2 issues- Algae and Dying torch

[Masonjames]

Originally Posted by reefwithareefer

First off, thanks for your responses.

I am not sure about my nutrients. I have no algae growing on anything but the glass. If I spray the rocks etc with a baster, very little, to nothing comes off the item

If I have not changed my husbandry methods and there is more algae now then in then summer, does that not imply that the sunlight does play a factor. It does seem to make sense.

I feed mysis, brine and copepods in the a.m. I have 12 fish, about 24" total for a 180 DT. The food is gone within 1 min. I have the apex feeder that dishes out about 20 pellets twice a day. once at 12 and again at 5. The pellets are gone within 30 seconds.

I either add phyto, fuel, coral frenzy, reefroids etc once a day and less than what is recommended.

I have a bubble king 180 skimmer that is never overworking in my limited experience.

I have all my equipment in the basement. The sump and refugium have zero amount of algae on the glass. The refugium runs halides and CF. Halides are on while they are of in the DT, as are the CFs

I set up a reverse algae scubber in the hopes of not using any carbon. I can not get algae to grow, no matter how many different setups I try. It barely even grows on the glass where the lights are against it. Whats does grow is the typical green slimy algae, not the reddish brown stuff that is like dust, that grows on my DT

Does this not say I have no nutrient issue?

Still at a loss as to why LPS have died and acted funny, while everything else is flourishing.

I love this hobby, but sometimes a simple reason/solution would be nice.

Once again, I do appreciate all the different opions. Thanks

Why not try and take those coral foods offline for awhile and see if that helps With the algae. Those foods are not necessary and I assure you, if your fish have fat bellys your shrimp your crabs your etc etc. are all getting fed, your corals are getting there share too.

The ats can be really tricky to get to take. Especially a reverse. I've ran an ats but for the opposite reasons I assume you are wanting to. But maybe i should ask why you are wanting to run one? Like any form of life, algae needs To feed. You need to create that envioroment where it can thrive. Do you really want to be promoting an environment where it can thrive? Or would you rather promote an environment where it's not so ideal for it? non the less there can be certain benefits from doing so (also negatives) if you choose but just keep in mind that they can be tricky to get going and maintain. So your attempts may or may not have been limited by available nutrients. The algae on the glass can find a meal so there is food to be had.

I understand you seem to be only limited to the algae on the glass. Which you very well may be, and being the tank is receiving more sunlight recently it could very well be the cause for an increase in growth. But as I said before, the only way the algae that is growing on your glass can get an availabe meal is through the water column. So your water has algae fertilizer floating around in it. Is this a nutrient problem? I don't know. Is the algae doing you a favor and consuming 100% of the extra nutrients that are availabe? or is there a percent of the extra not being consumed and is getting sinked someplace else? When you clean your glass of the algae is 100% of that algae and the nutrients they consumed being removed and filtered out?
The algae problem really could be a s simple as your just fertilizing the tank with too much of that fancy "food". Ditch all the extra for while and see if that helps. I'm only trying to stress that the nutrients are there. Work to fix it before those nutrients start to be stored elsewhere else.

I am on board with the gallon a day water change ; ) that be what I do! I don't have mine automated though. Takes about 20 seconds and I'm done. Made maintenance so much more simple for me.

The loss of the corals. Strange indeed. Contamination, disease, etc. all a possible cause.

[Reef Pilot]

Originally Posted by reefwithareefer

ReefPilot
Yes , everyday. I have 235 or so gals. I exchange roughly 2 gals a day. It is actully approx 1.75 gals. so in 21 day I exchange approx 37 gals. That is 16 percent in three weeks. How is that excessive?

I do changes everyday because i believe it keeps all my parameters more consistent. If i change out 37 gals in one shot, my parameters will change much more drastically and it makes it harder to know what amounts to dose etc.

Yes, I use a refractometer. In fact I have 2. I calibrate once a month. I am consitently at 1.025. I check the tanks and holding tank, as I have the apex/tunze doing the topping off of the evaporated saltwater every hour, 24 hrs a day. The water is all run thru the refugium, so it mixes well, then to the sump and back up to the display.

Well, you get a much higher turnover of water and export of nutrients by changing 16% of water every 3 weeks, instead of that same amount doing 1.75 gallons every day. Plus creating a lot of work for yourself. Ideally, should change about 20% every 2 weeks.

[reefwars]

Originally Posted by Reef Pilot

Well, you get a much higher turnover of water and export of nutrients by changing 16% of water every 3 weeks, instead of that same amount doing 1.75 gallons every day. Plus creating a lot of work for yourself. Ideally, should change about 20% every 2 weeks.

i dont understand or my math is wrong but ....... ....how does removing 16% every three weeks better than removing the same amount rationed daily?

[Reef Pilot]

Originally Posted by reefwars

i dont understand or my math is wrong but ....... ....how does removing 16% every three weeks better than removing the same amount rationed daily?

Because if you remove it every day, you are also removing that same proportion of what you just added yesterday, therefore diluting and reducing the amount of actual nutrient removal.

Think of it another way, and maybe might make more sense to you. If you exchange 10% of your water each day over 10 days, you will have changed 100% of your volume. But you still have some of your original water and nutrients present because of your daily mixing and dilution. However, if you change 100% of your water in 10 days, for sure you will have a complete exchange of nutrients and no old water.

I know this is an extreme example, but just using it to illustrate the point. It is actually math, and you can use any amount you want. Remember, that with each water change, you are also changing some of the water (and leaving that portion of nutrients present) that you exchanged the last time.

[Masonjames]

Originally Posted by Reef Pilot

Well, you get a much higher turnover of water and export of nutrients by changing 16% of water every 3 weeks, instead of that same amount doing 1.75 gallons every day. Plus creating a lot of work for yourself. Ideally, should change about 20% every 2 weeks.

That's not actually entirely correct. In an emergency situation, yes a single large percentage water change will be far more effective then the same percentage being changed by smaller multiple changes. But when these two identical percentages are changed over a bi weekly, monthly, etc. period of time the difference of both removal and additions is very very small. A few percent, to points of a percent. So one could argue this is less effective, but the difference is literally so small that it's nearly irrelevant.

Switching to a dialy water change schedule has made my workload easier for me to maintain. Doing my daiky change takes 15-30 seconds and I am done. The same amount of time it takes me to peak into my sump room and make sure everything is running and working. I no longer need to heat the water, I can mix a month or two and store it, at anytime that is convenient for me, not a given day deligated by my water change schedule. Never mind reducing potential stressors on the system by doing larger percent water changes. To me this works best for my schedule. But I certianky wouldn't say its a fit fr everyone.

[Reef Pilot]

Originally Posted by Masonjames

That's not actually entirely correct. In an emergency situation, yes a single large percentage water change will be far more effective then the same percentage being changed by smaller multiple changes. But when these two identical percentages are changed over a bi weekly, monthly, etc. period of time the difference of both removal and additions is very very small. A few percent, to points of a percent. So one could argue this is less effective, but the difference is literally so small that it's nearly irrelevant.

Well, actually, if you do daily changes vs 3 week changes using the same volume over that time, it does make a fairly big difference. If you are doing weekly vs 3 weekly, then not as much, of course.

Not sure why this is not obvious to everyone!?? I don't know how I can explain it better... I could use an apples and oranges in a barrel example, but hopefully that isn't necessary.

[reefwars]

Originally Posted by Reef Pilot

Because if you remove it every day, you are also removing that same proportion of what you just added yesterday, therefore diluting and reducing the amount of actual nutrient removal.

Think of it another way, and maybe might make more sense to you. If you exchange 10% of your water each day over 10 days, you will have changed 100% of your volume. But you still have some of your original water and nutrients present because of your daily mixing and dilution. However, if you change 100% of your water in 10 days, for sure you will have a complete exchange of nutrients and no old water.

I know this is an extreme example, but just using it to illustrate the point. It is actually math, and you can use any amount you want. Remember, that with each water change, you are also changing some of the water (and leaving that portion of nutrients present) that you exchanged the last time.

well assuming were talking about nitrates?


"Size of Water Changes: A Nitrate Example
The cases examined above for nitrate with "once a month" batch water changes can also be examined using smaller, but more frequent, changes. Figure 6 shows results obtained by doing daily batch water changes that amount to a total of 7.5%, 15% and 30% changed each month (0.25%, 0.5% and 1% daily). This graph can be compared to Figure 1, and Figure 7 shows an overlay of Figures 1 and 6. It is clear from Figure 6 that daily water changes are essentially comparable to larger once a month water changes in their reduction of existing nitrate concentrations over a year, as long as the same total volume of water is changed. It turns out that continuous water changes are so close in efficiency to daily water changes that for the sort of data shown in Figures 6 and 7, the results of continuous changes are indistinguishable from those of daily changes (which is clear in Table 1 also, where continuous changes and daily changes (1 x 30) nearly match each other's efficiency)."


"conclusion:

Water changes of 15-30% per month (whether carried out once a month, daily or continuously) have been shown in the graphs above to be useful in moderating the drift of these different seawater components from starting levels. For most reef aquaria, I recommend such changes as good aquarium husbandry. In general, the more the better, if carried out appropriately, and if the new salt water is of appropriate quality."



http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-10/rhf/

i guess it comes down to is the 4% extra im removing with larger water changes outweigh the risks?



"There are many ways to perform water changes, and some of these are outlined below.

Large batch water changes: These changes are what most aquarists think of as water changes - remove some aquarium water and replace it with new water. Reef aquarists often talk of changing 10-30% per month this way. These changes can be completely manual, using buckets and siphons. They can also be partially or almost completely automated. Some systems allow aquarists to open and close appropriate valves (or turn on appropriate pumps), and pumps take care of the actual removal and addition of water.

In doing batch changes, aquarists should consider the changes in the water parameters that will result, and be sure they do not excessively stress organisms. Differences in salinity and temperature are most likely to be significant, and the larger the change, the more stressful it can become for the aquarium's inhabitants. If there is substantial ammonia in the new water, as there may be in artificial salt water or possibly in natural seawater that has been stored for a while, that can also be stressful. Obviously, any organisms that become exposed to the air can also be greatly stressed. Differences in other water parameters are less likely, in my opinion, to be particularly stressful during water changes, with the possible exception of certain trace elements which may be more toxic in raw artificial seawater when not bound to organics than after they have had a chance to become bound in the aquarium or in natural seawater. The normally encountered differences in calcium, magnesium, alkalinity, nitrate, phosphate, silica, pH, etc., are unlikely to unduly stress organisms during water changes up to 30-50% using natural seawater or aerated artificial seawater, in my opinion.

Small batch water changes: These changes are similar to the large changes above, but are much smaller and are done more frequently. Daily changes of 0.25% to 2%, for example, can be used. One could also do a series of consecutive small water changes on the same day. This method ensures that organisms near the top of the aquarium are not exposed to the air, and that water parameter shifts are less sudden. These types of changes can be done in a variety of ways, such as by removing water via a skimmer and replacing it once a day, or by simply taking out an amount (such as a half gallon) and replacing it once a day (automatically or manually). While lots of smaller changes (say, 30 changes of 1% each) are slightly less efficient than one larger one (30% in a single batch), the difference is small (30 changes of 1% each exactly matches one 26% batch water change), and consequently other factors of convenience or stress on organisms may be more important.

In doing batch water changes of 2% or less, aquarists need not particularly worry about the changes in the water parameters that will result, as long as the new water is of reasonable quality. For example, a 1% change with new water at 55°F from a basement reservoir will change the aquarium temperature only from 81°F to 80.74°F. Differences in salinity are also unlikely to be significant.

Continuous water changes: Continuous water changes, despite their name, are not necessarily performed every minute of every day. The distinguishing feature of these changes is that water is added at the same time that it is removed. The actual rate of addition can be high or low. Reef aquarists (myself included) most often perform these types of water changes with two matched pumps, one that removes the old water and one that adds the new water. Often these pumps are part of the same mechanism (such as two sets of tubing on a peristaltic pump or two heads on a diaphragm pump), but that is not a requirement. I use a dual head diaphragm pump capable of a maximum of 30 gallons per day for each head (a Reef Filler pump from Champion Lighting). In my setup, once I have a 44-gallon trash can full of new salt water, all I do to perform a 44 gallon or smaller water change is plug in the pump. The wastewater is sent down the drain. Sometimes I change 44 gallons in one shot, taking about a day and a half. Sometimes I pump for a few hours at a time, and then wait for a few days.

These changes are slightly less efficient than single batch water changes of the same total volume. A continuous water change of 30% exactly matches one batch 26% water change. As with very small batch water changes, these have the advantage of neither stressing the organisms (assuming the change is done reasonably slowly), nor altering the water level in the aquarium. The ease of doing such changes automatically also makes it far more likely that busy or lazy aquarists will actually do them."





if you take in account of all the things that can go wrong with larger water changes , smaller ones dont seem so bad for practically identical results

[reefwars]

Originally Posted by Masonjames

But when these two identical percentages are changed over a bi weekly, monthly, etc. period of time the difference of both removal and additions is very very small. A few percent, to points of a percent. So one could argue this is less effective, but the difference is literally so small that it's nearly irrelevant.

exactly

[Reef Pilot]

Originally Posted by reefwars

exactly

Gawd,... I have better things to do,... but here goes one more time.

Start with a barrel of 100 apples. Change 10% volume (incl that percentage of oranges from the previous day) every day for 10 days with oranges. (Of course, after a day you will have to start slicing the oranges and apples a bit to get the right proportions...)

At the end of 10 days, in the barrel, you will still have 34.86784401 apples and only 65.132156 oranges. Oranges can represent new water, and apples the old water nutrients.

And if you change 100% of the apples with the oranges in one change, you would have all oranges and no apples.

And daily changes over a longer period of time, just makes it worse... Not sure how else to explain it. If this doesn't do it, I give up...

[Masonjames]

Originally Posted by Reef Pilot

Gawd,... I have better things to do,... but here goes one more time.

Start with a barrel of 100 apples. Change 10% volume (incl that percentage of oranges from the previous day) every day for 10 days with oranges. (Of course, after a day you will have to start slicing the oranges and apples a bit to get the right proportions...)

At the end of 10 days, in the barrel, you will still have 34.86784401 apples and only 65.132156 oranges. Oranges can represent new water, and apples the old water nutrients.

And if you change 100% of the apples with the oranges in one change, you would have all oranges and no apples.



And daily changes over a longer period of time, just makes it worse... Not sure how else to explain it. If this doesn't do it, I give up...

Originally Posted by Reef Pilot

.

Think of it another way, and maybe might make more sense to you. If you exchange 10% of your water each day over 10 days, you will have changed 100% of your volume. But you still have some of your original water and nutrients present because of your daily mixing and dilution. However, if you change 100% of your water in 10 days, for sure you will have a complete exchange of nutrients and no old water.

Those exact same principles of mixing and dilution apply to any percent changed so I don't understand the differnce your trying make. With your apple to oranges comparison, you are neglecting to apply the very principles you brought up originally. You are applying the rule that you are removing 100% of whatever percent of apple you are removing. But you've neglected to apply your mixing and dilution rule that once In the barrel, those apples and oranges must become so thoughly mixed they become for the most part unrecognizable from each other. Now pull out a handful and calculate from the slurry how many apples and how many oranges.
If you change x% volume biweekly with a single water change, you will have changed x% of your systems volume monthly. But you still have some of your original water and nutrients present because of mixing and dilution. If you change x% volume daily you will have change x% volume of your systems volume monthly. But you still have some of your original water and nutrients present because of mixing and dilution. Unless your doing a single 100% change, your still leaving behind old water and nutrients and removing a percentage of the previous change. I guess one could consider 2 week old water changed already spoiled removing the potential to remove a percent of brand spanking new water by changing daily. But those principles of mixing and dilution are actually what sorta makes the math work on a small scale change as the mixing and dilution happeneds over a much larger body.