But what science do you have to support that in home kept aquariums only water changes worked? Similar to the never ending thread on Bolus the consistent argument being test ran with comparable systems where the only variable being Bolus strategy added or absent. Who's done that with water changes vs new reefing mentality of dosing what's missing?
Plenty of tanks run on Trident, Moonshiners or Dutch Reef maintained without water changes with trace and other elements dosed based on testing. Are we now to assume that these tanks all doomed because studies on the reef indicate that's expectation and many of these have ozone and or UV and might also been dosed with peroxide which might be new to me but isn't new to fish keeping.
Dream tank will be north of 400 gallons with no practical means of automating water changes and I'm not hauling that many buckets or placing large enough Brutes around it to allow for adequate water changes. Wife will make sure I don't should I suddenly get the urge I'm sure of it.
There's been no scientific proof presented that any detrimental elements such as DOC or coral warfare remnants are diluted fast enough in home aquariums based on exchanging water. Fact not all perform exact same water change percentages would support that not being adequate. Don't care about how one can calculate how much removed weekly equates to tank turnover without knowing how rapidly said concerns build up. That's like assuming water changes can support calcium and alkalinity alone. Perhaps a 5 gallon Pico where 50% easy enough but not what I'm planning built.
As for hydroxyls, this isn't new. Anyone running ozone or UV that has dosed peroxide has created hydroxyls. Can't just assume that water changes solved it. That's just guessing at best. Could be they dosed low enough it didn't matter but none the less I'm sure some have because that's becoming prevalent and not just in trying to solve undesirable GHA but solving display tank ich.
My question is about using sponges to solves DOC. Instead of just proclaiming something won't work perhaps best seek solutions that might. Day we stop trying is the day this hobby and others stop progressing because we chose to just accept defeat or stick to old habits because that's all we believe or trust.
Let's simplify this vs taking sides.
Can sponges remove DOC concerns both naturally occurring as well as those created by hydroxyls? Based on what I've read and understood it seems they can therefore perhaps with the advent of cryptic zone we find a strategy that ensure these no longer remain the hurdle to throwing those dreaded buckets away. Can't see anything other than DOC and undetectable coral warfare remnants being a concern.
Let's break this up to look at you're different argumentation.
But what science do you have to support that in home kept aquariums only water changes worked?
Obvious question is if you're refusing to look at the research I've posted how can you possibly determine one way or another?
All the science over the last couple centries that shows water changes reduce unwanted stuff
And specifically for reef systems my experinces having multiple systems, fish and corals and organisms in their second, third and even fourth decade. Having corals spawn repeadedly in my systems would be another example. Having multiple species of clams reproduce another.
. . . new reefing mentality of dosing what's missing? . . .
As I've heard "dose what's missing" in one form or another for as long as I've kept reefs, it's certainly not what I would consider a "new mentality"
Plenty of tanks run on Trident, Moonshiners or Dutch Reef maintained without water changes with trace and other elements dosed based on testing. Are we now to assume that these tanks all doomed because studies on the reef indicate that's expectation and many of these have ozone and or UV and might also been dosed with peroxide which might be new to me but isn't new to fish keeping.
None of these approaches deal with the microbial processes and the conflicting roles of DOC, algae, corals and sponges in reef aquaria. Are they doomed? Sadly, based on my own experiences (you've mistakenly assumed I haven't experimented no water changes) and what I've seen over the last 4 decades, I have to say yes. How quickly will vary according to what microbial groups are promoted and the inherent resiliancy of a system. Other factors include if stuff is being done to promote brighter colors and/or faster growth, both mistakenly assumed to be indicators of health but can actually be indicators of a coral with compromised immune systems.
I've been hearng about reef systems being kept without water changes for four decades now and how this methodology or that dosing regime elimiates the need for water changes. There was one company bragged about going without water changes on the website and in their advertising in the hobbyest magzines and on thier website, until they stopped in 1999. They certainly weren't able to keep systems going as long as I have.
My mentor back in the 90s was a proponet of the Dutch Aquarium Systems (DAS) that used labile DOC in an denitrating filter. Big argument DAS used to promote their systems was it only needed a partial water change once a year. Working on those systems they could go awhile if it was carefully setup and juduciously populated with fish and corals. But they would eventially fail. Biggest problem was the systems could developed horrendous algae issues that I learned were best dealt with by manual removal and large water changes.
On a much broader scale, across the board science is showing when microbiomes are disrupted whether it's at the organisims level or at the ecosystem level, bad things follow. To intentionally disregard current research showing over time the types of DOC produced by algae will cause problems for corals and also disregard the research showing sponges can work with algae to creat phase shifts to algae dominated systems doesn't strike me as wise.
There's been no scientific proof presented that any detrimental elements such as DOC or coral warfare remnants are diluted fast enough in home aquariums based on exchanging water. Fact not all perform exact same water change percentages would support that not being adequate. Don't care about how one can calculate how much removed weekly equates to tank turnover without knowing how rapidly said concerns build up. That's like assuming water changes can support calcium and alkalinity alone. Perhaps a 5 gallon Pico where 50% easy enough but not what I'm planning built.
Again, how can you possibly know one way or the other if you're refusing to look at the research!?
And to correct your mistaken assumption, I've tried systems with no water changes to as much as 80% monthly, 20% - 30% works well for maitaining systems for decades with minimal time and problems. As for maintaining alkalinity and calcium, you're apparently either unaware of or ignoring the biological processes that that dissolve carbonate substrates and provide calcium, alkalinity as well as other trace elements. I have calcium and alkalinity maintained in systems with just water changes.
It's about maintaining healthymicrobiomes. It's not about diluting nutrients and the DOC that is produced daily in a system. We also need to consider sponges are converting a significant portion of the DOC released by algae and corals into nitrogen rich detritus that goes back into the food webs in pretty short order (hours). From what I've read, it would take a pretty well equiped lab and staff to track what's happeing with DOC in an average home aquarium daily, weekly and monthly. Fortunately, corals and sponges are able to do so. But what sponges are doing is differentially processing the beneficial DOC from corals and the detrimental DOC from algae and promoting different types of microbial processes. Since algae releases significantly more DOC than corals what has scientists concerned is feedback loops between sponges and algae that causes a phase shift brom a coral dominate system to a algae dominate system. By reducing algae with herbivores and manual removal with water changes the harmful microbial processes caused by either algae DOC directly or inderectly by the algae DOC derived products sponges release back into the water and reducing total microbial counts with water changes ASSISTS corals in promoting and maintaining healthy microbiomes through the DOC they release directly and indrectly through the coral DOC derived products sponges relase back into the water.
As for hydroxyls, this isn't new. Anyone running ozone or UV that has dosed peroxide has created hydroxyls. Can't just assume that water changes solved it. That's just guessing at best. Could be they dosed low enough it didn't matter but none the less I'm sure some have because that's becoming prevalent and not just in trying to solve undesirable GHA but solving display tank ich.
As I pointed out in an earlier post, using hydroxyl radicals has been shown not to be as effective as you've promoted them. FYI free radicals superoxide O2•–, H2O2 and OH are a major problem for corals as they are products of phtosynthesis and they have a lot of biology just for neutralizing them (Specifically, inside a cell OH interfeares with the mitochondria.) Ozone has it's own set of issues and breaking refractory DOC into types that promote microbial growth has the same issues as adding labile DOC or using hydrozyl ions to reak refractory DOC into forms that feed microbes
H2O2 definitley has it's uses in reef aquaria. I'll use small cups on the end of a syrenge or large bore needles to kill algae while minimizing exposure of nearby corals. But my searches haven't found any research and you haven't presented research by scientists that identifies safe levels for corals or shows using H2O2 will minimize the role of excess labile DOC in causing either anoxic conditions in the coral microbiome or pathogenic shifts in the coral microbiome. There's is also the concern (this has come partly from my observations experimenting using H2O2 to deal with nuisance algae it takes longer to get the same results than not using H2O2) that along with reducing nuisance algae H2O2 in a sysem will inadvertantly also kill the phages that control nuisance algae.
As far as using it for ich, I need to see the research. Over the years I've seen and ich dissapear on it's own with any overt action on my part. In fact, I now need to see it on several different fish before I'll take steps to control it. What I would like to see is research looking at the possibility of different genotypes including the possibility of aquarium adapted types.
My question is about using sponges to solves DOC.
Sponges are essential for corals to survive in a reef system. But they are a two edged sword and can cut both ways as shown by the research.
Instead of just proclaiming something won't work perhaps best seek solutions that might. Day we stop trying is the day this hobby and others stop progressing because we chose to just accept defeat or stick to old habits because that's all we believe or trust.
I absolutley agree with this. I've been questioning the dogma I see in the hobby since I first realized back in hte '90s high PO4 levels don't corrleate with nuisance algae. Searching for why uncovererd lots of research showing how "gurus" had misled aquarists, making assumptions and not verifying thier beliefs. Same thing is happening with DOC.
Let's simplify this vs taking sides.
Can sponges remove DOC concerns both naturally occurring as well as those created by hydroxyls? Based on what I've read and understood it seems they can therefore perhaps with the advent of cryptic zone we find a strategy that ensure these no longer remain the hurdle to throwing those dreaded buckets away. Can't see anything other than DOC and undetectable coral warfare remnants being a concern.
If you'd read the researech I've posted you'd know sponges are very effecient at processing DOC very fast, on the order of hours. None of the research on hydroxyl ions support your claims about it.
Again, I need to correct you, these processes and DOC are not undetectable, as aquarists we may not be able to test for them easily but they are in our systems as assuredly as water is.
As I pointed out in an earlier post and concerns noted above, the problem with breaking down SOME (not all of it as you've presented) of the refractory DOC in an aquarium with hydroxyl radicals is it's converting DOC not available for microbial growth into forms that are available for microbial growth. When this happens it seems obvious to me, we have the same problem we have with adding labile DOC or the DOC from algae with increased microbial growth. This can cause anoxic conditions in coral microbiomes and or cause pathogenic shifts in coral microbiomes or result in increased sponge products that can cause a phase shft from coral to algae.
As reef ecosytems are pehaps the most complex ecosystem on hte planet, as tempting as it may be, trying to simplify it is going to miss not a little but miss a lot. A gaurentee if we refuse to consider the research.
As for "dreaded buckets" I've seen lots of inovative methods of semi and fully automated water change systems . But even using just buckets doesn't seem like that much of a chore. This 90 gallon system was maintained for over a decade by a 50+ grandmother after her husband left it to her (61 when she moved to Floorida with her boyfriend). She didn't have issues doing weekly 5 gallon water changes, hauling the water ~50' from the water station set up in her garage. And she never had to dose anything either. (I know it's not a good pic but I would point out the generic green Rhodactis mushrooms she has grown to 8" to 10" diameter.)
And this
600 gallon system (500 display + ~100 in the sumps) required me to haul 30 gallons every week about 75 yards from the water station to the tank. Weekly time to do maintenance including water change and running an algae magnet over the glass was less than an hour. So I don't see water changes taking that long even with moderately large systems.
