Water Change

[beaslbob]

so lets try to cut down the --- for tat as the posts keep getting longer and longer.
From what I gater you are all saying this or that is in tap water or may be in tap water. What I am saying is that whatever is in tap water had not stressed any fish in 6 different cites in the US since the late 70's. And additionally, that by first estabishing plant life you set up a balanced ecosystem which conditions that water to acceptable values for any saltwater tank. I am sorry this is such a hard concept to understand.
As far as results are concerned. anyone care to comment an crazyreefnut's system? Again tap water and no water changes should be just as detrimental to his system as mine. The color of my rocks should not determine if the system is working.

 

[jauringer]

wow, what a heated depate. I didn't even read everything, but I did want to throw an opinion on water changes. My personal opinion on the question in the first place is out of lazyness. Guess what a FO or reef tanks are not easy!!! it takes a little work, so quit trying to cut corners, and as Borneman says "Its not good for the hobby". Have you ever looked at reef tanks that are recognized in reef magazines and are stunning. Everyone of those people do regular water changes and most do them weekly. My personal opinion of having a display full of macros are.... set up a fresh water plant tank!!!! Your waisting time and money on salt. so many people get in to this hobby that are not ready for the commitment and the money it takes to do it right. i hate to tell you this Beaslbob, but that picture you posted of your tank is probably the best example I have seen of why we should all do water changes.

 

[overanalyzer]

Originally posted by SquishyFish
I think there is a little confusion here..We understand what you are saying...we just disagree w/ you.
Squishy
EXACTLY

 

[wrassecal]

I think everyone posting an opinion on this thread should show a picture of their tank so that new people reading the advice can decide for themselves what they would like for their tank to look/perform like.

 

[trigger reid]

i do water changes every three weeks they get rid of fishes waste and get rid of nitrates and that stops nusence algae from growing

 

[beaslbob]

Originally posted by trigger reid
i do water changes every three weeks they get rid of fishes waste and get rid of nitrates and that stops nusence algae from growing
I understand your thoughts and they are very common. As I have stated, controlling any parameters with anything less than a 100% water change is impossible even with perfect replacement water. Consider the following chart. One line is a 10% water change the other my actual experience with my 20g macro algae tanks, after a fish died and decomposed for three days. The tank was set up new with play sand and no circulation. Gracilleria, ULVA, and kelp like caulpera were added. A single baby molly was in the tank and not fed. As I stated you can not get to 0.0 nitrates through water changes. You are undoublty controlling nitrates and nusence algae. But it is not through water changes. Your algae is being controled by other means.
hang in there am reformatting the pic

 

[beaslbob]

woops here is the pic (i Hope)

 

[beth]

I have not read thru this whole thread but I have to say, that my reef tank had an abundance of macros when I first got it [hitch hikers on LR].....it had about 3 mos to grow out from the LR and what I added, as I didn't add corals, fish until the tank had been up and running for some time. I had zero reading from day one. I don't think it was the algae but rather the way I set up the tank, and the delay to adding to the tank. I now only have 1 small piece of macro and everything is still at zero.
There is no question about the benefits of a refugium. But do you want to make your display tank in to what looks like a algae refugium? Most of us don't get into this hobby to grow plants in our display.
Given the correct balance in your setup, I think you can achive zero readings wo even a single sprig in the tank. Saying that, I have to admit that I keep 1 macro in the tank. Mine is basically a safe haven for baby snails, bristles and brittles and that is mostly why I keep mine.

 

[beaslbob]

thanks Beth. As I remember your tank from a picture you have tons of coraline algae. That counts as plant life also.
I am also glad your experience agree with mine. Maybe hard to believe but you did have plant life from day one. and you did have 0.0 nitrates.

 

[beth]

Well, the truth is "plantlife" in a reef tank is in the water column, as well as in many of the corals we keep.
I wouldn't say I agree that a display should have all manner of macro. Many macros are very invassive. If you are going to promote plants in the tank, I think it behooves you to specify display safe macros rather than just saying plants are good and everyone should have them. A new hobbyist reading your theories can get very excited thinking that plants are the answer to resolving all the common woes we face in our tanks, and then go out and seed their tank with the worst possible choices that become invasive. If you want to promote plantlife as a viable componet of the aquaria, I'd suggest that you take care in pointing out specific non-invasive, controlable algaes that might be useful and not harmful in your posts.
I have no doubt whatsoever if I take out my remaining single macro, that all my water readings will remain at zero. That was acheived by the way I set up my tank and how I keep it, not by marco alage. Personally, I feel it is a mistake for hobbyists to rely on a single "thing" to keep your tank going right. Balance is the key. All componets of your aquaria work together to achieve the whole stable environment. And in that setting, yes macros can play a role.
I know you have taken hits here regarding your theories. Just take care that what you promote does not end up in a disaster for new hobbyists who might not know better.
As for water changes, you are looking at the need to change water only to dilute organics in the aquaria......nothing can be further from the truth. Water is not just H20, especailly in a reef tank. A fresh batch of salt water brings with it an array of necessary elements that is an essential componet to the aquaria. No plant is going to be a viable substitute for that. As organisms in the tank uptake these elements, replacement is needed [via water changes]. Can a tank get along wo every making a water change? Yes. Is it the best? No.

 

[naturelover]

bob,
Your theory will fit perfect for freshwater tanks. Since plants release O2 during daytime and CO2 at night. I know you are trying to set up oyester shells with plant life to promote CaCo3 with the release of CO2 from plants areated with those.
I don't know if it works but It all depends on how satisfied you are with your tank.
I agree on not using tap water since it has more minarals than a regular lake or waterfall has. Atleast go with RO only water if you can't afford RO/DI.
Always better to adjust with new technology available rather than sitting and thinking why this tank is not like others.

 

[beaslbob]

Originally posted by NatureLover
bob,
Your theory will fit perfect for freshwater tanks. Since plants release O2 during daytime and CO2 at night.
Just as saltwater plant life does also. I prefer to emphasis that plants consume CO2. The actual release of oxygen has a minimul effect of tanks. The oxygen bubles up with very little being absorbed into the water. With the partial pressure of CO2 reduced the air water gass exchange brings in more oxygen.
I know you are trying to set up oyester shells with plant life to promote CaCo3 with the release of CO2 from plants areated with those.
Not correct. I am experimenting with oyster shells and Crushed coral in my filter box. Preliminary indications are you get a bump up in calcium with no drop in ph. So far it goes back down quickly. I suspect It is from the shipping dust. If that is the case I will try shaking up the filter pads to create more dust.
I don't know if it works but It all depends on how satisfied you are with your tank.
I agree on not using tap water since it has more minarals than a regular lake or waterfall has. Atleast go with RO only water if you can't afford RO/DI.
Always better to adjust with new technology available rather than sitting and thinking why this tank is not like others.
First of all both me and my wife are very satisfied with my tank. There is no question on us affording anything. Our income is multiples of the median houshold income. It appears that I am applying new technology. Otherwise it would not create so much interest.
Finally to you and beth. The nitrate example above shows how waterchanges will never bring nitrates down to 0.0. The importance of that is that the same thing applies to all parameters. If calcium (for instance) is 200ppm and needs to be 440ppm and we are relying on waterchanges to get there. Bascially you will not get there. The only difference is The replacement water has 440 (not 0) the starting point is 200 (not 160) and the ending point is 440 (not 0.0). So unless the system has a way of correcting calcium, mag, alk, ph and all other parameters, water changes alone will not correct the problem. All they will do is slow down the change. All plants to is consume ammonia, nitrates, phoshpates and carbon dioxide. Plus buffer ph, restore outta whace system and help maintain trace elements.
We do an extreme disservice to anyone comming into this hobby by not emphazing the importance of plant life. and we compound that be telling newbies that all matters of mistakes and bad tanks can be corrected with water changes. So the newbies go out, buy a tank 1/3 the size of one they can afford, spend the other 2/3's on unecessary stuff. Then have them changing everything with water changes. I guess we just have all this fun explaining why they have green water, algae blooms, ph drops, and why their fish only last a day or get white spots and die after a week or so.
Meahwhile I will continue emphasizing plant life, tap water, and not doing water changes. that way the newbies will not have to lucky some macro's hickhiked on the LR as in beth's case.

 

[bang guy]

Originally posted by beaslbob
It appears that I am applying new technology.
Hi Bob,
I'm all for hearing about your experimentation and thoughts on what you believe is going on with your aquarium. I've asked before and I hope you will attempt to see where I'm coming from. Your experiment is a work in progress, it's not (yet) proof of a successful concept. I'm all for your sharing you experience but when you try to convince new hobbiests that they are making a mistake by traveling down the road that has been proven successful over & over I must disagree with you.
Below is a Reef tank as it looked in 1979. Can you see your new technology at work here? You appear to be completely uninterested in the pitfalls of Macro in reef tanks. This closed minded approach is causeing you to lose a lot of credibility and overshadowing some of the valid points you are making. I'll admit that I was prematurely frustrated with your posts but I can't debate with a person that cannot consider any alternate point of view and contunually ignores facts that don't fit in the predefined paradigm.
I think you should let this thread die as it has been hijacked beyond all recognition and start your own "Planted Reef" thread. That's just suggestion. I think we might be able to learn from each other better in a devoted thread.

 

[bang guy]

A more recent shot of my latest display tank. None of this is new to me. There are plusses and minuses but the biggest factor is that there is no one single best way.... Every application is unique and needs a well though out approach.
My reef as seen in 2000:

 

[beaslbob]

that sound like an excellent idea bang.
You new tank and old are excellent. Looks like the main difference is the corals and corraline algae.
Gee i wonder why in the paraidimn of no water changes noone has commented and saltyreefnut's tank.