nitrification- changing view point?

[Anonymous]

For instance use of ro/di water can provide a sterile environment and not allow the plant life to get established.

There are many area in the U.S. where not using RO water will not allow a hobbiest to get anything thriving though

If your goal is an algae tank then I agree, using RO/DI will inhibit algae growth.

I simply disagree. Too many thriving tanks in too many different cities.

Confirmed by numerous hobbiests I have sent macros too.

confirmed by scientific studies that show even copper at epa limits is easily handled by thriving plant life.

and further confirmed by all the newbie posts on these boards. High nitrates, nitrites, algae blooms, cyano blooms, fish dying, ph low, and no refugium with plant life.

and further confirned by newbie posts where the refugium full of macros was part of the initial startup, and the newbie was absolutely amazed at the lack of the usual cycle and algae spikes.

further confirmed locally by hobbiest feedback and the local stores setting up and running refugiums.

And confirmed by guy's system with a 900g refugium serving 2-3 ~200g tanks. and the refugium stocked full of macros and using well water. Even if now you have converted to ro/di and are making the lagoon more a reef tank. After all corals have plant life also.

 

[JPR]

I think that anything that will stabilize water parameters is a good thing. And if a fish tank, reef tank or mixed fish/invert tanks has that, it is getting closer to being ‘bullet proof’.
All these animals come from environments that fluctuate very little in water parameter readings from day to day. Impurities are almost non existent. The seasonal changes of temperature are even muted as is the light intensity range. So nature and evolution give them very little in the way of a broad adaptability.
Secondly, the oceans are not run on a bacteria model like the one we harness and use in our aquariums. The ocean runs on an algae and phytoplankton model. And if the truth be known, our tanks run on a model closer to a waste treatment plant!
So it should be no surprise when our new purchases fail to adapt in a new tank. All marine animals will succumb to stress IF the stress is great enough or the fish is already nutritionally weak enough. It really doesn’t matter if it is ammonia, nitrite, aggression, low pH, low oxygen or diet. The release of adrenaline in fish is well understood. It occurs when the fish is first stressed and then moves through three stages. It first increases the heart rate/ blood pressure, blood sugar, respiration and red blood cell count. You will notice the breathing rate/ gill plate beat is higher in newly acquired fish than in your established residents.
This then progresses to a release of two more steroids that reduce kidney function further, wreaks havoc with salt and osmotic regulation in general and causes a loss of electrolytes and a reduction in the immune system response. Now secondary parasitic infestations and bacterial infections are free to set in. In fact , quite often we are treating ‘ diseases’ that are not really THE problem but rather a symptom of what is really wrong.

And it all starts due to ‘ change’ or ‘ fluctuation’ of parameters that ultimately leads to stress. Some times this is an individual fish’s personal health issue and sometimes this is due to undesirable conditions for all fish introduced. So we will all loss a new purchase from time to time. But the loss of many new purchases or the inability to keep for at least a few years, is an indication of one of two things-
1) incorrect water parameters- leading to acute metabolic failure
2) fluctuation from ideal conditions/ base line parameters - leading to stress and eventual death or disease.

So if a ‘zone’ can be created that provides for microbial and algal action that both conditions water and stabilizes water parameters on a chemical level far beyond the powers of hang-on technology or Micky mouse gadgets, I would think that is the way to go, IMHO.

James P

 

[Anonymous]

I absolutely agree.

I hope readers to not confuse constant parameters with stable parameters.


It is possible to that constant parameters that are unstable. And in order to maintain those parameters constant you must test and make adjustment all the time.

It is also possible to have varying parameters that are stable. Even though they are varying when the get out of a certain range, the system reacts to return to that range. In that case you don't have to test and constantly make adjustments. The system just takes care of itself.

And that is the way I maintain my systems.

 

[JPR]

Absolutely. This is the challenge of a closed system. Some 'things' are building and some things are used up. And some things are just not in the range of 'desirable' range to begin with- typically out of the tap or the well.
I'm not against the use of R/O water and in some cases I have seen well water, where R/O produced water is absolutely necessary. But most water, after package salt is added, will be within a tight range of 'generally acceptable'. The tank microbes then can condition it to a more ' mellow' form. This is why I have always favored smaller frequent water changes over large monthly ones. The goldie-locks method! Not too big and not too small! LOL

This also gets us into a conversation of whether water in closed system can be considered 'immortal' or if , as a system ages, it really is declining in both efficiency and performance? Certainly algae goes through maturation changes as gravel and filters age?

I do like the idea of higher macro algae forms acting under the rules of competitive exclusion, towards eliminating less desirable forms of hair algae.

 

[Anonymous]

agreed.

Tap water contains things the only last for hours at most with circulation like chlorine. Plant food ammonia, nitrates, phosphates. And parts per billion of some nasties. All things our systems will remove from the water column with a thriving plant growth. Just as the enviromental engineers remove toxic wastes from polution with living plants (FW) and dead saltwater macros. And use various marine algaes including various caulerpas as bio indicators. To monitor copper containmination upstream of copper mines and power plants.

So by starting a tank with thriving plant life the water column rapidily becomes suitable for all forms of aquatic life. But it does take a couple of days to a few weeks for things like copper.

One thing I am absolutely certain of is that all the stuff in you input water does not remain in the system for ever and ever killing all life.

And I even agree that processed water does have its place. But that place is not the establishment of new systems or to simply prevent plant life like the various micro algaes. The way to handle both of those is to establish plant life you like.

But I have seen numerous arguments on these boards where someone used to use tap everything was fine then they moved to another location and the tap was terrible there. Dah!!!!!!!!! The problem was not the new tap water but the fact that at the new location the tap had not yet been processed. So a previous thriving system had 80% of the water changed with unacceptable water. What should have been done was to either use ro/di as the new water and then return to the tap for top offs and the small water changes. Or to slowly refill the system at the new location to the system could process the tap as it was being added.

At most RO/DI is only necessary when you change a very large amount of the water in the system. At that sould be extremely rare and extraordinary circumstances.

Well possibly when you are raising some delicate FW fish that require the very soft water in pristine streams and lakes to say induce spawning. But that is not our salt/reef tanks.

I think it is possible that tanks get old. But it is not the water. And macros do regenerate frequenty. So you harvest them once or month or so. I have also heard of old tank syndrom being a DSB consideration. Where things just build up over time in the sand then the system crashes. One planted marine tank was in operation for something like 8 years but they did a 100% water change per year.

So old tanks can be a problem. But once the system is balanced initially with plants IME they just run for years and years. Unless I play with then, tear then down and move to another city or whatever. All I do is just add food, provide light and keep the system topped off.

 

[Anonymous]

FWIW good example of tap water tank bout half way down.

http://www.saltwaterfish.com/vb/showthr ... t=beaslbob

and right below that an example of the moving problem as stated above.

 

[Anonymous]

What I'm hearing from the biologists in the hobby is that copper started to become a problem for many inverts at levels above 0.01ppm and a really big problem above 0.10ppm.

The EPA requires that 90% of households in a community have Copper levels below 1.3ppm. It's just a really bad idea to add that much of a toxic substance to a reef aquarium, especially if you're part of the 10% of your community that could have copper above 1.3ppm.

Using tap water for a reef tank is playing Roulette on a table that has the odds fixed against you. Once in a while someone wins but the typical outcome is pretty grim.

 

[Anonymous]

What I'm hearing from the biologists in the hobby is that copper started to become a problem for many inverts at levels above 0.01ppm and a really big problem above 0.10ppm.

The EPA requires that 90% of households in a community have Copper levels below 1.3ppm. It's just a really bad idea to add that much of a toxic substance to a reef aquarium, especially if you're part of the 10% of your community that could have copper above 1.3ppm.

Using tap water for a reef tank is playing Roulette on a table that has the odds fixed against you. Once in a while someone wins but the typical outcome is pretty grim.

JPR see what I mean? No analysis of what happens to the copper or how much macros bioaccumulate that copper.


Guy:

90% of the housholds actually have .250 ppm or less.

Yet another example of static thinking.

The copper does not remain in the water killing all the inverts forever.

Tests of macros exposed to various levels of copper for two weeks revealed that the copper in one macro rose from ~ 70 ppm to 1075 ppm. Values also observed in caulerpas, ulvas, seaweeds upstream of copper mines and power plants. It also showed the bioaccumulation of copper was also a linear function (of water column concentration) and equilibrium had not been reached.

Using that data one must do the equilivant of a 100% water change in two weeks to maintain 250ppb copper in that water if 1/10 a pound was thriving in the system. 1 pound would require the equilivant of 10 water changes. Which would indicate why macros in hospital tanks are a bad idea when treating with copper. Too much copper must be added to maintain high levels.

So with thriving macros, completely balancing out a high bioload IME of 30-40ppm nitrates, copper levels will drop to required values in a few weeks. And, by harvesting the macros, removed from the system.

Which is the reason your fish and corals thrived for so long with your well water filtered by your 900g lagoon full of macros.

But that analysis require more thought than there is x amount of copper in tap water.

Regardless of the copper in the initial water, what is important is the copper in the established system. Plant life trumps the copper initially in the water, and results in a stable system for any lifeform.

 

[Anonymous]

90% of the housholds actually have .250 ppm or less.

I'm glad you agree that most households have enough copper in their tap water to be lethal to many invertebrates.

 

[Anonymous]

90% of the housholds actually have .250 ppm or less.

I'm glad you agree that most households have enough copper in their tap water to be lethal to many invertebrates.

yes to do agree on that. and always have.

What we disagree on is the best method of making that water suitable for those inverts.

 

[ChrisRD]

Hmmm... ...add the toxins to your main system, hope they don't negatively effect anything, and then try to remove them from the system. Seems like it would be much more sensible to just not add them to begin with...

 

[Anonymous]

Hey Beaslbob, don't forget to sign up for the RDO build off. Here's your opportunity to put your theories to work and show a lot of the experienced reef keepers that we're doing it all wrong.

 

[Anonymous]

Hmmm... ...add the toxins to your main system, hope they don't negatively effect anything, and then try to remove them from the system. Seems like it would be much more sensible to just not add them to begin with...

Absolutely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

but the only way to do that is to constantly running brand new unpoluted ocean water through your tank. Oh yea we have a closed system not an open system.

The only question is whether or not plant life filter better than your ro/di unit, the ro/di unit at your lfs, the filter at the local store, or the filtration equipment at the bottled water supplier. Those are as much a part of your system as anything else. And all start with tap water.

What is important is the water in your established tank. That is what determines how your livestock thrives. Not how many $s you spend on the filtration that produced that water.

 

[Anonymous]

No, the question has to do with the amount damage to biofilms, invert larvae, etc. caused by copper, zinc, tin, aluminum, etc. This will reduce the diversity of our mini-ecosystems. The less diversity the more potential gaps in the ecological niches of the system.

 

[ChrisRD]

but the only way to do that is to constantly running brand new unpoluted ocean water through your tank.

Nope. There are many means to remove or lower pollutant levels in our systems.

Oh yea we have a closed system not an open system.

Not really. The argument could easily be made that our systems are not closed as we add food, light, top-off water and generally export something to rid the system of nutrients.

The only question is whether or not plant life filter better than your ro/di unit, the ro/di unit at your lfs, the filter at the local store, or the filtration equipment at the bottled water supplier.

This is where your thinking is too one-dimensional IMO. It's not necessarily an either/or thing. Many people use purified water, sensible feeding, etc. to help minimize nutrient imports in combination with various methods of export to balance the system (which may include some sort of algae filtration). Some people run heavily stocked/fed systems that require very low nutrient levels for inhabitants to thrive and often an algae filter alone just isn't enough nutrient export.

What is important is the water in your established tank. That is what determines how your livestock thrives.

What about evaporation top-off?

Not how many $s you spend on the filtration that produced that water.

This is another argument you often use that IMO is flawed. I agree that unnecessary products and gizmos abound in the hobby and keeping it simple is best, but to dismiss every advanced piece of popularly used equipment in the hobby is foolish and somewhat arrogant IMO. Many of these things have stood the test of time and evolved in design because they WORK. Do you really think reefkeepers are buying good protein skimmers, calcium reactors, etc. because they're just silly and like spending money? I find it hard to believe, having an engineering education, that you can't see the difference between the gimmick items and innovations that are actually useful.

 

[JPR]

I see I’ve steered right into what looks like an on going debate! I really can’t take a strong side one way or the other as I see wisdom in both points of view.

I strongly subscribe to Bob’s philosophy. I know it to be true from keeping marine systems and fresh water systems for the last 25-30 years. It is just undeniable. There is more to a sturdy ‘ special’ system than the ammonia/pH/nitrate reading. The bacteria members( species and subspecies) of the biofilm and the evolution of the algae forms make for the more powerful nature you see in some systems over others. And the power of microbes to condition water is very much real.
Certainly macro algaes will pull luxury nutrient and minerals out of suspension and safe them within. It is WHAT they do and how they make their living and assure a supply of scarce minerals within the overall environment.
But I have to agree with Guy in that chemical and heavy metal insults, chronic insults to sessile creatures can be a big negative over time. Ironically, if one has bad water, heavy metal water etc., less water changes may be better than lots of water changes- this from a guy who loves water changes! IF I were in such an area, I would use a simple polyfilter resin type unit on my main. This is especially helpful if you have well water with low pH due to excessive carbon dioxide and the water in the lines leeches copper from the lines as it reacts with that low pH( fairly common). Then you need a at the tap prefilter like the one I mentioned or the weekly water change will wear down the inverts and often put fish off feeding.
The one thing we need to all appreciate is that any animal we own will be worn down over time by the minor insults of just living in a closed system. Minor gill damage, clubbing and thickening of gill filaments and kidney damage are all part of the consequence of living in closed system type water over a life time- I see it as a form of premature aging ( any carpenters out there with bad knees can relate to that!)
On the other hand we have natural filters- algae and bacteria and they are all over ANYTHING they can get to eat/ reduce or oxidize! It’s the time interval before they recondition the undesirable that worries me? I prefer to view the microbial community as a support mechanism and possibly a harnessed watch dog type biology for getting water to a higher condition- the highest condition actually. You know that ‘ living water’ thing rather than that techno ‘pure’ water thing?

JR

 

[JPR]

Forgive me for correcting anyone here BUT all marine systems that are not hooked up to a constant flow of new salt water are closed systems. A closed system or a closed loop system is one that re-circulates water and depends on the nitrogen waste to be converted to every less toxic forms of nitrogenous waste. The point where a closed system becomes an open system can be debated. A 25% daily water change, for instance might challenge the definition of a closed system. Certainly a drip of fresh saltwater added on a continual basis so that little if any nitrification takes place at all due to dilution effect, can be called a semi-open system.
So 99.9 percent of captive corals in hobbyist situations live their days out in closed systems. The really successful keeper is able to fool or convince the organism that they are NOT living in a closed system!

JPR

 

[Anonymous]

JPR yep you got into an ongoing discussion. :lol:

Chris: RO/di, skimmers, dsb, filters and so on were originally IMO designed to help reduce or eliminate our dependance on plant life to balance out the system. But even with all that, algae blooms, long deap cycles threatening livestock still occur.

Can awesome systems result either way sure. The only discussion is about the time and expense require for either and the stability of the resulting system.

Consider monyesreef at http://www.moyesreef.com/home.html

Absolutely awesome and fairly typical in operations. dispite having all the neat in vogue systems and maintenance, nitrates were still elevated. So he finally established a refugium full of macros. And volia!!!!

http://www.moyesreef.com/tank/Refugium.html

After several months of dealing with nitrates in the 15-25 ppm range, the decision was made in'01 to add a refugium

....

Oh sure, the macroalgae began taking off after awhile and watching the 'pods, worms, and shrimp multiply was absolutely fascinating, but the nitrates didn't budge. For
months. Then one day miraculously, they dropped to practically nothing. I had to do the test several times to make sure it wasn't me. This took exactly half a year

All I am saying is to start that refugium right from the start and not wait until nitrates are elevated. Sure you have to have circulation for some things, and you may have to deal with calcium under certain circumstances, Just don't wait until the system has been setup and running for months to add a refugium with plant life.

You just may find that skimmers,ro/di,filters, etc etc are not all that necessary.

 

[ChrisRD]

The point where a closed system becomes an open system can be debated.

Exactly. Somewhat of a semantic argument IMO too.

 

[ChrisRD]

You just may find that skimmers,ro/di,filters, etc etc are not all that necessary.

The point you repeatedly ignore in these discussions is that many people here have experience with algae filters. They also have experience with other filtration methods so they understand the respective differences and limitations of various systems.

Bob, have you used an RO/DI unit or a skimmer?