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

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

"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" .@. 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.

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"

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"

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?

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.

"TheRock" wrote in message newszech.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.

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.