I intend to do no water changes in a large system.
- Thread starter MadReefist
- Start date
Donkeykong
New member
Over complicated YES. But if you want to give it a shot more power to you. I think you will end up tweaking and simplifing as you go. But it is guys like you who take the unbeaten path that end up progressing the hobby. All we ask is keep us posted, often, with pictures.
+1
+1
+1
little bit of a stretch
+1
igot2gats
Deeeetroit Basketball!
+1, and amen. But as others have said, if you can do it - more power to you. One of the great aspect of this hobby is, do it how you want it....as long as it works.
TucanSam007
New member
I say go for it. I mean why not, i like the look of a bunch of small tanks actually. I can see where your going with that. More maintenance for sure, but it may be well worth it. I think all the tanks I ended up liking the most long term were simple and minimal up-keep though. You want to make it as easy as possible to sleep at night. Hence just do the water changes man. 
I hate to say, but I've gone 8 months in a very fast-growing reef with no water changes and had absolutely no visible ill effects. Family emergency, life crisis, 8 bad months, now done with. But the tank was, and remains bulletproof. You can read specs in my sig. The fuge is rock/aragonite sand/cheato as remote DSB. Food is when I thought of it, ground dried krill. Pods and mysis, limpets, dove snails, mini feather dusters and sponges in sump, breed like crazy. LPS reef, very forgiving, I will say that. The only plague I've got is coralline algae that has to be scraped off the glass (accidental mg overdose)...
No filters, no socks, no sponges and in some weeks the skimmer wasn't working, either. Corals are my filters.
No filters, no socks, no sponges and in some weeks the skimmer wasn't working, either. Corals are my filters.
swilliamson
New member
Admirable goals, but I agree that it seems overly complicated. That said, it always grabs my interest when someone's venturing outside the norm. If you want to try it, more power to you. I'm all for someone doing it however they want. It's your tank, not mine after all. It'll be interesting to see how your setup evolves over the course of a year or more.
I'm far from an expert, but presumably you've posted your build to get feedback, thoughts, ideas, criticisms, encouragement, etc... here are mine:
1. I agree, if you are going to go natural and sustainable, go natural and sustainable. The tower, chemical, and mechanical filtration seem problematic and unnecessary to me. It has been said that perfection of design is when there is nothing left to take away. I would spend some time thinking on that. What is the absolute simplest system to achieve your design goals?
2. I have heard claims that extra-deep sand beds (~25cm) can work fine under the right circumstances, but I'd advise caution. You're running a high risk of generating hydrogen sulfide and poisoning your inhabitants. If you smell rotten eggs, there's your culprit. Personally I'd stick with established DSB principles regarding grain size, bed thickness, flow, and no plenum.
3. It is my understanding that the plenum is characteristic of the Jaubert method. That method works, but part of the reason it fell out of favor was because it requires very specific design characteristics and deviating from those at best leaves you with a plenum that does nothing but take up space, at worst it becomes a nutrient sink, sulfide factory, and leads to a tank crash. If there has been more recent research with plenums then forgive my ignorance. I've been away from the hobby a bit myself.
4. If the goal is sterilization, that little UV unit is severely undersized. Emperor Aquatics has some good reading on their website that you may find helpful regarding dosage, contact time, etc. If low cost is one of your overall system design goals, true UV sterilization to the point of effectively neutralizing protozoa is probably beyond the scope of your system. Regardless of size, UV is not a good substitute for quarantine and it is just a matter of time before that tactic comes back to bite you anyway.
5. As a testament to simplicity, Inland Aquatics runs 40,000 gal off algae turf scrubbers and 5% annual water changes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsVEVUfVtcM. Most home aquarists seem to be using a waterfall design, but the principle is the same. There's a lot on these boards about ATS and fans even have a dedicated site [edit: apparently I can't add the link, but if you do an Internet search for "Algae Scrubber" it is probably the first hit in the list].
6. I have to admit I've never given mangroves more than a passing look, but my instincts tell me they wouldn't be growing fast enough to meet your nutrient export needs. Part of the reason ATS are popular is ease of harvest. It also reproduces like crazy and every part of it is photosynthetic. Give it light and flow, scrape off the growth once a week or so, and that's all the nutrient export you need. Algae seems more in keeping with your design goal of sustainability also, since eventually mangroves will outgrow their seedling tray and need to be replaced, right?
7. The only reason not to quarantine properly is impatience--this is not the hobby for the impatient.
8. I admire redundancy in high risk areas. It is prudent to give thought to things like "What would happen if my return pump burned out at 10am on a workday?" Or "What would happen if my chiller died?" That said, I don't think the redundant filtration methods you've outlined add anything but more maintenance.
9. Speaking of maintenance, I'm a firm believer that the easier you make maintenance tasks, the more likely they'll reliably get done. You have a lot of canisters and chemicals and media and buckets that all need cleaned and renewed, you have a lot of plants that need pruned, a DE filter that needs flushed (how are you going to supply make-up water to replace the flush water?)
10. I don't know what you pay for water, but by just spot checking the prices for some of the consumables you're planning, it looks to me like you're going to be spending more money than you would if you did 10% monthly water changes. If you managed to achieve Inland Aquatics rate of 5% annual, a single bucket of salt would last you ~10 years. There is point of diminished returns and if low cost is the overriding goal, the optimal target is likely something less than absolute zero water changes.
11. Finally in terms of costs, it is important to consider opportunity cost. For example, how much money could you earn working some overtime or a side job versus how much money you save spending that time cleaning and maintaining your extra system components. You have designed so much maintenance into that system that you must not place much value in your time.
(I don't mean that as an insult; it is meant to spark you into thinking of your time as a finite and valuable resource and consider how much of your time you're going to be spending on maintenance tasks.) One of your design goals is low cost. Your time is the most valuable thing you have and should be part of that cost analysis as well.
Well there you have it... my thoughts. Worth about what you paid for them, but I hope they spark some ideas.
Good luck with your build!
I'm far from an expert, but presumably you've posted your build to get feedback, thoughts, ideas, criticisms, encouragement, etc... here are mine:
1. I agree, if you are going to go natural and sustainable, go natural and sustainable. The tower, chemical, and mechanical filtration seem problematic and unnecessary to me. It has been said that perfection of design is when there is nothing left to take away. I would spend some time thinking on that. What is the absolute simplest system to achieve your design goals?
2. I have heard claims that extra-deep sand beds (~25cm) can work fine under the right circumstances, but I'd advise caution. You're running a high risk of generating hydrogen sulfide and poisoning your inhabitants. If you smell rotten eggs, there's your culprit. Personally I'd stick with established DSB principles regarding grain size, bed thickness, flow, and no plenum.
3. It is my understanding that the plenum is characteristic of the Jaubert method. That method works, but part of the reason it fell out of favor was because it requires very specific design characteristics and deviating from those at best leaves you with a plenum that does nothing but take up space, at worst it becomes a nutrient sink, sulfide factory, and leads to a tank crash. If there has been more recent research with plenums then forgive my ignorance. I've been away from the hobby a bit myself.
4. If the goal is sterilization, that little UV unit is severely undersized. Emperor Aquatics has some good reading on their website that you may find helpful regarding dosage, contact time, etc. If low cost is one of your overall system design goals, true UV sterilization to the point of effectively neutralizing protozoa is probably beyond the scope of your system. Regardless of size, UV is not a good substitute for quarantine and it is just a matter of time before that tactic comes back to bite you anyway.
5. As a testament to simplicity, Inland Aquatics runs 40,000 gal off algae turf scrubbers and 5% annual water changes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsVEVUfVtcM. Most home aquarists seem to be using a waterfall design, but the principle is the same. There's a lot on these boards about ATS and fans even have a dedicated site [edit: apparently I can't add the link, but if you do an Internet search for "Algae Scrubber" it is probably the first hit in the list].
6. I have to admit I've never given mangroves more than a passing look, but my instincts tell me they wouldn't be growing fast enough to meet your nutrient export needs. Part of the reason ATS are popular is ease of harvest. It also reproduces like crazy and every part of it is photosynthetic. Give it light and flow, scrape off the growth once a week or so, and that's all the nutrient export you need. Algae seems more in keeping with your design goal of sustainability also, since eventually mangroves will outgrow their seedling tray and need to be replaced, right?
7. The only reason not to quarantine properly is impatience--this is not the hobby for the impatient.
8. I admire redundancy in high risk areas. It is prudent to give thought to things like "What would happen if my return pump burned out at 10am on a workday?" Or "What would happen if my chiller died?" That said, I don't think the redundant filtration methods you've outlined add anything but more maintenance.
9. Speaking of maintenance, I'm a firm believer that the easier you make maintenance tasks, the more likely they'll reliably get done. You have a lot of canisters and chemicals and media and buckets that all need cleaned and renewed, you have a lot of plants that need pruned, a DE filter that needs flushed (how are you going to supply make-up water to replace the flush water?)
10. I don't know what you pay for water, but by just spot checking the prices for some of the consumables you're planning, it looks to me like you're going to be spending more money than you would if you did 10% monthly water changes. If you managed to achieve Inland Aquatics rate of 5% annual, a single bucket of salt would last you ~10 years. There is point of diminished returns and if low cost is the overriding goal, the optimal target is likely something less than absolute zero water changes.
11. Finally in terms of costs, it is important to consider opportunity cost. For example, how much money could you earn working some overtime or a side job versus how much money you save spending that time cleaning and maintaining your extra system components. You have designed so much maintenance into that system that you must not place much value in your time.
(I don't mean that as an insult; it is meant to spark you into thinking of your time as a finite and valuable resource and consider how much of your time you're going to be spending on maintenance tasks.) One of your design goals is low cost. Your time is the most valuable thing you have and should be part of that cost analysis as well.Well there you have it... my thoughts. Worth about what you paid for them, but I hope they spark some ideas.
Good luck with your build!
Everyones Hero
New member
It definitely seems overly complicated but I'm interested in seeing where it goes.
Getting the pumps that are in your sump & DSB tank to sync up are going to be a royal PITA. And once you get them synced up they're probably going to be out of sync in just a couple of days.
I'd use one pump T'd to feed the DSB & the 15g tanks. Or 2 pumps in the sump- 1 feeding the DSB & the other feeding your tower of tanks.
Getting the pumps that are in your sump & DSB tank to sync up are going to be a royal PITA. And once you get them synced up they're probably going to be out of sync in just a couple of days.
I'd use one pump T'd to feed the DSB & the 15g tanks. Or 2 pumps in the sump- 1 feeding the DSB & the other feeding your tower of tanks.
I think i may have scared the OP away.
My appolgies.
Any updates?
About the sand, the 3 areas you discussed dry, tidal, undersea dont factor into the reef aquarium. Your sand is always submerged. Things in the tidal typically need to be out of the water at some point or they would not live there. Things in the dry never need water. Not sure if there is life in them as they sit anyway.
I was interested in the debate on this system sorry we didnt all think it was the greatest thing we had seen.
My appolgies.
Any updates?
About the sand, the 3 areas you discussed dry, tidal, undersea dont factor into the reef aquarium. Your sand is always submerged. Things in the tidal typically need to be out of the water at some point or they would not live there. Things in the dry never need water. Not sure if there is life in them as they sit anyway.
I was interested in the debate on this system sorry we didnt all think it was the greatest thing we had seen.
jacob.morgan78
New member
I'm interested in an update!
joelespinoza
New member
WAY to overly complex. I could make a NICE ATS for a 150 gallon tank for $150 (or less) and never do water changes.
I have a 55 gallon with a 40 gallon (empty) sump and I dont ever do water changes, my ATS is a simple waterfall behind the tank style, it acts as my filtration and my overflow drain. Besides the return pump (which you would need anyway) it involves $20 worth the plumbing, $1 for plastic canvas screening, $16 for reflectors ($8 x 2 at walmart) and $4 for the 2 2700k walmart curly q screw in flourecent bulbs that I change every 6 months.
Thats $37 for the fixture and $4 in replacement costs every 6 months. This was my first basic ATS, I could have done better but it was a learning experience. If you want a nice ATS, LEDs are really comming into their own and Santa Monica over at algaescrubber is almost ready to release his next design of them (May 1st). Most of the people on that site never do water changes.... and they have nothing as crazy and out of control as what you have going on.
BTW: Complex does not mean dependable. Sometimes complex is just more prone to failure. If your goal is 0 water changes and dependable redundancy, just make 2 small ATS powered by 2 pumps.
I have a 55 gallon with a 40 gallon (empty) sump and I dont ever do water changes, my ATS is a simple waterfall behind the tank style, it acts as my filtration and my overflow drain. Besides the return pump (which you would need anyway) it involves $20 worth the plumbing, $1 for plastic canvas screening, $16 for reflectors ($8 x 2 at walmart) and $4 for the 2 2700k walmart curly q screw in flourecent bulbs that I change every 6 months.
Thats $37 for the fixture and $4 in replacement costs every 6 months. This was my first basic ATS, I could have done better but it was a learning experience. If you want a nice ATS, LEDs are really comming into their own and Santa Monica over at algaescrubber is almost ready to release his next design of them (May 1st). Most of the people on that site never do water changes.... and they have nothing as crazy and out of control as what you have going on.
BTW: Complex does not mean dependable. Sometimes complex is just more prone to failure. If your goal is 0 water changes and dependable redundancy, just make 2 small ATS powered by 2 pumps.
joelespinoza
New member
I dont think that it is beating a dead horse so much as information for him, or anyone else that reads this thread.
What he is trying to accomplish "cheaply" has been done countless times for a tiny fraction of the cost, in initial costs of equipment, maintaince supplies and electrical cost.
In my opinion designing a system that doesnt need water changes to remove nitrates is simple, anyone can do it. The hardest part about a system where you never change the water is keeping the water chemistry correct without water changes.
Not sure what you are referring to. "Hard" water implies calcium and magnesium, and accumulation of those is not generally an issue in reef tanks.
While an ATS might be An OK way to export N and P, it is hardly a replacement for water changes. There are all kinds of things accumulating and depleting from a reef system, and aside from N and P, an ATS only makes depletion worse as the algae take up ions such as iron.
