But everyone does water changes...

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8927764#post8927764 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Galilean
If you really know what you are doing you won’t have to do any water changes. As for appearance, I don’t have a fancy camera but I think this 70 reef which uses no water changes is as good as any tank-of-the month.
That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8918426#post8918426 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mr.wilson
Some more efficient methods of nutrient export and reduction (assimilation & dissimilation) are protein skimming, the growth of macro algae & benthic invertebrates, ozonation, ultraviolet sterilization, molecular absorption (carbon, ion exchange resins, polymeric absorbents), livestock selection (xenia, snails, clams etc.), biological filtration (including deep sand beds) and mechanical filtration (cartridges, pads, manual removal). Any of these options will outperform water changes if properly executed.
The fact of the matter is that the majority of reefkeepers are not as knowledgable as you appear to be, mr.wilson, and very few have the facilities that Morgan Lidster has available to him at 'Inland Aquatics'.
The water change (executed properly) thus remains perhaps the most practical method for the majority of reefkeepers to avoid the accumulation of harmful compounds in their aquarium.
 
Last edited:
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8898930#post8898930 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Tu Ku
Agreed, that is certainly the difference. I'm sure that there is enough evidence to prove that both methods work equally as well.

I think a knowledgeable aquarist can make both work with the needed resources. But I think it is a horrible trend to promote since only one of the two methods has a greater capacity for error..... I guess in my opinion ;)

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8898930#post8898930 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Tu Ku
I do, however, understand now that systems which don't ever have replacements of water in the system are not performing water changes.

I am sure someone will tell me if I am way off here, I am clueless when it comes to chemistry :D
But I think one could argue that evaporation actually does provide a means of water change. But since water is all that evaporates (or close) it matters little. Water goes out, water comes in, nothing changes except the amount of water. Wrong?
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8929406#post8929406 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by UrbanSage
I think a knowledgeable aquarist can make both work with the needed resources. But I think it is a horrible trend to promote since only one of the two methods has a greater capacity for error..... I guess in my opinion ;)
I agree.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8929406#post8929406 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by UrbanSage

I am sure someone will tell me if I am way off here, I am clueless when it comes to chemistry :D
But I think one could argue that evaporation actually does provide a means of water change. But since water is all that evaporates (or close) it matters little. Water goes out, water comes in, nothing changes except the amount of water. Wrong?
Incorrect. The solids dissolved in the water do not evaporate. Replacing evaporated water with more water adds more dissolved solids to those solids already remaining in the aquarium- thus the accumulation of undesirable substances occurs over time requiring corrective action(s).
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8929620#post8929620 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Gary Majchrzak
Incorrect. The solids dissolved in the water do not evaporate.

I understand so far, and thought so myself ahead of your reply.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8929620#post8929620 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Gary Majchrzak
Replacing evaporated water with more water adds more dissolved solids to those solids already remaining in the aquarium- thus the accumulation of undesirable substances occurs over time requiring corrective action(s).

So you are talking about solids in the RO/DI? even if it is very pure water it still contains solids? And even if the amounts are insignificant over a period of years they could become significant.?
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8929788#post8929788 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by UrbanSage
So you are talking about solids in the RO/DI? even if it is very pure water it still contains solids? And even if the amounts are insignificant over a period of years they could become significant.?
Yes.
Another point that has yet to be mentioned in this thread is the adaptibility of reef organsisms. If water remains unchanged in an aquarium for a length of time the parameters are very likely to drift. As long as the parameters fluctuate slowly, many animals can adapt to the changing conditions. This condition often leaves the aquarist puzzled when new introductions fail to acclimate.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8929980#post8929980 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Gary Majchrzak
Yes.
Another point that has yet to be mentioned in this thread is the adaptibility of reef organsisms. If water remains unchanged in an aquarium for a length of time the parameters are very likely to drift. As long as the parameters fluctuate slowly, many animals can adapt to the changing conditions. This condition often leaves the aquarist puzzled when new introductions fail to acclimate.

...and even moderate to significant water changes could dissrupt these "drifted" parameters.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8918426#post8918426 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mr.wilson
The problem with water changes, is they act only as a bandaid. Excess "stuff" is a symptom of a poorly balanced system. I'm not saying that a perfect balance is an easy accomplishment, but a higher order ecosystem approach, with the right equipment and good husbandry practices will keep your hands out of the tank.
Even in a perfectly balanced system, corals still give off secondary metabolites. That's what they do to compete [esp common among soft corals].

Without a w/c, you may still find ways to eliminate many of these ... but 100%? I dunno about that.

Sure, a w/c removes them only as much as the % .... yet it removes them, reduces the overall level. And compounded over many w/c's ... can be quite effective.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8918426#post8918426 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mr.wilson
There is no evidence that marine aquariums have a deficit of trace elements, in fact the opposite is true.

Really?
You've never tested I, or Sr, or other things and found them low?


<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8918426#post8918426 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mr.wilson Invertebrates are capable of reducing any compound that accumulates in a reef aquarium. [/B]
Any compound? I dunno about that. N, P, C + others perhaps. But every compound of every type?

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8918426#post8918426 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mr.wilson
The efficient execution of water changes isn't an easy task. You have to match all of the water parameters, including PH and temperature, which takes time and space to achieve. most hobbyists, myself included, don't have the resources to store that much water or the patience to remove and add it in a non-injurious fashion.[/B]
IME, over 4+ years [and multiple tanks] ... I regularly change more than 10%, and have never had any issues from a change in parameters with a w/c.

Given corals/etc experience tide changes, upwellings, and other factors which can change temp, SG, and chemistry quite rapidly .... I think this fear is overblown. Small changes in parameters with a w/c are not commonly noticed [from those I talk to] as being problematic. Perhaps my Acropora slime a little when things shift 1 pt of SG, or temp is a few degrees off ... but I'm quite unconvinced over such issues [except on very stressed livestock].

How difficult is tossing a powerhead and heater into a bucket for a few hours? IME, that's all that's needed to prep w/c water ...
 
Yes the methods listed will remove any type of allelopathic agents, and at greater efficiency than water changes.

I'm not challenging the fact that water changes can slowly lower nitrate and other offending agents. My point is that it is the most expensive, labor intensive, and potentially injurious method of doing so.

Randy Holmes Farley didn't list water changes in his top ten methods of nitrate reduction in his article. http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/august2003/chem.htm

He also failed to list water changes as a viable method of phosphate reduction in his phosphate article. http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-09/rhf/index.php

The Inland aquatics salt mix studies clearly show the import of excess trace elements caused by water changes. http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2005/11/aafeature1/view?searchterm=salt study
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2005/12/aafeature1/view?searchterm=salt study

I base some of my belief in a lack of necessity for "topping-up" trace elements on Dr. Ron Shimeks study. http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-12/rs/feature/index.php

Here's Dr. Rons' conclusion from the trace element export study. In it, he states potential dangers of water changes, and the fact that the offending heavy metals are bound in calcareous media, where water changes will not remove them. The study focused only on export through protein skimming, macro algae culture, and xenia culture, with a brief mention of molecular absorption.

Quote:
"Conclusion:

Prior to doing this study, I was quite convinced that none of the export methodologies that were available to aquarists were very good. I was surprised to find that that is definitely not the case with regard to many of the elements needing export. Foam fractionation, coupled with organism export, decidedly provides ways to remove many elements and to keep them from accumulating, given a normal feeding regime. The problem comes with the initial levels of heavy metals concentration found in artificial salt mixes. Unless these excessive amounts of metals can be exported, they will accumulate and, with the passage of time and associated water changes, will become more potentially troublesome. Heavy metal accumulation is organism mediated with both active and passive processes facilitating it. The accumulation products will likely be located in the sediments and inside the porous aquarium rock. If there is also the accumulation of significant organic material in the sediments over time, this may result in periodic transient or chronic low level releases of toxic heavy metals. Heavy metal poisoning in such situations would typically be a cumulative process, resulting in mortality after several months or years. Because of this, sediment cleansing or replacement every few years coupled with the replacement of porous rock substrates may be necessary to prevent heavy metal poisoning of the aquarium’s inhabitants. Alternatives to this drastic and traumatic treatment might include the use of toxic metal sponges, polyfilters and carbon. All of these treatments may all be more efficient and less potentially hazardous than sand bed trauma, however the efficiency of such processes is really unknown. In other words, more work remains to be done before a satisfactory export methodology is available to reef aquarists."

-Dr. Ron Shimek

Continued water changes are often the chief source of toxic metal import in marine aquaria. In addition to the toxicity to fish and invertebrates, heavy metals cause nuisance algae blooms (natures environmental control). This is why many aquarists experience bacterial algae (green or red slime, and hair algae) blooms, while their phosphate, nitrate and other parameters are "safe". Testing for trace elements isn't viable for the home aquarium. The use of Kents' Heavy Metal Sponge, or Polybiomarines Polyfilters will indicate if you have excess metals through colour change (blue for copper, and orange for iron etc.).

Calcium reactors replace depleted calcium, magnesium, carbonates and trace elements in proper proportions. They also lower phosphate through the formation of calcium phosphate precipitate. Unfortunately, the calcium phosphate is bound in calcareous sand and rock, where it is bioavailable to nuisance algae, but at least it is no longer a growth inhibiting factor for corals in this bound organic state.

This brings up the importance of orthophosphate test kits such as the ones offered by Hatch, LaMotte, and Merck, as they measure the organic phosphate bound in rock and sand. Conventional test kits such as the phosphate kit from Salifert, only measure inorganic phosphate that is free in the water column. A low reading with an inorganic phosphate test kit, may give the aquarist the false impression that their water changes are more effective than they are in reality. Molecular absorption filters and ion exchange resins will draw bound orthophosphates out of calcareous media.

The annual removal of half of the substrate (on the surface) will export great quantities of bound heavy metals, and renew PH and alkalinity buffering capacity. With these and other traditional supplementation, export and reduction practices, there is no necessity for water changes.

Dr. Stephen Spotte has been a long term proponent of partial substrate changes, for passive reduction of excess heavy metals, silicate and phosphate. Dr. Bob Goemans explains the futility of water changes in the attempts to lower phosphates in his "Marine Algae Control Secrets" booklet, and in many of his sand bed articles. Dr. Goemans offers many methods of algae control in his booklet, but makes no mention of water changes having any intrinsic value.

Ultraviolet irradiation and ozonation will oxidize heavy metals and allelopathic agents. Protein skimmers lose bubble stability with the application of ozone, but the overall efficiency is greatly increased. Ozone and UV will also kill bacteria, and parasites at a far greater capacity than weekly water changes will.

Anecdotal stories of a four year tank history have little merit in these discussions. Your observations are appreciated, but carry little weight on their own.

Properly executed water changes will limit the amount of stress the fish, invertebrates, algae and bacteria will be exposed to. As Gary Majchrzak stated in his earlier post, the average hobbyist doesn't have the knowledge and resources to carry out complicated procedures. I'll add in my case, a lack of patience and budget to do so as well.

Proper water changes are a more involved procedure than "tossing a powerhead and heater into a bucket for a few hours". You need quite a few buckets, powerheads and heaters to do a water change in a large tank. Salt takes 24 hours to completely dissolve, and purity is compromised if you don't mix the entire bag or bucket of salt mix at one time. Most salt mixes aren't homogeneous, and therefore classify/aggregate with time and handling.

The other aspect of water changing that is poorly executed is the aquarists ability to assure that only pure water with a TDS of zero is added. Many hobbyists have only reverse osmosis filters with no Deionizer cartridge to remove the remaining 2-3% of nitrate, phosphate, and silicates. If they do have a DI cartridge, it often becomes exhausted before the TDS climb is noticed. In-line TDS meters and quality water production units aid in this matter. Of course, the extra Di resin, Ro membranes, carbon filters, and sediment filters come at a cost.

Reef keepers need to accurately asses what they need to supplement and remove. Only then, can they select an efficient method of doing so.
 
Mr. wilson, may I add that Dr. Addey's research (Dynamic Aquaria author) indicated that nutrient export via turf algae was also successful in removing heavy metals and algaecides, in addition to everything else. This was accomplished by causing waves to wash over the algae. The algae will not absorb these toxins, but under these wave induced flow conditions in they would preferentially precipitate and concentrate in the tiny spaces between algae fibers. So when the algae were harvested even heavy metals were effectively scrubbed from the system. This does not result in a loss of useful trace elements as one might initially suspect because those elements are replaced rather accidentally in the food and by the slow dissolving of liverock and substrate where such trace elements are held in greater concentration in geologic storage than in the water.
 
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-12/eb/index.php

Myth #8 in Eric Borneman's article above is especially relevant to this "water change exchange":

Myth 8: The statement, "but my water quality checks out fine."

In his articles here (and elsewhere), as well as in his forum on Reef Central called The Reef Chemistry Forum, Randy Holmes-Farley provides extensive information on the nature of common (and sometimes uncommon) chemicals in reef aquaria. Ron Shimek, and others, have also covered various topics in chemistry and biochemistry over time frames spanning ten years and more. Until relatively recently, only a few chemicals were generally considered in reef aquaria, and the ability to accurately measure those parameters has frequently been called into question.

My point above is that aquarists routinely check a variably complete set of a handful of chemical parameters in variably accurate ways to make the oft-repeated statement, "my water quality checks out fine." As has been discussed elsewhere, there are many difficulties of being assured that such statements are true, and the more recent information concerning more exotic and toxic chemical species including various metals and organometallics virtually ensure that there might be many reasons to suspect that one's water quality might not be "fine," despite routine testing for common parameters.

To take this issue a step further, one must necessarily include the bounty of organic chemicals produced by organisms in aquariums called secondary metabolites. I am both pleased and troubled that the word "allelopathy" has become a regular word in many aquarists' vocabulary. It is almost impossible to describe how varied the products of metabolism can be in the marine environment. In short, virtually every organism in the tank has them, produces them, and releases them. The effects of secondary metabolite chemistry are significant enough to cause real and sometimes dramatic effects in the wild where dilution effects are vast. So common and numerous are these compounds that conferences, books, and journals are devoted entirely to the subject. I would urge readers to look through a copy of the Journal of Natural Products to see the scope of this topic (it is only one of many sources of such information). Each issue consists of several hundred pages (often filled with 1-2 paragraph descriptions) of metabolites derived and isolated from natural sources (organisms) and, sometimes, a brief description of potential effects (usually based on chemical structures similar to those of known function). In any given issue, about 20-50 percent of the chemicals are from marine organisms, and many are from tropical marine organisms. For example, here are the relative feature articles from the past two issues alone:

Novel Oxylipin Metabolites from the Brown Alga Eisenia bicyclis

Isolation and Structure Determination of Lyngbyastatin 3, a Lyngbyastatin 1 Homologue from the Marine Cyanobacterium Lyngbya majuscula. Determination of the Configuration of the 4-Amino-2,2-dimethyl-3-oxopentanoic Acid Unit in Majusculamide C, Dolastatin 12, Lyngbyastatin 1, and Lyngbyastatin 3 from Cyanobacteria

Semiplenamides A-G, Fatty Acid Amides from a Papua New Guinea Collection of the Marine Cyanobacterium Lyngbya semiplena

Komodoquinone A, a Novel Neuritogenic Anthracycline, from Marine Streptomyces sp. KS3

Placidenes C-F, Novel -Pyrone Propionates from the Mediterranean Sacoglossan Placida dendritica

Plakortides M and N, Bioactive Polyketide Endoperoxides from the Caribbean Marine Sponge Plakortis halichondrioides.

New Polyhydroxy Sterols: Proteasome Inhibitors from a Marine Sponge Acanthodendrilla sp.


New Brominated Labdane Diterpenes from the Red Alga Laurencia obtusa

Briaexcavatolides S-V, Four New Briaranes from a Formosan Gorgonian Briareum excavatum

The Synthesis of SO-3, a Conopeptide with High Analgesic Activity Derived from Conus striatus

New Cembrane Diterpenes of the Marine Octocoral Eunicea tourniforti from the Eastern Caribbean

Isolation and Structure Determination of an Antimicrobial Ester from a Marine Sediment-Derived Bacterium

Identification of New Okadaic Acid Derivatives from Laboratory Cultures of Prorocentrum lima

One can imagine what twenty years worth of this type of research has produced. In the feature articles of the past two issues of a single journal, we see novel chemicals derived from sponges, soft corals, dinoflagellates, bacteria, algae, cyanobacteria and mollusks. These are, of course, in addition to those already known from these organisms. Some sponges, algae, and soft corals have been identified that produce in excess of 40 separate chemical compounds.

They are termed "secondary metabolites" because in many cases these compounds do not seem to have a function in basic metabolism. However, many are extremely bioactive, and have diverse effects on other organisms, including being lethal. Of course, the effects are largely unknown and many of these chemicals are not produced to have an effect on organisms that would not ordinarily be encountered by the producer of the compound. Other compounds may have an unintentional effect. Furthermore, various compounds may be very specific in the species they affect, and in how they affect those species. In almost all cases, pairwise tests of one species on another have not been done for any effects. There is little to no information as to what the ultimate fate or reactivity of these organics products might be in any environment, much less in aquaria. Finally, these bioactive compounds are highly concentrated in the closed small water volumes of our aquaria. For some examples of the scope of secondary metabolite chemistry from coral reef organisms, see the boxes below which I have derived from various primary and secondary literature over the years. The listings in the boxes are by no means exhaustive.

I hesitate to make such seemingly alarming statements, for I am concerned that such "unknowns" may become the fuel for more myths. It would be comparatively easy for such information to be used as an excuse on which to blame the death or failure to thrive of various tank inhabitants. However, the fact that virtually every inhabitant in our aquaria is producing variable amounts of novel, uncharacterized, and well-known bioactive secondary metabolites of mostly unknown effects, and may be reactive with a host of other largely unknown organic and inorganic compounds present in our tanks, makes our water a complex soup with no two tanks being alike - or predictable.

The take-home message of this myth is that it is practically not possible to say "my water tests fine." All we can do is recognize certain facts, and act accordingly. In my opinion and experience, the most pragmatic solution is dilution and absorption by the use of water changes, protein skimming, and activated carbon. I fully realize the many issues that might stem from this simple advice, especially in light of the materials provided by authors as mentioned above. However, if nothing else, it seems to potentially simplify the many potential chemical interactions that might be occurring.

Potential: Innocuous to lethal. I believe many inexplicable problems in the survival of aquarium species may be due to secondary metabolites. Some are well known to occur, others are purely speculative. However, there remains the incontrovertible fact that there are effects, and that every reef aquarium has organisms producing a pharmacopoeia of bioactive compounds.

Distribution: Ubiquitous. Every day, aquarists around the world use hobby test kits to measure the levels of perhaps 1-6 variables for which tests are available. There are no tests available for the 4-Amino-2,2-dimethyl-3-oxopentanoic acid unit in Majusculamide C, Dolastatin 12, Lyngbyastatin 1, and Lyngbyastatin 3 from Cyanobacteria that were discovered last month. For all we know, this unit causes 100% mortality in Trachyphyllia geoffroyi. Then again, it might not.

Box 1
Some Typical Reactions Of Marine Invertebrates To Bioactive
Compounds
(Compiled from various sources)

- Tissue hypertrophy
- Mucus
- Increased secretion
- Change in mucosal composition
- Change in mucus secreting cells
- Feeding response initiated
- Polyp withdrawal
- Formation of sweeper tentacles (stony/soft corals, gorgonians)
Marginal tentacles (corallimorphs)
- Formation of acrospheres
- Change in growth pattern
- Change in growth form/direction + or -
- Change in nematocyst composition
- Tissue necrosis - local or general
- Initiation of spawning
- Cessation of gonad development
- Change in metabolism
- Change in behavior (non-sessile invertebrates)
- Increased or decreased susceptibility to disease
- Increased or decreased growth rate and survivability
- Increased or decreased settlement of larvae
- Iincreased or decreased fecundity
- Bleaching
- Mortality



Box 2
Potential Roles of Marine Bioactive Compounds for the Producer
(Compiled from various sources)

- Defense against predation
- Ichthyotoxicity
- Other anti-predation (mollusks, echinoderms, etc.)
- Foul odor
- Bad taste
- Antifouling
- Antibiotic
- Antialgal
- Antifungal
- Antiviral
- Inflammatory/Anti-inflammatory
- Antisettlement (larvae, competitors, etc.)
- Mediator of growth form, growth hormones
- Phototaxis, geotaxis?
- Discharge of nematocysts
- Inter- and Intra-specific communication, chemotaxis
- Immunity
- Admittance, specificity and non-digestion of algal symbionts
- Allelochemcials
- Allelopathy against allogeneics and xenogeneics, b/t and w/in taxa
- Stunting, necrosis, avoidance, mortality
- Immunological responses
-Reproduction
- Planulation
- Mass spawning, spawning release factor?
- Polyp contraction/egg release
- Pheromones
- Surface brooding/mucus sheet formation
- Nocturnal spawning
- Egg buoyancy
- Sperm attractants
- Egg and planulae anti-predation
- Species recognition molecules
 
Secondary metabolites sound like pollution to me. Just very interesting pollution!
It is like taking that microbiology class and seeing those things we barely know exist.
Things that make me go hmmm...
 
You're preaching to the converted Gary. The dangers of "bad stuff" aren't in question in this thread. Nor is the fact that water changes will have an impact (either positive or negative) on water quality.

The question at hand is "are water changes necessary to remove these agents"? I would like to hear a supported argument that water changes exclusively will remove the "bad things", and restore the "good things".

There are no "unknowns" in our aquariums. We cannot quantify all of the offending or beneficial agents, but we know they are present in some measure.

Numerous sources have illustrated viable means of reducing and removing so called "unknowns". Such methods include, molecular absorption (carbon, polymeric absorbents, ion exchange resins), biological activity (assimilation & dissimilation), disinfection (ultraviolet irradiation & ozonation), mechanical filtration (pads, cartridges, manual removal), algal turf scrubbers (macro algae culture & micro algae growth), chemical filtration (protein skimming & chemical additives), and precipitation (bubble popping).

The studies provided also show the dangers of adding newly mixed saltwater. Poor husbandry practices compound heavy metal import. It's just as easy to draw a graph of how water quality deteriorates with water changes, as it is to show how potentially "bad stuff" can be removed, as the suitability of replacement water hasn't been established.

Nothing has been mentioned of the beneficial elements that are removed with a water change. Zooplankton, beneficial bacteria, and many other pro-biotics are just as likely to be exported as any other element. Replacement water offers no pro-biotic constituents.

The old adage "the only solution to pollution, is dilution" is a relic from the our reckless past. Moving pollution to someone else's back yard, or in our case, returning it to the sea, is not a permanent solution, just sweeping it under the carpet.

Todays slogan is "recycle, reduce, re-use, and close the loop". Higher order, ecosystemic practices, will remove the "bad stuff" and restore the "good stuff" (with a little help from technology).

Water changes are a bandaid solution that we employ when our ability to balance nature is compromised. For some reason, many aquarists use water changes as a first line of defense. My answer to the question at the root of this thread is "no, water changes are not cost effective, convenient, or exclusive means of restoring and preserving water quality".
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8929339#post8929339 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by UrbanSage
I have not, do you have a link?
link to skimmer export study:

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-12/rs/feature/index.php


Anyone that's not performing regular partial water changes and thinks life is good in their aquarium should try a simple experiment:
start doing properly executed partial water changes. (Test the new water before introducing it to the aquarium- it might need to be brought up to optimal specs before doing the water exchange. A lot of salt mixes are deficient in one thing or another.)

If you believe your aquarium animals are doing good they can usually do better. Think about their growth rates, spawnings (or lack thereof), coloration and general appearances.
I don't see water changes being over hyped at all.

If someone finds a TOTM that doesn't receive at least irregular partial water changes please post a link to it.
Here's a related thread. Note that water changes are a common denominator:
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=863937
 
MrWilson,

Thanks for sharing your knowledge with us. I found this thread very enlighting. I wish I had some money to set up a new tank with a big skimmer, a refugium, carbon, and some resins and run it without doing any water changes.

Very tempting to try...

Cheers,
Chris
 
Well, after reading Mr. Wilson's posts it amazes me that we can keep anything alive.
I have no doubt that he enjoys great success and has far more aquarium knowledge and wisdom than most. But, I keep thinking that alot of mountains are being made out of mole hills here. Go outside and take a deep breath. Not to calm yourself down, but to inhale that air that some would have us believe is so polluted everything on Earth should have died 100 years ago. Then go to the sink and get a glass of that toxic tap water. Or maybe a glass of milk with all the antibiotics and hormones in it. Then for dinner, grill a carcinogen laced hamburger and hope for a heart attack before the cancer kicks in.
We can, and should, all make our best efforts to provide the best possible conditions for animals in our care.
That said, I'm going to go eat a burger and drink a beer.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9236693#post9236693 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Trilithon3
Well, after reading Mr. Wilson's posts it amazes me that we can keep anything alive.
I have no doubt that he enjoys great success and has far more aquarium knowledge and wisdom than most. But, I keep thinking that alot of mountains are being made out of mole hills here. Go outside and take a deep breath. Not to calm yourself down, but to inhale that air that some would have us believe is so polluted everything on Earth should have died 100 years ago. Then go to the sink and get a glass of that toxic tap water. Or maybe a glass of milk with all the antibiotics and hormones in it. Then for dinner, grill a carcinogen laced hamburger and hope for a heart attack before the cancer kicks in.
We can, and should, all make our best efforts to provide the best possible conditions for animals in our care.
That said, I'm going to go eat a burger and drink a beer.


I'm with you on the idea that you can't live in a bubble. My practice of not changing the water illustrates that very point. Less is more. Regular water changes are a waste of resources for many. I feel that aquarium water is the "mole hill", and water changes are the (unnecessary) "mountain".

Somewhere along the way we were sold on the idea that we need to do regular water changes. It made perfect sense back in 1985, but technology has changes, so methodology must reflect this. Every once in a while we need to revisit the choices we made in the past and decide whether they still apply in todays world.

I'm not trying to talk anyone out of a practice that they have unshakable faith in. I'm just offering an alternative faith so people can make an educated decision.

If you haven't heard enough of my ranting already, there's more here on my local forum. Warning Canadian content! Be prepared for the metric system, strong beer and a lot of "ehs". http://www.aquariumpros.ca/forums/showthread.php?t=24920
 
Last edited:
Mr. Wilson,

So that is how you spell eh... I always thouht it was just a...

(-:

I see you have a 15 gallon seahorse tank. I am guess you do not do water changes in that tank? Can you tell us more about it? Like what systems you are using on it: protien skimmer, calcium reactor, filter sock, what you feed it or dose, carbon, phosate sponge, ect.... Or can you tell us anymore about your systems that you did not do any water changes?

Anyone else out that that does not do water changes, please let us know how your systems are set up and why you think you are sucessful not doing water changes.

I don't think a zero water change would work on my current tank, but I am convienced that a properly setup tank could be run with few or no water changes.

Cheers,
Chris
 
Back
Top