Hypothesis: A Reef Tank Can Be Sustainable without Any Water Changes

[denzil]

Ok, so instead of totally derailing Jim's tank journal thread, I have created a new thread where we can discuss in theory and potentially by trial and error that the above hypothesis can be achieved. This will require some thorough research and testing by some or many. Perhaps this was already done before but when was the time the study was conducted, if even at all? Times have changed and along with it has technology.

Discuss.

Here are some discussions from Jim's thread that I have copy-pasted over for reference.

2000 posts... way to go Jim. So how many posts before salt water touched your tank though?

Also take it from someone who doesn't like to do water changes, philosophical, ecological, and economical reasons, you can get away with smaller water changes, just need to make sure to keep the pollutants in check. Jim aiming for the entire cast of Finding Nemo in his tank however is taking it in a different direction... although I can't wait to see Bruce go in!

Hrm, isn't it theoretically possible to run them all on the same water without any water changes with the right equipment? That would be more sustainable IMO and the only addition of water would be from the ATO. Of course, I could be speaking blasphemy to the rest of you folks. >)

While it may be blasphemous, it's definitely more eco friendly to all but I'm not sure of the economics of it saving you money in the long run if it's going to require that much more equipment and media to maintain it.

Water changes are all about removing pollutants and to some minor degree putting back in "trace minerals" what ever the hell they might be since you don't know if that magic bottle of **** brand "Essentials" are actually doing anything for your tank

Calcium, Alkalinity can't be kept up with water changes unless the salt mix you're using has more in it than you want (I think Salinty might be the one of the few out there that does this), it's basically a math problem, you start with X, you lose Y over a certain time averaging in by adding more X isn't going to get you to the original X value.

As for the pollutants there are certainly ways to keep on top of it. Fish free tank is an excellent way, no fish food, no fish wastes. However it's often hard to just stare at a coral tank without something moving in it. Jim mentioned a denitrator that's one way to deal with nitrates, a refugium where you actively harvest macroalgae is another way. I'm hesitant to say there's a full proof way to remove all pollutants without water changes, but then again water changes won't remove all pollutants either.

Don't think of it as blasphemous to do something different, it's not. And I'm sure most will agree with me when I say there's no single right way that you can run a reef tank. The only time I think it's fair to get on your case over something is if your method continuously fails (or has for others) and never shows prospect then maybe you're being hard headed with your approach

Great conversation regarding water changes. I recently read a post from a fellow hobbyist and FB friend named Dan Riggle. He's been in the hobby for many years and his corals are considered some of the nicest you will find (short of a Jason Fox or Steve Tyree name tied to it). Dan has tried various methods of carbon dosing, probiotics, etc. and has always comes back to water changes. I want to say he has a roughly 200+ gal reef set up that is primarily SPS dominated. He does large weekly water changes (Instant Ocean) and doses alk, cal, & mag accordingly...that's it.

You can checkout his reef in this months Coral Magazine by the way.

I will concede that doing water changes is probably the most effective (assuming you do a significant amount) and easiest way to remove pollutants. Also you mention SPS dominated and that likely goes a long way. In my 125g softie dominated (and I'm talkin the weedy weeds too ) which had only 4 fish in it, I would do water changes maybe a couple times a year.

Overall if you can be active at getting detritus out before it starts breaking down too much that includes cleaning out your sump you just be going one step better and keeping a clean tank.

Water changes a couple times a year ? Boy, you really don't like doing water changes !

Although, I can see getting away with it in a softie tank and a few fish.

 

[denzil]

Here are some of my responses to some of the latter responses to the same thread in Jim's tank journal. Hopefully everyone interested in chatting about this topic will migrate from that thread to this one *crosses fingers.*

Setup a biosphere !

Haha!

I'm still game to find out if there's a way to do no water changes. However, if it's straightforward science, that's something I can't really disprove... too much.

Well in a simplistic version you have some sort of "pollutants" entering the tank (fish poop for instance) the number of those goes up as time goes on. So to prevent a critical level of them from building up you need to find a way to remove them. Water changes are one way to reduce the total number, you'll never completely remove unless you change out 100% of the water (not advised), there are other ways to remove stuff from your tank too, methods on how to remove each depend upon what needs to be removed, but much like the water change you can never remove them completely (unless you stop the method at which they get into the tank in the first place.. mini corks?) . Water changes are useful because its a universal method that will remove anything.

Yeah, just need something to counteract the detritus. To what extent can an ideal CUC handle the bio load? Is it just a matter of ratios? Can an ideal CUC really clean up everything so there's a full circle-of-life?

I'm still game to find out if there's a way to do no water changes. However, if it's straightforward science, that's something I can't really disprove... too much.

...or you can buy a Eco Aqualizer !

This... does... EVERYTHING!?!?! LoL.

Nah... we all know those are bogus, so go with

the Hiatt System couple with Marc Weiss products.

http://www.hdltd.com/

If you have ever heard the pitch from the owner of Hiatt, Snake, you'll understand why I posted this in response to the EA, which BTW does have some advocates that you'd be surprised of.

Is this for real? It's really difficult for me to take any website very serious if it's from the Web 1.0 days AND if it's copyright date says anything but the current year that we're in. #fail

I'm still game to find out if there's a way to do no water changes. However, if it's straightforward science, that's something I can't really disprove... too much.

Truly zero changes ever, is probably so impractical as to be nearly impossible.
Too many small nutrients/elements/contaminants that are hard to test / tweak / remove.

But bringing it way down is certainly possible.

Start a water change alternative thread if it is something you want a discussion on. Could be fun.
Note that the alternatives are not always cheaper, easier, or better. Just different.

Impractical... I think not! Realistic... not very likely. Theoretically, we can never get rid of everything with any water change or any maintenance we do so perhaps it could potentially be fruitless that we're doing water changes at all! In the grand scheme of things, the goal we're essentially reaching and always attempting to improve on is to minimize the harmful elements within their little glass-caged (or plastic-caged for those of you with acrylic) world. Heck, if the Earth doesn't have to do water changes, why must we?

Hey I have one of those out back at the bottom of some box! I don't think I eve used it.
But back to the idea of a no water change closed system. If you have a large population of primary consumers ie macro algae to utilize all available nutrients. The problem is people don't want a tank that big and or of that nature to allow for the process to occur. I am not a scientist. My guess is that a ratio of 3:1 refugium to display. And that will be dependent on the species, size, and population size...food requirements and elemental adsorption.

Yeah, that's kind of the direction I was going. We just need something to counterbalance the detritus and all the other stuff I don't really have a grasp on yet so that there is a safe equilibrium that's always self-maintained (for the most part) and self-improving (wishful thinking here).

So if that hypothetically does mean a 3:1 fugeT ratio is needed in order to run a self-sustainable reef tank with fish, then so be it. Sure it'd be totally different to our way of thinking regarding setting up a traditional reef tank with fish but it could potentially eliminate or greatly minimize the maintenance on the tank. I don't know about you but I'd rather spend my time staring at the tank than maintaining it... and time is money!

I'm still game to find out if there's a way to do no water changes. However, if it's straightforward science, that's something I can't really disprove... too much.

Truly zero changes ever, is probably so impractical as to be nearly impossible.
Too many small nutrients/elements/contaminants that are hard to test / tweak / remove.

But bringing it way down is certainly possible.

Start a water change alternative thread if it is something you want a discussion on. Could be fun.
Note that the alternatives are not always cheaper, easier, or better. Just different.

there was a TOTM not long ago on ReefCentral who did not do any water changes for some time, and when asked how did corals not die on him? He said vinegar dosing. I am trying to find the actual thread... but have not been able to. However, here is a similar article on vinegar dosing.

http://reefkeeping.com/joomla/index.php/current-issue/article/116-vinegar-dosing-methodology-for-the-marine-aquarium

Interesting. It's trials like these that could help us find an answer to our hypothesis. However, I do know that vinegar is definitely capable of removing certain minerals. I know this because I use a 3:1 distilled water:vinegar ratio to remove water spots on a vehicle or anything else that you need to remove minerals from (I professionally detail cars as another side business, one of many). Perhaps the vinegar aided in mineral removal? /shrug

 

[Kensington Reefer]

Denzil
Find this book. It answers the questions!
http://www.amazon.com/Dynamic-Aquaria-Second-Edition-Ecosystems/dp/0120437929/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1346947956&sr=8-2&keywords=dynamic+aquaria

And, yes I have it.

 

[Gomer]

Interesting. It's trials like these that could help us find an answer to our hypothesis. However, I do know that vinegar is definitely capable of removing certain minerals. I know this because I use a 3:1 distilled water:vinegar ratio to remove water spots on a vehicle or anything else that you need to remove minerals from (I professionally detail cars as another side business, one of many). Perhaps the vinegar aided in mineral removal? /shrug

Conservation of matter.

Vinegar merely converted goods when you "remove" water spots by changing things like Calcium Carbonate into water soluble Calcium Acetate + Carbon dioxide. Vinegar in a reef is a food for bacteria, which add to the food chain and aid in skimmer based nutrient export.

 

[BAYMAC]

Denzil
Find this book. It answers the questions!
http://www.amazon.com/Dynamic-Aquaria-Second-Edition-Ecosystems/dp/0120437929/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1346947956&sr=8-2&keywords=dynamic+aquaria

And, yes I have it.

Sure wish there would be an update to that 1998 edition... quite a few chapters need updating and some of Adey's theories didn't hold up under long term scrutiny.

 

[gimmito]

There's a 3rd edition that was released in Feb 2007. Only $91.95 !

I agree that some of Adey's theories (eg. turf scrubbers) have merit, but if they did what they were suppose to (without side effects) everybody would be doing it.

 

[denzil]

There's a 3rd edition that was released in Feb 2007. Only $91.95 !

I agree that some of Adey's theories (eg. turf scrubbers) have merit, but if they did what they were suppose to (without side effects) everybody would be doing it.

Geez, I bought the second edition for $9.86 shipped. Don't think I'll be spending that on reading material when I still have a tank to be set up.

 

[BAYMAC]

There's a 3rd edition that was released in Feb 2007. Only $91.95 !

I agree that some of Adey's theories (eg. turf scrubbers) have merit, but if they did what they were suppose to (without side effects) everybody would be doing it.

They have merit, but they do not perform to what he states they will... the long term side effects are a glaring example of the flaws.

I'll have to see what has changed in the 3rd edition. If its anything like Hoffs later editions, I'll be very disappointed. Cosmetic changes IMO don't warrant a new edition... new data does.

 

[denzil]

There's a 3rd edition that was released in Feb 2007. Only $91.95 !

I agree that some of Adey's theories (eg. turf scrubbers) have merit, but if they did what they were suppose to (without side effects) everybody would be doing it.

They have merit, but they do not perform to what he states they will... the long term side effects are a glaring example of the flaws.

I'll have to see what has changed in the 3rd edition. If its anything like Hoffs later editions, I'll be very disappointed. Cosmetic changes IMO don't warrant a new edition... new data does.

Oh, did you pick up a copy?

 

[rygh]

... I agree that some of Adey's theories (eg. turf scrubbers) have merit, but if they did what they were suppose to (without side effects) everybody would be doing it.

Well - of course I can't resist commenting on that.

Turf scrubbers are catching on more than you think in the last year or two.
There are a lot more people both on the main scrubber site, and on RC. And a lot of new pictures of pretty nice scrubber based tanks.
And two people are now selling low volume semi-production.
The changeover to LED seems to have made a big difference.
One of the big downsides before was the lighting expense and maintenance made scrubbers much less practical.

Any side effects are quite debatable. People state that like fact way to quickly.
It is a lot like the "red LEDs harming coral" statement.
Sure, if you put a ton of algae right next to a coral, the coral will be most unhappy. As was done in several studies.
Just like shining a powerful red LED on coral clearly harms it, but lots of people add small bits of red to fixtures will no obvious issue.
I have not seen any scientific studies with a real scrubber, ever. Especially with the addition of carbon, which most people use.
Of course, that hardly proves it is safe either.
But if they were truly "bad", it sure seems the idea would die out, not increase.

To me, I think those old claims of side effects were much from the old days of problematic setups.
Because definitely - An improperly built or maintained scrubber can be VERY bad for your tank.

 

[gimmito]

I didn't...Personally, I'm more interested in Ret Talbot's new book on the Bangaii Rescue project.

 

[BAYMAC]

... I agree that some of Adey's theories (eg. turf scrubbers) have merit, but if they did what they were suppose to (without side effects) everybody would be doing it.

Well - of course I can't resist commenting on that.

Turf scrubbers are catching on more than you think in the last year or two.
There are a lot more people both on the main scrubber site, and on RC. And a lot of new pictures of pretty nice scrubber based tanks.
And two people are now selling low volume semi-production.
The changeover to LED seems to have made a big difference.
One of the big downsides before was the lighting expense and maintenance made scrubbers much less practical.

Any side effects are quite debatable. People state that like fact way to quickly.
It is a lot like the "red LEDs harming coral" statement.
Sure, if you put a ton of algae right next to a coral, the coral will be most unhappy. As was done in several studies.
Just like shining a powerful red LED on coral clearly harms it, but lots of people add small bits of red to fixtures will no obvious issue.
I have not seen any scientific studies with a real scrubber, ever. Especially with the addition of carbon, which most people use.
Of course, that hardly proves it is safe either.
But if they were truly "bad", it sure seems the idea would die out, not increase.

To me, I think those old claims of side effects were much from the old days of problematic setups.
Because definitely - An improperly built or maintained scrubber can be VERY bad for your tank.

Take vinyl records. They hit the market running, then died off, only to make another come back. ON a technical standpoint, scrapping a needle over micro bumps and valleys is horrible in the long term. Yes, analog sounds better to many audiophiles, myself included, but on a technical stand point, it is inferior to digital (on the long term usefulness)

Adey installed the Smithsonian systems, you saying he set those up poorly, or maintained them poorly? 4% growth a year is pretty dang weak for stony coral growth.

 

[rygh]

So, my opinion on how to do the whole no-water change thing:

Key: Reduce bio-load
I would say that for a true zero-water-change system, you simply must keep the load down.
No large carnivores in particular.

Key: Minimizing detritus.
Clearly best to minimize and remove it before it becomes a problem.
Aggressive skimming
Good mechanical filtration. Thick filter socks / poly.

Key: Additives/elements
I would think a calcium reactor would be best.
Standard dosing really only gets CA/MG/Alk. Where a calcium reactor
is dissolving old coral, so in theory releasing other trace elements roughly the same as it is used.
In addition, something like Miracle mud might help.
Critical will be to not over-add trace and other elements, since they will accumulate.

Key: Nitrate removal.
Live rock probably won't do it, unless bio-load is really low.
Many methods. Refugium, Turf scrubbers, bio-balls, vodka dosing, remote deep sand bed, loop denitrators, sulphur denitrators.
All will work to some extent, but all have pluses and minuses.
(My favorite is the turf scrubber)

Key: Phosphate removal
Turf scrubber can help here as well.
But real win is the obvious GFO.

Key : other contaminant removal
Carbon definitely. But probably not too aggressive, or it will wipe out trace elements.
Poly filter.
Perhaps chemical.

Key : Pure top-off water.
Make sure no contaminants get in through an old RODI.

Key : TEST TEST TEST
Things can get out of whack easy.
This could even mean sending samples to a real lab every 6 months.

Possible: Vacuuming.
I have heard some will vacuum with a pump on a very fine mechanical filter.
Good way to get detritus out.

---

Overall, what is special is that you have to do EVERYTHING.
There is no one single mechanism that makes it possible.
Instead, you have to do a lot of different things.
Interestingly, most of those are done anyway. So I would venture to say that a lot
of careful aquarists probably do a lot more water changes than they really need.

 

[rygh]

... I agree that some of Adey's theories (eg. turf scrubbers) have merit, but if they did what they were suppose to (without side effects) everybody would be doing it.

Well - of course I can't resist commenting on that.

Turf scrubbers are catching on more than you think in the last year or two.
There are a lot more people both on the main scrubber site, and on RC. And a lot of new pictures of pretty nice scrubber based tanks.
And two people are now selling low volume semi-production.
The changeover to LED seems to have made a big difference.
One of the big downsides before was the lighting expense and maintenance made scrubbers much less practical.

Any side effects are quite debatable. People state that like fact way to quickly.
It is a lot like the "red LEDs harming coral" statement.
Sure, if you put a ton of algae right next to a coral, the coral will be most unhappy. As was done in several studies.
Just like shining a powerful red LED on coral clearly harms it, but lots of people add small bits of red to fixtures will no obvious issue.
I have not seen any scientific studies with a real scrubber, ever. Especially with the addition of carbon, which most people use.
Of course, that hardly proves it is safe either.
But if they were truly "bad", it sure seems the idea would die out, not increase.

To me, I think those old claims of side effects were much from the old days of problematic setups.
Because definitely - An improperly built or maintained scrubber can be VERY bad for your tank.

Take vinyl records. They hit the market running, then died off, only to make another come back. ON a technical standpoint, scrapping a needle over micro bumps and valleys is horrible in the long term. Yes, analog sounds better to many audiophiles, myself included, but on a technical stand point, it is inferior to digital (on the long term usefulness)

Adey installed the Smithsonian systems, you saying he set those up poorly, or maintained them poorly? 4% growth a year is pretty dang weak for stony coral growth.

Hmm, vinyl versus digital would be a fun debate as well.
(I work at a company that does the digital a little bit. Starts with an "A")

As for Adey specifically, I have absolutely no idea. I have not seen his experimental setup.
If he had slow growth in one of the huge main tanks, with obviously a million variables, and then
directly attributed that to Scrubbers, I would be very skeptical of his conclusions.

ALSO: Being a super expert in biology and reef keeping really does not guarantee one is an expert in engineering.
In fact, it might make it worse. Possibly making one over-confident. Thus not researching the problems, latest and greatest advances, etc.
So actually yes, it is very conceivably it was built wrong and maintained wrong.
But again - I really have no idea on that specific situation.

 

[rygh]

Update: Dang, I should have looked him up before posting.

Comparing the current scrubbers to what Aday did way back in the 70s is like comparing a model T to a Ferrari.
Looking at what he did and when, I definitely have to give him respect him as a pioneer.
But what he built is really not the same thing.

 

[gimmito]

Mark,

Knew you couldn't resist commenting. I like the analogy of vinyl and digital by the way. I think that's why with all those new ideas/products on reefkeeping it's funny it always comes back to the simplest thing...water changes.

Since you are a avid audiophile...have you ever heard of "Pure Sound" ?

 

[BAYMAC]

Update: Dang, I should have looked him up before posting.

Comparing the current scrubbers to what Aday did way back in the 70s is like comparing a model T to a Ferrari.
Looking at what he did and when, I definitely have to give him respect him as a pioneer.
But what he built is really not the same thing.

Never said it was, but the downfalls of his are the same all around. WITHOUT the use of carbon, or some other export method like WC, there will be a build up of chemicals that the algae will not utilize.

FWIW you really need to look deeper into all this as any ATS fanboy worth their weight in salt uses Adey's ATS's as a glaring success :lol:

I like the analogy of vinyl and digital by the way.

Thanks, that was my analogy

 

[rygh]

Mark,

Knew you couldn't resist on commenting. I like the analogy of vinyl and digital by the way. I think that's why with all those knew ideas/products on reefkeeping it's funny it always comes back to the simplest thing...water changes.

Since you are a avid audiophile...have you ever heard of "Pure Sound" ?

I liked the Vinyl analogy even more after I found out Adley did his thing in the 70's.

I am not really an avid audiophile. More video. And it is my day job, hence can't say too much.
The only "PureSound" I know is the tube-amp company.
I admit I do kind of like the sound of vinyl on a tube amp, all "warm and fuzzy", and for nostalgia since that is what I grew up on.
But all the equipment I have used says the distortion is terrible.

 

[rygh]

Update: Dang, I should have looked him up before posting.

Comparing the current scrubbers to what Aday did way back in the 70s is like comparing a model T to a Ferrari.
Looking at what he did and when, I definitely have to give him respect him as a pioneer.
But what he built is really not the same thing.

Never said it was, but the downfalls of his are the same all around. WITHOUT the use of carbon, or some other export method like WC, there will be a build up of chemicals that the algae will not utilize.

FWIW you really need to look deeper into all this as any ATS fanboy worth their weight in salt uses Adey's ATS's as a glaring success :lol:

I like the analogy of vinyl and digital by the way.

Thanks, that was my analogy

Ehh ... I am more interested in ATS discussions and pros/cons than being a true fanboy.
The only time I bother is when others diss them. |(

Agree that even a modern scrubber will not get all the contaminants. Really only ammonia and nitrates well, plus some phosphates and iron.
Not really a downfall per-se, other than some people WAY over-promise.
Feel free to complain about over-promising all you want!! That probably did by far the most damage to their reputation.

 

[BAYMAC]

No no, Santa Monica's unit hold up to those bold claims.... you do know dude is in marketing