System Stability

[jackson6745]

Besides Stability in your water parms, I think it is very important to have a coral mounted stable in your tank. I see a lot of guys keep their corals on plugs (which is ok) but they don't mount the plugs, rather wedge them in rocks. They almost always move, or fall, or rock with the current. From what I have seen and experienced these unstable corals will grow less than a mounted, fixed, and encrusted colony.

 

[TimberTDI]

Leslie, I use the Tunze Osmolator, I've never had any problem with it.
(1) The precise water level is ensured by a non-wearing optical sensor and a transistor switch without any moving parts. This sensor is insensitive to soiling, light or magnetic fields.

Its ?automatic eye? recognises the water level precisely, even small waves or level variations cannot irritate the unit.

(2) An independent safety sensor with a separate power supply circuit and relay control ensures reliable overflow protection.

(3) An electronic time controller and current limiter for the pump connected result in a higher operational safety. This unit protects the metering pump against running dry and reports an empty storage container.

(4) All functions are clearly displayed by LEDs; safety messages are also indicated by acoustic signals.

(5) The osmotic regulators are all operated at safety extra-low voltage.
http://www.marinedepot.com/ps/ps_ViewItem~idProduct~TZ4111.html

 

[bad coffee]

Great thread Chris.

I have a litermeter. I've said time and time again how it's the best thing I ever bought my reef. I've only had nano tanks. Before I bought the LM I would just dump 1/2 gallon or so fresh water in the tank right before I'd go to bed. The tank never really looked good. (for a myriad of reasons) Once i started the LM my tank started looking better.

Now on my system I have the same litermeter, and a modified S-K doser for Kalk. The fresh water from my topoff bucket passes through a spare RO housing that's half filled with kalk. As the water goes in it mixes with the kalk powder, and pushes clear kalk out the top to the tank.

Water Changes:
one large water change is better than many small ones.
Say you want to do a 50% water change.

For the sake of arguement, lets say the 'bad stuff' in your water measures 100 ppm before the change.

First scenario. 50% water change in one shot: 100ppm x .50 (50% 'bad stuff' left in the tank) is 50ppm.

Second scenario. five 10% water changes.

100 ppm x .90 = 90 ppm after the First change
90 ppm x .90 = 81 ppm Second change
81 ppm x .90 = 72.9 ppm Third Change
72.9 ppm x .90 = 65.61 ppm Fourth change
65.61 ppm x .90 = 59.05 ppm Fifth change.

So after spending the time and money to do the 50% water change, you've only got rid of 41% of the stuff.

However, for stability you'd want to do many smaller changes.

B

 

[LeslieS]

Thanks guys, I am going to look into the systems listed above. Now I have to figure out a place to plug it in. All my outlets are full!!!

I never have dosed Mg I believe instead in frequent water changes to make sure that my Mg is on point. I test every now and again just in case I get a batch of salt with a Mg problem.

Tropic Marin salt is naturally low in Mg.

 

[TimberTDI]

100 ppm x .90 = 90 ppm after the First change
90 ppm x .90 = 81 ppm Second change
81 ppm x .90 = 72.9 ppm Third Change
72.9 ppm x .90 = 65.61 ppm Fourth change
65.61 ppm x .90 = 59.05 ppm Fifth change.

Brett, would the number 59.05 actually be higher if you were spreading these water changes over a 5 week period, becasue of the constant polluting of our systems?

 

[bad coffee]

yeah it would be higher. But the point was to show that one big change is better than 5 smaller.

Without big tests, there's no way to figure how much it will really be. With the same thought, there's also no way to see the level of the 50% change tank after 5 weeks without a change.

B

 

[fritz]

Forgive me but the "one big water change is better" completely goes against the entire point of this thread. If you're trying to attain stability in your tank the LAST thing you want to do is change anything quickly. That applies to lowing phosphates, lowing nitrates, replacing trace elements etc. All and any of these changing rapidly will not be good for your tank. A 50% water change quiet literally is never a good idea unless you've just dumped some bleach into your tank or see half an anemone in your powerhead.

The best thing you could ever do for a reef tank is 5% water changes every day. Reef tanks love water changes but not big ones for all the reasons already stated in this thread.

Secondly if you're running 100ppm of anything in your tank the problem is the source of those nutrients and it aint your water! Changing a large amount of water in that situation will mostly likely cause you to worsen any already occurring algae outbreaks by replacing any depleted trace elements. Even further a large water change will not only stress your inhabitants but it will be treating the symptom not the problem. If you were running anything that high you should find and correct the source and once that's done start up 5% daily water changes.

REMEMBER: Nothing GOOD happens fast.

 

[TimberTDI]

We have to understand that Brett was just using an example. With 100ppm just being bad sh*t in the tank.

Fritz you're absolutely right. 50% of anything at once is some bad mojo.

I currently try do to 15 gallons a week; the key word being try. After I set the tank back up I'm going to aim for 5-7 gallons a week.

Steven

Steven

 

[NYreefNoob]

stability

ok as i am almost done with my new tank set-up, and just ordered my ato, was wondering since i 2 part dose, couldnt i just add it too my top off water > dose the amount for amount in storage, which will be around 30g, this way i have a constant dose of cal and alk, throughout the whole day. opinions ? ty rick

 

[dylanjs]

So what would you tell a newbie like me who wants to put all of this into action? Is there a way to do top-off and dosing with one unit? (Sorry if this counts as hijacking).

 

[Deanos]

was wondering since i 2 part dose, couldnt i just add it too my top off water > dose the amount for amount in storage, which will be around 30g, this way i have a constant dose of cal and alk, throughout the whole day. opinions ? ty rick

No. The calcium and alkalinity will precipitate out, rendering both components useless to your tank.

 

[dylanjs]

Dosing Alk and Ca in separate parts of the sump (or display) at the same time is OK, right?

 

[jackson6745]

Dosing Alk and Ca in separate parts of the sump (or display) at the same time is OK, right?

I dose one wait a few min and then dose the other. If you dose together, even in seperate parts of the sump, you can sometimes see it flake out in your main display

 

[Manny]

can you guys get back to the water change thing? :scratchch

I was very interested :bigeyes: because I was thinking of switching to 5g weekly instead of 15g every 3 weeks for my 100g. The only reason being the stability/shock thing.

any thoughts?

 

[joseney21]

Brett said "for arguments sake" and did admit that smaller water changes is more stable, i agree. the difference, to me, between the two isn't big enough while doing big water changes over smaller ones to sacrifice stability for your reef.

 

[Henrye]

Nice thread! Only 2 areas I'd like to bring up. One, smaller water changes done at set times (daily, weekly, whatever) may seem to encourage stability, but don't mimic the real world. In the real world, wastes never build up to anything close to what occurs in our systems. I really don't beleive our animals "adjust" to this, and can't see where their removal would "shock' a system. Besides, on a real world reef, current can be quite high. This effect which we try to mimic with water flow is only partially helpful, as one of the biggest reasons for the benefit of high current is bringing in fresh SW to the reef 24/7. I don't have a reference for the actual volume turned over, but it's surely greater than 25% a DAY, let alone a week. Continuous water changes, like the dialyseas method is the best mimic for this. In the absence of such a mechanism, frequent, moderately large water changes (matched pH, T, S.G.) is the closest we can come to creating a natural, low waste, chemically stable environment.

One area not touched on is lighting. Lighting is kept on timers to maintain stable exposures in our tanks. In the real world, light varies by day, and by hour. Unless we're using complex timers with dimmers to mimic this, we are forcing our photosynthetic organsims to adapt to a completely artificial envornment, which, I beleive, is as important as chemistry. Granted, few of us have elabotate dimmers systems or automated lighting tracks. However, altering photoperiods can be, IMO, healthy for a tank. Even modest changes in timers from week to week, even switching intraday, might be more beneficial than just a fixed period, rather than helping our animals to "acclimate" to our set lighting arrangement. Maybe it should be the other way around.

Henry

 

[dylanjs]

Henrye is totally right, photo period plays a huge part in what stage of their life cycle the livestock is in... my freshman bio text book told me so. :wink1:

Aside from being advertised like the movie 2010, those Solaris LEDs seem pretty cool. They even have an internal timer with a seasonality function.

 

[russianmd]

I do want to bring up the point that some reefs are located near coastal areas and close to river estuaries, and thus are subjected to pretty wide fluctuations in salinity, water quality, etc.

Problems usually start popping up in those areas when humans dump nutrients into the water (nitrates, phosphates - sometimes from agriculture), that eventually wash over the reefs and cause algae blooms.

Which brings us to the infinite variety of species of corals and fish. Some corals are incredibly sensitive to water quality, while others are more hardy. Same goes for some freshwater fish - discus need soft, acidic water to thrive - while mollies and guppies will do fine in a dirt puddle.

I am just starting my reef - and so far have no livestock. I really appreciate this thread, and glad that from the very beginning I went with an ATO.

I am looking at Aquamedic dosers for part 1 and 2 supplementation, and plan to do weekly 5-10 gallon changes on a 120g tank.

I am also looking at very 'hardy' livestock - something a little more forgiving for a beginner, and that can tolerate occasional suboptimal water parameters.

 

[meschaefer]

Besides Stability in your water parms, I think it is very important to have a coral mounted stable in your tank. I see a lot of guys keep their corals on plugs (which is ok) but they don't mount the plugs, rather wedge them in rocks. They almost always move, or fall, or rock with the current. From what I have seen and experienced these unstable corals will grow less than a mounted, fixed, and encrusted colony.

I am a newbie with SPS, i've only been keeping them for about a year, but I notice major improvments in growth and coloration when I permanently mounted my frags to my live rock. Before that, it was only a matter of time before they where knocked off the rock by a fish or crab, or i decided that it would look better on the other side of the tank etc.etc.

Once I mounted them, they really started to look and grow so much better.

 

[meschaefer]

Water Changes:
one large water change is better than many small ones.
Say you want to do a 50% water change.

For the sake of arguement, lets say the 'bad stuff' in your water measures 100 ppm before the change.

First scenario. 50% water change in one shot: 100ppm x .50 (50% 'bad stuff' left in the tank) is 50ppm.

Second scenario. five 10% water changes.

100 ppm x .90 = 90 ppm after the First change
90 ppm x .90 = 81 ppm Second change
81 ppm x .90 = 72.9 ppm Third Change
72.9 ppm x .90 = 65.61 ppm Fourth change
65.61 ppm x .90 = 59.05 ppm Fifth change.

So after spending the time and money to do the 50% water change, you've only got rid of 41% of the stuff.

However, for stability you'd want to do many smaller changes.

B

There is an article on RC or someplace else that goes through the math on water changes spread out over a year, looking at a few large changes vs many smaller changes. If you are only looking at two water changes then it is better in terms of nutrient removal to do large water changes. But if you are going to do many (say ever two weeks over a year), then the percentage difference in waste removal is minimal.

FOUND IT CLICK HERE FOR ARTICLE