tank over 4 years - tear it down

[400M1963]

if i recall correctly, the poly filter does not have to be pressure fitted in order to adsorb/absorb harmful chemicals, therefore it is reasonable to ask if we can just place it somewhere in the rig where water flows over it in order to be effective - vertically standing up inside one's protein skimmer, for example.

this would appear to allow for biodiversity while dealing with toxicity. thoughts on this are welcome

 

[rshimek]

Hi Gia,

Yes, you are correct, and that may be part of the answer. The filter will be more efficient, however, if water is drawn or pushed through it.

However, we will likely have to experiment a bit to find the best combination of methods.

 

[Marcosreef]

I guess using Reef Crystals is out of the question :eek2:

 

[Floridiot]

Well, this is what I recommended in this month's article. Keep in mind that there is virtually NO necessary stuff in the salt mix except salt, calcium, and some alkalinity buffers. Effectively every thing else in the mix is a poison. So... get rid of as much of it as you can.

What is the purpose of water changes then? If all we're only doing them for calcium & bufferring purposes, I can think of a half a dozen easier ways to replenish calcium & buffers.

Also, running a polyfilter continuosly seems like it would remove all the trace elements from the water column. I understand your fear of buildup, but there does need to be some need for these trace elements.

I kind of agree with your hypothesis on toxic metal buildup, but I see no way to eliminate it from our closed systems. Heavy skimming and macroalgae export seem like the only ways to slow it down until there is an available salt mix that doesn't contain the unnecessary metals.

 

[pnosko]

Hmmm, trace elements vs. toxic metals. Are they the same type, just differing in quantity?

 

[rshimek]

Originally posted by Floridiot

Hi,

What is the purpose of water changes then?

To remove the accumulation of toxic materials that come in with feedings.

Also, running a polyfilter continuosly seems like it would remove all the trace elements from the water column. I understand your fear of buildup, but there does need to be some need for these trace elements.

On the contrary, in neither the physiological nor ecological literature is there a demonstrated need for most of these elements, and for those where there has been a need demonstrated, such materials generally become toxic at levels only slightly above natural levels. If you feed your tank at all, enough of trace elements enter with feeding to keep the tank more than saturated.

 

[rshimek]

Originally posted by pnosko

Hi
Hmmm, trace elements vs. toxic metals. Are they the same type, just differing in quantity?

Just different terms for the same thing, depending upon which vantage point you are viewing them from.

From the view point of a chemical oceanographer, they are naturally present in very small amounts, so they are trace elements.

From the view point of an individual monitoring pollution effects, at levels above those natural levels, they are toxic, so....

Most of them are metals, so that term is applied across the board.

 

[Floridiot]

What is the purpose of water changes then?
>>>To remove the accumulation of toxic materials that come in with feedings.

I understand your fear of buildup, but there does need to be some need for these trace elements.
>>>On the contrary, in neither the physiological nor ecological literature is there a demonstrated need for most of these elements, and for those where there has been a need demonstrated, such materials generally become toxic at levels only slightly above natural levels. If you feed your tank at all, enough of trace elements enter with feeding to keep the tank more than saturated.

So do you feel that water changes could be eliminated by replacing a polyfilter every week along with pruning macroalgae from the refugium? This would in effect be doing the same thing wouldn't it?

And another question. What is your opinion on adding iodide as a supplement? Some corals such as xenia definitely do respond to iodide supplementation. Before you mention that there is no scientific proof of this, I've seen it with my own eyes. If I failed to dose iodide for a few days, my xenia would almost completely stop pumping. Within one hour after dosing iodide, they'd start right back up pumping hard.

 

[rshimek]

Originally posted by Floridiot

Hi,

So do you feel that water changes could be eliminated by replacing a polyfilter every week along with pruning macroalgae from the refugium? This would in effect be doing the same thing wouldn't it?

There are a lot of variables here. I suspect that there will be non-trace metal materials that you would want to get rid of with water changes. Additionally, I don't know how often one would need to replace the polyfitler, and which algae would be the best to use (my data from the tank export study - not yet published - indicates that not all algae are equal in this regard). In theory, I think the statement above would indicate one possible solution. However, it may not be the best solution.

And another question. What is your opinion on adding iodide as a supplement? Some corals such as xenia definitely do respond to iodide supplementation.

Yes, indeed they are well poisoned by it. Iodine, in particular, is a nasty toxin that is lethal to many organisms at concentrations above those found in NSW.

Before you mention that there is no scientific proof of this,

Nonetheless, there is no data anywhere in the scientific literature supporting this.

[b ]... they'd start right back up pumping hard. [/B]

And you presume this is a normal healthy behavior? It could simply be an indication of response to an irritant.

 

[Floridiot]

>>>I suspect that there will be non-trace metal materials that you would want to get rid of with water changes.

Can you please elaborate on what materials you're referring too? Would not a polyfilter also remove these?

Point taken on the iodide & xenia, but does pulsing xenia not pulse in the wild? I always thought it did, hence the name.

 

[dave750gixer]

This has got me thinking about a few things. I was wondering just how far we could go towards not feeding a tank at all.

If the reef were to be a functioning ecosystem then photosynthesis would provide all of the energy input into the tank. The algae would then be eaten and then the herbivores and their wastes would be eaten and so on. All that is then necessary would be the addition of any elements that are needed in the closed system of our tanks that cant be obtained from gaseous exchange. I am assuming that using media in a calcium reactor that is derived from a reef based substrate would contain any minerals needed along with the calcium.

What would be needed? phosphorus, nitrogen, sulphur ...not actually sure, will need some research

however, these could be added as analytical grade reagents, e.g. nitrogen as ammonium hydroxide or an ammonium salt. This coupled with a better salt mix should get rid of any accumulation problem.

What do you think?

 

[ATJ]

Dr Ron,
After reading through the article a number of times I'm not sure I see the rationale for breaking the tank down on a regular basis - or at least I'm not sure I see the value of this over letting the tank "crash" at the end of its life.

The article discusses two areas where the trace elements accumulate to toxic levels: the water column and the tissues of the organisms in the tank. In theory, the water column accumulation can be reduced by regular water changes, however, there is no simple solution to accumulation in animal tissue, short of discarding the animals. Tearing the tank down and transferring the animals to another tank won't alleviate the problem at all as the animals may already have near lethal levels of toxins.

It appears, therefore, that all the animals in the "old tank" are doomed and there is little we can do about it.

 

[viking30]

ATJ,

It appears, therefore, that all the animals in the "old tank" are doomed and there is little we can do about it.

If thats the case then we would have to consider the moral implications of dooming these wonderful creatures to a lifespan of 4 years. Can we continue with a hobby that will kill everything we keep within 4 years?
If just changing the sand was the answer then i'm glad i dont have a dsb. Good news for those that sell sand though i supppose
Cheers,
Viking.

 

[rshimek]

Originally posted by Floridiot

Hi,

Can you please elaborate on what materials you're referring too? Would not a polyfilter also remove these?

There are a lot of organic materials that accumulate in a tank and polyfilters don't seem to remove these.

Point taken on the iodide & xenia, but does pulsing xenia not pulse in the wild? I always thought it did, hence the name.

The name is an aquarium name, some pulse in the wild, some don't. Lotsa guesses why, they pulse - but no answers as to why they do.

 

[rshimek]

Originally posted by dave750gixer

Hi Dave,

What do you think?

Well, it ain't quite that simple....

Take a look at Eric's columns in the last couple of issues of [rk], the nutrient needs of organisms are pretty complex. When we consider ecosystems as a whole, yeah, we can say in gross terms what we need, but on the more precise level of a tank...

The bottom line is that a lot of trace elements are necessary cofactors in enzymes and such. They are vital, but can't be there in large quantities or they kill. So...

The easiest, and probably the only way to add these necessary things is to feed the animals in the system. There is no way to short circuit that part of the process, and this introduces a lot of undesirable stuff.

 

[rshimek]

Originally posted by ATJ

Hi Andrew,

The article discusses two areas where the trace elements accumulate to toxic levels: the water column and the tissues of the organisms in the tank.

I discussed these two ways of accumulation, I also mentiond that various sorts of precipitation occur, where the trace metals accumulate in the sediments and adsorption, where the trace metals accumulate on surfaces. I haven't got numbers on this accumulation yet, but should have some later this year after analyzing some sediments. Nevertheless, the accumulation in sediments and surfaces is likely the major problem in the long run. Long term accumulation in the animals, simply kills the animals.

However, if we can periodically remove the build up in the tank (and on all the in tank surfaces) by breaking down and removing sediments and live rock, and if we can provide a medium where the organisms are not continually bathed in soup of toxic metal ions, then the organisms can be maintained in an environement where they are not continually accumulating the poisons.

 

[Acrotech]

I have sold to and worked with Cargil for years. They have a large salt plant in SF which I have visited a few times. Your posts got me thinking and a quick search of their web site came up with the following.

www.cargillsalt.com/sfbay/T_refine_ind.html

They produce a 99.8% pure salt, that gets used in water softeners, fish packing etc. Is this something that has potential for our use?

 

[Acrotech]

Even better 99.9% pure and talks about removing trace elements.

http://www.cargillsalt.com/sfbay/T_refine_home.html

 

[myron]

Hello,

This is the first time I have read about OTS. My tank is 5 years old and is showing the kinds of symtoms this post has described. A drop in sandbed life and cyno problems.
However, the many posts above seem to infer that it may be the salt mix that may be adding the wrong balance of metals and trace elements. Perhaps. However, for my tank I have to rule out the salt mix since I have been using natural salt water for 4 years on this tank. Perhaps I do not have OTS. In the past year, I was away alot. Thus flake foods were introduced in my tank via an autofeeder 5 day per week. Could this process food be the culprit for toxic buildup in my sandbed? Or could it be other sources such as disolved arragonite sand from the sandbed itself or calcium reactor?

 

[JSM]

You mentioned a recipe for making our own salt mix, where would we find this?

Janna