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

"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.

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.

"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

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" .@. 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" .@. 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.

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

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" .@. 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?