Any way to get away with not doing water changes?

[Gary Majchrzak]

Are water consumption restrictions in drought stricken CA affecting reefkeepers over there?
How bad is it?

I saw your governor on the news the other night....

 

[wildman926]

first pass the source water through a brine-regenerated water softener. Systems like this can be operated to capture as much as 80% of the incoming water as purified product.

Thanks for this info. These two statements made me look into it further, and I found a unit that I can place inline before my rodi system. It can only help, especially flushing it after regeneration before making new water.

 

[Sk8r]

There are some interesting tank-supplementation developments coming out of Holland and Germany. Reefkeeping is a constant evolution of process, and it is worth watching. It's either starting or close to showing up in the American market, and we likely will be seeing people try it. Is it economical? Remains to see.

 

[Timfish]

Only way to get rid of the DOC in a reef system is with water changes. Skimmers are lousy at getting rid of it, much of it is refractory in nature meaning skimmers and most likely GAC also will not get rid of it. Maintaining systems that are more than 2 decades old I have heard a lot about how this way or that way will elliminate the need for water changes but the longest I've heard is 7 years. These systems should be outlasting all of us if properly cared for, they should be essentially immortal (just like the reefs).

 

[goldslinger]

I have done incidental water changes only, meaning taking out some water for fragging, treating, etc. but no intentional water change for 4 Months. I would say I take out 3 to 4 gallons per Month out of a 56 Gallon, so I guess some kind of water change.

Massive Water changes WERE essential before easy to replace filter socks, reactors, high quality resins and carbon, quality additives and an understanding of Biology of bacteria, eg: carbon dosing. Everything is getting better and the Europeans are always first to experiment and embrace.



I have 110 lbs live rock in the 56 Gallon DT and 10 pounds of rubble in the fuge. 2 to 4 inches live sand in both.

I change the filter sock every 3 Days. Dust off the live rock every Week.
I harvest handful of Macro algae out of the refuge every Week; what the amphipods don't eat.
I change the ROX .8 carbon every 2 Weeks
I change the GFO every Month.
I dose the big 3 and add Saliferts Trace Hard and Trace Soft once Every 2 Weeks. It has everything salt would put in there.
I also dose Saliferts Iodide/ Iodate at a rate tested to be safe.

My Nitrates are rock steady at .5
Phosphates are 0
My protein skimmer is acting as an aerator only, there is nothing for it to take out and hasn't been for over 4 Months as My tank matured.

Tank is doing great; have to keep increasing dosage of Calcium and Alkalinity to keep up with growth; especially the 6 inch maxima clam.
I will say My little tank is HEAVILY loaded with Softies, LPS, and some SPS and that may be why it is getting easier to manage, Biological filtration, especially the clam; they are filter feinds!

 

[nanomania]

My plan was to go for double the recomended size on skimmer, AIO biopellets, phosguard/rowaphos, carbon and purigen for filteration. And for trace dosing just seachem reef plus... no waterchanges... just maybe while selling corals or acclimating new fish (10% monthly or once in 2mnths)

 

[Vladec]

I want to share my experience - maybe it will be interesting.

Water changes do not make more than 2 years - SPS, LPS, anemone, soft corals, zoos .....

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2317234

 

[Redman88]

Read PualB threads

 

[acesq]

If the OP's concern is water conservation (certainly makes sense in CA right now), here are some thoughts beyond what Sk8r and Breadman noted.

According to the San Jose water quality report (found here), the TDS of the water in the district is either quite hard (ca. 350 - 400ppm), or fairly soft in one sub-system (ca. 70 ppm).

In an RODI system, the minimum waste-to-product ratio is governed by the "hard water" ion concentration of the source water. Source water with a lot of calcium, manganese and sulfate can be concentrated at the RO membrane's surface to the point where the dissolved ion's solubility is exceeded, which results in precipitation on the membrane surface and fouling.

If your source water is fairly soft (<100 ppm TDS), you can generally get away with a 2:1 or even a 1:1 waste-to-product ratio without risking membrane fouling. All that's required in such circumstances is an adjustable waste valve; one simply measures the flowrate of the waste and product streams and adjusts the waste valve to get a 1:1 waste-to-product ratio.

In areas with hard water (>300 ppm TDS), one can still run a low waste-to-product ratio, but steps must be taken to remove fouling at the RO membrane's surface to preserve its efficiency. There are multiple ways to accomplish this; one's to set-up an auto-flush cycle that washes the RO membrane with source water at high flowrates every few minutes. That's what the SpectraPure ultra-high efficiency system does. Another is to add an anti-fouling chemical to the source water via a chemical metering pump; this is common in industrial systems, but fairly impractical for a hobbyist.

A third method is first pass the source water through a brine-regenerated water softener. These are just the standard units typically found in home stores; the unit removes the "hard water ions" (typically calcium and manganese) and replaces them with sodium. Because sodium has a very high solubility in water, the softened water won't foul an RO membrane, and the system can be run at very low waste-to-reject ratios. Many industrial systems are set up this way - the water goes through a brine-regenerated water softener before the RO unit, and the RO unit also contains an auto-flush apparatus. Systems like this can be operated to capture as much as 80% of the incoming water as purified product.

Dkeller:

The water softener idea sounds great for reducing RO wastewater, but in my very limited understanding of how brine-regenerated softeners work, don't they also generate quite a bit of waste water? Some Cities in Southern California have ordinances that prohibit their use. That leads me to the question I have for you, do "salt free" water softeners provide the same benefit to reducing the load on the RO and allowing them to be run at low waste-to-reject ratios?

Art

 

[Aqualund]

+1 to this.

Im on about 18 months since my last water change. I keep the water parameters in check with effective filtration, and then resupply trace elements by using the balling method or manually.

I have a very healthy reef environment...So I dunno I feel that water changes do more harm than good for me.

 

[laga77]

+1 to this.

Im on about 18 months since my last water change. I keep the water parameters in check with effective filtration, and then resupply trace elements by using the balling method or manually.

I have a very healthy reef environment...So I dunno I feel that water changes do more harm than good for me.

Without anything to compare with, like another tank set up the same why but run with water changes, you are only guessing. Your tank may be existing but not thriving.

 

[goldslinger]

Without anything to compare with, like another tank set up the same why but run with water changes, you are only guessing. Your tank may be existing but not thriving.

Or He has had His existing tank for years and knows the before and after. Most aquarists are pretty sensitive to any changes for better or for worse. Especially when thousands are invested in stock. I don't need 2 tanks to notice even small changes in my corals. If they're growing, then that's all the experimenting You need if You Not writing a paper.

 

[whatnot45]

Thanks guys. Leaving drought politics out of the equation (California is pretty screwed up), I will say that I just really do not enjoy destroying my living room for hours to wait for big buckets to fill and mix... But, I have gone back to water changes. My corals all started dying, and I was getting a ton of hair algae. I have since done 2 30% water changes, and the problem has fixed itself so I guess if the state wants to fine me they can go right ahead its cheaper than buying new live stock.

 

[goldslinger]

Thanks guys. Leaving drought politics out of the equation (California is pretty screwed up), I will say that I just really do not enjoy destroying my living room for hours to wait for big buckets to fill and mix... But, I have gone back to water changes. My corals all started dying, and I was getting a ton of hair algae. I have since done 2 30% water changes, and the problem has fixed itself so I guess if the state wants to fine me they can go right ahead its cheaper than buying new live stock.

Yea, if I didn't have the equip I have, the same would happen to Me.

 

[Aqualund]

Without anything to compare with, like another tank set up the same why but run with water changes, you are only guessing. Your tank may be existing but not thriving.

Been doing it for a little while. Have two separate 2k gallon coral farms, and 5 different displays I maintain on the same methodology. I quantify thriving as everything stable, not dying, growing, colored, and full polyp extension for a year or more...and I feel like that might be the same definition you have.

No water changes is very much a reality for me.

granted, tomorrow it might all blow up...but then again we all live with that possibility.

 

[pledosophy]

I almost never chime in on these threads because it just becomes a fight with people who do not have experience actually not doing the water changes. It's like they choose to do it so everyone has to.

I have gone up to 2.5 years without doing a water change on my mixed reef. I run a protein skimmer, and a carbon reactor. I dose Vodka and Ammino Acids. I supplement calcium, magnesium, and potassium. I find I get everything else I need through foods.

I test my alk daily, but really only test my nitrate once every couple of weeks (it reads 0)

I feed moderatley and leave my tank what most would consider under stocked.

I don't have the best growth or the best color in the world, but I have better than most I have seen.

I try to avoid adding new salt water, only doing it now after removing water from fragging to keep my salinity stable.

It is doable, which is why so many people will tell you they are doing it. If I had to do a water change I have a mixing station, 2 buckets of salt, and pumps. It's not that I am irresponsible or don't care for my animals. I choose not to do water changes because I find it is best for the animals in my care. If I need to do one I will, but I will also avoid it if possible.

JME

 

[PIPSTER]

I'm guessing it's very different for someone with a 500 gallon monster with water changes than someone with a 40B almost nano tank.

It takes me less than 5 minutes to fill a 5 gallon bucket to the 4 gallon mark, put in 2 1\4 cups of salt, drop in a powerhead...then 24 hours later pump out 4 gallons and dump in the 4 gallons of make-up water, another 5 minutes. Once a week. But if I had 500 gallons, I would just be dosing.

 

[Aqualund]

It's essentially the same amount of time commitment either way. For both you do these things:

1. set up the equipment to store the water. (10-20mins)
2. RO/DI creates the water ( this could take days to occur...but you dont need to be there)
3. dump in the salt and aerate for 24 hours. (5 mins)
4. drain the 20% from the system (10 mins)
5. pump in the 20% into the system (10 mins)

I mean really...it's a half hour to an hour a week for a system that's 40 gallons or 500 gallons...the only difference is how long it takes to create the purified water.

So I guess what I'm saying is that the time requirements that come with a water change for a large system versus a smaller system isn't really the concern. The concern comes with the cost, and the stability...and then, we are talking about the same relative cost per gallon no matter the size.

Instead of investing time and energy into the water changes...I am a definite proponent of investing that time and energy into the equipment that eliminates the necessity for weekly water changes.

The less you have to do, and the more stable the system is, the less likely you are to leave the hobby, because it remains to be enjoyable...even when you have family responsibilities, or vacations, or any time you are away from the tank for extended periods of time.

Who wants to have a tank when it relies on a weekly water change? That investment then dictates your schedule.

 

[nuxx]

Just doing 2-3 gallon daily changes with the Neptune DoS.

Really don't plan on doing large single time changes anymore... 650 gallon system volume.

 

[stephenhall1987]

Without anything to compare with, like another tank set up the same why but run with water changes, you are only guessing. Your tank may be existing but not thriving.

I think a better way to say this is looking at it at a scientific study point of view. Eliminate as many variables as possible, have 2 identical setups, one with regular WC and one with other means of filtration. Kind of like a control.


I think for the majority of people in the hobby, WC are the best thing they can do for their tank. The select few people that are smart enough and dedicated enough can go on the forefront and experiment with the best methods of a WC-less system.

I think for long term success you would need to mimic mother nature, with a large variety of organisms to naturally clean the system. A variety of algae, bacteria, micro organisms, crustaceans, etc to consume the pollutants and clean the water. A miniature biodome. The problem is the vast assortment of "pollutants" that can build up over time, and the complexity of mother nature.

In my view, the best long term success would rely most heavily on a very large refugium, and or algae turf scrubber. Again, the more variety the better.

Even with all of this, it may not work really long term. So much of what we ad to the tank is not natural to ocean chemistry and biology. For example, I've read articles relating the build up of Chloride and Sulfate to "old tank syndrome". These "salts" are what we stabilize most of our mineral additives with. The corals absorb the calcium and magnesium, and leave the chloride and sulfate behind. Overtime this builds up and gets saturated far above natural sea levels.

I'm not against water changes, or non water changes. I just want what is best for the fish and coral.