|
|
|
|
|
#1
06-28-2013, 03:29 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Many of the organisms we're so worried about shocking you can't see.
In a pico, you really have no choice but to do large waterchanges. I would bet your biofilter sucks in that thing as you are constantly setting it's establishment back every time you "shock" it. You may have never personally seen any negative effects, but you would if for example you had the exact same tank set up and just did 20% water changes weekly to compare it too. The article on large water changes likely has accomplished aquarists who do test and calibrate their water before doing a large water change. 
|
|
#2
06-28-2013, 05:52 PM
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Again, I have to completely disagree. If you're using a high quality salt, which more than likely is the same salt you used to make the batch of water that you're replacing, the differences in chemistry are going to be vanishingly small. In a worse case scenario, you'll have water that's severely depleted in carbonate, calcium, and magnesium if you've got lots of actively growing stony corals in the tank, but if you're doing it right, they shouldn't be depleted to the point where anything in the tank is at risk of damage. In this tank, there's nothing in it that's using anything, so the new water, assuming he's using the same salt, should be darn near exactly the same as the old water.
Doing a 100% water change will simply bring all the levels of all the ions back to exactly where they were when you first mixed your salt and added things to your tank. The bacteria that do all the biological processing in our tanks are, for the most part, aerobic, so briefly exposing the substrates they're on to air isn't going to do anything unless you leave it long enough to dry out. That large reef system I linked to is loaded with fish, if doing a 95% water change really did anything at all to the biological filter, it should have experienced a major ammonia spike every week. Considering how beautiful and healthy it is, that's clearly not the case. Here's a link to another large tank in Australia that gets regular, near 50% water changes: http://www.masa.asn.au/phpBB3/viewto...f=147&t=234823. It's a slightly different method, and those two Australian tanks are only possible due to their proximity to the ocean (I can't fathom the cost of mixing 200 gallons of high quality salt water every week), but the principle is the same - they rely on massive water changes to bring all the levels back in-line with NSW. If doing a 100% water change damages something in my pico, I should also have expected to see a spike in ammonia after each change, as I still feed those corals meaty foods several times a week. Nothing of the sort happens, nor does it bother any of the bristleworms that have colonized the rock structure, the copious amount of pods, or the stomatella snails that I somehow managed to get in there. We've gotten in to a weird habit in this hobby of seeing new salt water as toxic or something. Completely mixed new salt water (assuming it's a good salt and has appropriate levels of the right ions - the only kind you should be using in a reef anyway) is the standard to which we are trying to return the water in our tanks to with all the fancy dosing, nutrient export systems, and additives we add. Skipping all that extra work and just replacing the water outright does the exact same thing we're already doing with the dosing, and has been shown in both small and very large systems to not only not be dangerous, but to actually greatly improve the system. Damage to the biological filter is testable - if bacteria die, there will be an ammonia spike. I've never seen one, the other systems that use large water changes don't see them, so from my point of view, saying large water changes are bad because of an undefined threat to something you can't see that has no testable or noticeable outcome either in the chemistry (other than parameters being returned to optimal concentrations) or the macro biology sounds like superstition more than science. If someone shows me a video under a microscope of an established bed of nitrifying bacteria suddenly expiring when they are taken from water with a dKH of 7 and placed in salinity and temperature matched water water with a dKH of 9, I will eat my words. Aquatic life is far more resilient than we give it credit for. egads, sorry for the hijack. good luck with the tank move.
|
|
#3
06-28-2013, 05:57 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
If salt comes from the same BATCH, you can expect similar enough parameters from one bucket to the next but same brand?
No way... Making salt is far from an exact science and this is a pretty big assumption for you to make. You can probably get by a okay with your logic int his hobby but if you talk to any reefer worth his salt they'll tell you continuity is by far the best thing that you can offer your microcosm. and a large tank can much better handle a 50% water change as that;s the whole appeal to a large tank, the ability to better manage fluctuations that may be detrimental to a smaller system. and even in a smaller tank, a 50% water change is not a 100% water change.
|
|
#4
06-28-2013, 06:20 PM
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
I completely agree, stability is key for long term health. But when there is plenty of practical evidence showing that very large to 100% water changes harm nothing and can allow systems to maintain stocking, feeding, and dosing regiments that wouldn't otherwise be possible and still have award worthy coral growth and healthy fish, I think that should be pointed out, especially when someone is new to the hobby and is worried about moving a tank.
Anyway this is all testable. I'm doing a 100% water change on my pico in about 5 minutes. Both the bag of ceramic bio-rings in the back chamber, the rock pyre, and all the corals will be completely exposed to air for about 5 minutes. I'll do that water change, then target feed each one of my corals with meaty foods, which is about the maximum organic input this tank ever receives. I normally wait a couple of days to feed them to get the most out of my low N and P change water and discourage algae, but for this experiment I'll feed them as soon as they re-inflate. I'll test ammonia levels every day for the next week. If I get a detectable reading, I will post it in that tank's build thread. If not, I'm going to continue to operate under the assumption that any 'threat' posed by large to 100% water changes (when done right) is largely superstition.
|
|
#5
06-29-2013, 07:57 AM
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quote:
__________________
You wouldn't want to see my tank. I don't use fancy equipment and I am a noob 
|
|
#6
06-30-2013, 02:51 AM
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quote:
I'm running a little experiment with my pico now if you want to look at it. I tested all the levels and the ammonia right before and after a 100% water change yesterday, then fed the corals in that tank about 25% more food than that tank ever usually gets in a single feeding. I tested the ammonia again today, and will test every day for the next week. I will also feed again around Wednesday. If I've done something to the capacity of the bacteria in the tank to process waste, I should see a spike in ammonia in the tank.
|
|
#7
06-30-2013, 03:15 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
is this the guy you were referring to by any chance?http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=Y5tVuqYFf48[
QUOTE=asylumdown;829142]I actually didn't see that line until right now. I should clarify, the two cases in which I've seen people using 50-100% water changes on large systems were using actual sea water, pulled from the ocean using a pump. They both live basically on the ocean in Australia, so this is possible for them, and the only thing they need to worry about it keeping the water the right temp. However, in the case of the 95% water change system, it's an SPS LOADED tank, and I don't think he doses anything (thought I can't confirm that anywhere that I've seen), so his alk, mag, and calcium levels are going to be quite depleted by the time he does the replacement. The guy who's doing 50% weekly water changes is dosing something to maintain alkalinity, but as far as I know that's it. I would happily do 100% water changes on my big system using high quality salt , but I have neither the logistical capacity, or the money to sustain that in Calgary. I'm running a little experiment with my pico now if you want to look at it. I tested all the levels and the ammonia right before and after a 100% water change yesterday, then fed the corals in that tank about 25% more food than that tank ever usually gets in a single feeding. I tested the ammonia again today, and will test every day for the next week. I will also feed again around Wednesday. If I've done something to the capacity of the bacteria in the tank to process waste, I should see a spike in ammonia in the tank.[/quote]
|
|
#8
06-30-2013, 03:23 AM
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#9
06-30-2013, 03:25 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
i've seen this vid last year and was reminded about him while reading this thread..
 Quote:
|
|
#10
06-30-2013, 03:22 AM
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
IMO you can have perfect salinity, ph, calcium, alk etcetera but by doing a 100 percent water change you are exchanging a mature tank for a sterile tank and IMO that is not a good idea.
You remove all the goodness in the water ie. bacteria, tiny critters, egg hatches etc. that stabilize your water and feed your coral
|
Hybrid Mode
