testing and such on. It's a mixed reef tank.

I also have a 29g tank that has nothing in it except for some RBTA and a pair of clownfish. Oh, and some pulsating xenias. I couldn't tell you what a single parameter is in that tank, other than salinity. Because I never test it. Like it's been almost 2 years since I did any other test. I don't dose anything in it, and I only do a water change in it about once every 4-6 months. The only filtration on that tank is a HOB skimmer. I just let the algae grow in the tank like crazy, and then remove the algae by hand about once a month to export nutrients. Now, I couldn't let algae grow in my 180g, it would irritate the corals etc. But with my RBTA's, not an issue. Some might say the algae is even ugly, but I'm kind of surprised at how many people actually like the algae and it's movement.

Not even sure if I need to do water changes at all on that tank, I just do them out of habit and fear since I'm not doing anything else. For such a small tank, 5 gallons of water is not a big deal, and pretty cheap. On my 180g, I'm looking at 40 gallons for a water change, and a water change will actually remove elements I want.

I think it would be a waste of money for me to do the same methods as my 180g, because the needs of the tank are so much different. Trace elements aren't really being used by my RBTA as far as I can tell, they seem to be getting everything they need from the light and whatever food they get from feeding the fish. Of course, I could do all that testing and would have success I'm sure, but also just a waste of money.

So you really have to find methods that work for you and suit your needs.

 

[jda]

I would suggest that different icp companies be used so that the inconsistencies that each has does not compound. They are good, but not absolute, so as a singular method of checking, just don't trust one.

 

[Timfish]

I’m relatively new to this hobby and still undecided on the water change debate, but it seems to me that all of research you posted has nothing to do with water changes. You’re making the implication that WCs reduce DOCs (harmful according to the research) but that’s different than providing “proven research” that water changes are necessary. In fact I didn’t see water changes mentioned at all, anywhere, in what you posted.

Honest, noobie question - can we test for DOCs? If we can, it would be easy to settle the debate, no? If not, then you’re making a big leap with your assertion that WCs reliably solve this problem.

To answer your last question a test for Total Organic Carbon (TOC) is about $70 last time I checked. Obviously testing for some individual compounds is possible and I don't know the price and there are LOTS and LOTS of them.

You're right, water changes are not specifically mentioned as a remdiation for excess labile DOC. But how else do you propose to remove compounds (and we are dealing with LOTS of different compounds, some good, some bad) that cause problems with corals that are generated in aquariums? These compunds are not removed by skimmers or activated carbon (GAC). Ozone* certainly isn't advisable as it breaks down refractory DOC into compounds easily digestable by baceria increasing the microbial load in a system which is exactly the problem reefs are having as well as leaving a subset of refractory DOC to build up in a system. Sponges are essential recyclers and the at least some of the ubiquitous cryptic species in our systems process labial DOC 1000X faster than bacterioplankton (some of which are themselves a problem) but sponges differentially process DOC from corals and from algae and there is additional research showing a feedback loop favoring algae.

This is an oversimplification, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of researchers looking at the decline of coral reefs, but it is pretty clear excess labile DOC is the most serious threat to corals and is caused by overfishing (which can destroy reefs in just a few years), eutrophication (sewage or agricultural run off or excess food in our aquariums), warming oceans and acidification of the oceans. As I see it corals and algae are competing with each other and differentially manipulating and being manipulated by the microbial processes in an aquarium. Water changes reduce both beneficial and harmful microbes and compounds from the system. These will be replenished in short order. Depending on what's happening between the corals, algae and sponges (and likely fungii also but I haven't found much yet) what will be replenished faster may benefit corals or may benefit algae. In systems with healthy microbiomes beneficial to corals, algae and the detrimental DOC they produce will be minimal and the system will require little maintenance, even not needing much in the way of water changes. But without water changes the labile DOC that promotes coral pathogens, both in the water and in the coral holobiont/microbiome will accumilate as it's processed by sponges and is used by some microbes to utilize the refractory DOC that is also in the system.

An additional problem I see with adding labile DOC is the build up of microbes and DOC detrimental to corals is pathogenic shifts in coral microbiomes can happen long before there is any apparent issue. We cannot use coloration as an indicator of a healthy coral. A coral may look good and have grown a long time but it may have an unhealthy microbiome as a result. Just the stress of moving it to another system may tip the balance in favor of the pathogenic microbes causing bleaching, STN or RTN or "brown jelly". As melanine is an important part of a corals immune system browning which has been associated with labile DOC in systems may be an indicator also of a diseased coral. I'm going to be very leary of corals from any system I know has been dosed and at the very least QT them a long time.

One reason I'm passionate about water changes is my own experiences with my maintenance business the last 27 years resonate with the research I present. A couple decades ago I realized water changes and manual removal were all that was needed to fix algae problems. One system I maintained for 2 decades proved to be very enlighting as it showed what just water changes alone will do. It was a system built into a house that sat empty for over three years (2007 - 2010). It was crashed three times, each time killing a majority of the corals and fish (one clown survived all three). Twice a door was left open (client blamed a realitor) and the system got too hot on one occasion, too cold on another and a third an electrician left power off for several days. Since the house was not being lived in my client chose not to have me do any of the additional work I normally would have done to remidiate the system. Just do the basic maintenance which comprised weekly water changes (~8%) and wiping algae off the front glass and occasionally siphoning out some of the detritus that accumilated n the sump. After each crash a few cheap damsels and 3 or 4 larger fish were added (yellow tangs and dwarf angels, cheap then) after some of the weekly maintenance was done, surviviing corals seemed better and the systme seemed to be stable. (As I remember new fish and corals were added after just 2 or 3 weeks). Additionally some overflow mucshrooms and zoas/palys and finger corals from other systmes were added. Each time with just realtively small water changes the system recovered in about 5-6 months.

These links were refferenced in a refference in an above post but I'll list them again here. They may help your understanding of what's happening in your system:

"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 in reef ecosystems. 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 (pathogens can proliferate before there is any outward indicator)


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


Richard Ross What's up with phosphate"




*Additionally, Charles Delbeck at Next Wave 20ll in Dallas, TX, based on work done at Steinhart Aquarium, advised aquarists should not use ozone. They found hobbyest equipment was very unreliable and it was impossible to accurately measure levels or maintain consistant outputs. Levels could be too low to be effective or dangerously high.

 

[Timfish]

The others are easily solvable, but this one is interesting. How many years does it take for this to happen?

Days to years.

We are dealing with complex macro and microbial processes and there is microbial stuff in coral microbiomes that are essential components of coral immune systems. Individual coral (and almost certainly genotype) specific differences will play a part in the speed of degradation of a reef ecosystem suffering excess labile DOC. Specific algae and sponge species will also play a part as well. Research is showing increased algae cover caused by overfishing or sewage runoff can destroy reefs in just a few years. For our reef aquariums this observation by researchers looking at different carbon sources on different corals pretty well entails the problem in predicting if excess labile DOC will kill a system quickly or slowly.

"Herein we show that treating Montastraea annularis, Agaricia tenuifolia and Porites furcata with various organic carbon sources (starch, lactose, arabinose and mannose) results in different species-specific and carbon-specific pathologies and rates of mortality. The variation in the pathological characteristics caused by stressors showed that visual cues for
determining coral health and disease may be misleading. The probability of mortality increased significantly over time with continual exposure to several of the stressors, suggesting that chronic stressors may be more harmful than acute stressors"

 

[Timfish]

I do not know. I do not even know that it does happen in a reef tank.

As I understand your posts you don't believe you've seen the effects of labile DOC affecting the microbiomes of corals?

 

[ReefGeezer]

Hey @Timfish - I'm on team water change and won't claim to understand much of what has been posted... but... wouldn't the water change reduce much of the microbiome by approximately the same as the labile DOC?

 

[ZoWhat]

I was Wrong​

....don't let your spouse hear you talking like this

 

[mindme]

Days to years.

We are dealing with complex macro and microbial processes and there is microbial stuff in coral microbiomes that are essential components of coral immune systems. Individual coral (and almost certainly genotype) specific differences will play a part in the speed of degradation of a reef ecosystem suffering excess labile DOC. Specific algae and sponge species will also play a part as well. Research is showing increased algae cover caused by overfishing or sewage runoff can destroy reefs in just a few years. For our reef aquariums this observation by researchers looking at different carbon sources on different corals pretty well entails the problem in predicting if excess labile DOC will kill a system quickly or slowly.

"Herein we show that treating Montastraea annularis, Agaricia tenuifolia and Porites furcata with various organic carbon sources (starch, lactose, arabinose and mannose) results in different species-specific and carbon-specific pathologies and rates of mortality. The variation in the pathological characteristics caused by stressors showed that visual cues for
determining coral health and disease may be misleading. The probability of mortality increased significantly over time with continual exposure to several of the stressors, suggesting that chronic stressors may be more harmful than acute stressors"

It's an interesting read, but I'm really struggling to see how this applies to aquariums or towards what you are claiming in regards to water changes being needed to "fix" it.

The experiment in the links you provided happened in a matter of days. And I see nothing about carbons that can't be removed by a skimmer and so on. They purposely dosed carbon in excess to get the different responses. Seems like it's just an experiment of what happens when you overdose your carbon dosing as far as our tanks go.

The first link is about disease. I think this is understood about carbon dosing in general, when you carbon dose you are feeding all the bacteria in the tank, rather than just the ones that are beneficial. However, you can dose bacteria also. I dose biodigest every 2 weeks for example. And wouldn't the disease bacteria need to be present in the system to start with?

Also, if this carbon is a food source for the diseases in your link, how does it build up in the system to start with? You keep saying a build up liable doc, and I don't understand how it can be liable doc and also build up over time.

 

[Garf]

I’ve seen a study that indicates labile DOCs are consumed faster at high flow (appears linear) and oxygen. This is obviously related to the surface area of mocribial surfaces, at high flow. I promised myself I would leave my tank alone and not mess around, dang

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

As I understand your posts you don't believe you've seen the effects of labile DOC affecting the microbiomes of corals?

I've never been in a situation where I'd know it was happening or not.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

To make corrections you do an ICP test to get the current levels of the elements in your water.

I theory, that's sensible (at least if you do it often enough).

In practice, I think it only works because corals do not care very much about exact levels because ICP analysis is fraught with inaccuracy. And if that's true, how much is the ICP really helping vs dosing of the same elements based on other measures, such as visual observation or average dosing rates?

Anyone considering ICP testing out to see this thread and the comparative data it contains:

How We Use ICP-OES Results Of Unknown Accuracy And Precision

ABOUT THIS ARTICLE This article was authored by @Dan_P, @taricha and @Rick Mathew. We collaborated in the development of the experimental methods, the cost of the project and the analysis of the data. The project was started in August of 2021 with the purpose of understanding the quality of the...

www.reef2reef.com

 

[ilikefish69]

If water changes works for you and you are happy, then that's all that matters. I'm just saying there are other methods that don't require water changes that are being used successfully.

It's not at all perpetual and that is a gross mischaracterization. I dose elements daily based on how much the corals in my tank are using. That would be Iodine, Manganese, Chromium, Cobalt and Iron. Vanadium in the future, but my previous method had me high in Vanadium so I haven't needed it for the past few months. These are small doses, usually less than 1 ml. Iron is basically 3 drops. Manganese requires 1.5ml. Once a month I dose like 7 other elements, they do not oxidize as quickly, so they get bigger doses.

I have a refugium, filter socks, a skimmer and carbon dose for nutrient export. GAC for other things. If I had a problem in that area I'd probably add ozone(kind of scares me though) to go along with the GAC. Certainly not perpetual since I have to clean the socks, empty the skimmer cup, remove the excess macro algae and dose the carbon.

Seems to me that you're still hooked on that old school outlook that anything other than doing water changes is bad husbandry. That thinking is outdated.

I don't understand any of what was said here, but I am on this dude's side of whatever we are arguing about. ^^^