- Location
- Cape Coral, Florida
How high can I keep nitrates without doing a water change?
How high nitrates?
- Thread starter Rlumenator
- Start date
Dawn":3kl3y7b5 said:
I have seen nitrates measured with the aquarium Pharm**** test kit at over 160ppm.
Considering only water change effects, with doing water changes of 10% per week and 0 nitrates in the replacement water, the tank will converge to 10 times the weekly increase in nitrates. If the weekly production is 7ppm the result is 70ppm nitrates.
I have 0 phsophates and nitrates with no water changes in my 55g. What is important is eliminate the buildup between the changes. Buy doing that you remove no nitrates or phosphates with a water change.
Bob,beaslbob":3o5ntigp said:
I have carefully read the above twice and failed to understand what you mean. Would you be kind enough to rephrase it and detail you explanation a bit more? The reduction of Nitrates is one of my main concerns in my tank at this time, so I'm very interested in fully understanding your point of view on the issue.
Bob has a thing about natural systems and doesnt do water changes to "maintain" things.
I think what he is trying to say above is to set the system up where the nitrates are taken care of IN the system, as in using a deep sand bed or alga, that type of thing.
I think what he is trying to say above is to set the system up where the nitrates are taken care of IN the system, as in using a deep sand bed or alga, that type of thing.
Sure.Sponge_Bob":3qcbg3s5 said:
Considering only the effects of water changes, the tank will converge to a point where the amount of a thing removed by a water changes equals the amount built up between the change. Therefore with a 7ppm increase between changes, a 10% water change, and 0ppm in the replacement water, the tank will be 70ppm before the change 63 after then rise up to 70 before the next change. a 20% change would result in 35ppm down to 28ppm back up to 35ppm. a 5% change 140ppm down to 133 up to 140. In each case the value before the water changes is (the buildup between)/(fraction of the change).
Which is the reason calcium and alk is dosed even though we do water changes. the changes will not maintain those or nitrates or phosphates or anything else.
But if the buildup between changes is reduced to 0 then water changes do nothing. In the case of ammonia and nitrItes the aerobic bacteria does it. With nitrates, phosphates, and carbon dioxide in my tanks I use plant life mainly macros in a refugium but the various algaes as well.
Some use DSBs for nitrate reduction.
The key IMHO is to get the tank itself doing the work.
Basically, I think what Bob is saying (in a longwinded way) is if you are removing less then or equal nitrates as is being produced in the tank, you will accumulate nitrates. You need to find some way to reduce nitrate acculumation in between water changes.
Bob uses plant life as his sole nutrient control. He shuns skimmers, RO/DI, water changes, etc and believes macroalgae is essentially a cure-all. It goes contrary to the usual and time-tested approach of skimming, using RO/DI, and regular water changes. I use the latter methodology. Some macroalgae in a refugium is a great addition, but my experience tells me not to rely on them too heavily.
Bob uses plant life as his sole nutrient control. He shuns skimmers, RO/DI, water changes, etc and believes macroalgae is essentially a cure-all. It goes contrary to the usual and time-tested approach of skimming, using RO/DI, and regular water changes. I use the latter methodology. Some macroalgae in a refugium is a great addition, but my experience tells me not to rely on them too heavily.
LOl I dont know about poular but I enjoyed it.
I used to keep FW tanks with all the gadgets and pumps.
And enough medicines to start a pharmacy.
Then one day I was looking at a lake and thought "Now there is an aquarium that God made and it works. What did He use?"
Mud and sand (substrate) plants, light, water and fish. mmmm...
So I went to the feed store,bought a bunch of pea gravel, went to slocum water gardens and bought a bunch of plants, threw everything away except a heater for each tank, threw in the gravel and plants.
Strange thing...my fish stopped getting sick all the time. No more ich,dropsy,finrot or anything else. Stopped doing 50% water changes each week and just tossed in a kneehigh stocking with carbon once in a while to get rid of yellowish water about once a year. My fish loved it and started breeding like rabbits. I had never had fish breed before.
So I know planted natural tanks work and you can get by without water changes. But thats heresy...so dont tell anyone.
I used to keep FW tanks with all the gadgets and pumps.
And enough medicines to start a pharmacy.
Then one day I was looking at a lake and thought "Now there is an aquarium that God made and it works. What did He use?"
Mud and sand (substrate) plants, light, water and fish. mmmm...
So I went to the feed store,bought a bunch of pea gravel, went to slocum water gardens and bought a bunch of plants, threw everything away except a heater for each tank, threw in the gravel and plants.
Strange thing...my fish stopped getting sick all the time. No more ich,dropsy,finrot or anything else. Stopped doing 50% water changes each week and just tossed in a kneehigh stocking with carbon once in a while to get rid of yellowish water about once a year. My fish loved it and started breeding like rabbits. I had never had fish breed before.
So I know planted natural tanks work and you can get by without water changes. But thats heresy...so dont tell anyone.
Ermm let me clarify one thing. That was for freshwater tanks.
My saltwater tank I do 5 gallon a week water changes, not to get rid of nitrates (no detectable levels of amonia/nitite/nitrates in my system) but to refresh/recharge trace minerals and things. Mainly to avoid any need for dosing.
Plus I look at waterchanges in a salt system not as water changes, but as storms or hurricanes. Stir things up and refresh everything. If that makes any sense.
My saltwater tank I do 5 gallon a week water changes, not to get rid of nitrates (no detectable levels of amonia/nitite/nitrates in my system) but to refresh/recharge trace minerals and things. Mainly to avoid any need for dosing.
Plus I look at waterchanges in a salt system not as water changes, but as storms or hurricanes. Stir things up and refresh everything. If that makes any sense.
I don't doubt the reliance of plants in FW, but let's all recognize FW and SW are competely different habitats with very different dynamics. Planted SW tanks ("Dutch" systems) have had their chance and were clearly outdone by today's conventional systems. I have never seen the best "Dutch" reefs or algae-scrubbed reefs outclass the better "Berlin" reefs.
Tis true I know very little about the long term keeping of saltwater systems, and I am positive I have much to learn.
From the reams of pages I have read so far it seems a lot of people get into nitrate troubles by overstocking, and the biggest thing is the concept of the "bioload".
People see boiload and assume fish but fail to take into account that any animal life of a higher order (bah higher order..anyway) that eats must poop. So snails,crabs,large worms and anything else including corals factors into the equation. If it eats it has to crap, and the crap has no where to go but into the water where it gets broken down (the nitrogen process).
It may be true that one small hermit crab dont crap a lot, but 20? 30?
How many large snails are in the system? How many corals? How many large worms are lurking under the rocks?
These things add up. Then again I may be deluded and all I have said is so much babble
From the reams of pages I have read so far it seems a lot of people get into nitrate troubles by overstocking, and the biggest thing is the concept of the "bioload".
People see boiload and assume fish but fail to take into account that any animal life of a higher order (bah higher order..anyway) that eats must poop. So snails,crabs,large worms and anything else including corals factors into the equation. If it eats it has to crap, and the crap has no where to go but into the water where it gets broken down (the nitrogen process).
It may be true that one small hermit crab dont crap a lot, but 20? 30?
How many large snails are in the system? How many corals? How many large worms are lurking under the rocks?
These things add up. Then again I may be deluded and all I have said is so much babble
One of the key concepts is bioassimulation. "Clean up critters" bioassimulate nitrogenous matter, reducing the break down and acculumation of nitrogenous waste products into the "free" environment. There's no question every animal defecates. Lower order animals will bioassimulate the nitrogenous wastes of higher ordered animals, while yet other organisms (whether it be flora or fauna) will consume their waste, ad naseum. The idea is to occupy as many niches in the ecosystem as possible so that energy is transferred efficiently.
A notable difference between fish and clean up critters is that we feed most of our fish (read: we add nutrients to our tanks for the sake of keeping these fish) but we don't do the same for clean up critters.
A notable difference between fish and clean up critters is that we feed most of our fish (read: we add nutrients to our tanks for the sake of keeping these fish) but we don't do the same for clean up critters.
The concept of bioassimulation is easy for me to grasp, but wouldnt a system have to be fed by an outside source even if it was fishless?
What is the estimate... a piece of food is eaten/processed 15 to 20 times before it becomes a dissolved organic? The food has to come from somewhere.
I know I am oversimplifying things to a great extent, but it just seems to me the "non" fish creatures impact the bioload more than what most people give them credit for.
Be interesting to see/read a study done on fishless reef systems and what the "bioload" would be. Are there any websites or articles that you know of that would have this information?
What is the estimate... a piece of food is eaten/processed 15 to 20 times before it becomes a dissolved organic? The food has to come from somewhere.
I know I am oversimplifying things to a great extent, but it just seems to me the "non" fish creatures impact the bioload more than what most people give them credit for.
Be interesting to see/read a study done on fishless reef systems and what the "bioload" would be. Are there any websites or articles that you know of that would have this information?
I think we'd need to define bioload. I believe that in relevance to our discussion, we are talking about how much net waste an organisms produces.
In a system without fish or higher order predators (such as refugiums), you will see high (and diverse) populations of small organisms and generally higher water quality. Add fish and remove these small organisms and you will see more nutrient-rich waters. This suggests to me the "bioload" (in respect to net nitrogen) of smaller organisms do not have the same impact as fish. I don't think fish necessary defecate more, but they more readily imbalance the flow of energy.
In a system without fish or higher order predators (such as refugiums), you will see high (and diverse) populations of small organisms and generally higher water quality. Add fish and remove these small organisms and you will see more nutrient-rich waters. This suggests to me the "bioload" (in respect to net nitrogen) of smaller organisms do not have the same impact as fish. I don't think fish necessary defecate more, but they more readily imbalance the flow of energy.
Of course there are various other metabolites and unwanted compounds that can build-up in a reef aquarium that will not be effectively dealt with via algae or bacteria. Just because we don't/can't test for them doesn't mean they are not a concern. That's where things like skimmers, activated carbon, water changes, etc. come into play.beaslbob":349qntdj said:
There are far too many variables with a complex and dynamic system like a reef aquarium for a statement like this to ever be valid.beaslbob":349qntdj said:
First, calcium and carbonate/bicarbonate are not trace elements, they are major ions present in seawater.
Second, many salt mixes contain elevated levels of trace elements (well beyond NSW levels), so regular partial water changes on the system could definitely help maintain NSW levels for many of these elements (of course the demand for each element is a large and highly variable factor here).
It's also very possible (contrary to what you may believe and try to justify with oversimplified examples) for regular partial water changes to help control the build-up of unwanted compounds and metabolites. Many of which we never test for or know about.
At Len.
I see what you are getting at. I was thinking more along the lines of the impact of larger animals like hermit crabs, cleaner shrimp,large snails.
The small pods and microanimals/bugs probally consume more of the waste that would influence the amonia/nitrogen cycle than what they would contribute.
Only way would be to test it on two identcal systems over a long period of time. One with larger animals and one with out, both fishless.
Anyone in college need a thesis? Heres a good project heh.
I see what you are getting at. I was thinking more along the lines of the impact of larger animals like hermit crabs, cleaner shrimp,large snails.
The small pods and microanimals/bugs probally consume more of the waste that would influence the amonia/nitrogen cycle than what they would contribute.
Only way would be to test it on two identcal systems over a long period of time. One with larger animals and one with out, both fishless.
Anyone in college need a thesis? Heres a good project heh.
Oh... that's what you meant. Well, you forget an important factor in your basic equation : The evolution of the bacteria colony. In any given system, the bacteria count will always tend to match the given bioload present in the tank. Say you have 4 fish in the tank and you remove 2. Your population of bacteria will decrease acordlingly because of lack of food.beaslbob":3up30uap said:
Although your equation makes perfect sense mathematically, it is only valid in a static system, not a dynamic one like an aquarium, IMHO.
Thank you for making your explanation clearer.
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
