I don't do water changes
- Thread starter houstonhobby
- Start date
power boat jim
Well-known member
Decadence
New member
This argument is a mute point. There are so many factors at work here that no single "scientifically proven" fact could possibly back up the entire debate. The reality is, we observe and report. There are for more people observing success with doing regular water changes because there are far more experienced reefers doing regular water changes as this is what they learned. You do your water changes, you see your success and then you attribute it to the water changes and give a million scientific reasons why it is so. Similarly, myself and many other experienced reefers go months or years between water changes if even doing them at all. We observe our success, we report our results and find a million scientific reasons why it is so.
Now take into consideration the newcomer who is not doing regular water changes with a brand new tank and has absolutely no significant removal method for nutrients. Their tank crashes... "It's because you weren't doing water changes." Nobody ever mentions the fact that there are numerous other ways to remove nutrients and avoiding a nutrient-fueled crash. That person then starts doing water changes, their tank looks better and then they start preaching water changes. In the odd chance that someone says "You could achieve the same thing by running a turf scrubber" they are chastised. It isn't good enough for someone to be correct, someone else has to also be wrong for having a different way to achieve the same thing.
The oldest reef tank that I am aware of (PaulB's) uses algae to remove nutrients and goes through one or two massive detritus clean-ups every year. The nicest tank in my area (Copps') gets a 50 gallon water change every week. The nicest tank that I have ever seen (amfynn's) uses a whole lot of chaeto and a turf scrubber.
Why does somebody have to be wrong? Why can't both sides of the debate be correct? I see nobody explaining why going water-changeless works well for so many people in actual practice. I only see people saying that it doesn't and can't work.
THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES WITH THE ACCUSER.
Now take into consideration the newcomer who is not doing regular water changes with a brand new tank and has absolutely no significant removal method for nutrients. Their tank crashes... "It's because you weren't doing water changes." Nobody ever mentions the fact that there are numerous other ways to remove nutrients and avoiding a nutrient-fueled crash. That person then starts doing water changes, their tank looks better and then they start preaching water changes. In the odd chance that someone says "You could achieve the same thing by running a turf scrubber" they are chastised. It isn't good enough for someone to be correct, someone else has to also be wrong for having a different way to achieve the same thing.
The oldest reef tank that I am aware of (PaulB's) uses algae to remove nutrients and goes through one or two massive detritus clean-ups every year. The nicest tank in my area (Copps') gets a 50 gallon water change every week. The nicest tank that I have ever seen (amfynn's) uses a whole lot of chaeto and a turf scrubber.
Why does somebody have to be wrong? Why can't both sides of the debate be correct? I see nobody explaining why going water-changeless works well for so many people in actual practice. I only see people saying that it doesn't and can't work.
THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES WITH THE ACCUSER.
blanden.adam
Team RC
Hey Decadence, glad you popped back in, and brought the conversation back to water changes 
. Although the thread has gotten perhaps more heated than it should have I don't think that anyone is on trial, but I do agree that the burden of proof lies on someone making a claim.
My point with water changes is and has always been that the reason we do them is not just for nutrient export (although that is the primary conceived reason for them by new aquariests), but because there are so many things going on in our water that we can't reliably measure and correct for, so out with the old and in with the new, presumably better, water. It's cheap, it's easy, and it does everything you could possibly want for correcting your water chemistry. I disagree with your assertion that going without water changes works for so many people. Even you do a 50% water change a couple times a year, which isn't a lot but it's not nothing either. I would argue that for the vast majority of healthy tanks, water changes are the routine and they play a role in the health of those tanks.
Now to the point of algae as a filtration method. I would agree with you that algae can be a good method of nutrient export. I run chaeto myself, growing wild and dark green under the Red and Blue LED's (originally experimented with by the ATS crowd, thanks for fueling the mad scientist in me guys). But like anything else the devil is in the details. Different species of algae may produce more harmful compounds than others, so we might want to shy away from those species in favor of others. I would also point out that the purported benefits of ATS earlier in this thread earlier seem inflated to say the least.
As a final comment, I would point out that many things can work, but be non-ideal. I know this is certainly true in my tank, as I am not perfect and don't know everything, so we are all engaged in a constant learning process to hopefully get more "ideal." Considering this, the argument over what works and what doesn't work is very different than what is best practice and is not best practice.
. Although the thread has gotten perhaps more heated than it should have I don't think that anyone is on trial, but I do agree that the burden of proof lies on someone making a claim. My point with water changes is and has always been that the reason we do them is not just for nutrient export (although that is the primary conceived reason for them by new aquariests), but because there are so many things going on in our water that we can't reliably measure and correct for, so out with the old and in with the new, presumably better, water. It's cheap, it's easy, and it does everything you could possibly want for correcting your water chemistry. I disagree with your assertion that going without water changes works for so many people. Even you do a 50% water change a couple times a year, which isn't a lot but it's not nothing either. I would argue that for the vast majority of healthy tanks, water changes are the routine and they play a role in the health of those tanks.
Now to the point of algae as a filtration method. I would agree with you that algae can be a good method of nutrient export. I run chaeto myself, growing wild and dark green under the Red and Blue LED's (originally experimented with by the ATS crowd, thanks for fueling the mad scientist in me guys). But like anything else the devil is in the details. Different species of algae may produce more harmful compounds than others, so we might want to shy away from those species in favor of others. I would also point out that the purported benefits of ATS earlier in this thread earlier seem inflated to say the least.
As a final comment, I would point out that many things can work, but be non-ideal. I know this is certainly true in my tank, as I am not perfect and don't know everything, so we are all engaged in a constant learning process to hopefully get more "ideal." Considering this, the argument over what works and what doesn't work is very different than what is best practice and is not best practice.
vitz
New member
Three years of growth with Adee's scrubbed tank:
just out of curiosity-if you took 2 tall cylindrical beakers, filled one with water from your tank, and one w/ freshly prepared sw, placed them over a piece of white paper, and looked down, do you notice a visible difference between the two in color ?
fwiw-NO ONE is saying that you CAN'T run a tank using adey's, (or even jaubert's), methodolgy-there's always 37 different ways to skin a cat, sometimes more.
the issue (and the most fundamental of my argument)-is that when honestly compared to a far simpler and cheaper method, it's not the best alternative.
the 1st lfs i worked in had ALL ug filters, and this was considered the highest 'tech' of it's time. we had a beautiful thriving reef display 125 gal, iirc, in the fish room bill's wonderland of pets in south jersey, circa '78-79
it doesn't mean anyone's trying to compel anyone who still uses one to trash it simply because there are 'newer' or 'better' or 'more proven methods.
the only thing i'm taking exception to are baseless claims that truly mislead the unaware. there's currently a plethora of relative noobs in this country who think their tanks look 'awesome' when they really haven't a clue as to how awesome they could really be, in the same time frame. and many of them cannot distinguish between coincidence and causality, when it come to what they *think* they're seeing happen in their tanks.
and *no one* can deny or refute that any algae scrubber releases substances into the water column that are undesirable-leading to yet another class of waste products that need to be 'worried about'. why anyone would want to take the route of adding a filter that then needs to be 're-filtered' is simply beyond me
and you have a nice tank, btw
vitz
New member
Hey Decadence, glad you popped back in, and brought the conversation back to water changes
My point with water changes is and has always been that the reason we do them is not just for nutrient export (although that is the primary conceived reason for them by new aquariests), but because there are so many things going on in our water that we can't reliably measure and correct for, so out with the old and in with the new, presumably better, water. It's cheap, it's easy, and it does everything you could possibly want for correcting your water chemistry. I disagree with your assertion that going without water changes works for so many people. Even you do a 50% water change a couple times a year, which isn't a lot but it's not nothing either. I would argue that for the vast majority of healthy tanks, water changes are the routine and they play a role in the health of those tanks.
Now to the point of algae as a filtration method. I would agree with you that algae can be a good method of nutrient export. I run chaeto myself, growing wild and dark green under the Red and Blue LED's (originally experimented with by the ATS crowd, thanks for fueling the mad scientist in me guys). But like anything else the devil is in the details. Different species of algae may produce more harmful compounds than others, so we might want to shy away from those species in favor of others. I would also point out that the purported benefits of ATS earlier in this thread earlier seem inflated to say the least.
As a final comment, I would point out that many things can work, but be non-ideal. I know this is certainly true in my tank, as I am not perfect and don't know everything, so we are all engaged in a constant learning process to hopefully get more "ideal." Considering this, the argument over what works and what doesn't work is very different than what is best practice and is not best practice.
THIS!:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
StinkyBunny
New member
Decadence
New member
Hey Decadence, glad you popped back in, and brought the conversation back to water changes
My point with water changes is and has always been that the reason we do them is not just for nutrient export (although that is the primary conceived reason for them by new aquariests), but because there are so many things going on in our water that we can't reliably measure and correct for, so out with the old and in with the new, presumably better, water. It's cheap, it's easy, and it does everything you could possibly want for correcting your water chemistry. I disagree with your assertion that going without water changes works for so many people. Even you do a 50% water change a couple times a year, which isn't a lot but it's not nothing either. I would argue that for the vast majority of healthy tanks, water changes are the routine and they play a role in the health of those tanks.
Now to the point of algae as a filtration method. I would agree with you that algae can be a good method of nutrient export. I run chaeto myself, growing wild and dark green under the Red and Blue LED's (originally experimented with by the ATS crowd, thanks for fueling the mad scientist in me guys). But like anything else the devil is in the details. Different species of algae may produce more harmful compounds than others, so we might want to shy away from those species in favor of others. I would also point out that the purported benefits of ATS earlier in this thread earlier seem inflated to say the least.
As a final comment, I would point out that many things can work, but be non-ideal. I know this is certainly true in my tank, as I am not perfect and don't know everything, so we are all engaged in a constant learning process to hopefully get more "ideal." Considering this, the argument over what works and what doesn't work is very different than what is best practice and is not best practice.
I would never argue that water changes are harder than other means of nutrient control. I would also never argue that water changes don't have their place. I do water changes (as you stated) as a means to remove excess contaminants which we can't test for. When I remove water, it has no measurable phosphate or nitrate in it. With the system that I had in place, I was able to go up to six months before seeing negative side effects to not doing water changes and that turned out to be due to a potassium deficiency. I would expect that I could go much longer if I wanted to. I don't.
To state that it isn't ideal is kind of like saying that a motorcycle isn't the ideal form of transportation. It really all depends on what your views of "ideal" are. You may want safety while I want fuel mileage. Likewise, you may want a weekly "reboot" to Instant Ocean's standards while I want utmost stability to my own chosen levels of XYZ. I have had no shortage or arguments about the place of an ATS or macro algae in a reef tank, each side claiming that science is on their side. On either side of the debate, there are eccentrics who will misapply every study which they can possibly skew to fit an agenda. Never once have I seen anybody positively identify the type of algae on a turf scrubber and confidently state that the existence of that particular algae anywhere in the same volume of water of X coral will have a negative or positive effect on it's growth. Too many generalizations are being thrown around.
What we can say positively is that with the ability to control the environment which the algae on the screen is in, we can create the optimal conditions for the particular type of algae to grow. These conditions are so much better that the algae in the display will starve out. In my personal experience, I was able to keep inorganic phosphate levels in the water column bellow 0.015ppm and nitrate levels below 1ppm utilizing an algae turf scrubber and a small amount of GFO. I used the GFO to keep phosphate as the growth limiter for algae on the screen rather than nitrate in effort to avoid any possible build up of phosphate bound to rocks. For me, it worked. For me, it was ideal. The only reason that I no longer have a turf scrubber is because the screen got covered in kalk paste when my reactor back-purged paste into the display after a "doh" moment. In a bind, I put cheato into the tank in its place to continue the job of nutrient removal. Later, I killed off the cheato with heavy carbon dosing and daily detritus removal/large frequent water changes to try and starve out an extremely fine filamented algae (ghost algae) which traps detritus and is impossible to starve out with a lot of fish. An ATS would have never worked to do this for me. I had to resort to chemical removal with Algaefix and have continued water changes and carbon dosing in the time being as a means of export.
I don't believe that an ATS is ideal or best. I don't believe that frequent water changes are ideal or best. In my opinion, what is ideal is detritus removal and being proactive. Sometimes, it feels ridiculous arguing with people over the effectiveness of algae as a source of nutrient removal when I know that most of the nutrients which my tank produces don't even get a chance to break down because of the efficient organic waste removal employed. As long as my water column maintains undetectable nitrate and inorganic phosphate levels, you can't tell me that the methods which I use to get there aren't the best for me. Being proactive, no matter how you decide to do it, is ideal.
Decadence
New member
just out of curiosity-if you took 2 tall cylindrical beakers, filled one with water from your tank, and one w/ freshly prepared sw, placed them over a piece of white paper, and looked down, do you notice a visible difference between the two in color ?
fwiw-NO ONE is saying that you CAN'T run a tank using adey's, (or even jaubert's), methodolgy-there's always 37 different ways to skin a cat, sometimes more.
the issue (and the most fundamental of my argument)-is that when honestly compared to a far simpler and cheaper method, it's not the best alternative.
the 1st lfs i worked in had ALL ug filters, and this was considered the highest 'tech' of it's time. we had a beautiful thriving reef display 125 gal, iirc, in the fish room bill's wonderland of pets in south jersey, circa '78-79
it doesn't mean anyone's trying to compel anyone who still uses one to trash it simply because there are 'newer' or 'better' or 'more proven methods.
the only thing i'm taking exception to are baseless claims that truly mislead the unaware. there's currently a plethora of relative noobs in this country who think their tanks look 'awesome' when they really haven't a clue as to how awesome they could really be, in the same time frame. and many of them cannot distinguish between coincidence and causality, when it come to what they *think* they're seeing happen in their tanks.
and *no one* can deny or refute that any algae scrubber releases substances into the water column that are undesirable-leading to yet another class of waste products that need to be 'worried about'. why anyone would want to take the route of adding a filter that then needs to be 're-filtered' is simply beyond me
and you have a nice tank, btw
I don't know if I would say that frequent water changes are simpler or cheaper than running an algae scrubber. This was one of the most rewarding pieces of equipment that I have ever used and the operating cost was just pennies. Even running a scrubber and moving from weekly to monthly water changes would make like easier for a lot of reefers.
I do believe that their are a lot of baseless claims, some with hidden motives. This statement could be said for both side of the debate.
Having about 11 years in the hobby, I'm extremely well aware of what a nice tank is, what a bad tank is and every variance in-between. Most of the "science" associated with methodology is an incomplete model of the scientific method. There are lots of people constructing hypotheses and lots of people analyzing data and drawing conclusions but not a whole lot of people doing testing. Most of the people testing with algae scrubbers have expatriated from the mainstream reefing sites because of the taboo nature of not doing frequent water changes. Have the time in the hobby that I have and having experienced the use of a scrubber myself, I can tell you that there was absolutely no noticeable difference in color or growth from SPS corals between frequent water changes and scrubbing.
Yes, a scrubber will release organics back into the water. This organic waste originated as inorganic waste, arguably more harmful. Every week, the screen get a fresh start so anything that may fall off in that week as organic waste was already in the water column in inorganic forms. You look at this scenario and think it's silly to allow organic waste to fall away, I look at it and think it's silly to leave it inorganic! The added benefit is that the organic waste will be most likely hydrophilic and as a results, skimmable. On the contrary, inorganic waste such as orthophosphate would not be skimmable.
Thank you for the compliments on my own tank. It is quite literally my pride and joy which is the main reason that I try so hard to defend methods which have worked well for me. :beer:
I just feel old.
So is the ATS sales scam and the junk that's being sold as ATS systems.
Distorted science. misrepresentations of scientific literature. Pick a study, cite it, misrepresent what it says ; just prop up an image of smart and concerned about the hobby to mask the true snake oil sales approach.
When that still meets with resistance sling out personal attacks or get someone to do it for you Generally a waste of time ;if you are an easy sell a waste of money too.
I has nothing to do with the subject of water changes ; pretty blatant shilling in my book.
So is the ATS sales scam and the junk that's being sold as ATS systems.
Distorted science. misrepresentations of scientific literature. Pick a study, cite it, misrepresent what it says ; just prop up an image of smart and concerned about the hobby to mask the true snake oil sales approach.
When that still meets with resistance sling out personal attacks or get someone to do it for you Generally a waste of time ;if you are an easy sell a waste of money too.
I has nothing to do with the subject of water changes ; pretty blatant shilling in my book.
Decadence
New member
I think that the scientific study thing is a byproduct of pressure. There are no studies of the use of an ATS and the type of algae which grows on it. The eccentric proponents are trying to give you what you are asking for even though it doesn't exist. The reality is that an ATS is as much snake oil as chaeto is. In my experience, it was actually a little easier to use because chaeto was a little messy to remove under the compact stand and because removal of a gallon of chaeto affected the top off chamber of the sump and the ATO add limewater if you don't top it off again with saltwater. I'm not selling anything. An ATS costs very little to build yourself.
Look up the aforementined Adey, Dr. Walter Adey. He pioneered ATS and did much research. The problem with his systems wasn't that the ATS didn't remove nutrients, but rather that he refused to acknowledge it's deficiencies as a sole filtration method. Had he been willing to utilize other methods such as carbon, protein skimming, water changes, etc., alongside the scrubbers, I expect the Smithsonian system wouldn't have been suffering chronic yellow water (all those substances released by the algae) and the need for constantly replacing dieing corals.
SpartaReef
New member
Depends on your system... Read this whole thread and form your own opinion...
Reeferz412
Coral Hoarder
Size plays a big role. Among many other variables. It's not just a yes or no answer because it varies from system to system and what you choose to use as nutrient export. Hence, the discussion you should skim over :thumbsup:
Decadence
New member
This depends on if water changes are a primary source of nutrient reduction or major/minor ion replenishment. This is one of those questions where if you have to ask, it is probably better that you just do them.
Calappidae
Harlequin Shrimp
IMO just do the 10% water changes.. no big deal, Everyone else already explained the scientific stuff but its no big deal. Saltwater aquariums are ment to be maintained by well devoted, and determained hobbiest willing to take time to do anything for their live stock. If a ten minute water change is too much to handle.. then a pond might suit you better.. JMHO
I'm 15 and my parents are worried about me with how much I work around the 3 small setups I have right now.. Its all worth it too me
I'm 15 and my parents are worried about me with how much I work around the 3 small setups I have right now.. Its all worth it too me
