Chemistry of Changeless Systems

[FISH WHISPERER]

Hi Randy... The more the merrier. Great idea - I wasn't sure how you wanted to handle this, (I have no problem with the whole thread being moved, but certainly the different boards present different situations of doing so - I just can't click the topic and move it!!). Anyway, here's what got us rolling, and I'm sure you've got some fine folks here to add their thoughts. It will be interesting to see which direction both threads run... Ours has pretty much run its course. Here's to new perspectives! :)

***************************
Hi all,
Whatcha all think about why we can go changeless for so long? I am leaning to the formulation that it is only since we have had the DSB to minimize nitrates that poor water quality hasn't been a problem. What about your thoughts on depletion of the elements brought in by our salt mix? I mean, we certainly have proven we can keep the broadest range of corals in a changeless systems for at least a couple of years. Do you think we will reach a point at which our systems turn into a mysterious "black hole?" I sure hope I'm not one of the first to find out , but as long as my corals continue their awesome growth, I must keep my "hands-off" approach. I can remember when Smitty put some pretty loaded NSW (natural saltwater) from Santa Cruz into his tank, and the corals perked up like show dogs! This was from way off the end of the wharf, and was loaded with plankton and critters.. Different topic thread, altogether! I was just jawing about the idea of changeless and nitrate-minimal (DSB) going hand-in-hand. Thoughts?

Regards,
Monty

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Everyone:

There is an interesting thread on Aqualink that discusses issues relating to systems without water changes. It's certainly a chemistry topic, and Monty (the moderator) indicated that he wanted to get some RC people involved in the technical discussion without it becoming a debate over techniques. Consequently, I suggested this would be a good spot.

Here's a link to the long, original thread, if you want to see the discussion before commenting on Monty's questions above:

http://www.aqualink-too.com/ubb/board/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=47&t=000290

[Gamera]

Read the thread.

I don't feel that I really have anything to add other than that I feel that absolute quantification studies are difficult without access to serious equipment.

Moreover, the amount of elemental material added to the tank when salt is added is also difficult to determine, particularly if the water in question has been 'purified' in some way.

In my opinion, the discussion is difficult to add to without any elemental analysis done before/during/after controls are set up and experimental conditions worked on. I'd like to see elemental analysis numbers (either by flame AA or ICP AA) before I pass judgement. There are simply too many variables that need to be addressed and toyed with individually.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Gamera:

Ron's experiments may begin to shed some light on that issue. I don't know how many changeless people submitted water to him, so it may not be adequate to say much.

[FISH WHISPERER]

Agreed that it will be hard to find definitive "laws" at this point. Hopefully Ron's test will shed some light, but with so many different systems, and so many different variables, I doubt we'll get many hard facts. To be fair, I don't think Ron was going after hard facts, but rather poking into the chemistry part. Certainly, no research is in vain, because we usually learn something from our work. The changeless method, which I personally use on my systems, nets beautiful tanks. My concern was initially this so-called "buildup" of elements. Of course, those issuing such warnings are as in the dark as I am - pure theorizing. ;) So, in search of a true finding, I went totally changeless. Now, some are warning of element buildup. This is pretty much my interest in the discussion. And, Randy thanks so much for posting a link... I'm real bad at that. :eek: I did it before, following some instructions, but in my exquisite organization I don't have said instructions.
Anyway, I have been diving headlong into the "buildup/depletion" warnings/theories, and have found that personally I have not seen any tank crashes. I can't say that my 100g has been changeless for over a year, because when we "moved into it", ;) we needed extra saltwater. But anyway, I am hoping to observe first-hand if element buildup/depletion becomes a concern. The buildup, of course, is from those whose line of thought is that certain elements are not broken down within the system. I don't question this, but rather the actual impact. Then, there's the other school of thought that thinks without adequate replenishment certain elements will be "lost" (generally added in with the new salt mix). My research has led to find foods that have some of the elements in question present in the actual food. Trace? Yes, no doubt about it. But my tank so far would suggest that everything needed is in sufficient supply.
Now, if things go south, I won't know precisely what is the problem (buildup vs. depletion), but I will certainly have probably the best sample of water to explore this question with. I have inherent questions about water losing certain principles when it is pulled, bottled and shipped without oxygen. But I will certainly look into testing it on site - maybe Rob will be able to swing down and lend a hand! :D I have an excellent friend and colleague in Maryland, Dr. Sam Grillo, who would no doubt provide the most precise analysis I could hope for. Still, there is that "shipping" question. Anyway, deep down inside, I am certainly hoping that there won't in fact be any problem with major buildups that would be detrimental to the tank. I can't see depletion being a problem, for certainly I'd have noticed that by now. Anyway, it will be interesting to see how the gurus over here interpret this whole confusion! ;) We certainly had a great go-round, and I encourage everyone at this point (if you haven't) to read the link Randy provided. There is some excellent contribution from some great folks there. I've no problem following the thread up over here. It's fair to say our "residents" have had their "go-round." ;)

Once again, folks, we're hardly looking for any definitives, nor am I personally implying any. I am not the chemist, by any stretch of the imagination... I am more of a experiment and report type of guy! ;) We really can't analyze any "crash" water, because I don't feel we have any. Certainly, if something were to die off, I would not consider the water analysis to be true to the question. But if things start to get droopy in consensus, then I think I'd have a problem with the actual quality... It is what I am watching for. Please, if I haven't made myself clear - I'm not talking a stagnant "buildup" tank... More fresh water with all the elements provided from the tap ;) is added than most folks who do 10% weekly water changes. And again, we can't make any definitive "that isn't healthy" statements in re: buildup. At first I was curious about that, but couldn't find anybody with any definitive source of information... Which is why I decided to go forth with the whole changeless in a fully stocked reef with softie, lps/sps corals. It's not about trying to "cheat" or be "lazy"... It's all about leaving behind everything I put in to let the system process everything. I just want to see. There were so many "knowing warnings", but I don't think any of these folks were doing anything but "guessing." I want to find out. If I make an "element soup" ;) I'm sure we'll get it analyzed to find out what's lacking, and what might be in critical concentration. So far, so good..... And this has been one helluva thread with some fantastic contributions and great reading!
Regards,
Monty

[Gamera]

Randy - I agree that Ron has been shedding some light into the issue and the work he is in the midst of can and certainly will give some insight into the issue, but I feel that regardless of the insight, it would be more prudent to conduct more thorough research into the issue, whether by carfully controlled experiment of by logical extension of the basic chemistry foundation to attempt to find any answers. Again, as you indicated, there may not be a large enough sampling of 'changeless' people to really say what is going on.

-------------------------

I am in no way trying to downplay whatever anyone's opinion may be. I simply feel that regardless of what an individual or a small group of individuals may find from personal experience, it is not going to substantiate any scientific conclusion until the hypothesis can be well tested.

As I stated before, given the number of variables, I don't think it would be prudent to even indicate one way or another, if any method works. Call me a skeptic or a pessimist for it, but I find it unwise, and potentially reckless, to try to quantify, label, or explain what may be the case without much more solid data. If empirical conclusions must be made, so be it, but I would much rather have a better rationale than 'because that's what I saw.'

In my opinion (to venture into the subject) I find it difficult to believe that any 'changeless' system is going to somehow avoid the problems inherent in dynamic chemistry. Every hobbyist's system is subject to the same dynamic chemistry as the system is constantly under stress and searching for a new equilibrium before it is perturbed again. Unfortunately, I doubt any system is ever truly at any kind of equilibrium for very long to begin with.

A few things that I feel should be considered, with respect to the issue of elemental buildup, that are poorly addressed in the discussion are the following:

--> Buildup implies a continual (though not necessarily constant) increase in the concentration of any chemical species until you reach a critical point where the concentration can not increase without a significant change, chemically, to the system. There really hasn't been any means of quantifying what 'a significant change' would be with respect to everything else in the tank micro or macroscopically.

--> Inventory should be taken with regards to how the system deals with the stress on chemical equilibrium. I find it difficult to believe that elements will simply reside in the water column without being absorbed or adsorbed. If there are means by which material can be eliminated (whoesale) from the system, those too should be accounted for. The obvious implication to continual biuldup of some trace elements is the eventual development of toxic levels of any given element. While this may certainly be an extreme case, it is a logical extreme.

--> I find it difficult to discuss the subject, even on a 'this seems to work sometimes' basis due to the ramapantly subjective nature in the discussion. Again, I may just be a curmudgeon, but I would rather have a firm grasp, in terms of scale, as to the difference between 'this seems to work' and 'this works.' I don't like to grasp at straws when trying to gauge what one person means and how that translates to someone else's subjective scale. In chemistry there is never a published paper that survives long under scrutiny that use the words 'it works for me' in the results or experimental discussion. It may be cold and unpersonal, but that's the way I like it. :)


Whether or not these points can be addressed in any way at any time soon is not clear to me. It would appear that the answer is a resounding 'no.' However, I don't feel that much can be accomplished (concretely at least) without addressing these points in some fashion. It may simply require a few tanks of varying sizes to be set up with a controlled stocking list with controlled conditions and allowed to run 'changeless' for a few weeks. Or a month. Or a year. Or several years. It may require more than that. I, for one, have no idea to be honest; but I would be more than willing to help to run an experiment like this.

Again, I should reiterate that I in no way mean that this is a pointless discussion. Achieving complete replication of the chemical dynamics found in nature is a goal that everyone in the hobby strives for whether we understand that we are or not. As such, it naturally follows that these discussions are important in some fashion; but I feel it is pointless to discuss whether or not a changeless system 'works' or 'doesn't work' based on experience if there is no sound rationale behind it, nor any definitive and universal measure by which to gauge successes.

As a scientist, I would much rather see what data we have, see what data we can obtain and then go from there to develop hypotheses regarding this topic.

----------------------------------

If I ramble, I apologize. It is late and I have been in the lab far too long for one day... :(

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

<< Whatcha all think about why we can go changeless for so long? >>

I guess I'd summarize, in no special order, my opinions about this as follows:

1. Many marine organisms are very insensitive to many of the chemicals in our water. That is, they still seem to thrive with them high, low, or at natural levels.

2. We are doing a good job of controlling the most important depleting ions in the water (calcium, alkalinity, etc.).

3. We don't have a good way to objectively rate how an organism is doing. If it's growth rate were stunted by 50% because of bad water, would we even know it for most of our tank inhabitants? I sure wouldn't know it in my tank.

4. The natural systems that we have in most tanks may serve to bring many water parameters back to reasonable levels. For example, if we overdose something, some organisms will take it up, either to use it (e.g., all of the nutrients such as iron and phosphate; many organics) or to simply get it out of the way (e.g., copper; lead; possibly strontium, etc.).

5. The water that we "change" with itself isn't perfect. Maybe a change simply trades one marginal situation for another.