Any way to get away with not doing water changes?

[pledosophy]

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.

Respectfully, IME it is this type of thinking that is where people who want to limit the tank maintenance get steered wrong in, myself included in the past.

We can not emulate mother nature in a closed system and expect success. We have to use the other tools that are available to us (i.e. protein skimmers, carbon dosing, carbon, etc, etc) to keep the tanks that most of us seem to want to keep.

If you are worried about elements building up, look into a Triton test. IME thus far, which is several years I have not had a build up of unwanted elements.

Also if you do the math an unwanted elements would still increase over time with water changes, if that were happening. It is a completely illogical non fact based argument that water changes will dilute pollution successfully long term.

If your tank husbandry adds "10" of an unwanted element a month, and you do a 20% water change, your still going to have "8 of that mystery element". A month later you will have "18 of mystery element" because your husbandry has not changed. Extrapolate that out.

Water changes are not going to save you. It's a myth. Even if you did a 50% water change once a day it will not save you from elements you are introducing that are not being consumed or filtered out building up over time.

You can add that same formula to anything from nitrate, to phosphate, to adding calcium (unless you are using a salt mix that has Ca numbers higher than natural seawater).

Instead of relying on plants and animals and trying to get as many species and as much diversity as we can to "break everything down" IMHO, it is more important that we understand what those animals are doing, and see if we have a chemical or mechanical way we can do the job more efficiently, so we can incorporate that in our extremely limited space (when compared to the ocean).

Sure algae is great. Does a great job absorbing DOC's and creating oxygen for the water. But space wise, given the same amount of space my protein skimmer clowns what a refugium that size could uptake. It is not even close. I'm not knocking refugiums, but it is not the only answer and usually not the best answer.

If you want to do water changes do water changes. But don't rely on them for the health of your animals, it doesn't work.

To be successful you have to dose what the animals need to thrive. You have to find ways to mechanically remove things that are harmful to the animals. Water changes will absolutely not do it IME.

 

[lastpikd]

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....

It depends on which part of CA you are from that determines the extent of water control. Water companies will penalize for water use if it's an abundant amount. Some places are on waste water control where having water run from the lawn to the gutter while watering could result in a fine.

 

[stephenhall1987]

Respectfully, IME it is this type of thinking that is where people who want to limit the tank maintenance get steered wrong in, myself included in the past.

We can not emulate mother nature in a closed system and expect success. We have to use the other tools that are available to us (i.e. protein skimmers, carbon dosing, carbon, etc, etc) to keep the tanks that most of us seem to want to keep.

If you are worried about elements building up, look into a Triton test. IME thus far, which is several years I have not had a build up of unwanted elements.

Also if you do the math an unwanted elements would still increase over time with water changes, if that were happening. It is a completely illogical non fact based argument that water changes will dilute pollution successfully long term.

If your tank husbandry adds "10" of an unwanted element a month, and you do a 20% water change, your still going to have "8 of that mystery element". A month later you will have "18 of mystery element" because your husbandry has not changed. Extrapolate that out.

Water changes are not going to save you. It's a myth. Even if you did a 50% water change once a day it will not save you from elements you are introducing that are not being consumed or filtered out building up over time.

You can add that same formula to anything from nitrate, to phosphate, to adding calcium (unless you are using a salt mix that has Ca numbers higher than natural seawater).

Instead of relying on plants and animals and trying to get as many species and as much diversity as we can to "break everything down" IMHO, it is more important that we understand what those animals are doing, and see if we have a chemical or mechanical way we can do the job more efficiently, so we can incorporate that in our extremely limited space (when compared to the ocean).

Sure algae is great. Does a great job absorbing DOC's and creating oxygen for the water. But space wise, given the same amount of space my protein skimmer clowns what a refugium that size could uptake. It is not even close. I'm not knocking refugiums, but it is not the only answer and usually not the best answer.

If you want to do water changes do water changes. But don't rely on them for the health of your animals, it doesn't work.

To be successful you have to dose what the animals need to thrive. You have to find ways to mechanically remove things that are harmful to the animals. Water changes will absolutely not do it IME.

I understand your theory described with the 20% WC. But in practice, I must respectfully disagree. My LFS recommends 10% weekly WCs, and in most cases, this seems to be enough to keep Nitrate and Phosphate unreadable (with protein skimmer and refugium). Granted this does not take into consideration other elements that are not normally tested. I am fomilure with Triton tests, but have not spent the money to have a presumably healthy system tested.

10% change a week doesn't seem like much and the math calculates out that after 5 months, there's still 10% of the original water in the system. But in practice, it seems to do the job.

I am not against skimmers. I believe they are affective at removing a significant amount of waste before decomposition. Also, I am fully aware that it takes a very large refugium to accomplish the "same" thing. But I believe that algae will remove certain pollutants that protein skimming and activated carbon leave behind. That's why I use both.

Long term wc less systems, idk if a skimmer is as beneficial. A study of the skimate produced reveled these numbers:

44 % of CaCO3
5% of MgCO3
11% of biogenic opal
34% of organic material
0.5% of phosphate
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/2/aafeature

It doesn't only pull out waste, it also removes minerals that are needed in the aquarium. This article doesn't hardly mention the removal of Chloride.

"When supplementing calcium, alkalinity and magnesium, these accumulating substances can include chloride, sulfate, sodium..."
"The buildup of chloride or sulfate, for example, is not readily countered by any means except water changes..."
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-10/rhf/

I am not a Chemist or a Biologist. I am educated and I do have some experience under my belt. I do not claim to have the answer, nor am I stating that my view is perfectly correct and sound. But I need more than an opinion to change my view. I read and research the studies and experiences of other people, along with my own experience, to come to my conclusions.

 

[Aqualund]

Hmmm, well I have stated that I have (2) 2k gallon propagation systems and 5 display tanks that I have maintained with no water changes for 1.5-2 years with no detrimental effects. I don't want to sound crass, but that is more than opinion....how does that influence your view?

 

[nuxx]

Hmmm, well I have stated that I have (2) 2k gallon propagation systems and 5 display tanks that I have maintained with no water changes for 1.5-2 years with no detrimental effects. I don't want to sound crass, but that is more than opinion....how does that influence your view?

What are you using again equipment wise?

 

[Aqualund]

Well...1lb live rock per gallon, Balling Method dosing or Calcium reactor, 10x DT water turnover, 3x rated skimmer, UV sterilizer, Bio Pellet reactor, gfo and carbon. That's the basic strategy I use, and it's worked quite well.

 

[stephenhall1987]

Hmmm, well I have stated that I have (2) 2k gallon propagation systems and 5 display tanks that I have maintained with no water changes for 1.5-2 years with no detrimental effects. I don't want to sound crass, but that is more than opinion....how does that influence your view?

Get back to me in 10 or 20 years and let me know how the tank is doing. 2 years is a long time to not do a water change, but I've seen tanks go longer with out a change with nitrates and phosphates way over the chart, and still sustaining some sps corals. I think "long term" success is more than 2 years.

 

[Aqualund]

I dunno, I think that is a kind of extreme condition to measure the success. I would never assume that I could get away with TWENTY YEARS of no water changes, and I definitely don't think the OP was asking this question based around a 20 year lifetime.

 

[jason2459]

Why shouldn't people plan to have a tank for 20 years? I hope I'll have mine around for 30-40 years. Not much more then that because I'll not want to be around much longer then that. I don't know anyone that's had a tank for more than 10 years not do some kind of periodic water change. Anything less then that and it's not a very long time at all in the life of a tank. Plus, if I recall correctly the Triton method does not say to never do a water change or that there is never a need to do them.

PaulB was mentioned above but even he does periodic water changes with NSW and/or ASW. IF it's time then water changes can can easily be automated and once a month or less make up new water. Above someone mentioned it takes just as much time to do a manaul weekly water change as the dosing methods that are becoming popular in Europe so that's not a positive or a negative for or not doing manual water changes. If it's cost then the methods being proposed are not free either. Plus, salt can be relatively cheap if you don't get caught up in marketing hype and buy expensive brands.

So, to answer the OP's question yes there are ways to reduce water changes but IMO there isn't anything out there proven that completely eliminates them even the Triton method. If it's the labor part then there's many ways to simplify manual water changes and even automate them.

 

[nuxx]

Well...1lb live rock per gallon, Balling Method dosing or Calcium reactor, 10x DT water turnover, 3x rated skimmer, UV sterilizer, Bio Pellet reactor, gfo and carbon. That's the basic strategy I use, and it's worked quite well.

Thanks :love1:

 

[Big E]

Hmmm, well I have stated that I have (2) 2k gallon propagation systems and 5 display tanks that I have maintained with no water changes for 1.5-2 years with no detrimental effects. I don't want to sound crass, but that is more than opinion....how does that influence your view?

I would assume you do a fair amount of selling out of these prop systems........hence small constant water changes. I don't see how that can be avoided.

 

[Big E]

The display tank in this thread isn't a year old yet. Did you change any water to "fix" your prop systems from the AEFW devastation?

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2452112

Hmmm.........

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2443871

 

[Gary Majchrzak]

ime

ime

it usually takes a couple of years after setting up a new system for a skimmer to start skimming some serious gunk.

Degradation of water happens over time.

 

[dkeller_nc]

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

Sorry for the "no reply", I'd forgotten about this thread. The amount of wastewater that a brine-regenerated softener generates is pretty minimal. Certainly way, way less than an average RODI system, and considerably less than most household's usage for washing clothes. I'd guess (but definitely don't know) that the local ordinances prohibiting their use has more to do with the calcium/magnesium content of the waste brine regeneration fluid than it does with total water usage. Concentrated brine is potentially corrosive to iron/steel sewer lines if the softener's not correctly installed so that greywater doesn't properly flush the lines.

 

[Aqualund]

I would assume you do a fair amount of selling out of these prop systems........hence small constant water changes. I don't see how that can be avoided.

Yes that's one of the many I listed. And no, I did not do any water changes after dosing levismol HCL. Just activated carbon & a variety of bacteria.

I would assume you do a fair amount of selling out of these prop systems........hence small constant water changes. I don't see how that can be avoided.

Now we're just being nitpicky. But to answer your question, no I don't sell anything out of either as I am growing broodstock for my store.

It's fine if you want to do water changes, but don't sit here and insinuate im stretching the truth to advance a point that benefits me in no way. I'm here to say that there is a way to have a thriving reef tank without doing weekly or monthly water changes and thats it.

To accept a finer point, I will admit to a basic necessity of a bi-annual water change of 50%, just because that seems like an appropriate thing to do.

 

[jason2459]

Yes that's one of the many I listed. And no, I did not do any water changes after dosing levismol HCL. Just activated carbon & a variety of bacteria.



Now we're just being nitpicky. But to answer your question, no I don't sell anything out of either as I am growing broodstock for my store.

It's fine if you want to do water changes, but don't sit here and insinuate im stretching the truth to advance a point that benefits me in no way. I'm here to say that there is a way to have a thriving reef tank without doing weekly or monthly water changes and thats it.

To accept a finer point, I will admit to a basic necessity of a bi-annual water change of 50%, just because that seems like an appropriate thing to do.

So, you do advocate some kind of periodic water change.

 

[Aqualund]

The original question of this thread:

Is there anything I can do to not do water changes all the time?

I have answered this is you accept that once every two years does not qualify as "all the time."

If not, well, then... that's you.

 

[jason2459]

The original question of this thread:



I have answered this is you accept that once every two years does not qualify as "all the time."

If not, well, then... that's you.

I don't think you're quoting quite right. I also don't believe I personally mentioned all the time. Periodic can be any number of water changes over various amounts of time.

I'm one to believe that yes water changes can be reduced but not eliminated. The ~1-2 years you've gone with out a water change is not very long. I also see no reason to reduce them to an extensive degree.

 

[Aqualund]

Am I confused? the original poster asked this question:

Is there anything I can do to not do water changes all the time? Has anyone had any luck relying solely on their fuge and or DSB to take out nitrates and all the other bad things that water changes fix?

That is word for word what I quoted and what they asked. So, my response wasn't directed towards you, it was for giving the original poster a system where he/she could avoid doing water changes for say...two years(at least)...which has always been my answer, and I'm most certainly positive gives them an idea about the necessity of regular wc's that was contrary to their original impression (hence the reason they made this thread).

 

[jason2459]

Am I confused? the original poster asked this question:



That is word for word what I quoted and what they asked. So, my response wasn't directed towards you, it was for giving the original poster a system where he/she could avoid doing water changes for say...two years(at least)...which has always been my answer, and I'm most certainly positive gives them an idea about the necessity of regular wc's that was contrary to their original impression (hence the reason they made this thread).

Sure seems like you were responding to me and not the OP. As I was paraphrasing what you had posted. That you suggest a periodic large water change around 2 times a year