I don't do water changes

[vitz]

i think i'm trying to say that 'we can trigger bleaching by artificially inducing light shock' (which is the main source for the assertion for light being a bleaching factor, afaict) does not= 'light is a factor in 'in situ' bleaching', or 'light shock occurs in the wild'.

now to get myself back on topic.... (heh)

when i came back to the states in '95, i setup a 75 gal acrylic 'low' tank. as regular procedure, i performed 80-90% water changes every 2-4 weeks on the system. (drained to mebbe 4" of water height above the sb, w/a full empty of the sump as well. ran for 2-3 yrs until i moved. lighting was 3x 175 mh's, and two vho 4' actinics, on an 18" tall tank. (5'x18"x18"). only a redsea berlin skimmer was used, (properly driven-not with the p.o.s. pump they came with), along w/ kalkvasser dosing for evap.)

the fecundity of everything in the tank was astounding (in a good way). you could watch the softies grow. tissue/polyp expansion the likes of which i've rarely seen in non-large wc'd systems. lps's would literally shrink down and expand as if they were 'breathing' in the new water, then remain 'pumped up' and maximally expanded. i've rarely seen healthy elegances and other lps's in non wc systems 'poof up' the way they do in large wc'd systems.

multiple spawnings of damsels weekly.90-95% fertlization/hatch rates (so much for shimek and his salt toxicity kaka ) plankton blooms so rich it interfered w/video filming at night, when documenting the hatching of the eggs and collection via a lighted siphon hose running into a bucket in the sump (beau gregorys). the only food i had available/knew to try then was hard boiled egg yolk suspension for the gregory fry, (used for bettas and other small initial fry size fw fish-I knew nothing then about rearing sw fish-out of 10's of thousands, at least, of eggs over 2 yrs, i managed to get about 20-25 to survive and grow, probably as a result of the natural food in the system getting fed by the yolk particles heh).

pods/gammarids/pinnaeds so thick in numbers you could often not see the sand bed, etc., etc. .).

(i still have a few bad quality pic snaps i managed to get from the video tape before it ultimately degraded-lost all of the courtship and hatch footage).

every retail store i've worked in (not too few in number, heh) where i instituted wc's have seen reductions in mortality, w/fish and coral/inverts

i'll contend to my dying day that all other things being equal, regardless of what support equipment/supplements used, adding a large wc regimen will always lead to a marked improvement in system health and 'happiness' for it's inhabitants over not adding one. (again, assuming good parameters in the batch water).

it's that opening a window thing again.

 

[tmz]

I agree that extrpolations from the tank to the wild and vice versa are often meaningless. I made that point numerous times in earlier posts. Even the massive water flow on the GBR( thousands of 100% cahnges per day) I noted earlier doesn't by itself support the value of relatively infintesimally small changes performed in a reef tank, for example. I do prefer to perform water chnges on my system although I prefer regular small ones. Fecundity, vibrance and overall growth color and health ar good.

I do not agree with your opinion to which you are entitled :"light as a complete non factor in coral bleaching in nature,"nor do I see any consensus in the litterature,scientific or non , to support that notion. Light is included as a factor in all 4 papers, I linked and many others. Temperature is as well and is usually listed first but not exclusively and not always as a heat induced phenomenon , as you suggested earlier; but also cooling. While sudden changes in temperature my occur more often ,that doesn't exclude light as a factor or co factor nor does it mean corals and clade of zooxanthellae can't adjust to gradual warming or cooling trends.

In any case, discussions about climate change particularly those occurring in a geo political environment with socio economic implications though interesting go far beyond this thread and have little to do with water changes or reef tanks in general.

 

[vitz]

again-a mere mention on a site's page w/no backup links isn't exactly a 'citing'. if you could pm me some actual research/data links establishing light as a natural bleaching cause in the wild by pm i'd be happy to read them and reconsider revising my opinion. until then, i'll consider any assertion or mere mention on a site, that it is a cause, to be attributable to extrapolation from a captive environment.

heat or cold-that simply reinforces my contention that it's temp more than anything else. lack of heat or excess heat is still temperature.(excepting areas that are close to waste output of populated areas).

 

[tmz]

Precisely...NO3 and PO4. I guess I just want to be gentler with the effects of a large wc, be it that they be positive, to my livestock. Point taken though on the diminishing returns of a weak wc ratio. I guess only salt is wasted if I draw it out over 2 weeks as opposed to in a couple days but maybe 50% as the first change in 7 months may be better. Sorry NoWC advocates for caving as I believe my inner chemist was challenged with the minutiae of water condition testing and balancing act. I just want the coolest tank I can practically manage with a growing family!

Well, if you wan't to keep the bioload and feeding at current levels you might consider organic carbon dosing to attack the NO3 and PO4 issue and heavy skimming .I feed heavily and have a very good 5 year run with inexpensive vodka and vinegar dosing. You need to study it carefully before deciding to use it. There are downsides and pitfalls to avoid. I don't think reasonably sized water changes which I prefer alone will handle the issue.

This thread may be of interest if you choose to consider organic carbon dosing:

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2134105&highlight=organic+carbon+dosing

 

[amlights]

Flow-through set-ups are the bee's knees. But, although you have A LOT of experience keeping freshwater, I say start out by doing water changes. Get a good feel for the system and hobby, then work on a flow-though.

 

[Boston21]

It's about the same logic/reasoning as bloodletting.

Hey, you're really sick? Okay your blood is bad, we gotta take some of it out. How much, let me refer to this arbitrary chart based on maths that don't account for about a million variables.

I can appreciate that the reason we do water changes is that there might be some "bad stuff" that we don't really know the composition and quantity of that we want to remove. There just hasn't been a filtration system that we know of that has been invented that can remove them. Yet we also can't explain some of the healthy growing SPS systems that don't follow recommended best practices.

My challenge is, maybe we should move to figure out what we need to do instead of just doing the same thing that seems horribly inefficient and not very green.

What we've come to is that we need the equivalent of a dialysis machine for reefing instead of constantly just replacing someone's blood.

Make alot of great point's. I think as technology evolves we will start to see this hobby moving away from water changes, as they are extremely expensive. I feel with the implementation of things such as reactor's/biopellets/vodka/macro/ you could easily setup a system that would require very little water changes yearly, so long as everything was finely tuned. Evidence that this might work could be shown from the "Dirty Tanks". I think a lot of us just do water changes because its "easy" then doing other things that we know even less about. :headwally:

 

[blanden.adam]

Make alot of great point's. I think as technology evolves we will start to see this hobby moving away from water changes, as they are extremely expensive. I feel with the implementation of things such as reactor's/biopellets/vodka/macro/ you could easily setup a system that would require very little water changes yearly, so long as everything was finely tuned. Evidence that this might work could be shown from the "Dirty Tanks". I think a lot of us just do water changes because its "easy" then doing other things that we know even less about. :headwally:

I think you may be missing the point of doing the water changes. It's not a particularly efficient mechanism for nutrient control on larger tanks, but is an effective way to replace trace elements and perhaps remove smaller concentrations of harmful organics.

Also, I don't think you're contention that water changes are expensive is particularly accurate. Saltwater costs on the order of $0.25 per gallon to make. So, a 10% water change per week (which is a bit on the high side) costs about $2.50 per 100 gallons, or 130 bucks per year per 100 gallons. Water changes are one of the least expensive things we do.

 

[vitz]

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=22149206&postcount=15




as amazingly effective both in effect and cost as they can be, most often are, for as long as they have been known to be, i'm amazed every time the question/doubt arises, and alarmed by the frequency with which it does, heh.

articles on how to diy skimmers for hobbyists go back to at least the mid 70's, afaik, (i remember reading them, heh) and i don't see nearly as large an amount of aquarists questioning their effect or value. there's some form of 'disconnect' going on, whether it be a culture of 'more tech always=better', or something else-mebbe an aversion to manual tasks/laziness. more tech often does not = better, and not just in this hobby.

to iterate, a water change is the only singular method known that can instantly fix everything wrong with the water column, from a perspective of ALL waste removal and re-balance of chemistry issues, assuming the new water is correct prior to use. skimming can't do it, algal filters can't do it, carbon can't do it, dosing can't do it,and all the reactors in the world can't do it-certainly not in even close to the same time frame, even when using all of those other methods simultaneously. wc's don't need to metabolize. they're the closest thing to a 'magic bullet' we have in our reefkeeping 'arsenal' today

 

[SpartaReef]

Just to lend support to the water change thingy... Here is someone else's real life experience...

Morning!

Not bad. I placed my salt order yesterday; a whole pallet or 50 boxes to be picked up towards the end of the month. And my favorite LFS is now carrying Kessils so I don't have to order from across the country!

The fuzzy sticks are still fuzzy and even have some very noticable growthtips which amazes me every day. I have to credit Sparta though for the idea of doing the 200% WC on the system as that seems to have solved my SPS issues.

What about you Peter? How's your tanks doing this morning?

 

[rickcasa]

Also, I don't think you're contention that water changes are expensive is particularly accurate. Saltwater costs on the order of $0.25 per gallon to make. So, a 10% water change per week (which is a bit on the high side) costs about $2.50 per 100 gallons, or 130 bucks per year per 100 gallons. Water changes are one of the least expensive things we do.

With all the cool innovations of newfangled equipment available to us out there and the fun we have cleverly devising complicated systems at lavish expenses, wouldn't it be cathartic to know that the ultimate bullet-proof reef system may be as a simple as a flowthrough waterchange system devoid of any filtration equipment. A large storage tank and a skid of salt would be the equivalent of living right next to the ocean for a limitless supply of nsw.:fish1::fish1:

Our sponsors would be furious.:eek1::eek1: