Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

atomweaver wrote in
:

"bo0ger1" .@. wrote in
:

*Emphasis mine. Here, you attribute water changes to a herd
mentality;

Do you know why I refer to it as the 'herd mentality' or 'herd
behavior'? Because most people in this forum (and most people that I
have discussed the topic with) perform water changes ONLY because
everyone else is doing it.

Really? What has convinced you of that? Thus far, the only thing
I've seen to that end is that you've cited errors at Wayne's site wrt
valence state and number of oxygens on nitrite, nitrate, and ammonia.
Despite those errors, did you also find the underlying theory of the
nitrogen cycle to be somehow un-sound?

They don't understand why they are doing it
AND for this reason they don't know that they don't have to do it.

Read more on the 'herd behavior' he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_mentality


Yeah, I don't see how this applies when

Oops! Noticed I didn't finish my thoughts here in the original post.

.... when there is plenty of scientific evidence in support of the
benefits of water changes, and at least some evidence that many regulars
here are making use of that science. Water changes can be used as a
means of nutrient export, and to replenish trace elements. (Yes, there
are other ways to address these same issues.) I can measure the
benefits of water changes in my tank, by observing the rate of change in
nitrate concentration (and phosphate, and etc.) with, and without
changes. Over the longer term (5+ years), regular water changes can
help with the export of any nutrients not assimilated by the nitrogen
cycle.

I've seen ample evidence that many of the posters here do, in fact,
understand the scientific basis for why they do water changes. You'll
have to elaborate on, and evidence, your claim of 'herd mentality', if
you want to have it taken seriously.

Regards
DaveZ
Atom Weaver

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

"atomweaver" wrote in message ...
His original comments were a bit irresponsible and overstated, but when
pushed for details on the specifics of his comments, and treated with a bit
of respect, he's the same reasonable kind of human being that we all can
be.

How can you say this, if he did not provide any details asked for ?
He did not tell us how many fish and what kind of fish he keep
and what is the size of his tank... He did not provide pictures,
so we do not even know he actually has a tank... and what is its
condition. He recently ordered Xenia - this was his first coral...
He claims he owns an anemone, but he did not state what species.
I am betting his "anemone" is an aiptasia anemone :-))

4) There _might_ be some underlying scientific reason behind water changes
(and thus, a motivation other than 'herd mentality', or the Grand Water
Change Conspiracy by Fish Store Owners to Sell More Products). Some
reasons might be; to export dissolved nutrients, and/or to replenish trace
elements.

Water changes are THE CHEAPEST and the simplest method of
nutrients export, when you consider the price of phosban,
phosban reactors, activated carbon and oversized skimmers
costing easily 400 USD and more.
Abucket of Instant Ocean salt costs little more than $30 and
you can make almost 160 gallons of clean sal****er with it.
Trace elements & calcium in a bottle - all these costs money.
150gram of phosban costs almost $20... same for carbon...
These amounts of phosban/carbon will not last long time.
And you have to mess with ugly filter bags or reactors...
For the reactor you need to spend money on reactor/pump.
And carbon/phosban are only working on specific compounds,
water changes do refresh water composition with all ions.
Including ones which concentration you CANNOT measure, so
you cannot know if you need to add or remove it from the water.

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

Pszemol wrote:

I am betting his "anemone" is an aiptasia anemone :-))

Naw... If that were the case, he could claim to have several hundred anemones by
now.

George Patterson
Forgive your enemies. But always remember who they are.

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

"George Patterson" wrote in message news:wNYah.16695$JQ.14826@trnddc06...
Pszemol wrote:

I am betting his "anemone" is an aiptasia anemone :-))

Naw... If that were the case, he could claim to have
several hundred anemones by now.

You are right - but multipying anemones in hist tank
would mean he has just excellent water quality ;)

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

Do you know why I refer to it as the 'herd mentality' or 'herd
behavior'? Because most people in this forum (and most people that I
have discussed the topic with) perform water changes ONLY because
everyone else is doing it.

Really? What has convinced you of that? Thus far, the only thing I've
seen to that end is that you've cited errors at Wayne's site wrt valence
state and number of oxygens on nitrite, nitrate, and ammonia. Despite
those errors,

One person stated that they change their water because they enjoy it.

did you also find the underlying theory of the nitrogen cycle
to be somehow un-sound?

Nitrogen cycle unsound? Your kidding me right? The nitrogen cycle AND
denitrification are the reasons behind NOT having to do water changes.

Not evidence, but context. Qualification for, and quantification of, the
information you offer.

My tank size is a qualification for NWC? How? My tank size provides
quantification for NWC? Please explain.

Meaning, do you use your sump as a refugium, to grow algae(s) as a
supplemental means of nutrient export? If yes, what are you growing?

No.

http://www.reefland.com/rho/0105/main2.php

1/2 way through that article, you'll find a pic and discussion about the
Chaetomorpha that blackhole is using to export nutrients.

Not necessary IMHO.

fish species/size? (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)

It quantifies the fish mass (and the corresponding amount of waste) which
can be handled without the need for water changes as a means of nutrient
export.

If my waste exceeded the metabolic capabilities of my bacterial load than
wouldn't my ammonia or nitrite or nitrate demonstrate this? As I stated
already, they are all 0ppm (LFS test kits).


inverts species/size? (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)

It identifies whether or not the species you are keeping are relatively
robust, or prone to problems related to less-than-perfect water quality
(as, ofr example, some SPS corals are famous for).

I stated already that my fish appear healthy. Why do you insist on taking
this discussion in circles?

recent water test results?
Do you track water parameters regularly? I use to, but always same
result. 0ppm Nitrate, nitrite, ammonia. pH normal range. Observe any
fluctuations? No

You stopped after only 2 years?

No, I have not done a water change in over two years.

I'd slow down if things looked to be under
control with a tank, but I'd test aboutmonthly, since water parameters
usually change in advance of health issues with the occupants. Since
you've stopped, please consider a quick look at your current water
parameters, just to verify that, today, you have the same results you did
when you last tested.

Equipment setup (skimmer, lights,powerheads, sterilizer, carbon, phos-
reactor, other filtration etc)? (I'm not sure how this qualifies as
evidence)

I'm trying to establish/understand the conditions under which you've
obtained success with NWC. If there are other filtration factors/methods
at work in your system maintaining water quality, I'd like to know about
them, please.

Skimmer. Live rock and sand. Period. I supplement with Kent marine
essential elements.

Lights and powerheads go towards general suitability of comparing your
results to those of a reef system with inverts. If, for example, you only
maintain flourescent lights for observing your fish, then you might expect
that low light is also helping to control your rate of algae growth. With
some SPS reef systems running 4-6 Watts/gallon of broad spectrum Metal
Halide lighting, smaller changes in water quality become larger problems
with algae growth, as the algae has all the light it needs to grow
prolifically.

Feeding schedule? (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)

As with fish mass, it helps to understand how much of a nutrient load your
system is handling, without the need for water changes.

Read above about ammonia, nitrate and nitrite. Again, I am getting the
impression that you are taking this discussion in circles.

My inhabitants appear healthy. I am certain that they would not
appear unhealthy to you.

NP. Forget the picture. I'll take your word that all of your occupants
are healthy and happy.

Oh, Man! Did I forget two BIG ones!

How much live rock (pounds), and/or live sand in your system(depth in
inches)? What kind of live rock (point of origin)?

I don't remember the total pounds. I use to buy a little at a time. I
didn't keep track. Sorry. Sand is roughly 2-3 inches.


What does your detrivore cleanup squad look like (hermits, snails,
sandsifters, etc)?

1-hermit crab. A few snails.

That's what makes this thread so sad. If you understood why water
changes were not needed (at the biological level) you would understand
how really simple (not rocket science) this topic is.

Please expand on this idea. I want to understand, at the biological
level,
why water changes are not needed. Take me through it, step by step,
please.

Again. I am pretty sure we have been through this already. Ammonia ---
nitrite----nitrate----N2(g) + H2O. (Enzymatic conditions via bacteria.)

To give your discussion context, my understanding of chemistry is
good enough that I've built a successful career on it

Me too!

The former implied to me that anyone anywhere (with a FOWLR or reef setup)
can quit their water changes, starting today, without deleterious results
on their system.

You would need to gradually stop water changes. I think I stated this
already too! (CIRCLES)

The latter implies that the way in which you transition
from WC to NWC requires some education into chemistry/biology before doing
so, and thus NWC may _not_ be as simple as the first quote implies.

No, it implies that those that do water changes don't know why they do them.
If they knew what was going on at the biological level (see above), they
would know why it isn't necessary.


I think you are right about water changes, to a certain extent, but
i'm a bit more cautious about which setups I would consider NWC for,
especially reef type setups.

My experience has directed me to the following conclusion (again, take
it or leave it): Water changes weaken your bioload. Bacteria exist
in your aquarium that take care of ammonia, nitrite AND nitrate. The
end result is N2(g) and H2O. I would suggest stopping your water
changes gradually (gauge by testing) to allow your bacteria to
proliferate.


My experience tells me that there is an upper limit to the load you can
place upon the bacterial colony in a tank.

How many experiments have you performed? How many conditions have you
varied? Is this anecdotal data? A little hypocritical eh?

I accept that NWC change systems are reasonable and certainly possible, but
I suspect that you need
to start (and possibly maintain) them on the low end of the total load to
a
tank's bacterial colony. At this point in time, I'm trying to get a feel
for where your tank fits into the range of possible bio-loads.

BTW, I've usually seen the term "bio-load" as an expression of the amount
of vertebrates/invertebrates vs. tank/system size.

Bioload is directly proportional (in general) to the bacterial population.
Increase bioload, and increase bacterial population (proliferation).
Decrease bioload and you will decrease bacterial population (again, this is
a generality).

So, when I state that "Water changes weaken your bioload", this is what I am
referring to. Water changes lower bioload thus lower your bacterial
population (less to metabolize = bacteria cell count drops).

A larger bio-load means
there are more fish in less space. You seem to use the term differently.
Could you post a quick comment on how you use the term?

See above.

Lets NOT go in circles anymore. I have presented my case ad nauseam.

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

"bo0ger1" .@. wrote in
:

Do you know why I refer to it as the 'herd mentality' or 'herd
behavior'? Because most people in this forum (and most people that I
have discussed the topic with) perform water changes ONLY because
everyone else is doing it.

Really? What has convinced you of that? Thus far, the only thing
I've seen to that end is that you've cited errors at Wayne's site wrt
valence state and number of oxygens on nitrite, nitrate, and ammonia.
Despite those errors,

One person stated that they change their water because they enjoy it.

....but they didn't say that they changed their water _only_ because they
enjoy it. I'd give you a link, but Google Groups archive is currently
down. IIRC, that was a comment from Rock, in that "what to do with used
marine water changes" thread, right..?

did you also find the underlying theory of the nitrogen cycle
to be somehow un-sound?

Nitrogen cycle unsound? Your kidding me right? The nitrogen cycle
AND denitrification are the reasons behind NOT having to do water
changes.


Don't be obtuse. I was of course referring to Wayne's article at his site,
and its reflection on _his_ grasp of the nitrogen cycle. Was there
something in the article, other than a few errors of valence state and
number of oxygens, which demonstrated a lack of understanding of the
nitrogen cycle?

Also, you replied without saying anything to support your assertion that
the forum users here 1) are changing water because everybody else is, and
2) that they lack sufficient understanding of the chemical and biological
processes in their aquaria. Again, what has convinced you of that?

Not evidence, but context. Qualification for, and quantification of,
the information you offer.

My tank size is a qualification for NWC? How? My tank size provides
quantification for NWC? Please explain.


Don't be obtuse. I'm asking for (and slowly getting) the context under
which you've obtained your claimed success, because without it, your claims
are less than useful. Word games such as these do not paint you in a
favorable light. To answer your inane response, of course tank size alone
doesn't qualify or quantify NWC.

http://www.reefland.com/rho/0105/main2.php

1/2 way through that article, you'll find a pic and discussion about
the Chaetomorpha that blackhole is using to export nutrients.

Not necessary IMHO.


Chaeto growth is one of the main differences between yours and
blackhole's tank (yours is a FOWLR his is reef). NWC reef tanks are few
and far between, (IY and blakchole's are the only two I'm aware of), one
would think that a genuinely curious person would like to know more about
it, before they decided if its necessary or not.

fish species/size? (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)

It quantifies the fish mass (and the corresponding amount of waste)
which can be handled without the need for water changes as a means of
nutrient export.

If my waste exceeded the metabolic capabilities of my bacterial load
than wouldn't my ammonia or nitrite or nitrate demonstrate this? As I
stated already, they are all 0ppm (LFS test kits).


I don't undestand what the big deal is, here? We all know that a Yellow
Tang places less demand on a tank than a Spanish Hogfish. I'm just trying
to get a better idea of what sort of bacterial demand your fish place upon
your NWC system.


inverts species/size? (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)

It identifies whether or not the species you are keeping are
relatively robust, or prone to problems related to less-than-perfect
water quality (as, ofr example, some SPS corals are famous for).

I stated already that my fish appear healthy. Why do you insist on
taking this discussion in circles?


Its more a back and forth straight line, really ;-). I ask for more
information on the circumstances under which you've acheived success, and
you keep deflecting the questions (actually, you selectively answer a few
with each successive post, and deflect others. Maybe in a few more rounds
of this, we might have a full picture of whats going on in your tank,
without, ya know, actually having a picture :).
Healthy fish in a FOWLR system does not necessarily equate to adequate
water quality for the more sensitive corals, BTW. If you haven't tested
your water recently, who's to know whether your nitrates are up, and your
fish and anemone just don't show it, because its been developing slowly
since your last test? Add some acropora

Lights and powerheads go towards general suitability of comparing
your
results to those of a reef system with inverts. If, for example, you
only maintain flourescent lights for observing your fish, then you
might expect that low light is also helping to control your rate of
algae growth. With some SPS reef systems running 4-6 Watts/gallon of
broad spectrum Metal Halide lighting, smaller changes in water
quality become larger problems with algae growth, as the algae has
all the light it needs to grow prolifically.

Feeding schedule? (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)

As with fish mass, it helps to understand how much of a nutrient load
your system is handling, without the need for water changes.

Read above about ammonia, nitrate and nitrite. Again, I am getting
the impression that you are taking this discussion in circles.


You have done little to quantify the bio load of your tank, so I'll just
keep asking. Circles aren't inherently bad, especially since you're
offering a little more with each "turn". Don't like circles? Simple...
Then don't bother to reply (always an option), or reply in full.

My inhabitants appear healthy. I am certain that they would not
appear unhealthy to you.

NP. Forget the picture. I'll take your word that all of your
occupants are healthy and happy.

Oh, Man! Did I forget two BIG ones!

How much live rock (pounds), and/or live sand in your system(depth in
inches)? What kind of live rock (point of origin)?

I don't remember the total pounds. I use to buy a little at a time.
I didn't keep track. Sorry. Sand is roughly 2-3 inches.

NP. I'll bet you could offer a ball-park number if you tried... Also,
what kind of rock is it? Florida aquacultured is quite different, pound
for pound, than Marshall Island or Tonga rock.


What does your detrivore cleanup squad look like (hermits, snails,
sandsifters, etc)?

1-hermit crab. A few snails.

Pretty small crew, for a 75gal...

That's what makes this thread so sad. If you understood why water
changes were not needed (at the biological level) you would
understand how really simple (not rocket science) this topic is.

Please expand on this idea. I want to understand, at the biological
level,
why water changes are not needed. Take me through it, step by step,
please.

Again. I am pretty sure we have been through this already. Ammonia
--- nitrite----nitrate----N2(g) + H2O. (Enzymatic conditions via
bacteria.)


That's it? That's what you think people here _don't_ grasp? Good grief,
bo0ger, _everyone_ with a reef tank understands at least that much of the
nitrogen cycle.
They go a little further, though, and also take account of the fact that
there is a maximum possible population of bacteria for a given tank setup,
a relationship between fish species/mass and the amount of waste generated,
and differences in final water quality depending upon the details of the
above, and that certain aquatic species (especially corals) are intolerant
of less-than-perfect water quality.

The latter implies that the way in which you transition
from WC to NWC requires some education into chemistry/biology before
doing so, and thus NWC may _not_ be as simple as the first quote
implies.

No, it implies that those that do water changes don't know why they do
them. If they knew what was going on at the biological level (see
above), they would know why it isn't necessary.


But they apparently know everything that you do, and maybe some things you
don't. And really, you haven't shown them to be "unnecessary". What
you've suggested is that Kent Marine Essentials can supplant/replace their
necessity in a FOWLR system of some unquantified setup. Blackhole has a
similar method for a reef setup, which adds a nurtrient export method
(that you discount without elaboration), which also seems to be doing well.
How you leap from there, to wild speculation into the also successful
methods of others is beyond me. I see no evidence that the people who post
here are somehow deficient in chemical or biological knowledge, especiall
knowledge as fundamental to the hobby as the above. Their reef tanks'
success are clear proof of that.


I think you are right about water changes, to a certain extent, but
i'm a bit more cautious about which setups I would consider NWC
for, especially reef type setups.

My experience has directed me to the following conclusion (again,
take it or leave it): Water changes weaken your bioload. Bacteria
exist in your aquarium that take care of ammonia, nitrite AND
nitrate. The end result is N2(g) and H2O. I would suggest stopping
your water changes gradually (gauge by testing) to allow your
bacteria to proliferate.


My experience tells me that there is an upper limit to the load you
can place upon the bacterial colony in a tank.

How many experiments have you performed?

I've maintained five different marine setups by this point in time, each
one a serial replacement for the previous setup. My current (5th) setup is
a reef-type (but with species less sensitive to water quality. Its a 50
gal tridacnid tank; 4 crocea and a derasa, all small, with a few assorted
corals (an open brain, small green mat zoanthids, a mushroom leather
coral), a Clown Wrasse, and a pair of Banggai Cardinalfish, (under)skimmed
with a CPR Backpak, 50 lbs of Fiji LR, a 4 inch deep Aragonite sand bed
which is old enough to be well-seeded with bacteria, a 15 gallon sump, no
nutrient export method, a pair of 100W MH pendant lamps, a pair of
powerheads. Team Detrivore is comprised of nine hermits and a dozen
snails, there is also a lawnmower blenny in there to stir up the substrate
a bit more.
I replace tank evaporate with kalkwasser to keep the calcium in line, and
I change about 5% water weekly, without any additional supplements. Its
had its current configuration for 5-6 months, with 0/0/5 mg/L of NH4
+/NO2-/NO3- as average results, measured weekly. I also test weekly for
specific gravity, pH, and calcium along with a monthly iodine /iodide test.
If iodine/iodide is low, I raise the % water change to 10% for the next
week, and re-test. That's always seemed to work. I had one spike up to 15
mg/L NO3- , when i added the clams (had to add all 5 at once), but
mitigated that with extra water changes (5% daily until the bacteria could
catch up) and by running the skimmer a little drier. I seem to be looking
good for now, as growth of all occupants is measurable. Gee, offering that
context to my experience was absurdly easy...

How many conditions have you varied?
Different fish, different bio loads, mostly the same live rock (I like my
Fiji rock, its got high porosity for its weight, and I think that gives me
a better living filter). I'd be happy to chronicle the past experiences,
but that would be more appropriate for a different thread. The conclusion
of them is that, the need for water changes and their degree varies, based
on occupancy and the water quality demands of the specific species.

Is this anecdotal data?

It sure is. There's nothing wrong with that, per se, so long as any
readers value such information appropriately, and so long as I don't get a
swelled head, or start ragging on others for acheiving success
differently...

A little hypocritical eh?

Hypocritical would be if I was elusive about the circumstances for my
success, assumed that others who do things differently do so because
they're ignorant, and/or postured as if my limited experience is worth more
to this community than it actually is.

I accept that NWC change systems are reasonable and certainly
possible, but I suspect that you need
to start (and possibly maintain) them on the low end of the total
load to a
tank's bacterial colony. At this point in time, I'm trying to get a
feel for where your tank fits into the range of possible bio-loads.

BTW, I've usually seen the term "bio-load" as an expression of the
amount of vertebrates/invertebrates vs. tank/system size.

Bioload is directly proportional (in general) to the bacterial
population. Increase bioload, and increase bacterial population
(proliferation). Decrease bioload and you will decrease bacterial
population (again, this is a generality).

OK, you use "bioload" as a polite term for "fish-poo in the water column".

So, when I state that "Water changes weaken your bioload", this is
what I am referring to. Water changes lower bioload thus lower your
bacterial population (less to metabolize = bacteria cell count drops).


Thanks. Not what I've seen it used as before, but now I understand your
comments.

Lets NOT go in circles anymore. I have presented my case ad nauseam.


Yeah, I was hoping to get into the details of your system more, but you
seem less than enthusiastic at this point. OK by me.

DaveZ
Atom Weaver

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

"bo0ger1" .@. wrote in :
That's what makes this thread so sad. If you understood why water
changes were not needed (at the biological level) you would
understand how really simple (not rocket science) this topic is.

atomweaver wrote on Wed, 29 Nov 2006:
Please expand on this idea. I want to understand, at the biological
level, why water changes are not needed. Take me through it, step by
step, please.

Again. I am pretty sure we have been through this already. Ammonia
--- nitrite----nitrate----N2(g) + H2O. (Enzymatic conditions via
bacteria.)

That's it? That's what you think people here _don't_ grasp? Good grief,
bo0ger, _everyone_ with a reef tank understands at least that much of the
nitrogen cycle.

Agreed. Bo0ger1, at the very least you should acknowledge that there is more
to marine organic chemistry than merely the nitrogen cycle. While that's the
major toxin to worry about in marine aquaria, it isn't the only one. Even if
you don't need water changes to dispose of ammonia (a big if), please address
the remaining concerns of people who DO support water changes. Specifically:
1. Export of toxins BESIDES the nitrogen cycle (for example, deliberately
generated toxins due to chemical warfare between adjacent corals);
2. Import of (possibly unknown) trace elements that get used up over time.

Besides possibly helping with ammonia, water changes are intended to assist
with these other two points. Please address how you account for them in your
recommended no-water-change approach.

-- Don
__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Don Geddis http://reef.geddis.org/
Bigamy is having one husband or wife too many. Monogamy is the same.

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

One person stated that they change their water because they enjoy it.

...but they didn't say that they changed their water _only_ because they
enjoy it.

Really? Are you sure about that?

This person changes their water because they "enjoy" doing it:
http://tinyurl.com/y9xveh

Do I think this is absurd? No. But it demonstrates a lack of
understanding. AND it is in line with the "herd behavior".

I'd give you a link, but Google Groups archive is currently
down. IIRC, that was a comment from Rock, in that "what to do with used
marine water changes" thread, right..?

Nitrogen cycle unsound? Your kidding me right? The nitrogen cycle
AND denitrification are the reasons behind NOT having to do water
changes.


Don't be obtuse.

I'm being obtuse? Ah, lets resort to insults.

I was of course referring to Wayne's article at his site,
and its reflection on _his_ grasp of the nitrogen cycle.

His "grasp" of the nitrogen cycle? He doesn't even now what ammonia or
nitrite. How could he possibly understand the nitrogen cycle when he
doesn't even understand the basics?

Also, you replied without saying anything to support your assertion that
the forum users here 1) are changing water because everybody else is, and
2) that they lack sufficient understanding of the chemical and biological
processes in their aquaria. Again, what has convinced you of that?

This newsgroup.

My tank size is a qualification for NWC? How? My tank size provides
quantification for NWC? Please explain.


Don't be obtuse.

Ok, attack me. Shall I throw a few snotty remarks in your direction? (see
below)

I'm asking for (and slowly getting) the context under
which you've obtained your claimed success, because without it, your
claims
are less than useful.

Of course "my claims" are useless to you unless you apply what I have done
in your aquarium.

Word games such as these do not paint you in a
favorable light.

I am playing "word games" ?

You asked me an obtuse question and I answer it. This means I am playing
word games OR does it mean your question was ridiculous to begin with?

To answer your inane response, of course tank size alone
doesn't qualify or quantify NWC.

You asked for "Qualification for, and quantification of, the information you
offer." Remember?

If tank size doesn't matter than why did you ask the question? And how is
my response to your question inane? I answered your question.
If you don't want inane answers stop asking inane questions!

Not necessary IMHO.


Chaeto growth is one of the main differences between yours and
blackhole's tank (yours is a FOWLR his is reef).

I now have a pulsing xenia (new edition last weekend)

Does this qualify as a reef tank now?

NWC reef tanks are few
and far between,

Really? I think we have been here before too! (CIRCLES) How many NWC reef
tank owners have you polled? What background do they have? Are they
college educated? What age bracket do the people fall in that you polled?
Do they have a background in science? How long have they had their tank
running? Of the people you polled, how many failed with NWC ? Did they
vote for Bush? :) Seriously, I think you are being a little obtuse with
that statement.


(IY and blakchole's are the only two I'm aware of),

What does this mean? This is your most obtuse statement yet.

one would think that a genuinely curious person would like to know more
about
it, before they decided if its necessary or not.

Or they could just try it both ways and realize WC's are not necessary.

If my waste exceeded the metabolic capabilities of my bacterial load
than wouldn't my ammonia or nitrite or nitrate demonstrate this? As I
stated already, they are all 0ppm (LFS test kits).


I don't undestand what the big deal is, here? We all know that a Yellow
Tang places less demand on a tank than a Spanish Hogfish. I'm just trying
to get a better idea of what sort of bacterial demand your fish place upon
your NWC system.

Why is this relevant? If you truly understood the nitrogen cycle and
denitrification you wouldn't be asking this question. ANSWER: If my
bioload was in excess of my bacterial metabolic capabilities, wouldn't my
water tests signify this? AGAIN, bacteria fluctuate in population directly
with their metobolic "food" source. More "food" and they grow in number (in
general). Why are you having trouble with this?

You said you had a background in chemistry, but it appears I still need to
simplify things for you.
Water changes decrease your bioload therefore bacterial cell count drops
accordingly. You take away their "food" and their is less "food" to go
around. Some cells will starve and dye off. The remaining cells will
continue to metabolize nutrients (NH3/NH4, NO2-, NO3-).

Every time you do a water change you are removing their "food".


I stated already that my fish appear healthy. Why do you insist on
taking this discussion in circles?


Its more a back and forth straight line, really ;-). I ask for more
information on the circumstances under which you've acheived success, and
you keep deflecting the questions

Am I deflecting questions OR are you incapable of comprehending the answers?
My only fault is not over simplifying things from the beginning.

(actually, you selectively answer a few
with each successive post, and deflect others. Maybe in a few more rounds
of this, we might have a full picture of whats going on in your tank,
without, ya know, actually having a picture :).
Healthy fish in a FOWLR system does not necessarily equate to adequate
water quality for the more sensitive corals,

Really? You are being VERY naive in suggesting that "sensitive corals"
would do any better in a WC tank than my NWC tank. Which of my water
parameters that I have provided you so far do you think would hinder the
health of "sensitive coral"? Was it my 0ppm Nitrate? OR my 0ppm nitrite? OR
my 0ppm NH3/NH4? Or my addition of Kent Marine Essential Elements?

New values for you:
OR is it my pH which is 8.1-8.2? Or is it my salinity which is 1.024? Or
is it my lighting which is 4 110watt VHO's?

BTW. If you haven't tested
your water recently, who's to know whether your nitrates are up, and your
fish and anemone just don't show it, because its been developing slowly
since your last test? Add some acropora

I test once a month. All fine. You really seem to be having a problem
grasping what those little bacteria are doing in your tank. I suggest
reading about the "nitrogen cycle" and the process of dentrification which
involve anaerobic bacteria.

Not only am I convinced that most in this NG don't understand the above (N2
cycle and denitrification), I am NOT convinced YOU understand based on your
questions.

This is why MOST do water changes. Because they DON'T understand at the
biological level why it is NOT necessary.

MOST think that the ONLY way waste is removed from their aquarium is by
doing water changes. This is a HUGE fallacy! Protein from excess food and
fish waste is degraded/metabolized by proteases present in organisms in the
aquarium (some crustaceans in your aquarium contain proteases). NH4/NH3
fish waste and a product of protein metabolism is taken care of
(metabolized) by bacteria.

YOU are being VERY naive if you think most in this NG understand the above.

Read above about ammonia, nitrate and nitrite. Again, I am getting
the impression that you are taking this discussion in circles.


You have done little to quantify the bio load of your tank, so I'll just
keep asking. Circles aren't inherently bad, especially since you're
offering a little more with each "turn". Don't like circles? Simple...
Then don't bother to reply (always an option), or reply in full.

Read above about bioload and bacterial cell count. (wanna go around again?)

I don't remember the total pounds. I use to buy a little at a time.
I didn't keep track. Sorry. Sand is roughly 2-3 inches.

NP. I'll bet you could offer a ball-park number if you tried... Also,
what kind of rock is it? Florida aquacultured is quite different, pound
for pound, than Marshall Island or Tonga rock.

Why does this matter if my bioload is under control? If you are simply
trying to repeat my success than I guess I should ask you how much you have?

1-hermit crab. A few snails.

Pretty small crew, for a 75gal...

Why do you say this? What information have I given you to make you come to
this conclusion? Was it my excellent water parameters?

Again. I am pretty sure we have been through this already. Ammonia
--- nitrite----nitrate----N2(g) + H2O. (Enzymatic conditions via
bacteria.)


That's it? That's what you think people here _don't_ grasp? Good grief,
bo0ger, _everyone_ with a reef tank understands at least that much of the
nitrogen cycle.

You make me chuckle Sir! That is a VERY naive statement. Your line of
questioning casts serious doubt about your understanding of it.

They go a little further, though, and also take account of the fact that
there is a maximum possible population of bacteria for a given tank setup,

Sure there is. This is why it is possible to over stock an aquarium with
inhabitants. NOT the reason to do a WC.

Want to lower your bacteria cell count even further? Increase the
percentage of water you change. What do you think would happen to your
bacterial cell count if you hypothetically changed ALL of your water with
every WC?

a relationship between fish species/mass and the amount of waste
generated,
and differences in final water quality depending upon the details of the
above, and that certain aquatic species (especially corals) are intolerant
of less-than-perfect water quality.

Which of my water parameters are "less-than-perfect"?

Doing water changes guarantees "perfect" water?

No, it implies that those that do water changes don't know why they do
them. If they knew what was going on at the biological level (see
above), they would know why it isn't necessary.


But they apparently know everything that you do, and maybe some things you
don't.

Like what? Elaborate on this please.

And really, you haven't shown them to be "unnecessary".

You haven't shown that they are "necessary". Nor has anyone else.

What you've suggested is that Kent Marine Essentials can supplant/replace
their
necessity in a FOWLR system of some unquantified setup. Blackhole has a
similar method for a reef setup, which adds a nurtrient export method
(that you discount without elaboration),

I haven't described my nutrient export method? Re-read above (HINT:
bacteria).

which also seems to be doing well. How you leap from there, to wild
speculation into the also successful
methods of others is beyond me. I see no evidence that the people who
post
here are somehow deficient in chemical or biological knowledge,

You are demonstrating it in this thread Sir.

especiall knowledge as fundamental to the hobby as the above. Their reef
tanks'
success are clear proof of that.

My experience tells me that there is an upper limit to the load you
can place upon the bacterial colony in a tank.

How many experiments have you performed?

I've maintained five different marine setups by this point in time, each
one a serial replacement for the previous setup. My current (5th) setup
is
a reef-type (but with species less sensitive to water quality. Its a 50
gal tridacnid tank; 4 crocea and a derasa, all small, with a few assorted
corals (an open brain, small green mat zoanthids, a mushroom leather
coral), a Clown Wrasse, and a pair of Banggai Cardinalfish, (under)skimmed
with a CPR Backpak, 50 lbs of Fiji LR, a 4 inch deep Aragonite sand bed
which is old enough to be well-seeded with bacteria, a 15 gallon sump, no
nutrient export method, a pair of 100W MH pendant lamps, a pair of
powerheads. Team Detrivore is comprised of nine hermits and a dozen
snails, there is also a lawnmower blenny in there to stir up the substrate
a bit more.
I replace tank evaporate with kalkwasser to keep the calcium in line, and
I change about 5% water weekly, without any additional supplements. Its
had its current configuration for 5-6 months, with 0/0/5 mg/L of NH4
+/NO2-/NO3- as average results, measured weekly. I also test weekly for
specific gravity, pH, and calcium along with a monthly iodine /iodide
test.
If iodine/iodide is low, I raise the % water change to 10% for the next
week, and re-test. That's always seemed to work. I had one spike up to
15
mg/L NO3- , when i added the clams (had to add all 5 at once), but
mitigated that with extra water changes (5% daily until the bacteria could
catch up) and by running the skimmer a little drier. I seem to be looking
good for now, as growth of all occupants is measurable. Gee, offering
that
context to my experience was absurdly easy...

That was your experiment for this:
"My experience tells me that there is an upper limit to the load you can
place upon the bacterial colony in a tank."

What you described weakly qualifies as an experiment. How does your
"experiment" quantify bioload? When do you address and quantify the
"limit"?
Where do you mention your control tank with NO water changes? And what was
the "upper limit" of bioload that you placed on your bacteria in your
control tank?
What was the "upper limit" of bioload that you placed on your bacteria in
your WC tank?

Re-read that link you referenced about the Scientific Method. (read the part
about a 'control')
http://en.wikipedia.org:80/wiki/Scientific_method

How many conditions have you varied?
Different fish, different bio loads, mostly the same live rock (I like my
Fiji rock, its got high porosity for its weight, and I think that gives me
a better living filter). I'd be happy to chronicle the past experiences,
but that would be more appropriate for a different thread. The conclusion
of them is that, the need for water changes and their degree varies, based
on occupancy and the water quality demands of the specific species.

Is this anecdotal data?

It sure is. There's nothing wrong with that, per se, so long as any
readers value such information appropriately, and so long as I don't get a
swelled head, or start ragging on others for acheiving success
differently...

Why is my/others NWC anecdotal data less valid?

Lets NOT go in circles anymore. I have presented my case ad nauseam.


Yeah, I was hoping to get into the details of your system more, but you
seem less than enthusiastic at this point. OK by me.

No. I think your only intention was to try and invalidate my findings in
some way. But I do understand your reasoning to do so.

Take care.



DaveZ
Atom Weaver

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

Agreed. Bo0ger1, at the very least you should acknowledge that there is
more
to marine organic chemistry than merely the nitrogen cycle. While that's
the
major toxin to worry about in marine aquaria, it isn't the only one. Even
if
you don't need water changes to dispose of ammonia (a big if), please
address
the remaining concerns of people who DO support water changes.
Specifically:
1. Export of toxins BESIDES the nitrogen cycle (for example, deliberately
generated toxins due to chemical warfare between adjacent corals);

I don't know very much about these toxins so I have a few questions for you.

Do all coral release toxins?
Are these toxins proteins? Are they not removed by skimmers? Of the
percentage that remains (not skimmed immediately), how much damage do they
do before being skimmed out?
What percentage of these toxins are you removing with a 5% water change?

With water changes, what levels (ppm) do the toxins reach in between and
after changes?
If I don't do WC's and my skimmer is removing most of the toxins, what level
(ppm) do they reach?
What is the LD50 for these toxins on coral?


2. Import of (possibly unknown) trace elements that get used up over time.

I use Kent Marine Essential Elements.

Besides possibly helping with ammonia, water changes are intended to
assist
with these other two points. Please address how you account for them in
your
recommended no-water-change approach.

-- Don
__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Don Geddis
http://reef.geddis.org/
Bigamy is having one husband or wife too many. Monogamy is the same.

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

"bo0ger1" .@. wrote in message ...
2. Import of (possibly unknown) trace elements that get used up over time.

I use Kent Marine Essential Elements.

How do you know not to overdose?

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

"bo0ger1" .@. wrote on Thu, 30 Nov 2006:
I now have a pulsing xenia (new edition last weekend)
Does this qualify as a reef tank now?

Yes, that's a start. But it's now a very new reef tank.

We'd be much more interested a few years from now, and after you've added
some stony corals (acropora, etc.). Those are the ones that appear most
sensitive to "water quality" (whatever that might mean), and that are rumored
to benefit most from water changes.

Your "no water change" strategy will be much more impressive if you can grow
stony corals over many years.

I don't undestand what the big deal is, here? We all know that a Yellow
Tang places less demand on a tank than a Spanish Hogfish. I'm just trying
to get a better idea of what sort of bacterial demand your fish place upon
your NWC system.

Why is this relevant? If you truly understood the nitrogen cycle and
denitrification you wouldn't be asking this question. ANSWER: If my
bioload was in excess of my bacterial metabolic capabilities, wouldn't my
water tests signify this? AGAIN, bacteria fluctuate in population directly
with their metobolic "food" source. More "food" and they grow in number (in
general). Why are you having trouble with this?

You've been asked this question many times, and you avoid it each time.

Yes, we know that the bacterial population depends on the availability of
food. And that, as you slowly add bioload, you slowly get more
denitrification ability.

Yes, we know that there's a limit to the amount of bacteria you can grow,
and excess bioload will show up in your various nitrogen tests. Since yours
are clean, clearly your bioload is below this limit.

But there is STILL the question (which you haven't answered) about what your
bioload actually is. It's not very impressive to have a couple tiny fish in
a huge tank, and then claim that "you don't need water changes". We're much
more interested if you stock your tank as densely as most reef hobbyists, and
still get good water parameters with no water changes.

Why is this hard for you to understand? An important part of your claim
(that water changes are unnecessary) must surely include the maximum bioload
that can be sustained with that approach.

Why do you refuse to answer the question of what your bioload actually is?

Want to lower your bacteria cell count even further? Increase the
percentage of water you change. What do you think would happen to your
bacterial cell count if you hypothetically changed ALL of your water with
every WC?

Not much. The majority of denitrifying bacteria is probably in the rocks and
sand, not in the open water column. You seem to be suggesting that if you did
a 100% water change, you'd eliminate all the helpful bacteria, and it would be
like a brand new tank that you would have to cycle again from the beginning
(to grow all the bacteria from scratch).

This is completely false. The bioload capacity of a mature tank is more a
function of the amount of (surface area of) live rock and sand, not so much
the number of gallons of water.

You can do a 100% water change without greatly affecting the denitrifying
ability of your tank.

-- Don
__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Don Geddis http://reef.geddis.org/
If you make ships in a bottle, I bet the thing that really makes your heart
sink is when you look in, and there at the wheel is Captain Termite.
-- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

Does this qualify as a reef tank now?

Yes, that's a start. But it's now a very new reef tank.

We'd be much more interested a few years from now, and after you've added
some stony corals (acropora, etc.). Those are the ones that appear most
sensitive to "water quality" (whatever that might mean), and that are
rumored
to benefit most from water changes.

In what way do they benefit from water changes?

Your "no water change" strategy will be much more impressive if you can
grow
stony corals over many years.

I don't undestand what the big deal is, here? We all know that a Yellow
Tang places less demand on a tank than a Spanish Hogfish. I'm just
trying
to get a better idea of what sort of bacterial demand your fish place
upon
your NWC system.

Why is this relevant? If you truly understood the nitrogen cycle and
denitrification you wouldn't be asking this question. ANSWER: If my
bioload was in excess of my bacterial metabolic capabilities, wouldn't my
water tests signify this? AGAIN, bacteria fluctuate in population
directly
with their metobolic "food" source. More "food" and they grow in number
(in
general). Why are you having trouble with this?

You've been asked this question many times, and you avoid it each time.

Yes, we know that the bacterial population depends on the availability of
food. And that, as you slowly add bioload, you slowly get more
denitrification ability.

Yes, we know that there's a limit to the amount of bacteria you can grow,
and excess bioload will show up in your various nitrogen tests. Since
yours
are clean, clearly your bioload is below this limit.

Increase your bioload and your bacteria cell count goes up (there is a
ceiling for this, which is why aquariums can be over stocked). Therefore,
my bioload will always be below the limit (within reason, any aquarium can
be over stocked).

But there is STILL the question (which you haven't answered) about what
your
bioload actually is. It's not very impressive to have a couple tiny fish
in
a huge tank, and then claim that "you don't need water changes". We're
much
more interested if you stock your tank as densely as most reef hobbyists,
and
still get good water parameters with no water changes.

Why is this so difficult to understand? My bioload is not relevant! As you
increase your bioload your bacteria proliferate!


Why is this hard for you to understand? An important part of your claim
(that water changes are unnecessary) must surely include the maximum
bioload
that can be sustained with that approach.

Why do you refuse to answer the question of what your bioload actually is?

Because it doesn't matter. Your bacteria will proliferate in response to
increased bioload (within reason, ANY tank can be over stocked).

Want to lower your bacteria cell count even further? Increase the
percentage of water you change. What do you think would happen to your
bacterial cell count if you hypothetically changed ALL of your water with
every WC?

Not much. The majority of denitrifying bacteria is probably in the rocks
and
sand, not in the open water column. You seem to be suggesting that if you
did
a 100% water change, you'd eliminate all the helpful bacteria,

No! You are not understanding what is going on at the biological level (not
uncommon in this NG).

What do you think will happen to your helpful little bacteria if you removed
the majority of there food with each water change? Do you think they will:

A) Starve and start to dye off. Cell count drops
B) Continue to be happy.


and it would be
like a brand new tank that you would have to cycle again from the
beginning
(to grow all the bacteria from scratch).

This is completely false. The bioload capacity of a mature tank is more a
function of the amount of (surface area of) live rock and sand, not so
much
the number of gallons of water.

Agreed.



You can do a 100% water change without greatly affecting the denitrifying
ability of your tank.

False! What do you think will happen to your bacteria if you took away the
majority of there "food: NH3/NH4, NO2-, NO3-" with each water change?


-- Don
__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Don Geddis
http://reef.geddis.org/
If you make ships in a bottle, I bet the thing that really makes your
heart
sink is when you look in, and there at the wheel is Captain Termite.
-- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

"Pszemol" wrote in message
...
"bo0ger1" .@. wrote in message
...
2. Import of (possibly unknown) trace elements that get used up over
time.

I use Kent Marine Essential Elements.

How do you know not to overdose?

It would be VERY difficult to overdose with Kent Marine Essential Elements.

I dose 5 mL/month. This equates to adding:

1.6 ppb Iodine
..4 ppb Iron
1 ppb Magnesium
0.08 ppb Manganese
0.01 ppb Molybdenum
1.1 ppb Potassium

Natural sea water levels:
http://tinyurl.com/ynxyql

How do you know you are adding the correct trace elements with your sea mix?
http://www.aquacraft.net/w0023.html

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

"bo0ger1" .@. wrote in message m...
It would be VERY difficult to overdose with Kent Marine Essential Elements.

I dose 5 mL/month. This equates to adding:

1.6 ppb Iodine
.4 ppb Iron
1 ppb Magnesium
0.08 ppb Manganese
0.01 ppb Molybdenum
1.1 ppb Potassium

Natural sea water levels:
http://tinyurl.com/ynxyql

I am talking about the principle of adding ions to the tank
you cannot measure home so you do not know if they are used
up and need replenishment, or they are already too much of them.

How do you know you are adding the correct trace elements with your sea mix?
http://www.aquacraft.net/w0023.html

Not having chemistry lab at home I will never know the levels
of - let's say molibdenum in my water - so I have to assume
that the best composition of ions I can get is in sal****er
freshly made with salt mix. Of course some salts will be better
than others, but without tests I would not risk adding or
removing elements I am unable to test their concentration.

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

I wrote:
We'd be much more interested a few years from now, and after you've added
some stony corals (acropora, etc.). Those are the ones that appear most
sensitive to "water quality" (whatever that might mean), and that are
rumored to benefit most from water changes.

"bo0ger1" .@. wrote on Thu, 30 Nov 2006:
In what way do they benefit from water changes?

Visual appearance (polyp extension) and growth.

Many reef aquarists report that they can visually observe a slow decline of
the daylight polyp extension of their soft and stony corals (in the absense
of water changes), and also that there is an immediate positive response in
the day or so after a water change.

I agree that it is unclear how this relates to ammonia or other nitrogen
levels in those same tanks. But the coral response to water changes is an
obvious and very common effect.

Increase your bioload and your bacteria cell count goes up (there is a
ceiling for this, which is why aquariums can be over stocked).
Why is this so difficult to understand? My bioload is not relevant! As you
increase your bioload your bacteria proliferate!

How can you not see it? You've answered your own question yourself.

To be more precise, the reason we want to know your bioload is to estimate
what the overstocking level IS for your recommended no-water-change approach.

Surely even you can understand that it might be possible that a reef tank with
regular water changes is able to successfully support a HIGHER bioload than
your suggested strategy of no water changes.

The only way to resolve this is to know what, precisely, your bioload is.
Yes we know you claim to be successful with no water changes. Yes we know
you measure your nitrogen compounds. Yes we know your bioload is below your
overstocking level for your tank.

But we don't know WHAT your overstocking level is! Nor whether it is
significantly less than the stocking level in typical successful reef tanks
(that do use water changes).

Does that explain it? In any case, whether you understand our reasons or not,
why are you so reluctant to just answer the simple question? What, exactly,
is your bioload?

Because it doesn't matter. Your bacteria will proliferate in response to
increased bioload (within reason, ANY tank can be over stocked).

And the critical question is that perhaps your no-water-change tank can be
overstocked far earlier than a similar tank that does do regular water changes.

What do you think will happen to your helpful little bacteria if you removed
the majority of there food with each water change? Do you think they will:
A) Starve and start to dye off. Cell count drops
B) Continue to be happy.

Their food comes from the waste products of the fish (and uneaten decomposing
fish food). Those fish are still there, constantly spewing out waste
material. The new water will quickly fill up with bacteria food again, and
there will be minimal impact on the bacterial populations.

What do you think will happen to your bacteria if you took away the
majority of there "food: NH3/NH4, NO2-, NO3-" with each water change?

(Almost) nothing.

All that food will come back into the new water in minimal time.

-- Don
__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Don Geddis http://reef.geddis.org/
A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any
hereditary propensity toward fanaticism. -- Carl Sagan, "Contact"

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

In what way do they benefit from water changes?

Visual appearance (polyp extension) and growth.

The cyclic change in the visual appearance of your coral is due to your
cyclic water changing. Your bacteria cell count roughly stays the same if
you are changing the same amount of water with each change ('steady state').
Your water changes are a cyclic event (if you are doing them on a regular
basis). Before and after a water change your existing bacteria are
metabolizing the aforementioned nutrients. Just before a water change your
bacteria are saturated with nutrients (they have enough to go around, all
are happy). They are able to metabolize the majority of the nutrients just
before your water change. Your nutrients will reach a peak concentration
just before your next water change (I am not saying they reach a high level,
just a peak concentration). If you didn't do water changes your bacteria
would proliferate and 'catch up' with the excess nutrients.

Your coral probably 'perk up' after a water change because of these cyclic
changes in nutrient (bacterial) concentrations.

Because I do NOT do water changes, my bacterial nutrient concentration
levels are NOT cyclic. My bacteria nutrients have reached a 'steady state'
level in response to my current bioload. My coral will always appear
'perked up'. There is NO cyclic event for me with NO water changes.

Many reef aquarists report that they can visually observe a slow decline
of
the daylight polyp extension of their soft and stony corals (in the
absense
of water changes), and also that there is an immediate positive response
in
the day or so after a water change.

See above. Plus: If they would let their bacteria proliferate to a point
where the bacteria can handle the present bioload with no water changes,
BEFORE adding the coral, there would be no "slow decline".

I agree that it is unclear how this relates to ammonia or other nitrogen
levels in those same tanks. But the coral response to water changes is an
obvious and very common effect.

See above.

Increase your bioload and your bacteria cell count goes up (there is a
ceiling for this, which is why aquariums can be over stocked).
Why is this so difficult to understand? My bioload is not relevant! As
you
increase your bioload your bacteria proliferate!

How can you not see it? You've answered your own question yourself.

??

To be more precise, the reason we want to know your bioload is to estimate
what the overstocking level IS for your recommended no-water-change
approach.

Telling you what my bioload is will not allow you to make this "estimation".
Please elaborate.

Surely even you can understand that it might be possible that a reef tank
with
regular water changes is able to successfully support a HIGHER bioload
than
your suggested strategy of no water changes.

Sure, you could probably get away with 'over stocking' an aquarium if you
did more frequent water changes.
I have no intention of 'over stocking' my aquarium.

The only way to resolve this is to know what, precisely, your bioload is.

How would this resolve it?

Yes we know you claim to be successful with no water changes. Yes we know
you measure your nitrogen compounds. Yes we know your bioload is below
your
overstocking level for your tank.

But we don't know WHAT your overstocking level is! Nor whether it is
significantly less than the stocking level in typical successful reef
tanks
(that do use water changes).

What is the stocking level in a typical successful aquarium?

Does that explain it? In any case, whether you understand our reasons or
not,
why are you so reluctant to just answer the simple question? What,
exactly,
is your bioload?

It is NOT relevant.

Because it doesn't matter. Your bacteria will proliferate in response to
increased bioload (within reason, ANY tank can be over stocked).

And the critical question is that perhaps your no-water-change tank can be
overstocked far earlier than a similar tank that does do regular water
changes.

Sure, you could probably get away with 'over stocking' an aquarium if you
did more frequent water changes.
I have no intention of 'over stocking' my aquarium.

What do you think will happen to your helpful little bacteria if you
removed
the majority of there food with each water change? Do you think they
will:
A) Starve and start to dye off. Cell count drops
B) Continue to be happy.

Their food comes from the waste products of the fish (and uneaten
decomposing
fish food). Those fish are still there, constantly spewing out waste
material. The new water will quickly fill up with bacteria food again,
and
there will be minimal impact on the bacterial populations.

Half correct. Your fish will roughly produce waste (with same bioload and
same feeding schedule) at a constant rate.
See above regarding 'steady state' bacteria levels. If you still have
questions let me know.


What do you think will happen to your bacteria if you took away the
majority of there "food: NH3/NH4, NO2-, NO3-" with each water change?

(Almost) nothing.

Wrong! If you regularly change X gallons of water you will reach a 'steady
state' bacterial cell count level. They will proliferate OR dye in
response to food supply. They will reach a population based on their food
supply levels. If you suddenly change X+10 gallons, you are removing
nutrients that they were accustomed to receiving. They will respond by
dyeing off to a population level that is in line with their 'new' food
supply levels. If you suddenly start changing X-10 gallons they will slowly
proliferate in response to the excess nutrients available to them (to a
point limited by substrate).

I hope this helps. :)



All that food will come back into the new water in minimal time.

-- Don
__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Don Geddis
http://reef.geddis.org/
A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress
any
hereditary propensity toward fanaticism. -- Carl Sagan, "Contact"

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

I dose 5 mL/month. This equates to adding:

1.6 ppb Iodine
.4 ppb Iron
1 ppb Magnesium
0.08 ppb Manganese
0.01 ppb Molybdenum
1.1 ppb Potassium

Natural sea water levels:
http://tinyurl.com/ynxyql

I am talking about the principle of adding ions to the tank
you cannot measure home so you do not know if they are used
up and need replenishment

So am I. What did you think I was talking about? :)


, or they are already too much of them.

How do you know you are adding the correct trace elements with your sea
mix?
http://www.aquacraft.net/w0023.html

Not having chemistry lab at home I will never know the levels
of - let's say molibdenum in my water - so I have to assume
that the best composition of ions I can get is in sal****er
freshly made with salt mix. Of course some salts will be better
than others, but without tests I would not risk adding or
removing elements I am unable to test their concentration.

You add elements you are "unable to test their concentration" of every time
you use your salt mix. Don't you?

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

Boog, what I'm confused about here is, you only have 1 coral
and it's a hardy coarl at that. So perhaps your tank setup and no
water changes works great with a fish only tank.

So for the rest of us to buy into your idea, you need to have a
few not so hardy corals and a few items that are highly sensitive
to water conditions. We would be more than happy to make a few suggestions.

We get the fact already that you had a chemistery class or two.
So go out and spend $1000 on some exotic corals and get back to us in a
year.

I think we would all like to never change our water but the fact that
you don't have what we have does't help your case.

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

"TheRock" wrote in message news:ozech.99$R_1.45@trndny08...
Boog, what I'm confused about here is,

Hey atomweaver! CASE IN POINT! Do you see what I mean about not
understanding what is going on in their tanks? And why they do water
changes even though it isn't necessary?

I have provided all that I can offer on this topic. It is up to 'the herd'
to try it on their own. You can take a cow to water, but you can't make
them not change their water!


Later.

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

One more thing...


Boog, what I'm confused about here is, you only have 1 coral
and it's a hardy coarl at that. So perhaps your tank setup and no
water changes ...

If you have a question regarding the science I have mentioned in responses
above OR science I have not mentioned, I will try and explain things to you.

I am not going to respond anymore to your "perhaps"-like nonsensical
comments. Wanna talk about "science" ? Because that's what this thread is
all about dude.

We would be more than happy to make a few suggestions...

I would be more than happy to answer or comment on any science related
responses you have.

We get the fact already that you had a chemistry class or two.

One or two? You made me laugh a little. ;)


So go out and spend ...

That seems to be the motto in this NG.

I think we would all like to never change our water ....

Really? Could of fooled me! Than try it.

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

"bo0ger1" .@. wrote in message
...
One more thing...


Boog, what I'm confused about here is, you only have 1 coral
and it's a hardy coarl at that. So perhaps your tank setup and no
water changes ...

If you have a question regarding the science I have mentioned in responses
above OR science I have not mentioned, I will try and explain things to
you.

I am not going to respond anymore to your "perhaps"-like nonsensical
comments. Wanna talk about "science" ? Because that's what this thread
is all about dude.





It's rec.aquaria.marine.reefs NOT sci.aquaria.marine.reefs

PERHAPS, my nonsensical tone belongs in this news group and yours does not.
This is a newsgroup for reef keepers not evil scientists.
We use products and do things based on results and experience.

The problem is you razzle dazzle us with science
but don't participate in the hobby. 1 coral hardly qualifies you as a
keeper.
You might as well as keep goldfish for all we care.

I understand there is an element of science to everyday life,
but you definitely take it to the next level AND with much attitude.

Use your science with real live corals.

You still have NOT told us of your complete setup.
I'd be more accepting if you were more willing to share more details.









We would be more than happy to make a few suggestions...

I would be more than happy to answer or comment on any science related
responses you have.

We get the fact already that you had a chemistry class or two.

One or two? You made me laugh a little. ;)


So go out and spend ...

That seems to be the motto in this NG.

I think we would all like to never change our water ....

Really? Could of fooled me! Than try it.

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

Boog, what I'm confused about here is, you only have 1 coral
and it's a hardy coarl at that. So perhaps your tank setup and no
water changes ...

"bo0ger1" .@. wrote on Sat, 02 Dec 2006:
If you have a question regarding the science I have mentioned in responses
above OR science I have not mentioned, I will try and explain things to you.

You're radically overestimating your own level of scientific knowledge.

You don't seem to appreciate that reef tanks are as much an engineering
enterprise (or even artistic) as they are science.

This is why we care about demonstrated results, not just your unusual theories.
You CLAIM that water changes are not necessary for reef tanks, but in fact
all you offer are your theories on what science would support your strategy.

What you never acknowledge is the possibility that biochemistry may be going
on that you are NOT aware of. (And you can't possibly know 100% of the
biochemical needs of 100% of reef organisms.)

But most important, you've never DEMONSTRATED success with your approach in
a reef tank. You started with your hypothesis (water changes are not necessary
in a reef tank), and you lept right to believing the conclusion (all you reef
tank fools that do water changes are wasting your time), but you've missed the
most important part: the actual experiments. You're a horrible scientist.

That's why, when you finally broke down and admitted that in reality you had
only a fish-only tank, and just in the last few weeks got your very first
coral (and a hardy one at that), nobody is very impressed. EVERYONE knows that
there is much more challenge is successfully growing difficult (e.g. stony)
corals over a long period of time (e.g. years), than in just doing a fish-only
tank, or a hardy coral for a couple of weeks. Lots of bad strategies seem
just fine in a short time period or without sensitive corals.

If you want to be taken seriously as a scientist, try to learn the difference
between hypothesis and conclusion, and maybe you should keep quiet until you've
got some actual evidence. Especially when your theories contradict the
practice of real reef keepers, who -- unlike you -- have actually demonstrated
success with sensitive corals over a long period of time.

-- Don
__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Don Geddis http://reef.geddis.org/
Beware the lollipop of mediocrity. Lick it once and you will suck forever.

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

"bo0ger1" .@. wrote in message m...
I dose 5 mL/month. This equates to adding:

1.6 ppb Iodine
.4 ppb Iron
1 ppb Magnesium
0.08 ppb Manganese
0.01 ppb Molybdenum
1.1 ppb Potassium

Natural sea water levels:
http://tinyurl.com/ynxyql

I am talking about the principle of adding ions to the tank
you cannot measure home so you do not know if they are used
up and need replenishment

So am I. What did you think I was talking about? :)

You were talking about: importing of trace elements that get
used up over time. Check the posting history and you will find
this quote:

Don: Import of (possibly unknown) trace elements that
get used up over time.

Your response: I use Kent Marine Essential Elements.

That is the reason for my question: how do you know that
given ions are used up and in what extend ? How can you
know that .4 ppb of Iron brings this ion back to normal
concentration if you do not measure iron consumption in
your tank ? Same applies for other ions in nsw...

, or they are already too much of them.

How do you know you are adding the correct trace elements with your sea
mix?
http://www.aquacraft.net/w0023.html

Not having chemistry lab at home I will never know the levels
of - let's say molibdenum in my water - so I have to assume
that the best composition of ions I can get is in sal****er
freshly made with salt mix. Of course some salts will be better
than others, but without tests I would not risk adding or
removing elements I am unable to test their concentration.

You add elements you are "unable to test their concentration"
of every time you use your salt mix. Don't you?

Here is the important difference: every water change brings
water closer to the original ions concentration mixed at factory.

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

I am talking about the principle of adding ions to the tank
you cannot measure home so you do not know if they are used
up and need replenishment

So am I. What did you think I was talking about? :)

You were talking about: importing of trace elements that get
used up over time. Check the posting history and you will find
this quote:

Don: Import of (possibly unknown) trace elements that
get used up over time.

Your response: I use Kent Marine Essential Elements.

That is the reason for my question: how do you know that
given ions are used up and in what extend ? How can you
know that .4 ppb of Iron brings this ion back to normal
concentration if you do not measure iron consumption in
your tank ? Same applies for other ions in nsw...

Your correct. I don't know. I have to make some assumptions. I still
think it would be difficult for me to overdose given the amounts I am adding
and the frequency of addition.

You add elements you are "unable to test their concentration"
of every time you use your salt mix. Don't you?

Here is the important difference: every water change brings
water closer to the original ions concentration mixed at factory.

Yes, but you said: "I would not risk adding or removing elements I am unable
to test their concentration."

You are still adding elements that you are unable to test their
concentration for. Are you not?

The advantage you have (only one I can think of) with performing water
changes is that you are removing and replacing water that contains essential
elements (of unknown amounts).

You are making an assumption also though. You are assuming that you are not
accumulating any of the elements you are adding (in your saltmix or
supplementation) in your aquarium (those not removed with a water change),
which would result in an overdose.

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

Let me rephrase this so it makes more sense.

You are making an assumption also. You are assuming that you are not
accumulating any of the elements you are adding (from your saltmix) into
your aquarium (those not removed with a water change), which would result in
an overdose.

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

You're radically overestimating your own level of scientific knowledge.

Your opinion. Care to back your opinion up with science?

You don't seem to appreciate that reef tanks are as much an engineering
enterprise (or even artistic) as they are science.

Nope. It's 100% biochemistry. Period.


This is why we care about demonstrated results, not just your unusual
theories.

Are you assuming I am alone with my findings? I am the only one that has
realized WC are not necessary? Poor assumption.

You CLAIM that water changes are not necessary for reef tanks, but in fact
all you offer are your theories on what science would support your
strategy.

My CLAIM? Not just MINE.


What you never acknowledge is the possibility that biochemistry may be
going
on that you are NOT aware of.

This was my point from the beginning. That the majority of you do not know
what is going on at the biological level.

(And you can't possibly know 100% of the
biochemical needs of 100% of reef organisms.)

Your correct. How would knowing this or not knowing this make any
difference for a WC or NWC tank. Is the water in your aquarium in better
shape than mine?

But most important, you've never DEMONSTRATED success with your approach
in
a reef tank.

Are any of you people actually reading my responses? Which of my water
parameters that I have given will not support coral life? Don't give me
that coral toxin crap either, I have a skimmer. Plus what percentage of the
coral toxins are you removing with a 10% water change? ANSWER: Only 10%.

You started with your hypothesis (water changes are not necessary
in a reef tank), and you lept right to believing the conclusion (all you
reef
tank fools that do water changes are wasting your time), but you've missed
the
most important part: the actual experiments. You're a horrible scientist.

Again, your opinion. Wanna talk science? Or do you want to keep shouting
your opinion while you slap your chest with your fist?

That's why, when you finally broke down and admitted that in reality you
had
only a fish-only tank

I said this from the VERY beginning. I even mentioned I had a FOWLR in
OTHER previous threads (if you have been following along with the booger
saga).

, and just in the last few weeks got your very first
coral (and a hardy one at that)

What does this mean? Xenia are not coral? Their half coral? 1/3 coral?

, nobody is very impressed. EVERYONE knows that
there is much more challenge is successfully growing difficult (e.g.
stony)
corals over a long period of time (e.g. years), than in just doing a
fish-only
tank, or a hardy coral for a couple of weeks.
Lots of bad strategies seem
just fine in a short time period or without sensitive corals.

Here we go again with the "sensitive coral" strategy. Which of your WC
water chemistry parameters are better than mine?

You are making the assumption that WC guarantees success in some way with
"sensitive coral". Poor assumption.


If you want to be taken seriously as a scientist,

I think it is the audience that takes credit for that, not me.

try to learn the difference
between hypothesis and conclusion,

Lol.

and maybe you should keep quiet until you've
got some actual evidence.

Maybe you should keep quite until you are ready to talk science with the
adults.

Especially when your theories contradict the
practice of real reef keepers

Contradict with the "practices of reef keepers". You really think I am
alone here don't you? Very delusional aren't you?

Please come back with some Science!


, who -- unlike you -- have actually demonstrated
success with sensitive corals over a long period of time.

-- Don
__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Don Geddis
http://reef.geddis.org/
Beware the lollipop of mediocrity. Lick it once and you will suck
forever.

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

Don,

Why no response here? Over your head?

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

Your hostility and defensiveness make you less and less credible with every
post.
Go buy some corals and start a new thread.

AGAIN...You still have NOT told us your complete tank setup And maint.
routine.
How about a picture. Remember this: Bo0ger1, show me your tank...love
pszemol



"bo0ger1" .@. wrote in message
m...
Don,

Why no response here? Over your head?

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

"bo0ger1" .@. wrote in message ...
Let me rephrase this so it makes more sense.

You are making an assumption also. You are assuming that you are not
accumulating any of the elements you are adding (from your saltmix)
into your aquarium (those not removed with a water change), which
would result in an overdose.

What mistery elements are you thinking of ?
And what process would allow accumulation
of an element during periodic water changes ?

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

What mistery elements are you thinking of ?
And what process would allow accumulation
of an element during periodic water changes ?

I am referring to any element that can be taken-up by any organism. The
element doesn't 'leave' your aquarium just because the organism has utilized
it. Organisms that have taken in the element and die, will decompose and
release the element back into your aquarium.

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

Don,

Why no response here? Over your head?
Are any of you people actually reading my responses?

Yes, I read everyone. You did not respond to my post.

fish species/size? (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)

How many fish do you have? No science, No evidence, I would just like to
know.

Feeding schedule? (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)

Do you feed everyday? No science, No evidence, I would just like to know.

Again, I am getting the impression that you are taking this discussion in
circles.

Not trying to give you a hard time or taking this discussion in circles,
curious mind just wants to know.

Thank you Steve
--
See my web site
http://web.tampabay.rr.com/myreef/

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

I wrote:
This is why we care about demonstrated results, not just your unusual
theories.

"bo0ger1" .@. wrote on Sat, 02 Dec 2006:
Are you assuming I am alone with my findings? I am the only one that has
realized WC are not necessary? Poor assumption.

It would be far more interesting to hear about a long-time reefkeeper, who
has successfully kept a tank growing stony corals for multiple years, all the
while using only a skimmer and live rock/sand, but no water changes and no
refugium or mangroves. Only dosing Kent's Essential Elements.

After all, that is your claim, isn't it? That one can successfully grow a
coral garden of stony (e.g. acropora) corals without water changes? With no
other special maintenance, merely stop doing the water changes?

Yet, you seem to be the only one on this group who supports that strategy.
But you don't have even one multi-year stony coral reef tank which has been
maintained in this way.

This is why your claims are not credible.

What you never acknowledge is the possibility that biochemistry may be
going on that you are NOT aware of.

This was my point from the beginning. That the majority of you do not know
what is going on at the biological level.

Perhaps I emphasized the wrong word. Biochemistry may be going on that
YOU are not aware of.

You have never admitted that your own knowledge may be incomplete. (And water
changes are one approach to dealing with incomplete knowledge of biochemistry,
which we all -- even you -- must suffer from.)

(And you can't possibly know 100% of the biochemical needs of 100% of reef
organisms.)

Your correct. How would knowing this or not knowing this make any
difference for a WC or NWC tank. Is the water in your aquarium in better
shape than mine?

Yes, probably my water is better.

Especially for ionic or organic compounds that you aren't currently testing
for, but yet which are bioactive.

Are any of you people actually reading my responses? Which of my water
parameters that I have given will not support coral life? Don't give me
that coral toxin crap either, I have a skimmer.

What proof do you have that a skimmer is a sufficient solution to the topic
of coral toxins? Where is your SCIENCE, mister science boy?

Do you use a charcoal or UV filter? Lots of reefkeepers swear by them as well.
What function do you think they serve, if any, compared to just a skimmer and
live rock/sand?

Also: You realize, I hope, that your skimmer slowly removes "good" things
(like salt) from your water volume, along with "bad" proteins. What is your
strategy for replacing the lost salt? (Salt also decreases due to splashing,
"salt creep", etc.) I'm sure you have evaporation too, and must add fresh
water regularly. How do you keep your level of salinity constant, using only
freshwater and Essential Elements?

Do you measure your calcium levels? Calcium in the water volume gets used up
by corals (and some other marine organisms). How do you keep your level of
calcium sufficiently high?

Your answers to all these questions betray a naive, arrogant, chem major in
college with no practical experience at keeping a reef tank. You think that
what you read in a book answers all questions that need to be answered, without
any need for the complexity of the real world.

Contradict with the "practices of reef keepers". You really think I am
alone here don't you? Very delusional aren't you?

Yes, I do think you're alone.

Would you like to point to specific individuals, either on this newsgroup or
else published marine scientists, that agree with you?

Who do you have in mind that recommends growing stony corals without water
changes? (Or macroflora.)

All I see is you. Someone with a lot of opinions, but no experience.

-- Don
__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Don Geddis http://reef.geddis.org/
If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We
might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason.
-- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey [1999]

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

Your correct. How would knowing this or not knowing this make any
difference for a WC or NWC tank. Is the water in your aquarium in better
shape than mine?

Yes, probably my water is better.

Probably? Elaborate here.


What proof do you have that a skimmer is a sufficient solution to the
topic
of coral toxins? Where is your SCIENCE, mister science boy?

It's Dr. Science Boy. Skimmers will remove any organic compound that is
amphiphilic in nature. Which coral toxin do you know of that is not
amphiphilic?

Do you use a charcoal or UV filter? Lots of reefkeepers swear by them as
well.
What function do you think they serve, if any, compared to just a skimmer
and
live rock/sand?

No, I don't use them. Charcoal is used as a filter agent. Not necessary.

UV filter? UV filters are used to reduce the amounts of waterborne
pathogens in your water. I don't recommend them.

Also: You realize, I hope, that your skimmer slowly removes "good" things
(like salt) from your water volume, along with "bad" proteins.

Ah, yep. Do you know how they remove proteins smart guy?

What is your strategy for replacing the lost salt? (Salt also decreases
due to splashing,
"salt creep", etc.) I'm sure you have evaporation too, and must add fresh
water regularly. How do you keep your level of salinity constant, using
only
freshwater and Essential Elements?

I add salt when salinity drops below acceptable levels. I top off with kalk
and RO water.


Do you measure your calcium levels? Calcium in the water volume gets used
up
by corals (and some other marine organisms). How do you keep your level
of
calcium sufficiently high?

I adjust my Ca levels with kalk. I do not directly measure Ca++ however I
do measure my total alkalinity. If my alkalinity and my pH are in
acceptable ranges than most likely my Ca++ is OK.

Your answers to all these questions betray a naive, arrogant, chem major
in
college with no practical experience at keeping a reef tank. You think
that
what you read in a book answers all questions that need to be answered,
without
any need for the complexity of the real world.

No. Science will answer all my questions that need to be answered. Does
your aquarium not obey the laws of science?

***Don. Why do YOU do water changes?

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

To quote you boog...sorry Dr. Boog:

"Ditto! I do the same thing, only I add Kent Marine essential elements
1once
a month or so. No water changes in 2-years! Just a little algae I need to
remedy.

These people here (for the most part) are brain washed into thinking you
need to water changes all the time."

So say that I don't want algae in my tank...(which, if I understand
correctly, indicate the presence of too many nitrates and phosphates
because algae use them as food)...should I still follow your system?

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

These people here (for the most part) are brain washed into thinking you
need to water changes all the time."

So say that I don't want algae in my tank...(which, if I understand
correctly, indicate the presence of too many nitrates and phosphates
because algae use them as food)...should I still follow your system?

I have a small patch in the back of the aquarium. It is starting to be
consumed (I added more red legged hermits). My algae is almost gone.

Are you suggesting that WC people 'never' get any algae? Please!

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

bo0ger1 wrote:
These people here (for the most part) are brain washed into thinking you
need to water changes all the time."

So say that I don't want algae in my tank...(which, if I understand
correctly, indicate the presence of too many nitrates and phosphates
because algae use them as food)...should I still follow your system?

I have a small patch in the back of the aquarium. It is starting to be
consumed (I added more red legged hermits). My algae is almost gone.

Are you suggesting that WC people 'never' get any algae? Please!


Algae's not all bad: I have algae growing in my tank but it's there
deliberatly, it's the Cheato I use to export nutrients. About 2 weeks
ago my foxface died and lodged behind the rockwork. I've been watching
the water parameters and the NO3 has risen to around 10ppm. The Chaeto
has gone into overdrive and I'm now pulling out big handfulls so I
guess things will be back to normal before long.

If they continue to deteriorate, I will start water changes until the
problem is corrected: I'm not a fanatical "water-change denier", I
just can't see the point for a tank that already has good water
parameters and stays that way on its own.

I've been away for a week, I used to have a large BTA, now it seems I
have 2 smaller BTAs and a confused looking pair of clowns. A bit
annoying as I've been waiting for it to happen so I could watch. Oh
well.

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

It's almost pointless talking to you No WC boobs.
But it amazes me that you refer to the rest of us as brainwashed.
We are a very large majority...we need more than what you give.

Write a publication, start a web site, share your info.
All you do is write in rec.aquaria.marine.reefs and ridicule everyone
for changing their water.

AGAIN...You still have NOT told us your complete
tank setup AND maint. routine.
How about a picture.

Remember this: Bo0ger1, show me your tank...


"Pat" wrote in message
...
To quote you boog...sorry Dr. Boog:

"Ditto! I do the same thing, only I add Kent Marine essential elements
1once
a month or so. No water changes in 2-years! Just a little algae I need
to
remedy.

These people here (for the most part) are brain washed into thinking you
need to water changes all the time."

So say that I don't want algae in my tank...(which, if I understand
correctly, indicate the presence of too many nitrates and phosphates
because algae use them as food)...should I still follow your system?

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

"bo0ger1" .@. wrote in message ...
What mistery elements are you thinking of ?
And what process would allow accumulation
of an element during periodic water changes ?

I am referring to any element that can be taken-up by any organism. The
element doesn't 'leave' your aquarium just because the organism has utilized
it. Organisms that have taken in the element and die, will decompose and
release the element back into your aquarium.

That is the bauty of the water change: it works both ways,
not like your method of adding elements... Every water change
brings the ions composition closer to the oriinal one...
Think about this issue with your method: you are dosing
elements which you assume they are taken up by animals
or other organisms that die and release the element back
to the water - then you add more element there... why ?
This mistery element which accumulates due to the animal
die-off hits more your method of not doing water changes.
Do you see it now, that not doing water changes is bad?
Looks like you have proven this to yourself.

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

"bo0ger1" .@. wrote in
m:

One person stated that they change their water because they enjoy
it.

...but they didn't say that they changed their water _only_ because
they enjoy it.

Really? Are you sure about that?

This person changes their water because they "enjoy" doing it:
http://tinyurl.com/y9xveh


Sure, she said that she enjoys water changes.
I enjoy running reactions to make new urethane acrylate oligomers, but I
certainly don't run those reactions _only_ because I enjoy them (if you
asked my employer; my enjoyment is pretty low down on the list of reasons
why reactions are run ;-) Its the difference between citing _a_ reason,
and citing _the only_ reason... Do you understand that difference?

I was of course referring to Wayne's article at his site,
and its reflection on _his_ grasp of the nitrogen cycle.

His "grasp" of the nitrogen cycle? He doesn't even now what ammonia
or nitrite. How could he possibly understand the nitrogen cycle when
he doesn't even understand the basics?


Simple. Chemical reaction notation is nothing more than short-hand, a
condensed "language" to communicate ideas that would otherwise take longer
to express in written words. Lack of competency with the notation doesn't
imply a lack of understanding of the underlying concepts. Wayne's grasp of
the nitrogen cycle is as comprehensive as any you've cited as necessary for
understanding. His Chemical notation needs some work, though.

Are Wayne's errors with chemical notation the only thing you can offer as
supporting your assertion that most NG participants don't understand the
nitrogen cycle?

Also, you replied without saying anything to support your assertion
that the forum users here 1) are changing water because everybody
else is, and 2) that they lack sufficient understanding of the
chemical and biological processes in their aquaria. Again, what has
convinced you of that?

This newsgroup.


Asking for specifics, and getting broad generalizaions... What,
specifically, posted in this newsgroup, has convinced you of that?

New values for you:
OR is it my pH which is 8.1-8.2? Or is it my salinity which is 1.024?
Or is it my lighting which is 4 110watt VHO's?

BTW. If you haven't tested
your water recently, who's to know whether your nitrates are up, and
your fish and anemone just don't show it, because its been developing
slowly since your last test?

I test once a month.

I thought you "used to" check water parameters regularly..? It sounds now
like you've been testing regularly all along. That's great, as it would
give continuity to your observations, but its also a little troubling, in
that it conflicts with your previous comment.

Not only am I convinced that most in this NG don't understand the
above (N2 cycle and denitrification), I am NOT convinced YOU
understand based on your questions.

This is why MOST do water changes. Because they DON'T understand at
the biological level why it is NOT necessary.


....and what, then, is the reason why those who _do_ understand aquaria at
the biological level _continue_ to advocate the use of water changes?
Here, I'm thinking of published marine biologists such as Delbeek, Sprung,
et al. Their grasp of the topic outstrips mine, yours, and everyone
elses' on this NG, and yet they advocate WC in reef aquaria.

MOST think that the ONLY way waste is removed from their aquarium is
by doing water changes.

No, they don't. Most people here understand that the live rock/sand and a
protein skimmer (or other filtration) do the majority of the "heavy
lifting" of filtration and nutrient export, and that small regular water
changes are a final (important) step in maintaining water quality.

This is a HUGE fallacy!!

Or, its a little strawman...


1-hermit crab. A few snails.

Pretty small crew, for a 75gal...

Why do you say this? What information have I given you to make you
come to this conclusion? Was it my excellent water parameters?


That wasn't a judgement, it was merely an observation. 1 hermit and a few
snails in 75G is a small cleanup crew. *shrug*

Again. I am pretty sure we have been through this already. Ammonia
--- nitrite----nitrate----N2(g) + H2O. (Enzymatic conditions via
bacteria.)

They go a little further, though, and also take account of the fact
that
there is a maximum possible population of bacteria for a given tank
setup,

Sure there is. This is why it is possible to over stock an aquarium
with inhabitants. NOT the reason to do a WC.


What is the over-stocking level for an aquarium using NWC? Is it any
different than one using WCs? Not knowing the clear answer to that last
question, I'd probably accept a quantification of your bio-load as
sufficient information to proceed with trying NWC, if that bio-load
approximates (or is greater than) my own.

a relationship between fish species/mass and the amount of waste
generated,
and differences in final water quality depending upon the details of
the above, and that certain aquatic species (especially corals) are
intolerant of less-than-perfect water quality.

Which of my water parameters are "less-than-perfect"?


None, to the extent you've described them, for your bio-load. What was
your bio-load, again?

Doing water changes guarantees "perfect" water?


There are no guarantees of perfect water, but WC's are the most researched
and supported method for maintaining the kind of water quality that results
in successful reef aquaria.

And really, you haven't shown them to be "unnecessary".

You haven't shown that they are "necessary". Nor has anyone else.


In the absence of supplementation, water changes are necessary. You
yourself dose monthly with Kent Merine Essential Elements.

What you've suggested is that Kent Marine Essentials can
supplant/replace their
necessity in a FOWLR system of some unquantified setup. Blackhole
has a similar method for a reef setup, which adds a nurtrient export
method (that you discount without elaboration),

I haven't described my nutrient export method?

Yet another Non-sequitur. Sure, you've said your bacteria do it all.
But then, you discount Blackholes nutrient export system (bo0ger1: "not
necessary IMHO") without further elaboration. If you'd care to elaborate
on why nutrient export is "not necessary IMHO", feel free. If not, we'll
value the comment for what it is.

My experience tells me that there is an upper limit to the load you
can place upon the bacterial colony in a tank.

How many experiments have you performed?

I've maintained five different marine setups by this point in time,
snip tank descrip.
That was your experiment for this:
"My experience tells me that there is an upper limit to the load you
can place upon the bacterial colony in a tank."

What you described weakly qualifies as an experiment.

Its nothing of the sort. Its anecdotal information. I posted in reply to
your request for experiments to elaborate on my _lack_ of experience (five
anecdotal data points. Whoopie! That amounts to almost nothing), not the
extent of my "formal investigations", as explained at the end of the tank
description. I'll duplicate those comments here, since you seem to have
missed its significance:

boo0ger: "Is this anecdotal data? "

atomweaver: "*It sure is*. There's nothing wrong with that, per se, so
long as any readers value such information appropriately, and so long as I
don't get a swelled head, or start ragging on others for acheiving success
differently..."

In this light, your side-track about scientific method is very obviously
mis-placed, as I myself don't ascribe any great degree of _scientific_
value to my results (or yours, or anyone elses anecdotal data, for that
matter). Personal experience certainly has value (humans get along in a
range of purusits _fantastically_ by relating personal experience,
including the keeping of aquaria) but it isn't science. Context becomes
vastly more important in those instances where the controls of the
scientific method are absent.

How does your
"experiment" quantify bioload?
When do you address and quantify the
"limit"?
Where do you mention your control tank with NO water changes? And
what was the "upper limit" of bioload that you placed on your bacteria
in your control tank?
What was the "upper limit" of bioload that you placed on your bacteria
in your WC tank?

My comments aren't designed to answer any of these questions directly,
but rather to offer context to my meager anecdotal data. If you take the
information given, and add to it the mass of the fish and inverts involved
(5.5 inches BL of Banggai, 4 inches of blenny, 5 inches of Clown wrasse,
and 4-5 inches of length to each clam along the sissal opening, 3 inch dia.
open brain, 5 inch dia leather, 9 to 10 inches irregular diameter green mat
zoanthid-covered rock), a reader gets pretty much a clear picture of my
bio-load, which I think is relatively low, vs. what I've seen/read about in
other systems this same size. But that's OK, the system is relatively new
still, and I'm a relatively inexperienced marine aquarist, especially wrt
corals. I'll continue to err on the side of caution until my experience
warrants otherwise...

As I said, I would relate the results of the rest of those tanks in
another thread, but as they have nothing to do with bio-load under NWC, its
a topic I didn't elaborate on here.

How many conditions have you varied?
Different fish, different bio loads, mostly the same live rock (I
like my Fiji rock, its got high porosity for its weight, and I think
that gives me a better living filter). I'd be happy to chronicle the
past experiences, but that would be more appropriate for a different
thread. The conclusion of them is that, the need for water changes
and their degree varies, based on occupancy and the water quality
demands of the specific species.

Is this anecdotal data?

It sure is. There's nothing wrong with that, per se, so long as any
readers value such information appropriately, and so long as I don't
get a swelled head, or start ragging on others for acheiving success
differently...

Why is my/others NWC anecdotal data less valid?


Because it lacks context. If you're going to offer anecdotal data in
support of NWC, it is at its most valuable when used by other systems which
approximate the context within which success was achieved. In the abscence
of a scientific study on NWC, I can have a greater degree of confidence in
reproducing your results, the closer I am to the system within which you
achieved success.


Thanks to others for adding their comments on the bio-load discussions, I
removed most of that discussion from my reply, as Don and Rock have taken
up the topic well. Bo0ger, I understand what you're saying about pulling
nutrients out by (basically) diluting them in the water column, but most of
your comments thus far imply that the water column is the primary means by
which the bacteria obtain their nitrogen. I was under the impression that
fish and invert waste arrived at nitration sites both from the water
column, _and_ by the decomposition of settled waste in direct contact with
the substrate and LR (marine "mulm" decomposition, to borrow the FW term)
which WCs only affect indirectly. Some questions for all; Is my
understanding of this incorrect? If not, what is the relative contribution
of both means of delivery of nutrients to the bacterial colony?

Another question on the topic of bio-load; time. Anyone have an idea
of what is the response time of bacteria to a change in nutrient
availability? Anyone have an idea of the "cycle time" in the nitrogen
cycle?

Regards,
DZ
AW

(I'll be sporadic in replies for the rest of the year. "Life" rears its
ugly head, in that Not-Good kind of way.)

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

Sure, she said that she enjoys water changes.
I enjoy running reactions to make new urethane acrylate oligomers, but I
certainly don't run those reactions _only_ because I enjoy them (if you
asked my employer; my enjoyment is pretty low down on the list of reasons
why reactions are run ;-)

Your a polymer chemist. Now I understand your lack of knowledge of
biochemistry and your unwillingness to go head-to-head with me on-topic.

If I told my boss that I was making a derivative of irinotecan because I
thought it was "fun" and not because I wanted to see how it would behave in
vitro, he would look at me like I was crazy.
It demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the rationale behind performing a
task.

Its the difference between citing _a_ reason,
and citing _the only_ reason... Do you understand that difference?

Why do you intentionally SNIP and IGNORE parts of my reply?

I said: "Do I think this is absurd? No. But it demonstrates a lack of
understanding. AND it is in line with the "herd behavior"."

Simple. Chemical reaction notation is nothing more than short-hand, a
condensed "language" to communicate ideas that would otherwise take longer
to express in written words.

Chemical reaction notation?? The chemical formula (what I like to call it)
is MUCH more than short-hand.

He doesn't know that ammonia is NH3 and you expect him to understand how it
is converted (enzymatically) into N2 ??
Should I also assume that if he thinks water is OH, that he also knows how
water forms a highly ordered crystalline structure when frozen, with only
one hydrogen bond donor?

You can NOT possibly understand the nitrogen cycle at the biological level
if you don't know the basics. I will agree with you that he might
understand it from a VERY macro perspective.

Lack of competency with the notation doesn't
imply a lack of understanding of the underlying concepts.

Agreed. He_might_have a very macro understanding of things.

Wayne's grasp of the nitrogen cycle is as comprehensive as any you've
cited as necessary for
understanding. His Chemical notation needs some work, though.

Are Wayne's errors with chemical notation the only thing you can offer as
supporting your assertion that most NG participants don't understand the
nitrogen cycle?

The fact that they do water changes is evidence enough for me. Some might
understand it, but do water changes for fun (I assume).

Also, you replied without saying anything to support your assertion
that the forum users here 1) are changing water because everybody
else is, and 2) that they lack sufficient understanding of the
chemical and biological processes in their aquaria. Again, what has
convinced you of that?

This newsgroup.


Asking for specifics, and getting broad generalizaions... What,
specifically, posted in this newsgroup, has convinced you of that?

This newsgroup as a response_is_specific IMHO.

New values for you:
OR is it my pH which is 8.1-8.2? Or is it my salinity which is 1.024?
Or is it my lighting which is 4 110watt VHO's?

BTW. If you haven't tested
your water recently, who's to know whether your nitrates are up, and
your fish and anemone just don't show it, because its been developing
slowly since your last test?

I test once a month.

I thought you "used to" check water parameters regularly..? It sounds now
like you've been testing regularly all along. That's great, as it would
give continuity to your observations, but its also a little troubling, in
that it conflicts with your previous comment.

Could it be that I use to check more frequently than once per month?? Did
you consider that?

Not only am I convinced that most in this NG don't understand the
above (N2 cycle and denitrification), I am NOT convinced YOU
understand based on your questions.

This is why MOST do water changes. Because they DON'T understand at
the biological level why it is NOT necessary.


...and what, then, is the reason why those who _do_ understand aquaria at
the biological level _continue_ to advocate the use of water changes?
Here, I'm thinking of published marine biologists such as Delbeek, Sprung,
et al. Their grasp of the topic outstrips mine, yours, and everyone
elses' on this NG, and yet they advocate WC in reef aquaria.

I don't know the answer to this one. I don't know who they are so I can't
really comment.

MOST think that the ONLY way waste is removed from their aquarium is
by doing water changes.

No, they don't. Most people here understand that the live rock/sand and a
protein skimmer (or other filtration) do the majority of the "heavy
lifting" of filtration and nutrient export, and that small regular water
changes are a final (important) step in maintaining water quality.

And that final step is?

This is a HUGE fallacy!!

Or, its a little strawman...

I am not building a strawman.

1-hermit crab. A few snails.

Pretty small crew, for a 75gal...

Why do you say this? What information have I given you to make you
come to this conclusion? Was it my excellent water parameters?


That wasn't a judgement, it was merely an observation. 1 hermit and a few
snails in 75G is a small cleanup crew. *shrug*

Observation based on what? You are suggestion I need more because??

Sure there is. This is why it is possible to over stock an aquarium
with inhabitants. NOT the reason to do a WC.


What is the over-stocking level for an aquarium using NWC? Is it any
different than one using WCs? Not knowing the clear answer to that last
question, I'd probably accept a quantification of your bio-load as
sufficient information to proceed with trying NWC, if that bio-load
approximates (or is greater than) my own.

If bioload is correlated with bacterial cell count, why do you need to know
my bioload? Do you understand what I mean by a direct correlation between
bacterial nutrient concentrations (NH3, NO2-, NO3-) and bacterial cell count
(limited by substrate)? Why are you having trouble with this? More 'food'
= 'more bacteria'. Less 'food' = 'more bacteria'. Because they are
directly correlated you DO NOT NEED to know my bioload.

a relationship between fish species/mass and the amount of waste
generated,
and differences in final water quality depending upon the details of
the above, and that certain aquatic species (especially corals) are
intolerant of less-than-perfect water quality.

Which of my water parameters are "less-than-perfect"?


None, to the extent you've described them, for your bio-load. What was
your bio-load, again?

Read above.


Doing water changes guarantees "perfect" water?


There are no guarantees of perfect water, but WC's are the most researched
and supported method for maintaining the kind of water quality that
results
in successful reef aquaria.

The "most researched" method = the best method. Hmmm. Interesting. Do
you really believe this?

And really, you haven't shown them to be "unnecessary".

You haven't shown that they are "necessary". Nor has anyone else.


In the absence of supplementation, water changes are necessary. You
yourself dose monthly with Kent Merine Essential Elements.

What you've suggested is that Kent Marine Essentials can
supplant/replace their
necessity in a FOWLR system of some unquantified setup. Blackhole
has a similar method for a reef setup, which adds a nurtrient export
method (that you discount without elaboration),

I haven't described my nutrient export method?

Yet another Non-sequitur. Sure, you've said your bacteria do it all.
But then, you discount Blackholes nutrient export system (bo0ger1: "not
necessary IMHO") without further elaboration. If you'd care to elaborate
on why nutrient export is "not necessary IMHO", feel free. If not, we'll
value the comment for what it is.

You are misunderstanding me (surprise). The chaeto is not necessary as an
nutrient export method when bacteria do the job.

What you described weakly qualifies as an experiment.

Its nothing of the sort.

Really? Do you remember me asking you this?

" How many experiments have you performed? "

Your response was :
" I've maintained five different marine setups by this point in time, each
one a serial replacement for the previous setup. My current (5th) setup is
a reef-type (but with species less sensitive to water quality. Its a 50
gal tridacnid tank; 4 crocea and a derasa, all small, with a few ...

Its anecdotal information. I posted in reply to
your request for experiments to elaborate on my _lack_ of experience (five
anecdotal data points.

You presented your anecdotal data as "experiments" that you performed in
response to my request for experimental data.

Again, Where is your CONTROL with no WC???


Whoopie!

Whoopie??

That amounts to almost nothing), not the
extent of my "formal investigations", as explained at the end of the tank
description. I'll duplicate those comments here, since you seem to have
missed its significance:

boo0ger: "Is this anecdotal data? "

atomweaver: "*It sure is*. There's nothing wrong with that, per se, so
long as any readers value such information appropriately, and so long as I
don't get a swelled head, or start ragging on others for acheiving success
differently..."

In this light, your side-track about scientific method is very obviously
mis-placed

NO it is NOT. Do you remember throwing around the "Scientific Method" in
response to MY anecdotal data?

-----:If so, I think you need to brush up on your science fundamentals.

----- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method


----- Even with those two above points adequately addressed by booger, and
----- accepted as valid, your "knowledge on science" should also allow you
to
----- discern that this amounts to a grand total of one (1) data point in
---- opposition to the accepted practice of small regular water changes.


So my mentioning of the "Scientific Method" in response to your poorly
designed experiment (anecdotal data) is misplaced, but NOT when you throw it
around?

Obviously misplaced. You are really a piece of work.

, as I myself don't ascribe any great degree of _scientific_
value to my results (or yours, or anyone elses anecdotal data, for that
matter). Personal experience certainly has value (humans get along in a
range of purusits _fantastically_ by relating personal experience,
including the keeping of aquaria) but it isn't science. Context becomes
vastly more important in those instances where the controls of the
scientific method are absent.

Not for me. A control (NWC) is absolutely necessary in order to demonstrate
the necessity of a WC.

How does your
"experiment" quantify bioload?
When do you address and quantify the
"limit"?
Where do you mention your control tank with NO water changes? And
what was the "upper limit" of bioload that you placed on your bacteria
in your control tank?
What was the "upper limit" of bioload that you placed on your bacteria
in your WC tank?

My comments aren't designed to answer any of these questions directly,
but rather to offer context to my meager anecdotal data. If you take the
information given, and add to it the mass of the fish and inverts involved
(5.5 inches BL of Banggai, 4 inches of blenny, 5 inches of Clown wrasse,
and 4-5 inches of length to each clam along the sissal opening, 3 inch
dia.
open brain, 5 inch dia leather, 9 to 10 inches irregular diameter green
mat
zoanthid-covered rock), a reader gets pretty much a clear picture of my
bio-load, which I think is relatively low, vs. what I've seen/read about
in
other systems this same size. But that's OK, the system is relatively new
still, and I'm a relatively inexperienced marine aquarist, especially wrt
corals. I'll continue to err on the side of caution until my experience
warrants otherwise...

As I said, I would relate the results of the rest of those tanks in
another thread, but as they have nothing to do with bio-load under NWC,
its
a topic I didn't elaborate on here.

How many conditions have you varied?
Different fish, different bio loads, mostly the same live rock (I
like my Fiji rock, its got high porosity for its weight, and I think
that gives me a better living filter). I'd be happy to chronicle the
past experiences, but that would be more appropriate for a different
thread. The conclusion of them is that, the need for water changes
and their degree varies, based on occupancy and the water quality
demands of the specific species.

Is this anecdotal data?

It sure is. There's nothing wrong with that, per se, so long as any
readers value such information appropriately, and so long as I don't
get a swelled head, or start ragging on others for acheiving success
differently...

Why is my/others NWC anecdotal data less valid?


Because it lacks context.

Context will appear to be lacking to the layman.

If you're going to offer anecdotal data in
support of NWC, it is at its most valuable when used by other systems
which
approximate the context within which success was achieved. In the
abscence
of a scientific study on NWC, I can have a greater degree of confidence in
reproducing your results, the closer I am to the system within which you
achieved success.


Thanks to others for adding their comments on the bio-load discussions, I
removed most of that discussion from my reply, as Don and Rock have taken
up the topic well. Bo0ger, I understand what you're saying about pulling
nutrients out by (basically) diluting them in the water column, but most
of
your comments thus far imply that the water column is the primary means by
which the bacteria obtain their nitrogen.

That's because it is. If it's not than why do you perform water changes?
Seems counter-intuitive.

I was under the impression that
fish and invert waste arrived at nitration sites both from the water
column, _and_ by the decomposition of settled waste in direct contact with
the substrate

What do you think happens to the settled waste? Where do you think it ends
up with no water changes after being metabolized/decomposed? HINT: water
column

and LR (marine "mulm" decomposition, to borrow the FW term)
which WCs only affect indirectly. Some questions for all; Is my
understanding of this incorrect? If not, what is the relative
contribution
of both means of delivery of nutrients to the bacterial colony?

They are one in the same. They all end up in the water column as water
soluble by-products of metabolism or decomposition.

Another question on the topic of bio-load; time. Anyone have an idea
of what is the response time of bacteria to a change in nutrient
availability?

Bacteria grow very fast. Ever had a bacterial infection?? The growth of
bacteria is exponential. The growth in response to added food supply is
very rapid (can't quantitate, but I know it is fast, one or two days??).
Ever grown a bacterial colony in culture media? I have.

Anyone have an idea of the "cycle time" in the nitrogen
cycle?

What do you mean by "cycle time"?


WHY do YOU do water changes??