water change

[reefnut]

As usual your information is flowed Bob. According to your towns water quality report the PH tests between 6.4-8.4 with an average of 7.25. Your other numbers are also not accurate.
http://www.hsvutil.org/customer/CCR1999.shtml

 

[overanalyzer]

Originally posted by beaslbob Just some general and minor stuff here.Over: I stated the bulbs were 3300 lumens not 3300k.
What kelvin are they??
Sammy: As I understand your post(s) here, If I do not walk and talk your line here then I am done. I thought this was an open forum (as long as people do not advertise competors).
re-read the post you can spout off on your horrible advice - you just need to make sure you talk about the dangers of taking your path.
I have learned much and even setup a refugium as a result of being a member here.
Good - I think everyone is here to learn ... trust me I think there are very few know-it-all types here.....
If I must warn people of the dangers of macro algae then do you and other posters also have to warn people of the dangers of ro/di water
WHAT!?!??!?! Danger??? Seriously - everyone usually posts the proper way to handle water and water changes ...and if you wish I will always post a disclaimer about the dangers of RO or RO/DI water being clenaer and better for your tank then tap water ever could be .....
, dripping kalk and dosing, inaccurate test kits,
I think the mantra of don't does unless you test .... be wary of tests .... get second opinions on your tests ....
skimmers,
What danger do skimemrs pose?? seriously stumped on this one ... unless you are advocating a salt water swamp.....
floods from sumps and refugiums, heat and evaporation problems with pc and mh lighting
Seen all the challenges from these issues discussed ad naseum ....
waterchanges, and everything else?
Yeah those dreadful water changes - most people give excellent advice on water changes - mix RO or RO/DI water for one day - then mix in salt - then make sure PH, Salinity temp are equal to tank.
The worst advice I consistenly see is: I think you got it right. I have had fw and salt tanks running for years and never do a water change
When people who follow your advice have a tank crash I pray you will re-imburse them since you spout off as if everything you do is perfect and contains NO DANGERS ....
to me the real value is to openly discuss various systems and methods. In that way various methods can be openly compared to give all people a change to decide which paticular method works best for them.
Yeah but try and keep in mind that many people come on here and think if one person agrees with them and 15 people disagree then that one person is right. You never warn of macro algea's takign off and choking out a tank ... or the build up of heavy metals in your tap water (most tap water contains copper- everytime you top off with tap water you increase the amount of CU in your water ... eventually you will end up with a copper rate that will kill any new invert you put into your tank).
Hey trust me - I am as cheap as the next guy and I would love to be able to top off my tank with tap water - but I don't even let my kids drink tap water .... so why would I put it into my tank??
I just don't feel the best system is where it is total disaster when a macro attacks a $9.00/pound live rock.
It is a total disaster when macro covers $200 worth of live rock and chokes out coral ...
b> BEK see i told ya
Yeah - Bek - he has told you and several other people have told you as well ... so since it is your tank and your choice I'd highly suggest you weigh all the evidence before you go further without a water change.
If you follow the utility light - no water change - use gravel in your tank path then by all means best of luck. Because you will need lots of it ....
Bob - you seem to be a fairly smart fellow - so please check your corals and make sure they are not "panning" for light. Which means they open wide and get all puffy .... they are expanding to get the maximum exposure to lighting .... they are not growing - they are slowly starving.
And Lastly you are adding how many PPM of trates and phosphates and assuming your macro is consuming all of it.... do you not realize that those measured and unmeasured checmicals are also being absorbed by your rocks and other living items within your tank ....
So go ahead and continue with your asinine suggestions ... but please don't disappear when you 6 month old tank crashes on you and quit claiming you've had the same tank set-up for 7 years with no water changes .....

 

[beaslbob]

Originally posted by ReefNut
As usual your information is flowed Bob. According to your towns water quality report the PH tests between 6.4-8.4 with an average of 7.25. Your other numbers are also not accurate.
http://www.hsvutil.org/customer/CCR1999.shtml
Thank you for the information and you are correct I did not check the ph. My source was for the harvest monrovia water authority not huntsville. The phosphates nitrates and calcium are accurate according the the annual report they sent me. Bottom line is that my ph is at 8.2-8.4 in my tanks. Nitrates (with my possibly too high reading test kit) are 20ppm down from 20-40ppm last week. Calcium (with new and accurate test kit) is 360ppm.

 

[beaslbob]

well we've about shot this thread.
Over: thanks for the panning warning. Will be on the lookout for that. And I did try a few mushrooms 8 months ago and they did extend and then die off. Only had one utility fixture then and was not feeding as often. I have checked the light levels with my new light meter which is why I stated the exposure values for the picture I posted above. A LFS with PCs and MH lighting has an exposure Value (EV) of 9. My tank is 7 at the top. So I probably will eventually add another utility fixture but gut feel is that things should be ok even if I do not get super growth and propagation.
I am sorry about any misunderstanding on my experience. I have taken pains to always state that I have not done water changes in several tanks in several cities in the US since the late 70's. I did not mean to imply this was one single tank for that entire time. If you can point me to a post where I stated that I have not done water changes on a single tank since the late 70's I will edit that post to correct the misunderstanding.
My outlook is that tanks should be a balanced ecosystem with the tank itself doing the work.
There is nothing new or unproven with the balanced natural planted tank idea. Ponds and tanks fresh and salt were successful before there was electricity or even glass aquariums for that matter. Lights mearly allow us to place the system where we want without regard to where the sun is. Pumps allow greater circulation. What does amaze me is that the comments here appear to imply that each and every ion of copper (for instance) stays in the water colum until if finds and kills a coral or invert. This is simply not true.
I highly suspect that a combination of things taken from a FAMA article by Rober Glacer (not sure of spelling) in the late 70's that allow this to all work. Modifications for marine tanks include use of a buffering substrait and some circulation. The system is a very simple and time proven concept. First establish plant growth then do the rest. In my experience tap water and no water changes help this to work by keeping the plants healthy.
So you you guys want to constangly check on your kalk dripper, filters, RO/DI units, new saltwater mixing tubs and aeraitors, constant doseing and so on so be it. I'll just use the extra $1500 to buy more livestock or a larger system or go on vacation. And when on vacation, I'll just let the system be knowing that all inhabitants are safe for up to two weeks.
Meanwhile, when someone wonders why they have an algae bloom or have lost fish after a water change, I already know the answer.

 

[searcher]

Bob, I always enjoy reading your posts and the discussions they generate. I'm pretty new to the hobby, but I've read enough literature to know that your methods are not conventional. I would imagine that most of the people on the board realize this also.
Nevertheless, it seems like it would be pretty easy to just paste a short disclaimer to your posts just to avoid any trouble. I hope you are allowed to continue posting and that you do continue posting.
Thanks for the alternative views and interesting posts.

 

[overanalyzer]

Bob - wish I could attach a file - you know the old saturday night where Chevy Chase is on the evening news with Jane ...
OK first if you go to your first post in this thread (AND I QUOTE):
"I have had fw and salt tanks running for years and never do a water change" then you go on to say for 6 years ... I would love to go to all of your posts and pull up your "20 years of expereince" and never doing a water change ...
You killed mushrooms?? I knew nothing about SWF back in teh 90's and managed to keep mushrooms and ricordeas and a pair of clowns in a five gallon tank (roommate - pint of vodka - end of tank) Sorry but if your tank is inhospitable to mushrooms I think you have major issues. I had a PH drop in my 140 to 7.75 and my mushrooms survived and one actually started to split.
I do like your idea: My outlook is that tanks should be a balanced ecosystem with the tank itself doing the work.
I too try to keep filtration and such as natural and as to a minimu as possible - but water changes are a natural process int he ocean .... why not in your tank?
Not quite sure why you would think an article and research written in the 70's would be valid over 30 years later? I think FW tanks are far more advanced and in mine I only changed water 4 times a year ... but to think because in the 1800's some scientists kept a fish alive in a wooden box makes your theories accurate is so very flawed! Please try to do some current resaerch. I am not against your macro's ion the main tank (I am against you not warning about the major hazards to corals most macro's pose - plus the potential to go sexual).
You say: "What does amaze me is that the comments here appear to imply that each and every ion of copper (for instance) stays in the water colum until if finds and kills a coral or invert. This is simply not true."
OK where do the copper ions go?? The get absorbed into your substrate, your rocks, even your silicon seals. Most macro's very little CU uptake .... those checmicals then slowly leach back into your water column. Most inverts are very sensitive ... some will be able to tolerate slow changes but as the build up continues you will reach toxic levels unless you export that copper some how ... same with iron and other heavy metalsfound in tap water
I don't dose, drip or constantly check my water. In my 20 I use my xenia as a guide and I mix and change water on a regular basis. I also use 2 rubbermaid garbage cans for my fresh water and sw mixing ... all told I have spent around $45 for RO water and filters and garbage cans .... so yes I could go out and buy a nice coral ... but I'm saving for lights.
I am not a huge lighting guru so I will tell you what I know. Light intensity begins to deteriorate as soon as it hits the water. So a 7 rating @ surface is pitiful one foot down - which is why MH's need ot rate so high - so they can penetrate. Adding more lights with inadequate intesity just continues to push inadequate light to the bottom of the tank ....
Bob - I seriously hope you hang around - as I wantto see better and up close pictures of your tank ... if nothing else it helps me feel justified in spending $45 on my water filter and supplies.

 

[sammystingray]

Bob, all you are checking is the brightness of the light.....basically useless in aquarium keeping...great for photography. Check it with a PAR meter. BTW I do also keep macros in my main tank....the trouble is that you push them in each and every post no matter what it's about. Do you realize that certain types are illegal in Cali due to the growth rate? Just one piece dropped in the ocean there could destroy thousands and thousands of acres...your's grows slowly because your lights are too weak, and yours does not strangle corals because you don't really have many, and yours does not starve the rock life of light because you have no life on those river rocks, and yours does not entangle in every rock because your rock has no holes to get in.....people with NORMAL tanks do have concerns with macros.....it is the CONSTANT pushing of the stuff to those new to the hobby, and unaware of the downfalls, that is annoying.

 

[beaslbob]

I understand the concern with macros not being introduced where they are illegal. Hopefully the more experienced will not send those to the wrong locations.
I'll save the cost of a par meter by watching the condition of my tank. So far so good.
My plants may be growing slowly due to the "low light" but I doubt it. Plants grow slowly when nitrates fall and then a equilibrium is established where the plants are processing the ammonia/nitrates and phosphates. They grow faster with more food, light and carbon dioxide. I thought I would culture some micro algae for some rotifers I got, so I placed some of my water in a jar on a ledge next to an open south facing window. I expected to have a dark green jar of water, but three week later the water ony had a slight green tint to it. So I moved the jar to my south facing porch in direct sunlight. three weeks later the water is the same color. If algae does not bloom in bright wrong spectrum light then the I don't think low tank lighting is limiting the macro growth.. I am now going to add fertilizer and see if I finally get the desired algae bloom in the jar.
I am glad you agree that my system is working. And I am sure you realize that my "constantly pushing of plant life" is just as disagreeable to you and the constant pushing of live rock is to me. I am well above the median houshold income and my wife works also. So resources are not a concern in my case. But there are methods to keep successful marine and reef tanks which do not require lr. a 55g tank with 100 pounds of $9.00 (from above) requires $900.00. The average person starting in this hobby I exactly right to be outraged paying that much for rock whose only claim to fame is it might have actually been in the ocean at one time. I simply give them the option of spending $40.00 with the side benifit of requireing much less maintenance.

 

[reefnut]

With you options comes sacrifices like looks and longtivity... When you suggest someone use brown sand and crush coral show them a close up of yours and let them see the "option" you are giving them. When you suggest normal lights and tap water show them the algae growth in your tank and above all, in three years when their tank sucks because of your bad options you can show them your sympathy.

 

[reefnut]

P.S. Why was the pic you posted doctored up?

 

[beaslbob]

Originally posted by ReefNut
P.S. Why was the pic you posted doctored up?
I was not doctored up. What are you refering to? As I posted it is a hand held available light picture. The available light is the tank lights.

 

[beaslbob]

Originally posted by searcher
Bob, I always enjoy reading your posts and the discussions they generate. I'm pretty new to the hobby, but I've read enough literature to know that your methods are not conventional. I would imagine that most of the people on the board realize this also.
Nevertheless, it seems like it would be pretty easy to just paste a short disclaimer to your posts just to avoid any trouble. I hope you are allowed to continue posting and that you do continue posting.
Thanks for the alternative views and interesting posts.
thank you searcher. I will if everyone else does also. Afterall deseases do come on live rock.

 

[overanalyzer]

Originally posted by beaslbob
I'll save the cost of a par meter by watching the condition of my tank. So far so good.
...the constant pushing of live rock is to me. I am well above the median houshold income and my wife works also. So resources are not a concern in my case. But there are methods to keep successful marine and reef tanks which do not require lr. a 55g tank with 100 pounds of $9.00 (from above) requires $900.00. The average person starting in this hobby I exactly right to be outraged paying that much for rock whose only claim to fame is it might have actually been in the ocean at one time. I simply give them the option of spending $40.00 with the side benifit of requireing much less maintenance.
so far so good?? WHAT?!?!?!?!? You killed off the easiest coralmorphs to keep - I have never heard fo anyone killing mushrooms and claim success
OK Not sure who indicates filling their tank with LR. I personally disagree with using an entire tank full of LR (depletes the ocean's resources). I think people should use nice base rock that is a rock that is compatible with a standard reef tank. The $40 you spent on flat FW base rock could've been spent on Hawaiian Island base rock. Which looks like reef rock because a few thousand years ago it was a reef .....
You can also make your own rock - which while cheaper still is a lot nicer than putting in flat rock.
If you can't afford some live rock though then you should not count on it as a natural part of your filtration .....
Lastly if anyone wants to set-up a cheap reef tank then I'd suggest they go out and spend $7.00 on teh current reef keeping magazine with the leafy sea dragon on the cover. Nice article on how to do it, do it right and have a nice reef set-up ....

 

[reefnut]

Originally posted by beaslbob
Afterall deceases do come on live rock.
What deceases are you referring to? I know you will not respond to this because you don't know, do you. Just kind of making things up as we go .
edit: before you try to spout off some more bad info... I have over 150# of LR and have never even had a case of Ick. (knock of wood )

 

[overanalyzer]

Originally posted by beaslbob
thank you searcher. I will if everyone else does also. Afterall deseases do come on live rock.
WHAT???

 

[reefnut]

Originally posted by beaslbob
I was not doctored up. What are you refering to? As I posted it is a hand held available light picture. The available light is the tank lights.
It sure looks doctored to me... the bottom of the sand bed has been colored in.

 

[beaslbob]

Originally posted by ReefNut
It sure looks doctored to me... the bottom of the sand bed has been colored in.
That is the effects of using available lights and only the tank lights. If I had used some front fill lights you could have seen the sand bed, tank frames and tank stand. So all you can see is the crushed coral where light filtered through. Play sand is below that. And yes there is still some algae. that is what happend when you do not first establish plant life and then the rest.

 

[reefnut]

Whatever you say Bob.
BTW, that is what happend when you do not first establish plant life and then the rest. no, that is what happens when you have pour methods. I kept a 55g with NO plant life that didn't have an algae problem. Just my experience, been doing that sense 1916 when we come to America on a row boat.

 

[overanalyzer]

Bob - what diseases are carried on the live rock??

 

[bek]

Originally posted by overanalyzer
if Bek and Trkdoc are one in the same then a 30 gallon with no water changes for the past 8 months is pushing the limits ....
I'd really suggest that you do some small partial water changes once a month ... anything large would be a huge shock @ this point. So like a 3-5 gallon change now and another in 3-4 weeks ....
Yes - Bek and Trkdoc and 2 people with one tank - such a happy couple.....in love with our tank and with each other