Protein skimming and Water Changes

luigisacs · 07/17/2007, 02:14 PM

All,

I've been reading "Reef Secrets" by Alf Jacob Nilsen and Svein A. Fossa. They made two points which go against the thinking of most marine aquarists. They are as follows -

a. Page 37 states that "a water change of 5-10% a year is sufficient in a balanced reef aquarium.
b. Page 30 in a caption states that "It is entirely possible to overskim a reef aquarium".

Now what I've understood as common practice, 10% weekly waterchanges are necessary and the bigger the skimmer the better. I know I may be opening a can of worms with this thread, but I think it can create a thought provoking debate.

Your thoughts?

mujtba · 07/17/2007, 02:19 PM

well a guy at my LFS said he did 1 waterchange all year... this was due to him having a fuge.. how much truth lies behind it, only God knows..

i would suggest you do your water changes since its proven.. ever heard the phrase"dont believe everything u read"?

flyyyguy · 07/17/2007, 02:23 PM

I think it may be possible to overskim, but 99.9% of aquarists do not even have their tanks set up efficiently enough to do so along with not doing any water changes.

It all comes down to the expectations you have for your system. If it is acceptable to you to have your corals less healthy than they could be, and if nuisance algae visible in your reef is acceptable along with other problems.......

then you dont need to do water changes or skim very much

kravi · 07/17/2007, 02:29 PM

I've got a mate who has a 180 gallon tank. He hasn't done a water change since setting it up.

He's got great gear, a skimmer rated for a 280 gallon tank, and other standard stuff. Auto-tops off water.

His tank is gorgeous, healthy, etc. Fish are obviously happy, hard and soft corals look great.

So I wouldn't necessarily recommend it, but you can postpone a water change and see if/when you need it. Obviously the larger the tank the slower any lack of water changes would impact it.

--Me

luigisacs · 07/17/2007, 02:36 PM

Please do not extrapolate my starting this post as my recomendations. I simply wanted to start a thoughful debate on Nilsen and Fossa's comments.

I believe that following Nilsen and Fossa's suggestion would work only with LPS and Soft Corals. I read that these corals prefer nutrient filled waters as apposed to SPS corals who live predominately in Nutrient poor water. The overskimming of a tank would be great for SPS because they can not have any nutrients (phospates and nitrates), where soft corals (and sponges, etc) prefer nutrient dense waters.

flyyyguy · 07/17/2007, 02:43 PM

keep in mind that most peoples SPS tanks are plenty nutrient rich for lps and softies to thrive even with water changes and skimming

lakwriter · 07/17/2007, 03:11 PM

I don't know that 10% per week is necessary, but at the same time, rarely doing water changes may not be a good idea for the average aquarist,either. I've seen several threads where someone has gone months without doing a water change (or purchasing one to save the inhabitants), and yes, they can survive, but water changes do more than give you clean water, they also replace important trace elements.

old salty · 07/17/2007, 03:17 PM

I disagree with the authors. Then again, without reading the entire book, it's hard to gather what they are talking about with only one sentence to go by.

wayne in norway · 07/18/2007, 05:36 AM

Umm yes, because they also note later in the book that tank x looked much better after a large water change (and self contradict themselves). Sorry don't remember the page, or even chapter, but they do contradict themselves quite harshly.
I also believe there is a threat of overskimming, but 99.9% of people don't need to worry about that, although uit seems a popular excuse not to buy a decent skimmer.
So I'm all for water changes. You're removing a bunch of stuff, and topping up other stuff. I don't care about nitrates, it's the stuff we don't measure that bothers me, like DOCs. It's not much hassle to swap out some water, and if you think synthetic salt is too pricey you're either buying little bags or in the wrong hobby.

LobsterOfJustice · 07/18/2007, 08:19 AM

First of all, there are different reefing "schools of thought". Different people prefer to set up tanks in different ways. Barebottom, deep sand bed, etc. Secondly, the current reefing knowledge changes so often that printed books expire quickly. Just a few years ago dep sandbeds were the thing for SPS, but that quickly changed to barebottom being more popular.

My personal opinion: Regular water changes (neighborhood of 10% every few weeks) are good at removing bad things and replenishing good things. It is preventive maintinence on my tank. I also promote as large of a skimmer as I can, because people (including me) tend to overstock and overfeed anyway. I believe there are ways to set up a balanced system without a skimmer, but it is much easier to just drop the money and get a nice one.

davidryder · 07/18/2007, 09:34 AM

I have had a skimmerless tank for about 6 months now and I don't think I would ever go back. I have 2 refugiums (1 barebottom, 1 DSB) though so I have a lot of nutrient export occurring in them. Water changes are simply for nutrient export. The replenishment of trace elements from water changes, IMO, is unsubstantiated outside of the typical elements that are dosed/added to most reef tanks already.

Also, a skimmer greatly reduces the amount of nutrients available for refugiums. If I didn't have a refugium I would have a skimmer... but I have read enough articles about skimmerless tanks and the reduction of copepod and amphipod populations due to the presence of a skimmer to feel quite comfortable not having one.

I do somewhat regular water changes (10%/mo), but one of the downsides of that is disturbing at least the balance of Alk & Ca. To anyone starting a new tank I would recommend a skimmer where there would be no plans for a refugium, and 20% water changes/mo. If you have to do weekly water changes then your filtration system probably needs an upgrade.

pledosophy · 07/18/2007, 02:03 PM

It all depends on how you stock your tank, what the inhabitants of the tank are, and what equipment you have.

Making a general statement to apply to every tank is hard to do unless your talking about very basic things like ammonia levels i.e.

Overskimming is very possible if your running a reef tank, but kinda hard to do in a FOWLR tank no? For the average reef over skimming is not something they need to worry about. IMO

A tank can look much better after a huge water change if something was off in the parameters, or you can show no difference if the parameters where already spot on. I.E. you can do a 75% WC on a tank with bad parameters and have it look 10x better, but if you do another 75% WC the next day the tank isn't going to improve another 10x better (unless something was seriously seriously wrong). It's not the water that makes the difference it's the removal of the bad stuff.

If you are replacing trace elements as part of your dosing, and the tank is able to handle the nutrients being poduced and export them on it's own, then what would the benefit of a WC be exactly?

07/17/2007, 02:14 PM	#1
luigisacs Registered Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 55	Protein skimming and Water Changes All, I've been reading "Reef Secrets" by Alf Jacob Nilsen and Svein A. Fossa. They made two points which go against the thinking of most marine aquarists. They are as follows - a. Page 37 states that "a water change of 5-10% a year is sufficient in a balanced reef aquarium. b. Page 30 in a caption states that "It is entirely possible to overskim a reef aquarium". Now what I've understood as common practice, 10% weekly waterchanges are necessary and the bigger the skimmer the better. I know I may be opening a can of worms with this thread, but I think it can create a thought provoking debate. Your thoughts?

07/17/2007, 02:23 PM	#3
flyyyguy King of the white corals Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 5,239	I think it may be possible to overskim, but 99.9% of aquarists do not even have their tanks set up efficiently enough to do so along with not doing any water changes. It all comes down to the expectations you have for your system. If it is acceptable to you to have your corals less healthy than they could be, and if nuisance algae visible in your reef is acceptable along with other problems....... then you dont need to do water changes or skim very much __________________ I like holding hands, snuggling, and long walks on the beach

07/17/2007, 02:43 PM	#6
flyyyguy King of the white corals Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 5,239	keep in mind that most peoples SPS tanks are plenty nutrient rich for lps and softies to thrive even with water changes and skimming __________________ I like holding hands, snuggling, and long walks on the beach

07/17/2007, 03:11 PM	#7
lakwriter Registered Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 562	I don't know that 10% per week is necessary, but at the same time, rarely doing water changes may not be a good idea for the average aquarist,either. I've seen several threads where someone has gone months without doing a water change (or purchasing one to save the inhabitants), and yes, they can survive, but water changes do more than give you clean water, they also replace important trace elements. __________________ And this, too, shall pass... 29 g FOWLR 37# LR, 35# LS 2 green chromis 2 ocellaris clowns a very social peppermint shrimp and various snails and hermits

07/17/2007, 03:17 PM	#8
old salty Genius Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: The Island of Misfit Toys Posts: 3,131	I disagree with the authors. Then again, without reading the entire book, it's hard to gather what they are talking about with only one sentence to go by. __________________ "The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers." Thomas Jefferson Current Tank Info: Out of the marine aquarium hobby

07/17/2007, 02:19 PM	#2
mujtba Registered Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 693	well a guy at my LFS said he did 1 waterchange all year... this was due to him having a fuge.. how much truth lies behind it, only God knows.. i would suggest you do your water changes since its proven.. ever heard the phrase"dont believe everything u read"?

07/17/2007, 02:29 PM	#4
kravi Registered Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: Bethesda, MD Posts: 114	I've got a mate who has a 180 gallon tank. He hasn't done a water change since setting it up. He's got great gear, a skimmer rated for a 280 gallon tank, and other standard stuff. Auto-tops off water. His tank is gorgeous, healthy, etc. Fish are obviously happy, hard and soft corals look great. So I wouldn't necessarily recommend it, but you can postpone a water change and see if/when you need it. Obviously the larger the tank the slower any lack of water changes would impact it. --Me

07/17/2007, 02:36 PM	#5
luigisacs Registered Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 55	Please do not extrapolate my starting this post as my recomendations. I simply wanted to start a thoughful debate on Nilsen and Fossa's comments. I believe that following Nilsen and Fossa's suggestion would work only with LPS and Soft Corals. I read that these corals prefer nutrient filled waters as apposed to SPS corals who live predominately in Nutrient poor water. The overskimming of a tank would be great for SPS because they can not have any nutrients (phospates and nitrates), where soft corals (and sponges, etc) prefer nutrient dense waters.

07/18/2007, 05:36 AM	#9
wayne in norway Registered Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Stavanger, Norway Posts: 1,271	Umm yes, because they also note later in the book that tank x looked much better after a large water change (and self contradict themselves). Sorry don't remember the page, or even chapter, but they do contradict themselves quite harshly. I also believe there is a threat of overskimming, but 99.9% of people don't need to worry about that, although uit seems a popular excuse not to buy a decent skimmer. So I'm all for water changes. You're removing a bunch of stuff, and topping up other stuff. I don't care about nitrates, it's the stuff we don't measure that bothers me, like DOCs. It's not much hassle to swap out some water, and if you think synthetic salt is too pricey you're either buying little bags or in the wrong hobby.

07/18/2007, 08:19 AM	#10
LobsterOfJustice Recovering Detritophobe Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Cary, NC Posts: 7,443	First of all, there are different reefing "schools of thought". Different people prefer to set up tanks in different ways. Barebottom, deep sand bed, etc. Secondly, the current reefing knowledge changes so often that printed books expire quickly. Just a few years ago dep sandbeds were the thing for SPS, but that quickly changed to barebottom being more popular. My personal opinion: Regular water changes (neighborhood of 10% every few weeks) are good at removing bad things and replenishing good things. It is preventive maintinence on my tank. I also promote as large of a skimmer as I can, because people (including me) tend to overstock and overfeed anyway. I believe there are ways to set up a balanced system without a skimmer, but it is much easier to just drop the money and get a nice one. __________________ If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right. I remember when zoanthids were called things like "green" and "orange" and not "reverse gorilla nipple." Current Tank Info: 180g reef with all the bells and whistles

07/18/2007, 09:34 AM	#11
davidryder Claris or Elliot? Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Nightopia Posts: 2,750	I have had a skimmerless tank for about 6 months now and I don't think I would ever go back. I have 2 refugiums (1 barebottom, 1 DSB) though so I have a lot of nutrient export occurring in them. Water changes are simply for nutrient export. The replenishment of trace elements from water changes, IMO, is unsubstantiated outside of the typical elements that are dosed/added to most reef tanks already. Also, a skimmer greatly reduces the amount of nutrients available for refugiums. If I didn't have a refugium I would have a skimmer... but I have read enough articles about skimmerless tanks and the reduction of copepod and amphipod populations due to the presence of a skimmer to feel quite comfortable not having one. I do somewhat regular water changes (10%/mo), but one of the downsides of that is disturbing at least the balance of Alk & Ca. To anyone starting a new tank I would recommend a skimmer where there would be no plans for a refugium, and 20% water changes/mo. If you have to do weekly water changes then your filtration system probably needs an upgrade. __________________ A rolling stone gathers no moss... Current Tank Info: 90g mixed reef, corner overflow (Mag 9.5), 25g refugium (Mag 5), 15g refugium, Orbit 260w pc, Pan World 50PX-X (Closed loop), AquaC EV-120 (now skimmerless)

07/18/2007, 02:03 PM	#12
pledosophy Registered Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Beaverton Posts: 5,290	It all depends on how you stock your tank, what the inhabitants of the tank are, and what equipment you have. Making a general statement to apply to every tank is hard to do unless your talking about very basic things like ammonia levels i.e. Overskimming is very possible if your running a reef tank, but kinda hard to do in a FOWLR tank no? For the average reef over skimming is not something they need to worry about. IMO A tank can look much better after a huge water change if something was off in the parameters, or you can show no difference if the parameters where already spot on. I.E. you can do a 75% WC on a tank with bad parameters and have it look 10x better, but if you do another 75% WC the next day the tank isn't going to improve another 10x better (unless something was seriously seriously wrong). It's not the water that makes the difference it's the removal of the bad stuff. If you are replacing trace elements as part of your dosing, and the tank is able to handle the nutrients being poduced and export them on it's own, then what would the benefit of a WC be exactly? __________________ 120g mixed reef 90g QT