Moving 29 gal Biocube

[r212019]

I'm moving a 29 gal Biocube this weekend and I'm looking for some advice/help. The tank currently has about 20lbs of live rock and a sand bed. There is currently no fish in the tank. If I drain the tank almost completely but leave enuf water to keep the sand sub merged, will that work? I plan to move the tank water into a bucket with the love rocks as well. When I get to my final destination, can I put the rock back in the tank and fill it back up with the saltwater in the bucket?

Another thing, I don't really plan on putting any fish in the tank for about a month, how long do I keep the lights on everyday and do I need to feed the rocks or add anything to the tank?

I'm fairly new to this so I want to do everything right. I'm in no rush to add anything to the tank, I want to make sure that the new placement of the tank doesn't cause any issues with heating and what not. Please help

[r212019]

This is how the tank currently look

[gobytron]

I would leave the sand in, as long as it stays wet, you should keep some of the beneficial fauna in there.

You can do as you described and just put the rock and water back into the tank, especially since you don't have any fish. If it were me, Id use 50% old and 50% new water.

you shouldnt need to feed the tank anything.
You don't have to leave the lights on at all if you have no coral or fish but leaving the lights on for the usual amount of time (8-12 hours) you might see some unexpected growth of an organism or two...

[asylumdown]

yah so long as you keep everything that might have life on it wet, I think you're good to go. With nor corals or fish I don't even think saving the old water is all that important to be honest, the only reason to re-use it would be to save on salt. So long as the new water is salinity matched, it's not going to harm the bacteria on your rocks and in your sand one bit to do a 100% water change.

[gobytron]

Unless you're testing for everything and are 100% sure ALL parameters are bang on, a 100% water change is never a great idea.

There is a lot more than salinity changes that can shock or kill flora and fauna in your aquarium.

[asylumdown]

I respectfully but completely disagree. I have a 4 gallon coral only pico tank that gets a 100% water change every week. I don't even bother matching temperature all that carefully any more, though I wouldn't recommend that to someone. That tank is thriving, and is the second tank I've maintained that way, and I got the idea from Advanced Aquarist's EcoReef One, which used the same method.

I recently saw an article on... reef builders I think, about a man in Australia with a full blown reef who's colour blind and can't read the colours of a test kits, so instead of testing for calcium and alkalinity, he just does 90% or more water changes on his large reef system. It looks like the only reason he doesn't do 100% changes is because he needs to leave enough water in the bottom for the fish. That system could have easily won any number of forum tank of the month contests.

There was another article on reef builders recently championing the benefits of very large water changes as they can single handedly fix any number of water chemistry problems.

People are always afraid of 'shocking' their systems, but I have yet to see any good evidence of a case in which a parameter difference other than temperature or salinity (and even those seem to have a pretty forgiving margin) could lead to any sort of harm. Maybe pH, but the differential in pH you'd need to seriously harm or 'shock' most things is going to be larger than what you should ever have between the old water and the new.

Seeing as the only thing in this system has already survived a trip around the world in nothing more than wet newspaper, I'd say the risk to doing a 100% water change with a good quality salt that is matched in salinity and temperature is zero. If it were me and I had a heavily loaded SPS system, I'd probably still do a 100% water change as it's a perfect opportunity to reset the chemistry, and any imbalances in chloride, sodium, and sulphate that may have developed over the course of dosing mag, calcium, and carbonate.

The risk comes from the amount of time things spend out of water, or in a container that isn't heated and has no aeration.

[asylumdown]

hmm, maybe the article about large water changes and the australian guy were the same article:

http://reefbuilders.com/2013/05/21/fix-fish-tank-reef-aquarium-problems-95-water/

[gobytron]

Many of the organisms we're so worried about shocking you can't see.
In a pico, you really have no choice but to do large waterchanges.

I would bet your biofilter sucks in that thing as you are constantly setting it's establishment back every time you "shock" it.

You may have never personally seen any negative effects, but you would if for example you had the exact same tank set up and just did 20% water changes weekly to compare it too.

The article on large water changes likely has accomplished aquarists who do test and calibrate their water before doing a large water change.

[asylumdown]

Again, I have to completely disagree. If you're using a high quality salt, which more than likely is the same salt you used to make the batch of water that you're replacing, the differences in chemistry are going to be vanishingly small. In a worse case scenario, you'll have water that's severely depleted in carbonate, calcium, and magnesium if you've got lots of actively growing stony corals in the tank, but if you're doing it right, they shouldn't be depleted to the point where anything in the tank is at risk of damage. In this tank, there's nothing in it that's using anything, so the new water, assuming he's using the same salt, should be darn near exactly the same as the old water.

Doing a 100% water change will simply bring all the levels of all the ions back to exactly where they were when you first mixed your salt and added things to your tank. The bacteria that do all the biological processing in our tanks are, for the most part, aerobic, so briefly exposing the substrates they're on to air isn't going to do anything unless you leave it long enough to dry out. That large reef system I linked to is loaded with fish, if doing a 95% water change really did anything at all to the biological filter, it should have experienced a major ammonia spike every week. Considering how beautiful and healthy it is, that's clearly not the case. Here's a link to another large tank in Australia that gets regular, near 50% water changes: http://www.masa.asn.au/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=147&t=234823. It's a slightly different method, and those two Australian tanks are only possible due to their proximity to the ocean (I can't fathom the cost of mixing 200 gallons of high quality salt water every week), but the principle is the same - they rely on massive water changes to bring all the levels back in-line with NSW. If doing a 100% water change damages something in my pico, I should also have expected to see a spike in ammonia after each change, as I still feed those corals meaty foods several times a week. Nothing of the sort happens, nor does it bother any of the bristleworms that have colonized the rock structure, the copious amount of pods, or the stomatella snails that I somehow managed to get in there.

We've gotten in to a weird habit in this hobby of seeing new salt water as toxic or something. Completely mixed new salt water (assuming it's a good salt and has appropriate levels of the right ions - the only kind you should be using in a reef anyway) is the standard to which we are trying to return the water in our tanks to with all the fancy dosing, nutrient export systems, and additives we add. Skipping all that extra work and just replacing the water outright does the exact same thing we're already doing with the dosing, and has been shown in both small and very large systems to not only not be dangerous, but to actually greatly improve the system. Damage to the biological filter is testable - if bacteria die, there will be an ammonia spike. I've never seen one, the other systems that use large water changes don't see them, so from my point of view, saying large water changes are bad because of an undefined threat to something you can't see that has no testable or noticeable outcome either in the chemistry (other than parameters being returned to optimal concentrations) or the macro biology sounds like superstition more than science.

If someone shows me a video under a microscope of an established bed of nitrifying bacteria suddenly expiring when they are taken from water with a dKH of 7 and placed in salinity and temperature matched water water with a dKH of 9, I will eat my words. Aquatic life is far more resilient than we give it credit for.

egads, sorry for the hijack. good luck with the tank move.

[gobytron]

If salt comes from the same BATCH, you can expect similar enough parameters from one bucket to the next but same brand?

No way...

Making salt is far from an exact science and this is a pretty big assumption for you to make.

You can probably get by a okay with your logic int his hobby but if you talk to any reefer worth his salt they'll tell you continuity is by far the best thing that you can offer your microcosm.

and a large tank can much better handle a 50% water change as that;s the whole appeal to a large tank, the ability to better manage fluctuations that may be detrimental to a smaller system.

and even in a smaller tank, a 50% water change is not a 100% water change.

[asylumdown]

I completely agree, stability is key for long term health. But when there is plenty of practical evidence showing that very large to 100% water changes harm nothing and can allow systems to maintain stocking, feeding, and dosing regiments that wouldn't otherwise be possible and still have award worthy coral growth and healthy fish, I think that should be pointed out, especially when someone is new to the hobby and is worried about moving a tank.

Anyway this is all testable. I'm doing a 100% water change on my pico in about 5 minutes. Both the bag of ceramic bio-rings in the back chamber, the rock pyre, and all the corals will be completely exposed to air for about 5 minutes. I'll do that water change, then target feed each one of my corals with meaty foods, which is about the maximum organic input this tank ever receives. I normally wait a couple of days to feed them to get the most out of my low N and P change water and discourage algae, but for this experiment I'll feed them as soon as they re-inflate. I'll test ammonia levels every day for the next week. If I get a detectable reading, I will post it in that tank's build thread. If not, I'm going to continue to operate under the assumption that any 'threat' posed by large to 100% water changes (when done right) is largely superstition.

[JmeJReefer]

I respectfully but completely disagree. I have a 4 gallon coral only pico tank that gets a 100% water change every week. I don't even bother matching temperature all that carefully any more, though I wouldn't recommend that to someone. That tank is thriving, and is the second tank I've maintained that way, and I got the idea from Advanced Aquarist's EcoReef One, which used the same method.

I recently saw an article on... reef builders I think, about a man in Australia with a full blown reef who's colour blind and can't read the colours of a test kits, so instead of testing for calcium and alkalinity, he just does 90% or more water changes on his large reef system. It looks like the only reason he doesn't do 100% changes is because he needs to leave enough water in the bottom for the fish. That system could have easily won any number of forum tank of the month contests.

There was another article on reef builders recently championing the benefits of very large water changes as they can single handedly fix any number of water chemistry problems.

People are always afraid of 'shocking' their systems, but I have yet to see any good evidence of a case in which a parameter difference other than temperature or salinity (and even those seem to have a pretty forgiving margin) could lead to any sort of harm. Maybe pH, but the differential in pH you'd need to seriously harm or 'shock' most things is going to be larger than what you should ever have between the old water and the new.

Seeing as the only thing in this system has already survived a trip around the world in nothing more than wet newspaper, I'd say the risk to doing a 100% water change with a good quality salt that is matched in salinity and temperature is zero. If it were me and I had a heavily loaded SPS system, I'd probably still do a 100% water change as it's a perfect opportunity to reset the chemistry, and any imbalances in chloride, sodium, and sulphate that may have developed over the course of dosing mag, calcium, and carbonate.

The risk comes from the amount of time things spend out of water, or in a container that isn't heated and has no aeration.
+1. I change 90% of my water in my picos. Have had no ill effects. No losses to date. Water changes are the life-blood of this fascinating hobby. IMO.

[mrhasan]

Many of the organisms we're so worried about shocking you can't see.
In a pico, you really have no choice but to do large waterchanges.

I would bet your biofilter sucks in that thing as you are constantly setting it's establishment back every time you "shock" it.

You may have never personally seen any negative effects, but you would if for example you had the exact same tank set up and just did 20% water changes weekly to compare it too.

The article on large water changes likely has accomplished aquarists who do test and calibrate their water before doing a large water change.

Can you please post a reference for your claim? As far as I know, if the salinity doesn't drop below 1.018 or its not left to dry in the sun, the bacteria don't have any effect. I don't see people "drip acclimating" LR before adding to the system.

[asylumdown]

The article on large water changes likely has accomplished aquarists who do test and calibrate their water before doing a large water change.

I actually didn't see that line until right now. I should clarify, the two cases in which I've seen people using 50-100% water changes on large systems were using actual sea water, pulled from the ocean using a pump. They both live basically on the ocean in Australia, so this is possible for them, and the only thing they need to worry about it keeping the water the right temp. However, in the case of the 95% water change system, it's an SPS LOADED tank, and I don't think he doses anything (thought I can't confirm that anywhere that I've seen), so his alk, mag, and calcium levels are going to be quite depleted by the time he does the replacement. The guy who's doing 50% weekly water changes is dosing something to maintain alkalinity, but as far as I know that's it. I would happily do 100% water changes on my big system using high quality salt , but I have neither the logistical capacity, or the money to sustain that in Calgary.

I'm running a little experiment with my pico now if you want to look at it. I tested all the levels and the ammonia right before and after a 100% water change yesterday, then fed the corals in that tank about 25% more food than that tank ever usually gets in a single feeding. I tested the ammonia again today, and will test every day for the next week. I will also feed again around Wednesday. If I've done something to the capacity of the bacteria in the tank to process waste, I should see a spike in ammonia in the tank.

[Acrowhora]

is this the guy you were referring to by any chance?http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Y5tVuqYFf48[

QUOTE=asylumdown;829142]I actually didn't see that line until right now. I should clarify, the two cases in which I've seen people using 50-100% water changes on large systems were using actual sea water, pulled from the ocean using a pump. They both live basically on the ocean in Australia, so this is possible for them, and the only thing they need to worry about it keeping the water the right temp. However, in the case of the 95% water change system, it's an SPS LOADED tank, and I don't think he doses anything (thought I can't confirm that anywhere that I've seen), so his alk, mag, and calcium levels are going to be quite depleted by the time he does the replacement. The guy who's doing 50% weekly water changes is dosing something to maintain alkalinity, but as far as I know that's it. I would happily do 100% water changes on my big system using high quality salt , but I have neither the logistical capacity, or the money to sustain that in Calgary.

I'm running a little experiment with my pico now if you want to look at it. I tested all the levels and the ammonia right before and after a 100% water change yesterday, then fed the corals in that tank about 25% more food than that tank ever usually gets in a single feeding. I tested the ammonia again today, and will test every day for the next week. I will also feed again around Wednesday. If I've done something to the capacity of the bacteria in the tank to process waste, I should see a spike in ammonia in the tank.[/QUOTE]

[naesco]

IMO you can have perfect salinity, ph, calcium, alk etcetera but by doing a 100 percent water change you are exchanging a mature tank for a sterile tank and IMO that is not a good idea.
You remove all the goodness in the water ie. bacteria, tiny critters, egg hatches etc. that stabilize your water and feed your coral

[asylumdown]

is this the guy you were referring to by any chance?http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Y5tVuqYFf48[



yah that guy! I haven't watched the full video in a long time, does he give more specifics on what he does between water changes?

[Acrowhora]

i've seen this vid last year and was reminded about him while reading this thread..:wink:yah that guy! I haven't watched the full video in a long time, does he give more specifics on what he does between water changes?

[asylumdown]

IMO you can have perfect salinity, ph, calcium, alk etcetera but by doing a 100 percent water change you are exchanging a mature tank for a sterile tank and IMO that is not a good idea.
You remove all the goodness in the water ie. bacteria, tiny critters, egg hatches etc. that stabilize your water and feed your coral

I'm not saying that's not a possibility, but my main questions out of your statement would be this:

1. are there actually any measurable levels of the things your worried about removing floating around in the water column of an aquarium that's being skimmed (and may also have filter socks in it) at any one moment in time. It's been pretty well established that the important bacteria (ie, the ones that process wastes) are all substrate bound, they're not actually in the water column. If there's a spawning event in your tank, how long do those eggs and sperm actually stay in the water before they're eaten or skimmed out? What you're talking about are substances that are contributed to the water column on an ongoing basis and are routinely removed, not things that are self reproducing and sustaining within the water column itself. Based on how quickly my water returns to crystal clear after I feed, I would guess that the 'half life' of any macro organic substance (eggs, bacteria, critters, etc.) in the water column is going to be vanishingly short, so whatever is in it from moment to moment was most likely contributed relatively recently. The replacement water will likely have the same concentration of eggs, critters, and bacteria as the old water in a matter of hours. I would suspect that relative to the real ocean, the water in our tanks is vastly more sterile in general to begin with, but that doesn't seem to affect the growth of corals.

2. assuming those things are present, does their presence actually matter from a 'captive reef health' point of view, or does the benefit of routinely bringing your dissolved nutrients down to near natural reef levels, and bringing your dissolved trace ion levels that you may not even be testing or dosing back to the 'optimal' levels far outweigh any negative effect that removing a few ephemeral bristleworm eggs might have?

3. What do you mean by 'stabilize'? There are terms that we use in colloquial speech that sound like they mean something, but when you pull back the curtains a little bit, are actually functionally meaningless unless they're specifically defined. The way the alternative health industry talks about 'toxins' in our bodies is one of those cases, and I would argue that in the reef world 'system shock' and 'stabilize' are another. Stabilize in what sense? Keep ammonia levels at a constantly undetectable level? Keep calcium levels high? Keep dissolved nutrients low over time? "Stabilize" can mean a lot of things, and when you think about the functional and tangible parameters that you're actually talking about when you use words like 'stability' and 'shock', 100% water changes do not necessarily trigger changes in those parameters that are actually harmful to tank inhabitants in any way.

I would argue that you don't even need to perfectly match calcium, alk, etc. when you do a 100% water change, as the range of those parameters that marine organisms seem to be able to thrive in is wide enough that the degree of difference necessary to cause real, cellular 'shock' for most things will be wider than a properly done 100% water change with high quality reef salt will ever cause. Salinity and temperature are something that cells have a hard time adjusting to when it's changed suddenly (though I would argue that temperature has a much wider range of allowable sudden changes than most people would be comfortable experimenting with), which is why 100% water changes are always recommended to match exactly.

[asylumdown]

I should also mention that sudden changes in pH is another one of the things that can probably cause damage. But I would also argue that if your discarded water has a pH that has gotten high or low enough for the sudden differential a 100% water change will result in to cause cellular damage, you've got far more serious, longer term water chemistry problems, and a a 100% water change is probably an advisable short term risk to get your system out of a dangerous zone.

[asylumdown]

ugh, three posts in a row. Put the soap box away adam.

The last thing I'd say about the real risk to 100% water changes (assuming that it's your only method of maintaining a tank) is not that it can take something like dKH from 6 to 8, it's that between the water changes, your dKH is allowed to fall from 6 to 8. It's the ongoing, day to day stability that matters, and if over a week your levels are fluctuating from very low to very high, or very high to very low and you're doing nothing in between to keep them 'stabile', you're either not doing your 100% water changes regularly enough, or you're not doing enough in between the water changes to keep things stable.