benefits of waterchanges

[Raul-7]

Originally Posted by Randy Holmes-Farley

Unskimmable organics is a concern that I have.

What does a skimmer remove? Only lipids and proteins?

NVM, I read your article: http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/20...hf/index.php#6

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Originally Posted by Raul-7

What does a skimmer remove? Only lipids and proteins?

NVM, I read your article: http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/20...hf/index.php#6

Happy Reefing.

[mandarinfanatic]

http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-03/rs/index.php with the explanation of what detritis is and that this is the source of nitrates via ammonia and phosphates from detritis breaking down I will vacuum my substrate when doing waterchanges as this will removing detritis which is a nitrate and phosphate time bomb if not removed.

[codyreed29]

I have had only a small hob filter on my tank and used filter media and rubble and macro algea mangroves for nutrient export changing 10 percent weekly just to replace anything that has been used.
Not sure what all the stuff is using in the tank. Im not sure anyone would but just to know your doing something of a replacement of fresh water.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Originally Posted by mandarinfanatic

http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-03/rs/index.php with the explanation of what detritis is and that this is the source of nitrates via ammonia and phosphates from detritis breaking down I will vacuum my substrate when doing waterchanges as this will removing detritis which is a nitrate and phosphate time bomb if not removed.

Time bomb is a scary description that just doesn't apply.

It is a slow and steady source of N and P, just like foods are. If you adequately remove these from the water column, you'll be fine. There's no explosion.

[Raul-7]

What about using a product like Waste Away to get rid of all that sludge? Seems easier and overtime it would reduce N/P longterm.

[Dan_P]

Your math is correct. Unless you are doing a massive water change, very little nutrient is exported by a water change.

Bacteria are so darn fast that nutrients are removed very quickly from left over food, dead animals and plants, and feces. What you are suctioning out is what is not quickly digested. It's the left overs. I have not come across any sort of chemical analysis on this stuff. It might be fairly inert but could be a problem if it clogs pores and pathways in substrate and rock, leading to anoxic areas.

It seems reasonable to remove it but may not cause problems if not removed religiously.

[Dan_P]

Originally Posted by mandarinfanatic

The nutrients that were the fish poop and uneaten food that were lying in and on the substrate before being broken down to be released into the water column too???😄

Nitrogen in feces is a far smaller source of nitrogen than ammonia excreted by fish. Fish excrete a large portion of the nitrogen they consume in food as ammonia. Uneaten food would be only a fraction of the total amount of nitrogen in the food fed to the tank. However, unless cleaning is done daily, I suspect food and feces are long gone by the time you suction up the substrate.

[tmz]

FWIW,

I do 1% daily water changes and siphon some detritus from the display and grow out tanks on some of those days. I feed the numerous fish and corals in the system heavily.
I don't worry about detritus in the sump or cryptic/unlit refugia where the sourcing of nutrients and detritus seems to be be benefical to many desireable organisms like polychaetes, sponges ,pods,mini brittle stars, feather dusters,sponges and others.Most of the detritus there turns to refractory organics and grit over time that is of little consequence unless it clogs something or blows around. I think the detritus as it degrades it is providing inorganic and organic nutrients to the water column too but good skimming ,some gac and organic carbon dosing keep them low enough to prevent almost all nuisance algae while still adequate to meet the needs of wide variety of corals.
I just blow off or siphon out the stuff in the display and grow tanks ,particulary buildups near corals where the degradation process seems to irritate and harm them and source nuisance algae and cyano.


Water changes don't do much for exporting nutrients ,IME. large changes will reduce them temporarily.
The small frequent water changes I do are more for maintaining element balances and ratios( like iodide, iron, sodium, chloride,sulfate,copper and other elements )than they are for nutrient export.

[mandarinfanatic]

Originally Posted by Randy Holmes-Farley

Time bomb is a scary description that just doesn't apply.

It is a slow and steady source of N and P, just like foods are. If you adequately remove these from the water column, you'll be fine. There's no explosion.

true it is a bit extreme as a description. The point being made is that if you vacuum your substrate while doing a waterchange you will be removing much more n and p before it is brokwn down and released into the water column negating the mindset that waterchanges don't so much for nutrient removal.

[mandarinfanatic]

Originally Posted by Dan_P

Nitrogen in feces is a far smaller source of nitrogen than ammonia excreted by fish. Fish excrete a large portion of the nitrogen they consume in food as ammonia. Uneaten food would be only a fraction of the total amount of nitrogen in the food fed to the tank. However, unless cleaning is done daily, I suspect food and feces are long gone by the time you suction up the substrate.

Not true. syphon and look at the water

[mandarinfanatic]

Originally Posted by Raul-7

What does a skimmer remove? Only lipids and proteins?

NVM, I read your article: http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/20...hf/index.php#6

If it is lying in the substrate it ain't getting into the skimmer

[mandarinfanatic]

Originally Posted by Raul-7

What about using a product like Waste Away to get rid of all that sludge? Seems easier and overtime it would reduce N/P longterm.

to break it down and put it into water column ?

[mandarinfanatic]

Originally Posted by Dan_P

Nitrogen in feces is a far smaller source of nitrogen than ammonia excreted by fish. Fish excrete a large portion of the nitrogen they consume in food as ammonia. Uneaten food would be only a fraction of the total amount of nitrogen in the food fed to the tank. However, unless cleaning is done daily, I suspect food and feces are long gone by the time you suction up the substrate.

suspect is just another word for unsubstantiated assumption

[mandarinfanatic]

Originally Posted by tmz

FWIW,

I do 1% daily water changes and siphon some detritus from the display and grow out tanks on some of those days. I feed the numerous fish and corals in the system heavily.
I don't worry about detritus in the sump or cryptic/unlit refugia where the sourcing of nutrients and detritus seems to be be benefical to many desireable organisms like polychaetes, sponges ,pods,mini brittle stars, feather dusters,sponges and others.Most of the detritus there turns to refractory organics and grit over time that is of little consequence unless it clogs something or blows around. I think the detritus as it degrades it is providing inorganic and organic nutrients to the water column too but good skimming ,some gac and organic carbon dosing keep them low enough to prevent almost all nuisance algae while still adequate to meet the needs of wide variety of corals.
I just blow off or siphon out the stuff in the display and grow tanks ,particulary buildups near corals where the degradation process seems to irritate and harm them and source nuisance algae and cyano.


Water changes don't do much for exporting nutrients ,IME. large changes will reduce them temporarily.
The small frequent water changes I do are more for maintaining element balances and ratios( like iodide, iron, sodium, chloride,sulfate,copper and other elements )than they are for nutrient export.

Don't syphon the detritis and monitor your perameters and you will see the difference or benefit of removing detritis when do in water changes. fyi nobody believes that vacuuming substrate or waterchanges will permanently solve any issue. It is a better way to do waterchanges than just removing water from water column because it removes more impurities! agreed?

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Originally Posted by mandarinfanatic

true it is a bit extreme as a description. The point being made is that if you vacuum your substrate while doing a waterchange you will be removing much more n and p before it is brokwn down and released into the water column negating the mindset that waterchanges don't so much for nutrient removal.

I agree it removes more, certainly.

Whether it is worth doing depends on the aquarist and whether there is an issue with the nuttient levels in the aquarium or or not.

[mandarinfanatic]

Originally Posted by Randy Holmes-Farley

I agree it removes more, certainly.

Whether it is worth doing depends on the aquarist and whether there is an issue with the nuttient levels in the aquarium or or not.

absolutely

[Aquarist007]

IMO there are much more effective methods of reducing nitrates and phosphates then water changes with vacuuming.
Liquid carbon dosing
Running Gfo occasionally
Refugium with macro algae(which is a form of algae scrubbing.
Large water changes should be reserved for an emergency situation
I like tmz and others change one per cent daily just to replace trace elements and run an excellent skimmer

[mandarinfanatic]

Originally Posted by Aquarist007

IMO there are much more effective methods of reducing nitrates and phosphates then water changes with vacuuming.
Liquid carbon dosing
Running Gfo occasionally
Refugium with macro algae(which is a form of algae scrubbing.
Large water changes should be reserved for an emergency situation
I like tmz and others change one per cent daily just to replace trace elements and run an excellent skimmer

You are correct it is your opinion. nobody has suggested that doing waterchanges will be a substitute for any other methods of nutrient export used. The reality is that as the sediment/mulm/fish poop/detritis that is in and on the substrate releases nitrates and phosphates into the water column. If however when doing waterchanges you also vacuum the substrate it will remove the sediment/mulm/fish poop/detritis before it releases nitrates and phosphates into the water column. This will remove the percentage of nitrates and phosphates in water column as well as the concentrated phosphate/nitrate releasing sediment/mulm/fish poop/detritis in the substrate. This increases the nitrate and phosphate removed by the waterchange. Please note this will not reflect directly in a higher nitrate or phosphate percentage drop if testing level of nitrates and phosphates in aquariums water before and after a waterchange as only the nitrates and phosphates suspended in the water column will be measured. However bearing in mind that if the fish poop/detritis/sediment is removed before it releases nitrates and phosphates and discolouration into the water column it will INDIRECTLY lead to lower phosphates and nitrates in aquarium. The benefit in each tank will vary depending on the concentration of poop/detritis/mulm in each specific tank. ☺

[Retail_Therapy]

FWIW I get exactly what you're saying and I'm not sure why people seem to be pushing back on your perspective.

You certainly aren't saying this is all the keeper needs to do for nutrient export, and you're not suggesting some elaborate addition to regular maintenance. A simple vacuum of the substrate prevents so much accumulation down the road that it's just silly to me to even argue against it. Honestly, I get why you seem to feel that someone would downplay vacuuming in place of yet another chemical/mechanical additive because it seems like that's exactly what's happening here. I have absolutely no dog in this fight.

Personally, I want to add only what is absolutely necessary and I certainly don't want to add this or that to resolve something that is otherwise taken care of by a ridiculously simple vacuuming of the substrate.

Can someone please explain clearly why the resistance to the plain advice mandarinfanatic is offering? Unless I'm missing something, the guy is actually suggesting a way to save money, not spend more of it. And he doesn't at all seem to be confused as to what he is accomplishing and why with his vacuuming.

[Aquarist007]

Originally Posted by mandarinfanatic

You are correct it is your opinion. nobody has suggested that doing waterchanges will be a substitute for any other methods of nutrient export used. The reality is that as the sediment/mulm/fish poop/detritis that is in and on the substrate releases nitrates and phosphates into the water column. If however when doing waterchanges you also vacuum the substrate it will remove the sediment/mulm/fish poop/detritis before it releases nitrates and phosphates into the water column. This will remove the percentage of nitrates and phosphates in water column as well as the concentrated phosphate/nitrate releasing sediment/mulm/fish poop/detritis in the substrate. This increases the nitrate and phosphate removed by the waterchange. Please note this will not reflect directly in a higher nitrate or phosphate percentage drop if testing level of nitrates and phosphates in aquariums water before and after a waterchange as only the nitrates and phosphates suspended in the water column will be measured. However bearing in mind that if the fish poop/detritis/sediment is removed before it releases nitrates and phosphates and discolouration into the water column it will INDIRECTLY lead to lower phosphates and nitrates in aquarium. The benefit in each tank will vary depending on the concentration of poop/detritis/mulm in each specific tank. ☺

Your forgetting that vacuuming the substrate can disturb the very organisms in the substrate that are performing naturally what your trying to accomplish physically.

Btw
my opinions are based on my successes in this hobby which are shared by many other very successfull hobbyists on here.

[Raul-7]

What about toxins we don't measure for? How do you get rid of those?

[gbru316]

Originally Posted by Retail_Therapy

Can someone please explain clearly why the resistance to the plain advice mandarinfanatic is offering? Unless I'm missing something, the guy is actually suggesting a way to save money, not spend more of it. And he doesn't at all seem to be confused as to what he is accomplishing and why with his vacuuming.

Most of the pushback is coming from those with a better understanding of the biology/science involved in artificial reefs. There are some pretty complex reactions happening in our glass boxes that require more than a quick google search to understand. I'd think a doctorate in chemistry (Hi Randy ) would go a long way toward aiding in comphrehension, but I could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time

[Aquarist007]

Originally Posted by Raul-7

What about toxins we don't measure for? How do you get rid of those?

Skimming and or running carbon

[Aquarist007]

Originally Posted by gbru316

Most of the pushback is coming from those with a better understanding of the biology/science involved in artificial reefs. There are some pretty complex reactions happening in our glass boxes that require more than a quick google search to understand. I'd think a doctorate in chemistry (Hi Randy ) would go a long way toward aiding in comphrehension, but I could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time

Well said