I don't do water changes

[tmz]

I think that the scientific study thing is a byproduct of pressure. There are no studies of the use of an ATS and the type of algae which grows on it. The eccentric proponents are trying to give you what you are asking for even though it doesn't exist. The reality is that an ATS is as much snake oil as chaeto is. In my experience, it was actually a little easier to use because chaeto was a little messy to remove under the compact stand and because removal of a gallon of chaeto affected the top off chamber of the sump and the ATO add limewater if you don't top it off again with saltwater. I'm not selling anything. An ATS costs very little to build yourself.

I think a macro algae refugium or an ats are about the same; when run properly and sized appropriately either can help reduce inorganic phosphate and dissolved nitrogen . Neither is "snake oil" ;I've never called either of them that nor do I ask for scientific studies unless some apparent nonsensical claim about what they do or don't is made.

There is a downside as there is for other methdos of nutrient control; , they both also add refractory organics, some of which discolor the water, as well as some allelopathic compounds. Skimming gac and water changes can offset those to a point .
Macro refugia or ATSs need to be large enough ,well lit and have with proper flow and have growing harvested algae to be of much use ,ime( I used a large chaeto refugium for many years on my main system and use an ats on seahorse fry and grow out tanks . The chaeto waned when PO4 dropped and I dedided to remove it several months ago. I've not observed any ill effects.
A benefit not noted so far is the production of oxygen which helps nightime hypoxia when the algae is healthy and running on opposite photo period. Fro this reasonI'm considering reestablishing a macro reugium or building in an ats but I'll likel y just run one of my coral tanks on opposite photoperiod
Beyond that the rest of it vitamins etc , dialysis functions et alia are unsubstantiated marketing hype. I've only seen these types of claims made for the commercial ats units; often in thread highjacks vaguely related to subject matter at best.

The contraptions being sold as ATS which are claimed to do everything and replace most everything else are small and mostly useless,imo. It's not difficult or expensive to build or add either a macro algae refuguim or an ats, though flow issue may be trickier with the ats.Either can help with PO4 issues but the added organics should be accounted for when algae are gown . The vertical oreintation of most ats designs can save some space but significant surface area is still needed. Many very nice reef tanks do fine without either one.

 

[tmz]

Whether or not water cahnges are necesary is debateable and dependent on the effort and ability of the aqaurist to maintain ionic balances as well as major, minor and trace element levels without them. Personally. I prefer do 1% changes daily for stability .

Growing macro algae or turf will not lessen the need for water cahnges. if anything the extra organics produced by the algae if not otherwise accounted for may be helped by water changes.

Yes, a scrubber will release organics back into the water. This organic waste originated as inorganic waste, arguably more harmful. Decadence

No it didn't. The organic carbon is made via photosynthesis and the net TOC is increased.

 

[KafudaFish]

IMO just do the 10% water changes.. no big deal, Everyone else already explained the scientific stuff but its no big deal. Saltwater aquariums are ment to be maintained by well devoted, and determained hobbiest willing to take time to do anything for their live stock. If a ten minute water change is too much to handle.. then a pond might suit you better.. JMHO

I'm 15 and my parents are worried about me with how much I work around the 3 small setups I have right now.. Its all worth it too me

Or you design a system that does not rely on the keeper having "to do anything and everything" for it. Many people try and keep a 5 hour a week system on 30 minutes of available time and fail. Then issues arise and they wonder why they have so many problems.

If you want to spend all of your time caring for your systems then great because you have found a wonderful and possible lifelong hobby but if not then you have to find a different method.

 

[Decadence]

Yes, a scrubber will release organics back into the water. This organic waste originated as inorganic waste, arguably more harmful. Decadence

No it didn't. The organic carbon is made via photosynthesis and the net TOC is increased.

I could I should specifically state that organically bound phosphate is released back into the water. You are right, the organic carbon wasn't already in the tank; it is a byproduct of photosynthesis. I'm not sure that this is too much of a bad thing because usually the organic waste is going to be skimmable or will be food for something else in the tank. The norm amongst hobbyists is to wage a war on inorganic phosphate and I would consider the conversion into harmless organics to be a positive thing. I'm aware that too high of a level of organic carbon in the water is a bad thing but it isn't often that we see that problem with our efficient filtration systems.

 

[houstonhobby]

Life advice

 

[houstonhobby]

To the 15 year old who worries his parents with the amount of time he spends with his tanks I would say...it is important for you to know what you think. Not so important what other people think.

 

[tmz]

You are right, the organic carbon wasn't already in the tank; it is a byproduct of photosynthesis. I'm not sure that this is too much of a bad thing because usually the organic waste is going to be skimmable or will be food for something else in the tank. The norm amongst hobbyists is to wage a war on inorganic phosphate and I would consider the conversion into harmless organics to be a positive thing. I'm aware that too high of a level of organic carbon in the water is a bad thing but it isn't often that we see that problem with our efficient filtration systems.


The organics from algae exudate contain allelopathic compounds as well as fulvic and humic acids which discolor the water . Much of the organic material released is refractory; ie, it is not easily degraded for for food ,etc by living organisms. They can just hang around for a long time and clog things up including sand beds. Coral slime is another nutrient source but it is more degradeable. the are several studies linking coral morality to excess TOC;it is not harmless.

We don't see it as a problem because we don't measure it.

 

[houstonhobby]

I doubt if a 10% water change would keep ahead of TOC. Protein skimmers or Purigen are probably a better strategy.

 

[Calappidae]

To the 15 year old who worries his parents with the amount of time he spends with his tanks I would say...it is important for you to know what you think. Not so important what other people think.

most of my relatives think I'm nuts I spend 20 dollars a month just on feeding my harlequin shrimp (my money of course)

Usually when I go for a ride somewhere (usually for more livestock :lol I just point at all the bad things and they all realize this is better than alot of other 15 years olds are doing nowadays.

Its what I think matters, not what they think, +1

 

[tmz]

Here are some clear examples of the hype for the commercial ats's being hyped into this discussion in posts 69, 79, 85.etc.

The list of vitamins etc attributed to an ats (which relies on turf algae) is allegedly supported by 3 studies. Trouble is they are all about single celled phytoplanters not turf algae and they all live in fresh water or the soil. Further there is no plausible mechanism described for uptake by desireable organisms in the tank even if they could live there.

In one post it is claimed that bacteria consume algal exudate implying a food function for a turf scrubber. In past discussions, he used to cite a Red Sea study on algae exudate to support the benefits ats. In fact when one reads the study it actually says something quite different, highlighting the refractory nature of the exudate vs other organics like coral slime. The later being much more bioavailable .

I still think a scrubber might be useful if its large enough, has the right algae , flow and light and is supported by other filtration to account for the potentially harmful organics that will inevitably build up,imo.

 

[tmz]

there is ABSOLUTELY no proven link between carbon use and hlle, other than a certain hobby author's anecdotal and limited experience w/ both.

HLLE is a SYMPTOM of any of a myriad of possible causes. i've seen it caused by fluke damage and subsequent 'infection' of the skin, and i've seen fish reverse 'hlle' completely in very heavy carbon use systems.

carbon is to hlle what garlic is to ich-nothing but 'urban legends' based on mere impressions of one or a few individuals, w/ absolutley no causal relationship proof between one and the other, turned into 'gospel' by hordes of 'bandwagon followers'.

That's an overstatement and it's overly dismissive and disrepectful of the work and thoughts of others.

However, I do not think there is a "smoking gun" linking gac use and HHLE as the article headlines.

The study summarized in the article cited in an earlier post involved large mounts of lignite carbon which breaks up easily and is quite dusty .There were large amounts of gac dust in the water in the tanks where HHLE developed. I suspect organics settling on the fish's skin and spawning some harmful microbial activity has something to do with HHLE whether it occurs when gac is used or not. GAC does attract organics so the dust settling on the fish could irritate the skin or actually provide sites for some forms of infection.

I keep 7 surgeon fish including a Paracanthurus Hippocampus, Blue Hippo, that I've had for about 9 years All are fat and healthy with no HHLE after many years of 24/7 gac. Rinsing the gac and limiting dust is important , imo. After reading the article it seems even more so. I prefer rox 8 carbon for this and other reasons.

 

[vitz]

That's an overstatement and it's overly dismissive and disrepectful of the work and thoughts of others.

However, I do not think there is a "smoking gun" linking gac use and HHLE as the article headlines.

The study summarized in the article cited in an earlier post involved large mounts of lignite carbon which breaks up easily and is quite dusty .There were large amounts of gac dust in the water in the tanks where HHLE developed. I suspect organics settling on the fish's skin and spawning some harmful microbial activity has something to do with HHLE whether it occurs when gac is used or not. GAC does attract organics so the dust settling on the fish could irritate the skin or actually provide sites for some forms of infection.

I keep 7 surgeon fish including a Paracanthurus Hippocampus, Blue Hippo, that I've had for about 9 years All are fat and healthy with no HHLE after many years of 24/7 gac. Rinsing the gac and limiting dust is important , imo. After reading the article it seems even more so. I prefer rox 8 carbon for this and other reasons.

from my direct experience, i'll state right here and now that anyone that attributes the SYMPTOM hlle to any one cause is talking from the region of their body where the sun don't shine, and are maybe victims of that whole 'coincidence/causality' thing

in today's vernacular, one person w/pneumonia and one w/bronchitis both have 'copd'. saying they have copd means nothing, and is as relevant to the respective diseases causing each unique condition as 'hlle' is to fish w/ erosive pitting at the head and lateral line.

i've seen thousands of dwarf angels get 'hlle' after heavy fluke infestations, when the only other known pathogen they recently had in common was flukes. w/no carbon in that system.

i've had hundreds of fish recover from flukes w/no hlle in a q system that ran heavy carbon w/some dust issues occasionally. (top row drained to sock filled w/pelletized carbon-had a black dust storm or three from too fast drainage flow from top row, heh. never caused hlle across multiple species, for me.).

plenty of fish still get hlle in the ocean, btw

i'm NOT saying that fish didn't get hlle while under carbon exposure, but that doesn't, in light of everything i've seen, make any remarkable connection to carbon and hlle, imo. too many possibilities still exist. i'm leaning heavily into some type of really small flesh eating/dissolving bacteria that hitch hikes into a primary wound of any sort-whether caused by a fluke, or a grain/crystal of carbon. flukes by themselves can make a fairly deep wound, and their results can look like 'classic' hlle. then there's the hlle fish that recover completely vs those that 'scar' for life. even w/in the same species. hlle is still a mystery, and not you, nor i, nor anyone claiming 'carbon', is any closer to knowing what it actually is or what causes it.

i'm sure some disagree with that

 

[tmz]

i'll state right here and now that anyone that attributes the SYMPTOM hlle to any one cause is talking from the region of their body where the sun don't shine,

Just checking; now I know you like deriding points of view other than your own. Too bad you might actually have a couple of things to share but anyone with any sense of comportment won't listen or talk to you. The tone generally poisons a learning discussion.It's offensive and irritating. You need to work on it.

I'd be more careful with carbon dust and flukes btw even though the link to HHLE is dubious,imo .I still guess water quailty in terms of organics plays a role.Skin lesions from flukes might set up infection sites if it's a microbial infection.

 

[DavidinGA]

My opinion is that anyone with a "proper" filtration setup can do quarterly water changes and have the same level of growth and health of a tank that gets a weekly water change.

(actually I think you could do semi-annual or annual water changes and be fine but that tends to freak people out with the modern day water changes are a must mentality)

 

[SpartaReef]

I think it depends on tank age.... Mine is still aging and is fairly new so I do weekly water changes... It doesn't do as well if I don't.

But I also have a heavy bioload and overfeed daily.

 

[Calappidae]

I think it depends on tank age.... Mine is still aging and is fairly new so I do weekly water changes... It doesn't do as well if I don't.

But I also have a heavy bioload and overfeed daily.

+1.. some of my small setups almost need a daily water change because of the bio-load in them...

Thankfully I got amquel as my RO couldn't keep up with it...

 

[KafudaFish]

Describe your systems please.

 

[SpartaReef]

55g DT with 29g sump half full... Chaeto/skimmer chamber with rubble and liverock I syphon clean every week. Return has three flex nozzles. Have one 1400gph power head and one jebao wp25.

2 clowns, chromis, diamond goby, helfrichi firefish, tomini tang, leopard wrasse and green mandarin. One red fire shrimp and two sexy shrimp. One giant turbo snail, several smaller snails (3 different species), 10 blue leg hermits, 10 red leg hermits (the hermits have been eating each other, not really sure about quantity). Stocked 8k pods since started the tank... Unknown how many exist now... They are like roaches in there. Rbta. Cocoworm. Various corals.

 

[Calappidae]

10g with softies, marineland penguin bio-wheel 100, tetra heater, t5 ho duel fixture 30" aqualight, 20 lbs of black hawaiian sand, 10 lbs of live rock, toadstool leather, red ricordae shrooms, Green star polyps, lots of macro (growing on premium decorative live rock), neon blue brain coral (hitchhiked on same rock), 2 harlequin shrimp (pair), 2 sexy shrimp, 3 blue leg hermits, 2 nassarius, 2 bumble bee snails, 1 peppermint shrimp (moving to bigger tank). 1 small yellow tang (petco recuse.. full of internal parasites.. moving to bigger tank when finished setting it up)

My 30 gallon originally housed a peacock mantis shrimp... but some odd "events" occured in my 29 and i had to move everything in there into his home and move him into a smaller tank. Explaination for my current tank info is a mess..soo... currently..

30g acrylic, tetra heater, 2 penguin biowheel-100 powerfilters, 50 lbs of aragonite sand (guessing.. sand is high on one side and slopes down..), 30lb of LR, container submerged into aquarium housing a small pink wrennerae mantis shrimp (only thing in container.. everything else is free in the tank), 2 ocellarus clowns, 2 scooter blennies (petco recuse), 4 turbo snails, 1 nerite snail, 4 orange tip hermits, 1 yellow watchman goby, 1 bangai cardinal, and a sailfin tang (sailfin tang was also a petco rescue... upgrading to a bigger tank soon.)

6.6 gallon bookshelf aquarium, back-pak skimmer, 5 lbs of aragonite sand, a decorative log (to hide in) and a heater.. tank dementions are 24Lx7Hx9W

 

[DavidinGA]

210gal lps, softies, fish
75gal sump
Skimmer, fuge, 175lb lr, 3" oolite, gfo, gac (occasionally), dosing 2 part and kalk, 2 WP40'S for flow.

Did one water change in last 6 months. Tank is now 8 months old.

No issues and all livestock is healthy.