Less water changes for Coral only systems?

[AP7x]

Hello,

I was just wondering how necessary water changes are if I setup a reef system with corals only?

For my case specifically, this would be for a 12g Nanocube.

I am under the impression that water changes are necessary as an export of wastes in the water from feeding fish/corals?

I hear about all those great tanks that have thriving corals that were never spot-fed....

With a coral only system, I was thinking with minimal feedings of phytoplankton and maybe some direct feeding of LPS (minimal = once a week?), I can get away with less water changes? (Currently I do weekly 10-15% changes). Less frequent would be...once a month or so?
Again - this is a Nanocube...no skimmer...no refug...just LR and LS. Carbon, maybe Poly-Filter (is this any good?)

Then again - a few inverts as decorations also might seem fun, like Pom Pom crabs or Sexy Shrimp...I am under the impression they dont need to be fed as much/often as fish? Will they flourish in such a system?

Then with snails...a few added just to clean up any odds and ends?

Sorry with the random ramblings...it was just a thought that came to mind...

THanks =D If I was unclear, Ill try to clarify based on responses.
If I'm speaking nonsense - forgive me. I'm just a student wanting to learn ^^;

 

[Mouse]

Ive heard of coral farmers who do hardly any water changes at all, providing your not mixing softys and SPS. Their reasoning was that they dose the water perfectly, so why would they wat to take out all their chemicals when theres none being added, these same guys didn't run skimmers either.

 

[Anonymous]

I do once a month 10% water changes on my 110. It has been working for me.

 

[liquid]

Water changes are always a Good Thing (tm) and IMO certainly won't hurt anything unless you don't balance the salinity and temperature of the waterchange water prior to doing one on your tank. For a smaller tank, they're sometimes used instead of running things like a skimmer on the tank. For a 12 gal nano you're not talking about changing much water at all to be honest so it certainly can't hurt.

IMO larger waterchanges (>25%) really do more for the system as a whole instead of small waterchanges like you're doing if you're going for nutrient export. A bi-monthly 25% waterchange will change out more nutrients than a weekly 10-15% waterchange.

We do have a Nano forum for people that have smaller tanks: http://www.reefs.org/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=55

Ah, I see you've found it. My bad.

In any event, they'll definitely be able to steer you in the right direction with your tank.

Good luck and :welcome:

Shane

 

[sawyerc]

In my experience, poly filters are great at strip mining water. This means that they are great if you need to remove a lot of organics or anything else, but they seemed to hurt my tank with constant use. I beleive that they took out some trace elements from the water and reduced the organics so low that my softies didn't grow as fast or extend as much. This might just be speculation, though. For an SPS tank I would think they would be great, though I've never tried.

 

[Unarce]

Ive heard of coral farmers who do hardly any water changes at all, providing your not mixing softys and SPS. Their reasoning was that they dose the water perfectly, so why would they wat to take out all their chemicals when theres none being added, these same guys didn't run skimmers either.

Is this a common practice of coral farmers in the UK or somewhere else? Any samples tha you can link? I too don't run a skimmer in an SPS-only tank, but do a 15% water change every month.

 

[Anonymous]

IME small water change delay rather than correct averse changes. By setting up a system that maintains itself the need for water changes is vastly reduced or even eliminated.

 

[keethrax]

IMO larger waterchanges (>25%) really do more for the system as a whole instead of small waterchanges like you're doing if you're going for nutrient export. A bi-monthly 25% waterchange will change out more nutrients than a weekly 10-15% waterchange.

Sure, but that's why many of us who say do smaller changes don't say change the same amount, but rather woudl say do 4 10% ones weekly rather than on 30% one monthly (examples only). You need to change *more* water doing smaller changes, but the upside is in system stability and quicker replacement/dilution. (bot taht a single change changes more, but it will not drop as low (if its somethign you want)/get as high (if its somethign you don't) if there's less time involved.

At least as far as general maintenance goes. If you're trying to dilute away a problem, then bigger changes are the key, because stability doesn't help much if its stable with bad water.

 

[Anonymous]

IME small water change delay rather than correct averse changes. By setting up a system that maintains itself the need for water changes is vastly reduced or even eliminated.

If your talking about coral only systems which is what this thread is about, then I agree with you. If you're talking about a marine fish system, or a reef with a moderate to heavy bioload, then my experience says otherwise. :wink:

Jim

 

[keethrax]

IME small water change delay rather than correct averse changes. By setting up a system that maintains itself the need for water changes is vastly reduced or even eliminated.

That's a pretty bold statement. By so claiming, you claim that:

a) No water changes should be needed. Because it's easy to demonstrate mathematically that a system of small changes can be jsut as effective as a larger change (providewd you don't mind chanign more total volume) And so if small changes ar a waste, so are large changes.

b) That you're properly set up system has balanced *all* of the input and output/uptake of nutirents/trace elements taht all of your organisms depend on. After all if you're not replacing stuff with water changes you'll be dosing it. And if you repeatedly dose somethign that is not being taken up/exported at the same rate, it *will* slowly build over time. And that's before dealing with waste products taht may or may not be building up.

Far easier to admit that in general b) isn't really possible (though with the right stoclkig/setup may be close enough), and buy cheap insurance (in fact since I woulnd't dose what I can't test for, and now I don't have to dose lots of stuff, you probably *save* money) with water changes.

 

[krullulon]

the folks at wet web media recommend 5% water changes twice a week -- http://www.wetwebmedia.com/scottsh2ochgart.htm

they haven't steered me wrong yet...

 

[Anonymous]

Hey,
I'm one of those folks now!

 

[K]

For what its worth I would have to say that I reckon water changes help to keep things nice, after all we are trying to mimic the ocean and natural filtration and in the wild there is a fair turnover of water

 

[Carpentersreef]

I really don't think that the biomineralization/calcification process is understood well enough to say that water changes are not needed.
It depends on a lot of factors, including which different corals that you are keeping, what they require for food and what their skeletons are made up of.
A blue ridge coral has a chemically different skeleton than an open brain coral, for example.

Mitch

 

[Anonymous]

I really don't think that the biomineralization/calcification process is understood well enough to say that water changes are not needed.
It depends on a lot of factors, including which different corals that you are keeping, what they require for food and what their skeletons are made up of.
A blue ridge coral has a chemically different skeleton than an open brain coral, for example.

Mitch

I fully agree that the processes that maintain the ocean is not and will never be fully understood. For that reason I use water suitable for human consumption, that flows to the ocean providing the ocean its elements, and maintained by the same plant life providing the ocean environment.
In that way I don't have to worry about some unknown good being removed or some unknown bad being added by water changes.

 

[Carpentersreef]

beaslbob,

How do you determine whether or not your macro algaes are absorbing all the contaminates within the water?

Mitch

 

[Anonymous]

beaslbob,

How do you determine whether or not your macro algaes are absorbing all the contaminates within the water?

Mitch

the only possible truthful answer is I can't. Just as noone can be sure if ro/di removes all the contaminates as well.

I can observe aquariums with heavy bioloads for 6 years of continuous operation with the only filtration being plant life and a UGF. And no water changes. I can also observe how sewage treatment plants clean up industrial wastes with plant life. and toxic waste sites are cleaned up with plant life.

One interesting study by either the epa or world health organization was on copper in saltwater systems. They exposed various plant life to various levels of copper and then measured the copper intake of the plant life over a two week period. One brown algae went from ~30ppm to ~1050ppm copper when exposed to a constant 250ppm level of copper in the water. So about 1/10 pound of that algae would remove the equilivant of 250ppm of copper from 55g of saltwater in a two week period. The level of removal was also a linear function of the copper concentration in the water. And equalibrium had not been reached so additional time would result in more copper being removed. As the copper level in a tank is reduced less copper is filtered out. So it would probably take more plant life and a longer period of time to reach ocean values. But it sure sounds like a pound of macros will bring normal tap water to ocean levels in a month or less.

Being as the copper is not used by the plant life but trapped in the cells, the same action should happen with other toxic ions. Just as in the industrial sites and sewage treatment plants. And just as happens with the rivers that flow to the ocean.

 

[Unarce]

beaslbob,

How do you determine whether or not your macro algaes are absorbing all the contaminates within the water?

Mitch

the only possible truthful answer is I can't. Just as noone can be sure if ro/di removes all the contaminates as well.

I can observe aquariums with heavy bioloads for 6 years of continuous operation with the only filtration being plant life and a UGF. And no water changes. I can also observe how sewage treatment plants clean up industrial wastes with plant life. and toxic waste sites are cleaned up with plant life.

One interesting study by either the epa or world health organization was on copper in saltwater systems. They exposed various plant life to various levels of copper and then measured the copper intake of the plant life over a two week period. One brown algae went from ~30ppm to ~1050ppm copper when exposed to a constant 250ppm level of copper in the water. So about 1/10 pound of that algae would remove the equilivant of 250ppm of copper from 55g of saltwater in a two week period. The level of removal was also a linear function of the copper concentration in the water. And equalibrium had not been reached so additional time would result in more copper being removed. As the copper level in a tank is reduced less copper is filtered out. So it would probably take more plant life and a longer period of time to reach ocean values. But it sure sounds like a pound of macros will bring normal tap water to ocean levels in a month or less.

Being as the copper is not used by the plant life but trapped in the cells, the same action should happen with other toxic ions. Just as in the industrial sites and sewage treatment plants. And just as happens with the rivers that flow to the ocean.

I think the both of you would be interested in this study :wink:

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-12/r ... /index.htm

 

[keethrax]

beaslbob,

How do you determine whether or not your macro algaes are absorbing all the contaminates within the water?

Mitch

the only possible truthful answer is I can't. Just as noone can be sure if ro/di removes all the contaminates as well.

Yet another bizaree leap of logic.

We can tell taht most of the stuff enver makes it into our tanks. All of it, no, nothing's perfect, but we have a darn good idea.

Saying that because a measurement isn't perfect it's not of value, and therefore a method that doesnt' use it and just hopes for the best (because that's waht you're advocating) is silly.

I'm all for macros, but even using them, but having no idea what goes into your tank and hoping that the algae will take care of it is wishful thinking. It may work out, but it's hardly good general purpose advice.

 

[Carpentersreef]

Thanks, reefnutz - good article.

beaslbob, do you treat your make up water before adding it?

Mitch