tank over 4 years - tear it down
- Thread starter fishpoo
- Start date
- Status
hiddendragonet
Premium Member
I don't know about the recommendation to tear down and re-establish a tank after 4 years. What exactly does that mean, sell all your livestock, throw the rock and sand away, and buy new ones? Not feasible for anyone, unless they're rich.
What about simply doing massive water changes? You could drastically reduce any excess element in your water column by simply performing a series of 50% water changes.
Besides, there is anecdotal evidence that "old tank syndrome" is caused by biologically toxic underlayers of sand beds.
What about simply doing massive water changes? You could drastically reduce any excess element in your water column by simply performing a series of 50% water changes.
Besides, there is anecdotal evidence that "old tank syndrome" is caused by biologically toxic underlayers of sand beds.
Vpham97
Premium Member
It's called the "Old Tank Syndrome"
http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48316&highlight=old+syndrome
http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48316&highlight=old+syndrome
hiddendragonet
Premium Member
Yeah, I've read about the old tank syndrome.
But if that's the case, then perhaps bare-bottom tanks will make a comeback. I could see changing out the DSB in a refugium being more feasible than tearing down a full system. I will be following these studies with great interest.
But if that's the case, then perhaps bare-bottom tanks will make a comeback. I could see changing out the DSB in a refugium being more feasible than tearing down a full system. I will be following these studies with great interest.
Yeah, me too. God, I'd hate to have to throw out all of that sand and infauna though! I sifted my aragonite gravel for worms, mini brittle stars, etc. when I converted to a DSB (basically because I'm cheap and didn't want to fork over the $$$ for a detritivore kit) and I'd hate to go through that again! 
Steve
8{I
Steve
8{I
i'm guilty of always changing things too. But i always dreamed of having a tank that was really aged and contained a DSB with tremendous amount of life and corals i didn't want to disturb because they looked so good where they are. Also they would probably be very healthy with little food from me because the aged dsb would supply their food. ofcourse it just won't be that way, but it's a dream of mine.
Changing a dsb out every 4 years may explain why people with plenums have reported problems in that amount of time also.
Changing a dsb out every 4 years may explain why people with plenums have reported problems in that amount of time also.
i have a 325 gallon tank and 75 gallon refugium. i will not and can not possibly change out 1300 pounds of sand, no offence to dr ron, but i never would have set up a deep sand bed if i thought this was the case. an i dont know of any large tank owners who would even consider tearing there tank apart to replace the sand bed. my sand bed is there to stay. i think somebody got there stories screwed up on this one.
This is all speculation at this point---there is no conclusive evidence or definitive explanation. Although, it doesn't seem that far fetched to me--these are very very closed finite systems--even if you think your a big shot with 1000 gallon tank--it is irrelevant when compared to the size of a reef and its immersion in the surrounding ocean. I still cannot believe that anyone could maintain the same tank for 4+ years without wanting to change something major. I love looking at my tank, but if there is nothing to look forward to (like my first MH I am about to install) I'm not sure if my interest wouldn't wane. I mean, come on, even Richard Gere got sick of looking at Cindy Crawford, of course that may be because he had a special interest in his pet of choice :eek1: :eek2: :eek1: :eek2: :eek1:
I see a new salt mix on the horizon! Seeing as how most of the metal toxicity build up may be traced to what we are currently using. You can bet your boots that some, if not all, of the salt manufacturers will be reformulating once all the data is solidified.
Don't be too pessimistic just yet. This will just be another good foot forward in the scheme of things and the hobby, as a whole, will benefit once again. OTS is a known syndrome and one we may possibly be rid of some day soon thanks to studies like this.
Don't be too pessimistic just yet. This will just be another good foot forward in the scheme of things and the hobby, as a whole, will benefit once again. OTS is a known syndrome and one we may possibly be rid of some day soon thanks to studies like this.
Hi,
I don't know about the recommendation to tear down and re-establish a tank after 4 years. What exactly does that mean, sell all your livestock, throw the rock and sand away, and buy new ones? Not feasible for anyone, unless they're rich.
I mean get rid of the sand bed, and live rock; and clean the tank well, possibly with muriatic acid rinse to get rid of adsorbed and precipitated heavy metals.
I personally am in the process of breaking down - to re-establish in a new form - my 7.5 year old lagoonal reef. I have saved some sediment from my 7 year old anemone tank which I recently broke down, and may do analyses of the sediments for trace metals (providing I can find the time and money this fall). Until then, I am working on the hypothesis that all surfaces in the tank are adsorbing these materials, and that there may well be precipitates as well.
What about simply doing massive water changes? You could drastically reduce any excess element in your water column by simply performing a series of 50% water changes.
No you cannot. See the table in my article in the April [rk]. All you can do with regular large water changes is to maintain the toxicity levels at significantly greater than NSW levels.
Besides, there is anecdotal evidence that "old tank syndrome" is caused by biologically toxic underlayers of sand beds.
That is simple malarky. There are simply no biologically toxic underlayers. All the layers in a sand bed are full of life...
....wasabi said,
i think somebody got there stories screwed up on this one.
Actually, I think what happend was that until I started working on this, we had no real data showing how polluted the salt mixes were, and how likely the idea that toxic trace metal build was.
rshimek said:
What we need is a chemist. Metals are always single and double ions and ionic bonds are not easy to break. Salt easily dissolves in water, but to break the sodium-chlorine bond requires a huge amount of energy (I think it takes 2000+ degrees just to melt salt). What I would like to know, and this applies to copper treatment, what new compounds are formed by these free metallic ions and how are they broken (leached) to end up back in the system, or is it that there is nothing inanimate left to absorb them and the only thing left for them to bond with is living tissue.
Hi,
There is nothing magical nor particularly difficult or unusual about the chemistry of these compounds, and in fact they have been studied to death in the real world. Simply what is happening is heavy metal pollution and the natural analogue is an industriallized embayment. As these situations have a lot of human heath concerns, they has been well studied. It is all there on the web or in your local EPA library for you to cogitate over.
These heavy metals are sequestered by organisms to detoxify them, or they go into the sediments as various ionic compounds, many of which are insoluble (= precipitates) at the higher pH's of reef tanks. They tend to remain in the sediments "waiting" until the pH drops, if that does, many of them will go into solution - and in the closed environment of an aquarium - they would form a lethal soup.
So... you can have a tank with a toxic soup in the water, and some heavy metal sludge in the sediments. And this whole system looks grand, because that is what we are used to.
Then if you have an accident, say a calcium reactor burps too much carbon dioxide into the system, and the pH does a transient drop. If that drop is low enough, it cause some of the metals to become soluble. These could cause immediate problems - including mortality. If the pH returns to normal in short order, the metals become insoluble again, and if you tested for them you would never see them. However, animals would have been killed. Another "mystery" death....
There is nothing magical nor particularly difficult or unusual about the chemistry of these compounds, and in fact they have been studied to death in the real world. Simply what is happening is heavy metal pollution and the natural analogue is an industriallized embayment. As these situations have a lot of human heath concerns, they has been well studied. It is all there on the web or in your local EPA library for you to cogitate over.
These heavy metals are sequestered by organisms to detoxify them, or they go into the sediments as various ionic compounds, many of which are insoluble (= precipitates) at the higher pH's of reef tanks. They tend to remain in the sediments "waiting" until the pH drops, if that does, many of them will go into solution - and in the closed environment of an aquarium - they would form a lethal soup.
So... you can have a tank with a toxic soup in the water, and some heavy metal sludge in the sediments. And this whole system looks grand, because that is what we are used to.
Then if you have an accident, say a calcium reactor burps too much carbon dioxide into the system, and the pH does a transient drop. If that drop is low enough, it cause some of the metals to become soluble. These could cause immediate problems - including mortality. If the pH returns to normal in short order, the metals become insoluble again, and if you tested for them you would never see them. However, animals would have been killed. Another "mystery" death....
A possible solution is then to have periodic "burps" that release what little amount of toxic build up there is from time to time. Then there won't be a massive release of heavy metals after years of build up. It seems that this already happens with most people whether they like it or not because "accidents" in tank chemistry are common.
Hi,
A possible solution is then to have periodic "burps" that release what little amount of toxic build up there is from time to time.
There is no "little amount of toxic build up." The tank set up with salt mixes available today is lethal to some animals from the get-go. And from then on it gets worse.
Then there won't be a massive release of heavy metals after years of build up.
Yes, there would. These transient events don't flush anything out of the system. They simply allow what is there to become soluble and toxic. As soon as the pH shifts back the material re-precipitate and are ready for the next time. And each subsequent time, the "burps" would be worse as there would be more accumulation of materials.
It seems that this already happens with most people whether they like it or not because "accidents" in tank chemistry are common.
Yes, and it probably kills a lot of animals.
- Status
