Reef Discussion

MavG

Member
Nov 8, 2011
120
43
Newcastle
I like where this is going,

generally the direction i was trying to point out was, There is no way to know what levels of which trace element are in seawater.

HOWEVER........

it also seems apparent, that regular water changes ARE NOT enough to replenish these trace elements.

True, some coral can "adapt" to lower level of trace elements, HOWEVER, this doesnt mean that they are adapting in a good way. Their coloration may, and in most cases are not high enough to enduce enhanced coloration and growth, again not taking into account nutrient and major element composition.

MagicJ
I would be interested to know what effect reduced levels of trace elements has on our inhabitants??
recued levels of trace elements can result in dull coloration, reduced growth etc

I think a valid point about water changes should be raised.

The two main reasons for water changes are:

I think in order of importance
1) Nutrient export

And

2) To replenish trace elements.

This is the advice I was given when I started and I'm sure many were before me.

How many water changes and what percent are needed to replenish trace elements? Enough to being them back to NSW levels.

I am sure that all 70 or so elements could be tested for with the correct equipment and you would get a more quantifiable result.
Agreed, but as discussed, water changes to bring these levels back to NSW levels would need to be 100%, and frequently as well, because they are not being regularly replaced. this means that, trace elements that occur in minute quantities would deplete very quickly, and regular 100% water changes would need to be carried out in heavily stocked display systems.

The testing of these trace elements has been done by manufacturuers who make Artificial salt mixes and trace element supplements.

I feel as though i may be repeating my first few posts................

But, if these trace elements are essential to the welling of our inhabitants, water changes will never replenish them.

Lets assume that NSW contains 5% of element A. Over a period of time the corals/skimming etc reduce this to 3% - a 50% water change will only increase the amount in the tank back up to 4%. And, over time, this will gradually reduce to 2.5% with smaller water changes reducing this figure even lower. In reality, the water changes would have to be greater than 50% to increase the concentration and only a water change of 100% will increase the level back up to 5% again. (I think I have the maths correct ;))

What I haven't taken into account is the rate of depletion and what concentration level do the corals actually need - if NSW has a concentration of 5% but the corals only require 2% to be happy than water changes may suffice.
BAM!!!!!!!!! thankyou

essentially, when you think about it, YES, you CANT test for these trace elements, BUT, you cant guarantee that regular water changes will replensih them, unless your exchanging 100% of the water very regularly, in lightly stocked tanks, every week perhaps, in heavily stocked tank, it could be every single day!!!!!!!!

and so it comes down to it, logically, if you dont have constant replensishment of ALL elements, not only trace elements, such as in an Ocean environment on a reef, and you are keeping corals in a captive environment where oxidation of trace elements and minor elements, AND depletion of the elements biologically is happening all the time, then you ARE going to have reduced levels of these elements. And therefore, they will need to be added back. Do i have to bring up heavily stocked SPS tanks like zeovit system and the amount of trace elements and replacement of elements they go through?

G
 

NiCd

Lead Moderator
Jul 29, 2011
4,296
1,586
Sydney
There is no way to know what levels of which trace element are in seawater.

Sea water has been broken down to its trace elements in many studies, I think this is even listed in wikipedia

it also seems apparent, that regular water changes ARE NOT enough to replenish these trace elements.

In lightly stocked and low demand systems it has been demonstated that this is enough to restore trace eliments to a level which achieves amazing results, which agreed is different to obtaining the levels found naturally in NSW.

True, some coral can "adapt" to lower level of trace elements, HOWEVER, this doesnt mean that they are adapting in a good way.

Less true there has been studies showing increased growth and decreased issues with tissue disease by removing certain trace eliments from the mix

recued levels of trace elements can result in dull coloration, reduced growth etc

Reduced colouration yes but growth has been shown to be higer in enviroments with lower trace eliments than found in NSW

you CANT test for these trace elements

There are a number of test kits on the market to test a good percentage of the trace eliments that have been found to be key in sustaining coral

You cant guarantee that regular water changes will replensih them, unless your exchanging 100% of the water very regularly

I think water changes are the only gaurenteed way that you are replenishing trace eliments in a bioavailable way

Do i have to bring up heavily stocked SPS tanks like zeovit system and the amount of trace elements and replacement of elements they go through?

I think they key advice of using water changes to replenish is given to people new and even intermediate to the hobby, there is no disputing that ULNS require the addition of trace emilments and aminos to sustain their existance as you are removing all of the organisims abilities to aborb nutrients from the water colum to make up for its diffiencies in other areas.
 

MavG

Member
Nov 8, 2011
120
43
Newcastle
Jeez louise,

Im not trying to split hairs here, which it seems is what some are trying to do.

Most of the points raised above are shown in STUDIES, is this the case for every tank, in everyones house, who knows, but i would think no.

allow me to answer your post:

There is no way to know what levels of which trace element are in seawater.
Sea water has been broken down to it's trace elements in many studies, I think this is even listed in wikipedia

it also seems apparent, that regular water changes ARE NOT enough to replenish these trace elements.

In lightly stocked and low demand systems it has been demonstated that this is enough to restore trace eliments to a level which achieves amazing results, which agreed is different to obtaining the levels found naturally in NSW.
I must admit i did a typo here at the start, i meant to say that there is no way to Measure the levels in your tank, and thus you do not know what to replace. And yes i am aware that there have been studies showing the breakdown of seawater.

True, some coral can "adapt" to lower level of trace elements, HOWEVER, this doesnt mean that they are adapting in a good way.
Less true there has been studies showing increased growth and decreased issues with tissue disease by removing certain trace eliments from the mix

recued levels of trace elements can result in dull coloration, reduced growth etc

Reduced colouration yes but growth has been shown to be higer in enviroments with lower trace eliments than found in NSW
Agaain, these are studies, not difinitive. Is it no the goal to recreate a captive environment to get the best out of you coral?

you CANT test for these trace elements
There are a number of test kits on the market to test a good percentage of the trace eliments that have been found to be key in sustaining coral
Ok now your picking out peices of my post out of context. I have previsouly stated in other posts that i know there are test kits to test for these elements, BUT NOT ALL OF THEM.



You cant guarantee that regular water changes will replensih them, unless your exchanging 100% of the water very regularly

I think water changes are the only gaurenteed way that you are replenishing trace eliments in a bioavailable way


As long as the ion is there, it is available, unless of course it becomes oxidized or bound with an organic or inorgnaic, which are the main issues here apart from depletion. wouldnt matter if it is in a supplement or in natrual sea water.



Do i have to bring up heavily stocked SPS tanks like zeovit system and the amount of trace elements and replacement of elements they go through?

I think they key advice of using water changes to replenish is given to people new and even intermediate to the hobby, there is no disputing that ULNS require the addition of trace emilments and aminos to sustain their existance as you are removing all of the organisims abilities to aborb nutrients from the water colum to make up for it's diffiencies in other areas.

I agree, but is it enough to RESTORE the trace elements, or just substitute them?

If there is no disputing that ULNS require trace elemnt addition, and that, if i take your post correctly, you agree that trace element addition works, then why in your above post do you say that water changes are the only way to replace them so that they are biologically available?

Corals, in most cases, will require some level of trace elements, regargless of their ability to abosrb nutrients from the water column, i assume by this you mean by photosynthesis?

They also require amino acids, which the coral polyp gets from feeding the majority of the time, all ULNS systems are doing is reduceing the amount of zooxanthelle in the coral to allow the natural pigments to come through. Now, with reduced nutrient and increase feeding, the need for supplmentation of trace elements, and to some extent amino acids, is needed, because the uptake of the elements is higher as the coral is not replying on photosynthesis for sustenance. you are not removing the corals ability to sustain itself, you are simply recuceing the amount of zooxanthelle which means that supplmental feeding is required to sustain the coral. Trace elements are needed regardless.

You are talking to no fool here, i understand the dynamics of a marine system, having to maintain 2 x 900 liter systems with fluctutating stocking densisities, a 250 liter reef display and a 180liter display system, as well deal with different issues every single day on many peoples tanks (just the same as i had done for 5 years prior, at the same time as deisnging and building commerical marine aquarium and aquaculture systems).

As i said, this orginal discussion was not to start an argument, it was to create a conctrsutiver conversation so we all can learn, and understand this area of supplementation.

i am up for a contructive conversation, but picking out parts of other peoples post out of context and trying to CREATE an argument is not helping people understand this subject.

again, i am no fool, i do know what i am talking about which is why i started this post in order to pass the knowledge i have to people so that they can learn, and i am also open to learn new things, but i certainly will not learn anything, and neither will anyone one else, if all this is going to achieve is people wanting to argue instead of actually contributing to the conversation in a constuctive manner.

I am not going to waste my time replying to posts from people who want to argue the sky is yellow, when it is obvisouly blue, there is no point and nobody learns anything.
 

NiCd

Lead Moderator
Jul 29, 2011
4,296
1,586
Sydney
I am sorry if I have offended you, that was not my intention.

I was not trying to pick apart your posts it just seemed you are making some pretty blanket statements and from my readings of them they were very unclear with statements like "There is no way to know what levels of which trace element are in seawater."

You seem to be coming at this from a very strong angle less than a discussion point of view that a reef system can only be properly maintained successfully with the addition a trace elements, there is a vast array of amazing reef tanks that demonstrate that this is not the case.

I strongly believe that trace elements do increase the overall appearance of the tank and do use them in my own set ups, but I think the important thing is recognising that they are only the polishing edge and seem to play a very minor role and are by no means the general short coming of the vast majority of tanks and the reason that they get the reputation of snake oil is through them being sold as colour enhancers and quick fixes where the underlying issue is something completely different.
 

MavG

Member
Nov 8, 2011
120
43
Newcastle
You are mistaken in thinking that i am coming at this from a strong angle. As i have said OVER AND OVER, i am trying to create a constructive discussion, i may have made some blanket statements, unintentionally, which i outlined in my last post, and i am not the one completely dismissing other peoples points of view.

Again, if you read my original posts you will see i am trying to collate, if you will, information on why these statements are made and evidence that Water changes will or wont replace trace elements enough to satisfy a heavily stocked reef tank, or any reef tank for that matter. at no point have i said that a reef tank cannot be properly maintained without the addition of tracer elements.

Also, at no point have i said trace elements are a fix it all solution, this discussion is about trace elements as a whole, and in particular weather or not they can be replaced by water changes enough to satisfy trace element demand.

READ THE POSTS THAT STARTED THIS THREAD.... then maybe we can start having a constructive conversation and not go off on tangents about sub-context that isn't related to the original post and actually get somewhere so people can learn.

So moving on, anyone else have questions, views inputs for this discussion to consider, i would like to hear some other peoples points of view and thoughts on this.
 

brendore

Moderator
Oct 4, 2011
1,012
374
Port Macquarie, NSW, AUS
Slightly different scenario here.. In the coral holding tanks we had up north, we were exchanging 100% of the systems volume every three days, we also noticed that Ca and Alk stabalised to with +/-5mg/L. I'm guessing as we never tested T&M's that you can test for, that the T&M elements would have also been stable even in a ridiculously overstock system (talking volume of 2500L with up to about 5,000 corals), with a large skimmer plus ozone. I know this isn't particularly relative, but it does make a point re the volumes needed to be changed in order for supplementation to not happen
 

MavG

Member
Nov 8, 2011
120
43
Newcastle
that is interesting B, this water was coming off the reef yes?

how many liters were in these systems, would sump size be equal to tank volume therefore reuslting in more volume for dilution and more buffer for reduction or major elements?

Did you ever test Nitrate and phosphate levels?
 

brendore

Moderator
Oct 4, 2011
1,012
374
Port Macquarie, NSW, AUS
Yes the water was stored in 20,000L IBC's with circ pumps and sand filters (three in total for the whole facility). Sump would have been of an equivelant to a tank system (from memory it's operating volume was about 500L, with capacity of 1200L). There were three bays into one sump, each bay was about 750L at full capacity unstocked (of course at full stock the capacity was reduced to about 600-650L or there abouts). NO3 wasn't tested, PO4 was, which was not usually good, often high range but I suspect that was due to the IBC's and sand filters and lack of regular maintenance on these. Lanthinum was used to help combat the PO4 issues. I'll tell you what would also be good to find out. Is how treatments, such as phos treatments, etc, effect T&M elements.. Reading some products ingredient list there can be many different chlorides and sulphides in them, I wonder how these would effect T&M concentrations?
EDIT - It'd also be interesting to know if tap water can effect T&M concentrations
 

MavG

Member
Nov 8, 2011
120
43
Newcastle
thats interesting B, i know phosphate is an issue in coral stock holding tanks, i spend more time keeping the holding tanks in check than i do the display tanks!!!!!!!

Lanthanum, if used too much, i have at least heard can do more harm than good. i have been told it can be mistalen for calcium and be taken up by corals as such. this leads to all sorts of issues (none of which i can remember) but mostly coral death.

Because lanthanum is a floculator and a binder, i would imagine it may at least have some effect on trace elements, other phoshate treatments i wouldnt think would do this as much, especially granular treatments like GFO and activated alumina.

As far as i know, increased chloride and sulphide levels wont directly effect trace and minor element concentrations, but it can cause other issues, such as increased salinity. This is why you see most manufacturers making "ionically balanced" two part supplements etc.

getting back to phosphate, as a side note, most phosphate problems, especially in organic carbon driven systems, comes from lack of nitrate. because the bacteria need much more nitrate to reduce 1ppm of phosphate, when nitrate runs out, phosphate tends to climb, and climb, and climb, then it binds to anything comprosed of calcium carbonate in the system, and things start to go wrong from there.

with nitrate addition, in an organic cabron driven system promoting bacterial growth, phopshate can be reduced very quickly, 3-4 months ago i reduced a phosphate reading in one of our tanks from 1.16 to 0.04 in 8 hours with nitrate addition, it was nuts, i didn't loose anything, thank god, but as the rock was loaded with phosphate it quickly leeched again and the phosphate levels rose again.

it would be interesting to know what trace elements bacteria take up in organic carbon driven systems when nutrient is reduced. HOWEVER, seeming as though the coral then feed on the bacterio-plankton, these trace elements may then be passed back to the coral, at least to some degree, the rest being skimmed out (hopefully).
 

longfish

Member
Apr 24, 2012
3
0
I asked this question in another persons post and there didn't seem to be a conclusive answer.

so i ask this question, Not taking into account the major elements, (alkalinity, calcium, magnesium, potassium) what frequency of water changes, % size and times per cycle (week month) are needed to replce the trace and minor elements (responsible for colour etc) are needed to replace these elements.

the reason i ask this question is:

every time someone asks about using a trace/minor element supplement, its the same answer, "frequent water changes should be all you should need to replace trace elements", AGAIN i am not referring to the major elements, we all know regular water changes replenish these to a certain extenet.

Now, im not saying that water changes dont replenish ALL elements, includeing trace elements to some extent, nor am i trying to induce an argument.

All im asking is, where is the research showing that regular waster changes are ALL thast is needed for supplementation in a mriane aquarium, in particular trace elements, and where in that research is there a correlation between, tank size, stocking density, frequency of water changes and the size of said water changes in order to replace these trace elements?

Indeed, water changes do lesson the amount of supplements needed to be supplemented, and in some tanks, may be all that is needed, however, such a broad statement that i hear all the time, such as regular water changes are all that is needed to replace "trace elements (again forgetting about major elements) is in my opinion preposterous.

trace elements oxidize and are used up every quickly, especially in heavily stocked aquariums, so supplementation of trace elements is not only, i think beneficial, but nessecary, in heavily stocked aquarium, even moderately stocked aquariums, as is supplementation of major elements.

BUT, if someone can show me the research or documented evidence to back up the hypothesis that regular water changes are enough to replace minor and trace elements, then ill take it on board.

Another thing i am interested to hear is WHY people will not add soemthing they cannot test for, is this some stigma that comes from consumers being sick of manufacturers trying to jam another "snake oil" product down their throat, or is there a reason behind this?

As i see it, trace elements, especially in heavily stocked marine aquariums need to be supplemented,, hell, you cant test for ALL the minor and trace elements in Artificial salt mixes, BUT, a lot of people use artificial salt mixes, if trace elements were not needed, why would they include them in artifical salt mixes? otherwise im sure everyone would just be using Sodium chloride, calcium chloride, sodium bicarbonate, magnesium sulphate and potassium chloride and supplementing nothing else.

but, again, show me some hard evidence and research showing the information stating that water changes are all that is needed to replace trace elements and ill take it on board.

lets start a constructive conversation s
Water is water. It is what's in it that counts .... if you know your animals usage of some of the macro and micronutrients
 

Sarg

Member
Dec 11, 2011
2,559
926
Cheltenham
Sh!te you shall have to change your user name to Longlinker or Longmultiquoter ro similar lol

:welcome
 

brendore

Moderator
Oct 4, 2011
1,012
374
Port Macquarie, NSW, AUS
Water is water. It is what's in it that counts .... if you know your animals usage of some of the macro and micronutrients
I have to disagree with this on so many levels.. Firstly 'water' is not 'water' as all water sources are different in terms of it's make up (alk, cal, pH, nutrients, how it's filtered, filtration media plus many, many more things, plus being a water treatment operator we'd be hung by our balls if we ever said this). Water is one of the most complex elements on Earth because of how and what it can store within itself. You are right that it is what is in the water that counts, hence MavG 's question.. Being that we know your water is different from mine, which is different again from everyone else's here, the question being asked is do these trace, minor and major (sorry G had to throw major in their too) elements get replaced by water changes (obviously) but to what extent? How much water do we need to replace to replecate ocean reef levels? And why are we told that doing a 20% water change a week is enough. Where is the research that either confirms this is correct (which it's not, being again from what you stated, the animals present use differing amounts of elements at differing times) or denies it?. It's a multi-complex question, and one I think we wouldn't be able to answer in one sentence due to the variability, conditions, lighting, and type and number of animals (not just calcifying organisms, but fish and inverts use trace elements too) present in any given system.
 

DavidS

The Resident Loony
Jul 17, 2011
3,337
1,033
Ballarat, Victoria
Just to note I've edited the post from longfish to remove the repetitive quoting that was going on. longfish might like to edit the quote further and remove the bits that aren't directly relevant to his response for the sake of trying to keep the thread tidy :)
 

MavG

Member
Nov 8, 2011
120
43
Newcastle
The question is not about the water being used so much, although this does impact the end result you get from the water change.

The question is, how much, in relation to stocking density is needed to replace these elements. As Brendore and I have both said, all tanks are different, and as such, the amount of water that needs to be changed will differ from case to case.

What is missing is a relationship between these two factors.

And of course, everyone uses a different salt mix, and NSW, depending on where it is collected, can be widely variable.

So i have to disagree on both matters also, 1. Water is not Water, because each salt mix and each source of water of NSW is different. So this point you have made would only be valid if everyone was using the same baseline of water source with the same parameters, and even if this was the case.....

2. my question i put to everyone was, how much water need to be changed to replace the elmeents and keep them at Natural seatwer ratios in order to provide verything for reef inhabitants. This, as i pointed out, will be different in every tank, because the removal of said elements, major, minor or trace elements, will differ depending on the amount of animals removing them, for instance in say a 100 litre tank stocked with 2 corals of exactly the same size, the amount of element, major, minor and trace will be X. In another tank, identical to this, if you put 4 corals, of exactly the same size the removal of said elements would be 2x X.

And before you bring into the conversation the concentration of nitrate and phosphate impacting zooxanthelle growth and the building of coral skeletons die to higher photosynthetic energy, relative to an Ultra low nutrient system where growth slows down, please be aware im only using this as an example to show that each tnak is different, and therefore the removal and elements, and the replacement of said elements by water changes will be different. and therefore there has to be a correlation between

tank size:stocking density:removal rate:amount of water needing to be exchanged each week/day/month/fortnight to replace these elements
 
V

'vspec'

Guest
Wow Impressive! Killer thread, logic thrown like dice and straight to the heart of the issue
Is there even room for more conclusions?
 

Uglyman

Member
Mar 9, 2012
165
68
Pyalong
with nitrate addition, in an organic cabron driven system promoting bacterial growth, phopshate can be reduced very quickly, 3-4 months ago i reduced a phosphate reading in one of our tanks from 1.16 to 0.04 in 8 hours with nitrate addition, it was nuts, i didn't loose anything, thank god, but as the rock was loaded with phosphate it quickly leeched again and the phosphate levels rose again.
Out of curiousity MavG what form of nitrate were you using?

I have studied the Redfield ratio for a while now and have wanted to toy with the idea of adding nitrate to my tank to test the ratio swings.
 

MavG

Member
Nov 8, 2011
120
43
Newcastle
vspec, i think tht is the point im trying to make. This whole "water changes will do everything you need" is a load of crap quite honestly. it some cases it will, and in most cses it helps, and im a BIG advocate of water changes, but it isnt the magic bullet. And no one is going to learn mroe about this hobby to advance it in Australia by unsubstantiated and nonsesne responses like this. Thats why i challenge people to find me some LOGICAL evidence to the contrary.

And you know what? I havent been given any, NONE!!!!!!! lol

Uglyman, check out my blog in my signature, but for quick reference i used seachem flourish, and still do, it contains potasium nitrate and urea (which breaks down into ammonia, which in turn yada yada yada turns into nitrate. A lot of guys in the USA use ammonium chloride in the same fashion.
 
V

'vspec'

Guest
And your points are noted, hence my question. ;)
Short of benchmarking everything, applying new techniques and/or inserting new detection probes into each animal, I dont see another way currently, that can take the role of hobby defined averages of dosing based on excepted case studies by commercial R&D. Blind water changes without analysis will always be the perceived cushion till its stated otherwise. Its a shitty reality.