2Addicted
New member
The anemones don't know that they are in a little glass box. In the wild they could likely move away from the chemical warfare zone. I believe it would be instinct to try to move, or possibly try to fight back? Just a thought.
A tale of two giganteas
- Thread starter Randy Holmes-Farley
- Start date
The anemones don't know that they are in a little glass box. In the wild they could likely move away from the chemical warfare zone. I believe it would be instinct to try to move, or possibly try to fight back? Just a thought.
I agree, I just mean that chemical warfare in the ocean would be like driving past a pig farm, you know which direction the smell is coming from and can move away from it. In an aquarium I'm sure there is no direction where the chemical isn't residing. That's all I was thinking.
elegance coral
They call me EC
We can't expect animals without a brain to be capable of rational thought. Anemones can't analyze a situation and determine what the best course of action would be. Anemones have been known to crawl behind/under rocks where there is very little light, and stay there until they die. Even some higher life forms, with brains, have difficulty with what we would consider rational thought. Fish will swim up into polluted streams until the pollution kills them, when all they had to do is turn around and swim back down stream away from the pollution.
FWIW, I changed and upped the amount of ROX GAC I'm using, so maybe that might help. 
elegance coral
They call me EC
You still do small water changes every day, right? Do you do any larger water changes?
I generally change ~ 1% daily, which should equate to the same as one 26% change all at once each 30 days. I suppose it is also easy enough to double that for a while and see if anything changes.
elegance coral
They call me EC
Can you explain your math, or post a link?
TheUltimateNoob
Active member
I think he's basically saying that if you do a 1% water change on Day 1, at the end of Day 1 you have 99% of the original water and 1% new water. If you did another 1% change on Day 2, you haven't changed out 2% of the original water at the beginning of Day 1 because a portion of Day 2's 1% water change is effectively changing out Day 1's new water, and so on and so forth. So at the end of Day 30, you haven't changed 30% of the original water, but a smaller amount.
100.0% water volume
Day 1 - 100.0% - (1% * 100.0%) = 99.00%
Day 2 - 99.00% - (1% * 99.00%) = 98.01%
Day 3 - 98.01% - (1% * 98.01%) = 97.03%
Day 4 - 97.03% - (1% * 97.03%) = 96.06%
Day 30 - 74.72% - (1% * 74.72%) = 73.97%
So, at the end of Day 30, you still have 73.97% of your original water volume still remaining, or in other words, you changed 26.03% of the water.
Mathematically, this is correct, but obviously changing out 26% all at once, as opposed to over a 30 day period, is different and can have a different effect on what's going on in the tank.
100.0% water volume
Day 1 - 100.0% - (1% * 100.0%) = 99.00%
Day 2 - 99.00% - (1% * 99.00%) = 98.01%
Day 3 - 98.01% - (1% * 98.01%) = 97.03%
Day 4 - 97.03% - (1% * 97.03%) = 96.06%
Day 30 - 74.72% - (1% * 74.72%) = 73.97%
So, at the end of Day 30, you still have 73.97% of your original water volume still remaining, or in other words, you changed 26.03% of the water.
Mathematically, this is correct, but obviously changing out 26% all at once, as opposed to over a 30 day period, is different and can have a different effect on what's going on in the tank.
Yes, that the math. IMO, such methods can be a better way to do water changes than larger ones for several reasons, even though the efficiency is slightly reduced (26% effective vs 30% when done all at once).
I describe it in detail for many different scenarios, including continuous changes here:
Water Changes in Reef Aquaria
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-10/rhf/index.php
For any random component in the water that is not being added any longer, this is how the two methods compare. The y-axis says nitrate, but it could be anything. Solid lines are daily changes and jagged lines are monthly, changing the same total volume (0, 7.5, 15, or 30% every 30 days).
I describe it in detail for many different scenarios, including continuous changes here:
Water Changes in Reef Aquaria
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-10/rhf/index.php
For any random component in the water that is not being added any longer, this is how the two methods compare. The y-axis says nitrate, but it could be anything. Solid lines are daily changes and jagged lines are monthly, changing the same total volume (0, 7.5, 15, or 30% every 30 days).
elegance coral
They call me EC
That's what I figured he was doing. As your last statement points out, the math does not show that continual, daily 1% water changes, over any 30 day period past the first 30 days, is the same as one 26% water change. We're doing the math wrong. Every day that passes, we're losing the efficiency of the daily water changes. On day one, we get 100% efficiency. On day 30, we're down to 74.72% efficiency. Continue that out to day 60, then day 90, then........ Under such a plan, substances like allelopathy can accumulate rapidly. We never remove more than 1% of the allelopathic substances that are produced on a given day, in that day, so 99% of those substances are still in the tank for that day. The total concentration of allelopathic substances continues to climb as more is being added than we remove. The same thing happens with the typical 10%/week schedule. It just happens over a much longer period of time. 1% daily simply puts this process on the fast track. It's still a good method for routine maintenance, but it can not replace periodic large water changes where we reduce the overall concentration of harmful substances by a large percentage all at once.
elegance coral
They call me EC
Yes, that the math. IMO, such methods can be a better way to do water changes than larger ones for several reasons, even though the efficiency is slightly reduced (26% effective vs 30% when done all at once).
I describe it in detail for many different scenarios, including continuous changes here:
Water Changes in Reef Aquaria
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-10/rhf/index.php
For any random component in the water that is not being added any longer, this is how the two methods compare. The y-axis says nitrate, but it could be anything. Solid lines are daily changes and jagged lines are monthly, changing the same total volume (0, 7.5, 15, or 30% every 30 days).
You posted the same time I was.
I'll have to read your link, but the major difference as I see it now, is that your calculations are dealing with a substance that is not being added on a daily basis. If we're dealing with fixed concentrations, your math works. We're not dealing with fixed concentrations in our systems. Substances are being added to our systems every day.
Off to read the link.:beer:
davocean
Active member
I have no exp w/ gigs, however of the other nems I've had I have learned that what we typically think makes sense in judging an animals health as in how often they reproduce, or their size often does not apply in the nem world.
So when I had my Crispa and Doreensis under weak light they were huge, giving me the impression they were doing great, however when I got proper lighting for them, they decreased in size, but seemed brighter in color.
I think stretching out big is a means of capturing more light.
The nem hosted may be getting nutritional value from the clowns it's hosting, and possibly not feeling the need for such light demand.
This is just a guess/observation of my own nems that may or may not apply to your nems.
So when I had my Crispa and Doreensis under weak light they were huge, giving me the impression they were doing great, however when I got proper lighting for them, they decreased in size, but seemed brighter in color.
I think stretching out big is a means of capturing more light.
The nem hosted may be getting nutritional value from the clowns it's hosting, and possibly not feeling the need for such light demand.
This is just a guess/observation of my own nems that may or may not apply to your nems.
david pinder
Member
Wanting to put a number of gigantea in a 700 gal system. Have a number of anemones in their now. Was wondering what lights your running. Am running only leds right now does anyone have these under leds?
You posted the same time I was.
I'll have to read your link, but the major difference as I see it now, is that your calculations are dealing with a substance that is not being added on a daily basis. If we're dealing with fixed concentrations, your math works. We're not dealing with fixed concentrations in our systems. Substances are being added to our systems every day.
Off to read the link.:beer:
There are 25 graphs in the article, covering most scenarios. Your sort of skepticism is why I wrote it in the first place.
Here's that type of graph, where one starts off with something substantial that is also continually added, and using different types of water change scenarios. The conclusion is that daily changes are just fine relative to monthly, but a little bit less efficient:
I got the same problem than you two times.
The first one was when I had a large blue one , it was doing really well, and I introduced a new green one a little bit bleached in a 125gal tank, after 15 days I started to see how the blue one was declining and decreasing his size. Then I took the yellow one out , and I put it in another system, after one week both gigs were doing well each one in her tank.
The second time was more recently, I bought two blue ones, one of them was bleached, it was almost white, and I put them together in a 75gal system, after a week the one more bleached was doing really bad, then I put it in a new 55 gal system, and right now after a month or so, both of them are doing well.
The one more bleached is starting to gain some color.
In both cases the lights I was using were Leds, they were under the same PAR. The water I was using in both systems had been the same. I never ran carbon in any system. I was doing water changes about 20% every 15 days.
Just posting my experience. Hope this help.
The first one was when I had a large blue one , it was doing really well, and I introduced a new green one a little bit bleached in a 125gal tank, after 15 days I started to see how the blue one was declining and decreasing his size. Then I took the yellow one out , and I put it in another system, after one week both gigs were doing well each one in her tank.
The second time was more recently, I bought two blue ones, one of them was bleached, it was almost white, and I put them together in a 75gal system, after a week the one more bleached was doing really bad, then I put it in a new 55 gal system, and right now after a month or so, both of them are doing well.
The one more bleached is starting to gain some color.
In both cases the lights I was using were Leds, they were under the same PAR. The water I was using in both systems had been the same. I never ran carbon in any system. I was doing water changes about 20% every 15 days.
Just posting my experience. Hope this help.
david pinder
Member
Glad to here about the leds am running 3 wt crees. In my case I was going to put multiple in one system but its a 1200 gal system 10ft long. I have been running carbon but am now nervouse about that since reading about so many tanks getting wiped out by carbon. Will say Ive noticed some problems before after carbon changes, different brand.
stickleback
Member
Randy, Any updates?
stickleback
Member
Bump?
