I don't do water changes

[Calappidae]

have you ever done an experiment to back up your statement ?

Specifically reguarding the algae, no. Halides may have not been the best example to throw out there since they pretty much are the sun in spectrum. Although I heard Chlorophyll a and b are different with lighting requirements and lives in different types of algaes, macro, and corals/anems. They showed that plants/marco/algae grow better in certain color wavelengths compared to others. I'm saying, if you setup an LED system, and only put atinic on it that certain corals prefer, then algae wouldn't thrive as well as it would in a system that has red, green, yellow, and other leds. I'm just not wording or explaining it properly :rolleye1:

But yeah, this did get a little off topic with the thread IMO its water quality before lighting when it comes to algae problems.

why do you think adding or increasing light would slow down anything that is light dependent, or light requiring ?

If I remember correctly, we often bleach corals in our reef tanks as well from too much light (or not photoacclimating?).

 

[blanden.adam]

why do you think adding or increasing light would slow down anything that is light dependent, or light requiring ? does your car run slower when the octane level of gas increases ?

With regard to this statement specifically, photoinhibition is a real phenomenon. Each organism has a range of intensities that it will be happy in, for some it's rather narrow, for others its quite broad. The understood mechanism for this is leak of electrons from the photosystems when more light is being absorbed than can be "processed", causing oxidative stress to the cells and a shunting of resources to repair rather than growth. So it would be akin to increasing the octane in your car to the point where you damage the engine, twist the axles, or cause an explosion

This is not to comment on the specific instances being discussed, just as a phenomenon in general.

 

[rich850]

Specifically reguarding the algae, no. Halides may have not been the best example to throw out there since they pretty much are the sun in spectrum. Although I heard Chlorophyll a and b are different with lighting requirements and lives in different types of algaes, macro, and corals/anems. They showed that plants/marco/algae grow better in certain color wavelengths compared to others. I'm saying, if you setup an LED system, and only put atinic on it that certain corals prefer, then algae wouldn't thrive as well as it would in a system that has red, green, yellow, and other leds. I'm just not wording or explaining it properly :rolleye1:

But yeah, this did get a little off topic with the thread IMO its water quality before lighting when it comes to algae problems.



If I remember correctly, we often bleach corals in our reef tanks as well from too much light (or not photoacclimating?).

Try acclimatting corals from your tank to natural sunlight. It's so hard for some people to say they don't really know.

 

[SpartaReef]

Sorry I stirred the pot, I just wanted to point out that the lighting isn't an issue... And is off topic anyway...water changes help reduce algae as it provides clean water to the system.

 

[Calappidae]

Sorry I stirred the pot, I just wanted to point out that the lighting isn't an issue... And is off topic anyway...water changes help reduce algae as it provides clean water to the system.

Actually I take the blame as I commented "check your lighting" to the OP

But, +1 to the water changes keeping the water quality less nutrient rich for algae to feed off of anyway.

 

[jimmyj7090]

That is ^ if your system isn't managing those nutrients through other means.

For example my system employs a small daily dose of vinegar as a carbon source and a pretty efficient skimmer. Nitrate stays undetectable and phosphate low and not incresing. I only do water changes to replace micronutrients and to generally reset the ionic clock so to speak. Every system is different, but many are better managed than mine (ie there are plenty of reef systems that don't need water changes to control those nutrients).

 

[SpartaReef]

Poop has to go somewhere... If it isn't syphoned out during a water change what then?

 

[power boat jim]

Removed spam/QUOTE]

Thats news to me, what do you base that on?

 

[jimmyj7090]

Poop has to go somewhere... If it isn't syphoned out during a water change what then?

Read up on "nutrient export". Refugims (with active growth and removal of algae), skimmers, organic carbon dosing, turf scrubbers, zevoit systems....

 

[SpartaReef]

I have a skimmer and algae export... With refugium... I still syphon poo out of my sump every week...

 

[power boat jim]

I have a skimmer and algae export... With refugium... I still syphon poo out of my sump every week...

Siphoning is a good way to help reduce nutrients. I do it also along with water changes and skimming. Its amazing how much comes out of the sand even after only a couple months.

 

[tmz]

Nutrient limitation via water changes is a weak approach to that problem unless you are doing massive changes which cause other problems,imo. Small changes help a little but not much ;more when the export involves siphoning out detritus .
Water changes are more important for keeping major , minor and trace elements in balance and appropriate proportions when combined with a dosing regimen for those elements subject to high consumption like calcium, alkalinity and magnesium.

I don't do weekly changes. I do daily changes @ 1% and export detritus as often as I can,often using the water change to do so.

I do agree that overdriving zooxanthelae in corals with high densities of this symbiont as would be the case if the coral moved from low light to high light suddenly can cause bleaching and or photo inhibition ( coals close up). When bleaching occurs the coral gets more oxygen than it can handle and expells all of its zooxanthelae . Bleached corals can pick up new zooxanthelae from the water column and often survive bleaching.
Coincidentally, I was looking at the Nat Geo channel earlier today. They are running a 2 hour show on the Great Barrier Reef. They had some aerial shots that were amazing; acres and acres of corals stretching out to the horizon ; this largest living reef is 1200 miles long. With some exceptionally low tides in some sections you could see massive amounts of bleaching in the aeial shots ; big white stretches along the edges of the reef. The corals still had their tissues but no zooxanthelae.

For clarification inorganic nutrient levels are low on natural reefs: PO4 about .005ppm and NO3 about 0.2ppm at the surface but they are not zero and they stay steady with the constant massive water movement. Plankton an organic source of nutrients is everywhere meeting the needs of corals for organics to supplement photosynthesis.

 

[vitz]

bleaching events in the wild have nothing to do with light, and probably very little to do w/ nutrients.

it's a heat induced phenomenon.

 

[rickcasa]

Great thread...almost perfect timing for me as I'm at a crossroad. Tank's been running for a 7 months with no water changes, primarily as a disciple of those I've only read about....and to enable my laziness. I've got a fairly good nutrient export setup with GFP/carbon, cheatos/liverock/mangroves, consistent skimmate. Balling dosing. Heavily stocked (want more), and generous feeding, cuc in check. Euphylias, gonis, acans, trachys, zoas are happy and growing; sponges, gorgs and fans are happy and growing; fish are thrilled. I should be too. NO ALGAE problems, ever. But params are through the roof and SPS not surprisingly aren't growing and brown out, lose tissue. I've been tempted to change the water several times but instead tinkered with the photo periods and food choices (also now rinsing).

So with a reasonable 20% water change, the closed system experiment for me ends today....getting ready for Xmas sales!! :bounce3:, and I want to grow SPS. Is 20 % wc every couple of days x 4, sand vac, a good start?

Long term, I love the idea of 1% daily dilution through the protein skimmer, which is already plumbed to the drain. Or is 10% weekly still the best way? Automation for me is the key so either way, my rodi/saltwater reservoirs will be ready. May need Apex.

 

[tmz]

Heat and accelerated metabolism and consequent hypoxia from it along with lower oxygen levels in warmer water may have a lot to do with it ;however, a significant rapid change in solar irradiation contributes to those conditions. Such an increase in irradiation also overdrives zooxanthellae to high oxygen production in the coral. Typically, temperature shifts, solar irradiation, sedimentation, nutrient levels and disease are cited and contributing factors to coral bleaching; not just temperature swings up or down.

 

[tmz]

Rick,

What are the "parameters through the roof"?

If you mean NO3 and PO4 then the filtration is not keeping up with the amount you are introducing. Small water changes won't help that very much. The water changes we do won't as a practical matter come close to natural reefs and are relatively insignificant in managing nutrient levels , imo. Do the math ,a 10% change will at best reduce NO3 of 100ppm to 90; by the time you do the next one it will be back at 100 unless less nitrogenous waste comes in or more is taken out via enhanced removal methods.

Most of the corals you list as thriving tend to do better in tanks with less organic export and tolerate higher PO4 and NO3 to point ; much better than sps,ime.
If it were my tank, I'd focus on getting the balance between nutreint import and export in balance to maintain consistently lower NO3 and PO4 levels before introducing more sensitive sps variants.
I prefer smaller more frequent water changes to effect small but steady tweaks to the overall water chemistry.

 

[sanababit]

Well i got an algae scrubber, chaeto, mangroves, carbon, small skimmer, rock and sand for filtration and RARELY do water changes, maybe 1-2 times a year to replace water from spills, coral sale, changing carbon when rinsing, etc, and have a nice tank to prove it, so you can come to me with studies, articles, experiments, experiences, wiki articles, well i have my own theories and been working for a long time, so no water changes for me

Sana

 

[DavidinGA]

Well i got an algae scrubber, chaeto, mangroves, carbon, small skimmer, rock and sand for filtration and RARELY do water changes, maybe 1-2 times a year to replace water from spills, coral sale, changing carbon when rinsing, etc, and have a nice tank to prove it, so you can come to me with studies, articles, experiments, experiences, wiki articles, well i have my own theories and been working for a long time, so no water changes for me

Sana

I run less and maybe do 2 water changes a year as well.

210gal
75gal sump
Skimmer
Chaeto
Occasional gfo/gac
2 jebao wp40 wavemakers
Reefbreeders leds
Slow flow sump w/ eheim 1262 return
2in oolite sand bed
200# lr
Dose alk, cal, trace elements, iodide, fuel
ATO is half rate kalk (1tsp per gal)

Have around 10 fish right now and sps, lps, softies. NO3 reads zero on my api test. Sand bed stays white (I do have 3 different wrasse that keep it stirred and will help prevent the "old tank syndrome" to boot). Fish get pellets 2x a day through eheim auto feeder and they get additional frozen food every other day.

1.026
79.7f
pH 8.10-8.28
9.7alk
445cal
1280mag


My belief is that water changes as a means of maintaining low nutrient levels should be used as a last resort and if you need to them very often you have problems somewhere else that need to be addressed...

 

[jorda9095]

this thread has almost 10,000 views. quite a can of worms. you can not do water changes if you dose all the trace elements back in and ensure that detritus is being removed i guess. but my god all that dosing equipment/additives is expensive and takes up space. i also find it extremely annoying to constantly test my water (i know, its bad). so for the cheaper and lazier hobbyist, water changes are the best way to get this stuff accomplished.

 

[vitz]

Heat and accelerated metabolism and consequent hypoxia from it along with lower oxygen levels in warmer water may have a lot to do with it ;however, a significant rapid change in solar irradiation contributes to those conditions. Such an increase in irradiation also overdrives zooxanthellae to high oxygen production in the coral. Typically, temperature shifts, solar irradiation, sedimentation, nutrient levels and disease are cited and contributing factors to coral bleaching; not just temperature swings up or down.

maybe the consensus among those posting to coral-list doesn't reflect the overall consensus. but i doubt it

it's pretty much agreed upon that THE MAIN driver of bleaching events is higher long term, and 'short term spike' temperatures. bleaching today occurs in areas not hit by sedimentation w/ an increasing frequency. predictions of bleaching events use temperature patterns and forecasts more than any other criteria (e.g. el nino etc). some are frighteningly accurate

many of those claiming it to be 'sunspots' or some other 'pulled out of a hat' theory seems to be more oil industry shills from other disciplines than actual coral scientists/biologists/researchers.

pollution and sedimentation play parts in some areas- for those close to human habitats that pollute etc., they may be the major role player, no doubt, but they're NOT mentioned as a major cause regarding the sharp increase in bleaching worldwide, in most of the traffic i see on the list.

corals are far more evolved/adapted to deal w/ natural sunlight, sedimentation/turbidity issues than they are to temp issues.