Element Toxicity

[SPC]

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-08/r ... /index.htm

It appears there is a good chance that this is the reason for "old tank syndrome". Dr Ron has adviced that our tanks should be torn down after 4 years (avg), all L/R and L/S should be thrown away, and the tank and all plumbing should be totally disinfected to remove the toxins.
The toxins come from:
1. Salt mixes
2. Feeding
3. Additives
Steve

 

[reefland]

My tank is nearly six years old and looks fantastic. I have no plans on taking it down until I move in a few more years.

 

[ReefLion]

This is the best evidence I've seen for consistent, frequent water changes. I understand that the author points to synthetic sea salts as a contributor of toxins. However, it is a safe assumption that the initial values for newly mixed artificial saltwater are acceptable. Accordingly, if any toxins are present at a higher level in the water column, a water change will only help.

Obviously the article suggests carbon (or polyfilter) and skimming as additional methods of extraction.

ReefLion

 

[SPC]

Posted by ReefLion:

However, it is a safe assumption that the initial values for newly mixed artificial saltwater are acceptable.

-No actually the author is saying that the salt mix itself is a major contributer to the problem and therefore water changes are just adding to the problem. The following is a question that was posed to Dr Ron about this subject and his subsequent reply:

For those of us who use Instant Ocean mix, what do you think about placing a poly filter or some GAC in our mixed water before we do water changes? Will this sufficiently remove the metals, or are we risking removing too much of the necessary stuff in the replacement water?

Well, this is what I recommended in this month's article. Keep in mind that there is virtually NO necessary stuff in the salt mix except salt, calcium, and some alkalinity buffers. Effectively every thing else in the mix is a poison. So... get rid of as much of it as you can.
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

L/R and L/S should be thrown away,

theres no alternative to this? could you please give me a link to his article that states this?

No actually the author is saying that the salt mix itself is a major contributer to the problem and therefore water changes are just adding to the problem

i would think that the water changes help to keep concentrations of these materials down.

 

[SPC]

http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/sh ... did=105166
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

Sounds like a nefarious plan to sell more live rock. :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

If the artificial salt is a contributor, then we're ******. Which I doubt that it is, since the animals just don't up and death spiral in newly established tanks. I know he's well respected, but it sounds like he was drawing vacuum on the wrong water column.

Granted, I'm sure some people are poisoning their tanks with bad topoff water. I find it extremely more likely that the toxic trace elements are coming from things such as medicines and equipment seepage. All of those listed can come from both of those sources, btw. I lean mostly towards additives and feed, though, considering that the vast majority of those are made from dietary grade components, not analytical, and so they can have all kinds of fubar stuff in them. Just my two bits.

 

[ReefLion]

>>>No actually the author is saying that the salt mix itself is a major contributer to the problem and therefore water changes are just adding to the problem.<<<

If the author is saying water changes can't reduce the levels of toxins in the water, he's just wrong as a matter of algebra. A water change will *always* act to bring the levels of any compound in the water column towards the level present in the make-up water (by make-up here I don't mean top-off, I mean the new saltwater added during a water change). In other words, if the water column contains, say, less calcium per liter than the make-up water, the make-up water will increase calcium levels. This is because the water taken out of the system will have less calcium than the water added. On the other hand, if the water column has more copper than the make-up water, a water change will reduce copper levels.

This is just math. There is absolutely no getting around it. I also think it is a safe assumption that the levels of compounds found in newly-mixed artificial saltwater are acceptable for marine life. The main evidence for this assumption is that fact that everything doesn't die immediately when we add it to the tank.

Now I understand the article is not exactly clear regarding how toxicity interferes with our animals. It sounds to me like the problem is toxins accumulating in the water column, which make their way to the corals. I understand they can also accumulate in rock, which can act as a sink for a certain period of time. That's the basis for the recommendation to change live rock over time. The real problem, however, appears to be the water itself. When the toxins in the rock and sand reach an equilibrium, then can no longer remove toxins from the water column, and the levels in the water increase. Water changes will reduce those levels.

If you read the article to mean that the corals and fish accumulate toxins in their bodies regardless of the levels in the water, then changing over rock and sand would never help completely. It would only defer an ultimate crash. The only possible solution would be to use NSW. I don't read the article as saying that. It appears that if the toxins in the water level are at acceptable concentrations, then the animals can survive. Again, water changes will tend to maintain acceptable concentrations.

ReefLion

 

[MiNdErAsR]

Guys...Read the article. Also follow the link to Bingman's article on various salts. You'll see CLEARLY what Shimek is talking about. Until a better salt mix is available the best thing you can do is frequent and large water changes with NSW *if possible*, or use GAC & a polyfilter to reduce heavy metals (hopefully) to a less toxic level. In the mean time pray to the reef gods (sacrifice a virgin if possible) that the commercial salt producers take notice and make the necessary changes.

 

[Anonymous]

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-08/rs/feature/index.htm

It appears there is a good chance that this is the reason for "old tank syndrome". Dr Ron has adviced that our tanks should be torn down after 4 years (avg), all L/R and L/S should be thrown away, and the tank and all plumbing should be totally disinfected to remove the toxins.
The toxins come from:
1. Salt mixes
2. Feeding
3. Additives
Steve

steve-dr.ron wrote:

These unexplained mortalities do not only happen in older tanks. Many deaths of newly purchased, or newly collected, animals also may fall into this category. Although transport stress and handling can be seriously damaging to many animals, enough animals get through the distribution network to provide what should be a steady supply of animals in good health. Nevertheless, many aquarists report that newly introduced animals which appear to be healthy, seem to sicken and die with a couple of weeks, often much faster, in home aquaria

my problem with this statement is the apparent lack of accounting for cyanide collection as a cause of ' newly introduced animals which appear to be healthy, seem to sicken and die with a couple of weeks, often much faster, in home aquaria'

i think the larger percentage of mortalities occur when stocking tanks, which is usually done during the first year of the tank's life, and these tanks, by ron's own admission, should have LOWER toxic element levels.

As a guess, I would suspect that for hobbyists that have to rely on artificial sea water, it will be prudent to breakdown and re-establish a tank every four or five years, perhaps more frequently.

i don't see 'breakdown and re-establish' as necessarily saying toss out your live rock.

maybe he's suggesting a 'flushing' of the systems' water (?)

i also would suggest that there are plenty of long term aquaria that have not suffered the fate that, according to the direction of ron's article, most, if not all, aquariums should suffer.

mortality would also have to be proved to be a direct result of the 'elemental poisons' to back this-just because a poison is present, does not mean it was the (main) cause of death.

food for thought-is 'old tank syndrome' occuring at the same rate as 20, 10,5 yrs. ago?-i'll bet not.

i do agree with the premise that good filtration skimming occasional carbon, poly filter are good common sense practices for aquarium husbandry-also to remove any 'unknowns' that may accumulate in any (for the most part)closed system.

wouldn't a closed system using nsw also have the same problem?if trace elements get 'bound' by various 'sinks' in our tanks, the same thing will happen even w/nsw- though maybe at a slower rate(due to lower levels of certain trace elements in nsw vs.asw)

personally, i think dr.ron is a bit out on a limb on this one, (though his intentions, as always are good and honorable)and i would like to hear from hobbyists who have had animals in marine aquaria for 5yrs.+ chime in!

i think a lot more data should have been collected on the subject of long term captive husbandry before publishing the article.

 

[Anonymous]

p.s.- fwiw-i have never experienced 'old tank/new tank' syndrome-the only syndrome i've encountered with clients/customers is 'new tank', and i think it has more to do with failing to let the system stabilize and 'rest' a while between load changes to the system(i.e.-any environmental system that is repeatedly stressed, will crash in some fashion, and to some extent)

 

[Anonymous]

Guys...Read the article. Also follow the link to Bingman's article on various salts. You'll see CLEARLY what Shimek is talking about. Until a better salt mix is available the best thing you can do is frequent and large water changes with NSW *if possible*, or use GAC & a polyfilter to reduce heavy metals (hopefully) to a less toxic level. In the mean time pray to the reef gods (sacrifice a virgin if possible) that the commercial salt producers take notice and make the necessary changes.

So, what kind of water did Bingman use to mix the salt with? It isn't mentioned, but seems pretty darn important to me. Especially considering the relative ion concentrations compared to NSW. Several of the manufacturers seem to be precisely and cooperatively wrong.

I understand clearly what Dr.Shimek is grasping at, however I disagree. Artificial ecologies are very complicated. If it was possible to eliminate the variations due to the different locations and environments that the separate tanks are kept in, and what Bingman says about SSW is acurate, then what Dr. Shimek says might be one of several good possibilities.

Let me pose this one for you. Suppose 'old tank syndrome' is caused by toxic trace metal build up and that synthetic salt mix is perfectly ok. It is very possible that the trace metals are from the source water that is filtered for use in mixing SSW. It is understood that RO membranes reject fewer impurities as they age. Also, DI units can, and do, leach trapped ions back into the water flow after they resins are exhausted. If the units are serviced regularly, trace metal build up is not an issue as only sweet water is used. However, not every aquarist replaces membranes and resin beads on a schedule that allows for some margin of error. In fact, many people post here that they service once the output water reaches some threshold level of impurity. So, the aquarist learning curve dictates that if using 1 megOhm water makes the cyano breakout and the corals shrink, then water quality must never be allowed to drop to 1 megOhm. That's fine and great, but what if using 2 megOhm water for SSW mixing leads to long term trace metal build up? The aquarist has little external motivation to maintain pure water because the short term effect on livestock is not measurable, even though his habits are poisoning his tank.

So . . . now we have two competing theories.

I would like to see more studies on synthetic sea salt. I also would like to see DI units with options for resistivity lights more like 15-16 megOhms instead 1 or 2. Anyway.

 

[Anonymous]

hmmm, I think I'll start running my fresh saltwater through some carbon and floss before I do my next water change.

 

[Anonymous]

for arguments sake lets suppose dr.ron's theory proves true.
wouldn't it be possible to detoxify these tanks albeit slowly but permanently using water changes with new suitable trace element free water and skimming w/occasional GAC?

 

[fishfarmer]

Sounds like a nefarious plan to sell more live rock.

And sand and detritivore kits :roll: .

I would like to know a little history, maintainance scheduals and biomass of the test aquariums.

 

[Anonymous]

also caulerpa harvesting should help as well

 

[Marcosreef]

i don't see 'breakdown and re-establish' as necessarily saying toss out your live rock.

maybe he's suggesting a 'flushing' of the systems' water (?)

If I read the article correctly, he said to "dumpster" the live rock and sand bed.

Marco

 

[Anonymous]

I'd like to see an expirement.

What if somebody could take LR from a really old tank, take it out and place it in clean water with a low pH. This might cause the toxins to be released into the water column. The formerly clean water could be tested and if it was positive for toxins, there wouldn't have to be so much confusion.

Would it be possible to do a test like this? any ideas?

po

 

[fishfarmer]

What if somebody could take LR from a really old tank, take it out and place it in clean water with a low pH.

I think the same should be done with the sandbeds as well, since IMO pulling a sandbed every four years would be a major PITA as opposed to selling corals attached to live rock to other hobbists 8O .