I was Wrong

[ReefGeezer]

Yeah, it doesn't help new research only adds to the complexity of reef ecosystems including showing there's not only species specific but genotype specific stuff. I started really digging into DOC a decade ago after posts about labile and refractory DOC to help understand better what's happening in my systems. About that time I stumbled across Rower's book which is still the best introduction I've found...

Thanks. Looks like I have some reading to do!

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

But is doing water changes really going to combat this? 20% of the toxins being removed every 2 weeks doesn't sound like a formula to success for me. I think if this is an issue, it's going to need to be addressed in other ways.

Maybe, maybe not.

if a toxin accumulated at 1 ppb per day, it will be at 365 ppb at the end of a year, but only 97 ppb if you change 1% daily.

 

[Toob]

I visited the California Academy of Sciences in Golden Gate park recently, and they have a pretty amazing (and huge) reef tank. They're using a bunch of metal halide lighting, and you can observe the coral from above where it's shallow but also from the side where it's 20+ feet deep. They've got a variety of anemone, SPS, LPS, tangs, everything - all very healthy and happy. There's *no way* they are doing water changes at that scale - I'm honestly curious how you all think they are managing DOCs? It's an incredibly successful setup, and has been running for a number of years. They have a number of smaller species specific tanks, also very healthy, where I doubt they are performing water changes (California, drought, etc etc) - though I've emailed them to ask.

I'm also curious how you all think the Triton headquarters tank is so successful? https://reefbuilders.com/2015/04/27/triton-reef-full-portfolio-illustrious-set/

Frankly one of the most incredible hobby-size reef tanks I've seen, and they don't perform water changes and have also been running that tank for some time.

Again, not trying to take sides in the debate necessarily, just trying to be a bit of a devil's advocate since the majority here seem to insist on water changes - but clearly there are some very successful examples (outside these forums) where some other solution must be present?

Not interested in debating the merits around expense, water conservation, or anything else - just specifically the science of eliminating the DOCs which seem to be the primary subject/argument here. Using water changes to manage nutrients (nitrates and phosphates) is, frankly, ridiculous. And using them to manage trace elements is just one of many approaches that work. The issue seems to specifically be the management of DOCs (that we can't test for apparently) but know they are there and believe they are harmful.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I visited the California Academy of Sciences in Golden Gate park recently, and they have a pretty amazing (and huge) reef tank. They're using a bunch of metal halide lighting, and you can observe the coral from above where it's shallow but also from the side where it's 20+ feet deep. They've got a variety of anemone, SPS, LPS, tangs, everything - all very healthy and happy. There's *no way* they are doing water changes at that scale - I'm honestly curious how you all think they are managing DOCs? It's an incredibly successful setup, and has been running for a number of years. They have a number of smaller species specific tanks, also very healthy, where I doubt they are performing water changes (California, drought, etc etc) - though I've emailed them to ask.

I'm also curious how you all think the Triton headquarters tank is so successful? https://reefbuilders.com/2015/04/27/triton-reef-full-portfolio-illustrious-set/

Frankly one of the most incredible hobby-size reef tanks I've seen, and they don't perform water changes and have also been running that tank for some time.

Again, not trying to take sides in the debate necessarily, just trying to be a bit of a devil's advocate since the majority here seem to insist on water changes - but clearly there are some very successful examples (outside these forums) where some other solution must be present?

Not interested in debating the merits around expense, water conservation, or anything else - just specifically the science of eliminating the DOCs which seem to be the primary subject/argument here. Using water changes to manage nutrients (nitrates and phosphates) is, frankly, ridiculous. And using them to manage trace elements is just one of many approaches that work. The issue seems to specifically be the management of DOCs (that we can't test for apparently) but know they are there and believe they are harmful.

You may need to verify those assumptions. As of this persons visit, the Steinhart was doing water changes:

500,000 Gallon Filtration Room at Steinhart Aquarium San Francisco, CA

I took a behind the scenes tour of the filtration room at Steinhart Aquarium in San Francisco's Golden Gate Park today. The filtration in this room runs a 212,000 gallon Philippine Coral Reef tank, a 100,000 gallon Northern California Coast Display, a 100,000 gallon Amazon display and others...

www.monsterfishkeepers.com

 

[jda]

Atlanta changes hundreds of thousands of gallons of water (I forgot the timeframe) - they used IO when I was there. Denver does too. Those are just the ones that I visited and got to ask questions.

 

[Buckster]

Water change, Water change, I am so confused! Actually I change water in each of my 3 tanks every two weeks. 35 gallons in my 180 and 8 in the 32 biocube and 8 in the 30. I don't even check parameters anymore.. I would add, subtract and freak out if numbers were off. Now I only change water and don't even check. My 3 tanks are doing great!

 

[Timfish]

Thanks. Looks like I have some reading to do!

Better get going on it, there's more research getting done every day!

 

[ReefGeezer]

Better get going on it, there's more research getting done every day!

No use reading the old stuff then! Story of my life... behind and falling farther behind by the day.

 

[Timfish]

No use reading the old stuff then! Story of my life... behind and falling farther behind by the day.

Yeah, at least you're in good company!

 

[2Wheelsonly]

I have also been doing this since you had to order nice SW equipment out of the back of a freshwater magazine. I have yet to see a really kick butt no-water-change tank that is many years old that did not spend more time and money than just changing water. You see lots of nice ones from hobbyists who have been doing it for a year, or maybe two, but beyond this, you need a solid, reliable routine to export and import things (such as DSR, for example).

I guess that my point is that the first question that anybody should ask when people are totally happy without changing water is "how long have you been doing it?" If it is less then a few years, then who cares... lots of people can do this and do it well. If it is more, then pay attention... chances are that they have worked very hard and spend a lot of money to not change water. You will also see some "I don't change water" people who have still changed plenty over a longer time that has reset their clock. In the end, show me more than one or two tanks that ACTUALLY have not changed any water for 2-3 years that are thriving like tanks that do and I will be shocked... they are just so hard to find... not impossible, but very hard to find. If you look around, you will find a bucket full of people who once were sold that water changes do not matter and as their tanks got older, they started to do them and things got better - there are more of these people than those who have 4-5 year old tanks with no water changes (or no system like DSR). Most of the super strong takes that water changes are not necessary are from people who are just not far enough long with them to know what is coming, IMO.

I challenge anybody who has not changed water in a year, or more, to change some. You will see some things perk up. Some of this depends on what is kept too... some thing are obviously less sensitive than others.

For me, I am too cheap and lazy not to change water. I can change 300+ gallons of water for what some spend on ICP test. I figured out a few decades ago how to doctor my salt mix to make it perfect for my tank - takes an extra 30 seconds to add acid and dowflake.

My old tank resembles this. After 5 years of no water changes it just got to the point I couldn't handle nutrients anymore. Couldn't get carbon dosing to work and eventually tore it down to go bigger before it became a ticking time bomb. My new setup was designed for simple water changes; we will see how that goes 5 years down the road.

If I ever go with a no water change system the display will NOT have sand and my sand bed will be remote so I can change it out completely every few years.

 

[Timfish]

Yeah, I'm just not following how something can be a fuel for something, and build up at the same time long term.

Don't look at it as just one thing. DOC is comprised of ten's of thousands of compounds, some good, some bad. A large portion of the DOC generated in our systems is refractory, ie, is resistant to decomposition (roughly 2/3rds) and will build up in our systems. A smaller portion is labile which is easily broken down or consumed (roughly 1/3) and is quickly consumed in our systems. Some papers refference a "semi-refractory portion but it's tiny and I haven't seen any percentage given.

DOC from algae is different from DOC from corals. Algae generate a lot more labile DOC than corals.

Labile DOC from algae promotes heterotrophic microbial processes, read "heterotrophic" as "oxygen consuming". DOC from corals promotes autotrophic microbial processes, read "autotrophic" as "oxygen conserving"

I can understand maybe something triggers the shift suddenly . . .

That's one of the things Rower talks about in his book, pg 92 & 93. The trigger can be realatively minor too.

So what you are telling me is that there is bacteria(and other such things) in my tank right now that is bad. And it's somehow staying alive in low numbers, but at the same time it's food source is building up over time, which leads to disease in my coral.

Yes, there are good and bad stuff in both your tank microbiome and in your individual coral microbiomes. The research is pretty clear, the bad stuff is always present in low numbers.

ONE way corals are killed is by the excess labile DOC promoting pathogens in the corals microbiomes. How fast pathogens grow will depend on the each species involved, algae, coral and pathogens. Aditional variables are sponges (some pull labile DOC out of the water fast but some may create a positive feedback loop favoring algae) as well as the species and number of herbivores, and overall ratio of fish and corals and environmental conditions (and I'm probably leaving something out). So depending on variables a single coral may die in a system, or several, or over time most may die as algae becomes more prevelant.

Another way is by literally suffocating corals. As pointed out in the research presented labile DOC from algae promotes growth of heterotrophic microbes which with the aid of the labile DOC can use all the refractroy DOC that has built up as a food source and create low oxygen levels. This can happen be both localized and in the water column. (You don't have to look far to find aquarists who tear down a system because they have horrendous algae issues, "ideal" water parameters and nothing they've tried fixes it and most or all of their corals have died and nothing they added lives.)

it makes no sense to me, I'm sorry. If the food source is present long enough to build up...then why isn't it being taken in the entire time?

It's not like the bacteria and such in my stomach is sitting around going - well I see all that sugar over there, but I need to see more of it before I decide to eat it and multiply. Instead, they eat and consume based on the nutrients availability.

So where is this shift coming from? Your experiment added and basically overdosed a carbon source. That was the cause of the shift in the experiment, not this long term build up that you claim can only go away with water changes.

The research I've posted expalins pretty well where stuff is coming from and I've pointed out above it's a lot more complex than just "food" feeding bacteria. And to clarify it's a lot of experiments by dozens of researchers and only a few of the experiments overdosed a carbon source.

And it's the same thing with the ocean. There are events that trigger those things. Too much of one or more factors combine with the existing conditions, not just because "well it's been 100 years, time for this to trigger".

I can see where we might add too much of something etc to our tanks and spur a shift of sorts, but that wasn't the discussion.

It sounds mostly like you are talking about old tank syndrome, but that happens to people who do water changes also. Adding in bacteria can seem to help in that area.

Well, as Rower points out it's only taking a few years for reefs to crash, not hundred years. This correlates with experiences easily found on the forums (besides already mentioned here).

Old Tank Syndrome does sound a lot like what researchers are describing when reefs decline and it can certainly happen with a system maintaied with water changes. It's happened to me (if I had to hazard a guess about 10% at 5 years and 30%-40% at 20 years). Reasons the research resonates with me is it explains what I've seen dealing with mature systems the last couple decades. I figured out before I learned less than 2% of the microbial stuff can be cultured and bottled that bacterial supplements where pretty much useless for fixing problems. Besides aggressively removing algae and increased water changes the other thing that's helped my get past "Old Tank Syndrome" is using a big diatom filter for a couple days. Rohwor's DDAM model along with de Geoij's sponge ressaerch seems to me the best explaination for what I've seen maintaining systems the last 3 decades.

As I see it corals and algae are conducting microbial warfare. In tanks where it's clear algae has the upper hand and in tanks where "Old Tank Syndrome"

 

[Nikorad]

I’ve have reef tanks for over 30 years. I built my own metal halide lights from parts and I designed and build my own downdraft skimmer. I’ve been doing it since coral colonies, and I mean big ones, were $20. So a long time …

I’ve had a lot of successes and my share of failures too. The one thing I knew from early on, was that stability was key to being successful.

I made an ATO that worked (most of the time) found a temp controller that was reliable and did regular water changes using a hydrometer. I tested what I could using LaMotte test kits. I was high tech. LOL

As the hobby evolved, more equipment became available, and various additives were the rage, I got lazy. I did things by eye, rather than by a schedule. I relied on additives, rather than water changes and when I lost a coral, I just replaced it. So it was $30 now, not a big deal.

So fast forward 10 years or so. Life got busy and I was out of the hobby for five years and have been back it for five. Wow, how things changed!

LED lighting, controllers, custom made sumps, roller fleece filters, DC pumps, I can go on and on. I guess the biggest negative change, was that the supply of good live rock dried up and then good dry rock, like Tonga, too and of course the cost of corals skyrocketed.

I dove right back in. Quickly went from a 60 gallon tank, to a 110 and then a 150. I started it was the best dry rock I could find, took my time and cycled it correctly and started stocking it with tiny $30 zoa frags and now $100 LPS frags. Ouch!

What didn’t change, was my lazy habits. It was even easier now, with controllers, really good additives, efficient skimmers and great lighting. I did water changes, but not regularly. I tested the water when the mood struck me and still did pretty good, but when I lost a coral, it was more like a $100 loss.

I think the light bulb finally came on when I went to a coral show and sale recently and saw that the $25 zoa frags were more like $50 now and a decent torch or hammer was $200 and up.

I finally realized that I needed to do it the “right”way. I bought myself some good Hanna test kits, learned how to use them properly, got my perimeters under control and did water changes on a set schedule.

What a difference it made! In less than 30 days, my corals opened more, everything was thriving, rather than just surviving, colors were popping and the coralline algae that had always been hit or miss, was a hit.

I know rambled a bit, but the moral to the story is, do your water changes, do them regularly and test your parameters. You will thank me for it!

I like how you snuck in how much corals are now compared to back when, like when everything was cheaper.

 

[Timfish]

I visited the California Academy of Sciences in Golden Gate park recently, and they have a pretty amazing (and huge) reef tank. They're using a bunch of metal halide lighting, and you can observe the coral from above where it's shallow but also from the side where it's 20+ feet deep. They've got a variety of anemone, SPS, LPS, tangs, everything - all very healthy and happy. There's *no way* they are doing water changes at that scale - I'm honestly curious how you all think they are managing DOCs? It's an incredibly successful setup, and has been running for a number of years. They have a number of smaller species specific tanks, also very healthy, where I doubt they are performing water changes (California, drought, etc etc) - though I've emailed them to ask.

I'm also curious how you all think the Triton headquarters tank is so successful? https://reefbuilders.com/2015/04/27/triton-reef-full-portfolio-illustrious-set/

Frankly one of the most incredible hobby-size reef tanks I've seen, and they don't perform water changes and have also been running that tank for some time.

Again, not trying to take sides in the debate necessarily, just trying to be a bit of a devil's advocate since the majority here seem to insist on water changes - but clearly there are some very successful examples (outside these forums) where some other solution must be present?

Not interested in debating the merits around expense, water conservation, or anything else - just specifically the science of eliminating the DOCs which seem to be the primary subject/argument here. Using water changes to manage nutrients (nitrates and phosphates) is, frankly, ridiculous. And using them to manage trace elements is just one of many approaches that work. The issue seems to specifically be the management of DOCs (that we can't test for apparently) but know they are there and believe they are harmful.

If I'm remebering Charles Delbeek's presentation at Next Wave, 2011 in Dallas correctly the Stienhart switched from using natural seawater to making their own slat mix.

But are the systems you refferenced healthy? Many aquarists associate bright colors with health but that's not correct and unfortunately we have no easy way to ascertain the health of a coral.

I don't see this discussion as eliminating DOCs. I see it as promoting beneficial DOC over detrimental DOC.

 

[Timfish]

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

Randy's vinegar dosing limit. I found it! - Reef Central Online Community

Randy's vinegar dosing limit. I found it! The Reef Chemistry Forum

reefcentral.com

Reffering to your thread on vinegar dosing, do you still think you can quantify increased bacterial activity and how are you doing so? Since melanin is a important part of coral immune systems how did you determine you saw an increase in zooxanthellae and not an increase in melanin?

Because it seems like excess labile DOC could explain what you observed. How do you know the browning you saw in your anemones wasn't an immune response to an increased microbial load. Alternately and maybe concurrently since we know we're dealing with species specific responses, If you had enough phosphorus in your system you wouldn't see bleaching caused by phosphate deficiency as the result of the rampant growth of zooxanthellae with an increased N enrichment as described in this paper. Your corals would still be suffering though with the reduced availability of photosynthates.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Certainly at the highest doses I tested bacteria were rampant because the water became hazy. At lower doses I assume there were increased levels, but I never tried to test that expectation.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I cannot prove the browning of the rbta anemone was from zoox, but that’s what I think it was.

 

[Timfish]

Certainly at the highest doses I tested bacteria were rampant because the water became hazy. At lower doses I assume there were increased levels, but I never tried to test that expectation.

From what I've read there's not always a direct correlation between turbidity and bacterial counts. How are you determining turbidity equates with bacteria and not something else?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

From what I've read there's not always a direct correlation between turbidity and bacterial counts. How are you determining turbidity equates with bacteria and not something else?

I have no proof it was bacteria, but it seems logical and I don’t what what else it would be. In 20 of reefing with the same basic setup it was the only time my water was hazy aside from when adding new sand, and it came and went only with my highest doses of vinegar with nothing else changed.

 

[Toob]

You may need to verify those assumptions. As of this persons visit, the Steinhart was doing water changes:

500,000 Gallon Filtration Room at Steinhart Aquarium San Francisco, CA

I took a behind the scenes tour of the filtration room at Steinhart Aquarium in San Francisco's Golden Gate Park today. The filtration in this room runs a 212,000 gallon Philippine Coral Reef tank, a 100,000 gallon Northern California Coast Display, a 100,000 gallon Amazon display and others...

www.monsterfishkeepers.com

Interesting, and shame on me for assuming, but linking a 10-year old forum post where a visitor cites they were told “a percentage” of water is changed is not exactly the scientific rigor I was hoping for. What if it’s 0.5%? California is in a severe drought and I‘d be shocked if they are changing the standard “25% weekly“ as that would be 50k gallons.

What’s the “correct” amount of water to be changing to manage DOCs? At what level do those DOCs become harmful, or is it exposure over time? If it’s the latter, then I guess all our tanks are doomed to crash…eventually. if it’s the former, could you do a 50% water change once a year and be good, for example? Clearly people have success over reasonable periods of time (6-12 months) without doing water changes. Are their tanks going to crash once these DOCs reach some critical threshold?

There’s still nothing in any of all of these posts that answer these questions or provide any compelling link between water changes and DOCs. What I see a lot of on forum posts are people recommending arbitrary (often large and/or frequent) amounts of water changes to cure just about every ailment you could think of. The results are anecdotal, at best.

Rather than debate water change or not, maybe a more productive conversation would be to discuss *how much* and/or *how frequently.*

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Interesting, and shame on me for assuming, but linking a 10-year old forum post where a visitor cites they were told “a percentage” of water is changed is not exactly the scientific rigor I was hoping for. What if it’s 0.5%? California is in a severe drought and I‘d be shocked if they are changing the standard “25% weekly“ as that would be 50k gallons.

What’s the “correct” amount of water to be changing to manage DOCs? At what level do those DOCs become harmful, or is it exposure over time? If it’s the latter, then I guess all our tanks are doomed to crash…eventually. if it’s the former, could you do a 50% water change once a year and be good, for example? Clearly people have success over reasonable periods of time (6-12 months) without doing water changes. Are their tanks going to crash once these DOCs reach some critical threshold?

There’s still nothing in any of all of these posts that answer these questions or provide any compelling link between water changes and DOCs. What I see a lot of on forum posts are people recommending arbitrary (often large and/or frequent) amounts of water changes to cure just about every ailment you could think of. The results are anecdotal, at best.

Rather than debate water change or not, maybe a more productive conversation would be to discuss *how much* and/or *how frequently.*

I was simply disputing the assumption that a large aquarium could not possibly do water changes.

As to amounts, I think 1% daily is a decent balance between cost and accumulation and delivery of ions, and I’ve published a bunch of models of what that accomplishes over time, but obviously it’s cost effective to change more on a small tank and invest more dollars in other techniques in a big tank.