Looking for those who DO NOT do water changes.

[plankton]

let me answer this way. I had just a refugium on a tiny 24G tank and did not do water changes for about 2 months. Then, I noticed a slight green tint to the water and some of my lps retracted slightly. I added a skimmer and did a 10% water change the next weekend and everything looks normal again. I now leave the skimmer on and do 10% water changes every month.

So, even though there is not much data to go on I assume that I had too much bio load for the chaeto to pick up as nutrients. So, had to add the skimmer to help remove organics and the water change altough possibly not needed resulted in immediate polyp extention by the corals. So, I do water changes now because the corals appear 'happier'.

Scott

 

[CyanoMagnet]

What were your water parameters when you noticed the green tint?

I think the issue here is , are water changes necessary when you have undetectable nitrates, phosphates.

 

[plankton]

CyanoMagnet - I don't have ammonia, nitrite, nitrates numbers unfortunately. However, SG=10.026, Ca=500, Alk=10 and pH runs high (8.3-8.6).

Water changes would also dilute toxic chemicals released from corals/algae that they release during their turf wars (terpines, etc) but so would Granular Activated Carbon and water changes would add trace elements (but so would doing with a two-part solution or the use of a calcium reactor).

So, yeah if you bio load is more or less balanced with nutrient export and you have a means of reducing toxic chemicals and replacing trace elements, etc then you can prolly go long periods before needing a water change (if any).

Scott

 

[CyanoMagnet]

Running carbon is a must if anyone plans on not performing water changes. As you pointed out, toxins can be a threat and need to be removed. Running carbon would do a better job at this than water changes imo.

That Calcium number seemed a bit high . I have never ran it that high personaly. And your ph also seemed a bit high at 8.6.

Did you try reducing alkalinity to see where that gets you?

Also are your test kits ok? That high alk with 500 calcium seems off to me. Not unheard of but unusual.


I think the green tint can be attributed to excess protein. You probably have/had high nitrates and/or phosphates.

Im wondering if anyone actualy needs to do waterchanges if they have 0 nitrates and phosphate readings, run carbon, add trace elements etc.

 

[Fish_wiz2]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13208160#post13208160 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by CyanoMagnet


Im wondering if anyone actualy needs to do waterchanges if they have 0 nitrates and phosphate readings, run carbon, add trace elements etc.

Not really unless something goes wrong/fails, as of right now still no waterchanges

 

[DaveJ]

Let me make an analogy....

If enough people at the same time play russian roulette, someone will survive. Not doing water changes is similar. Very few will have success, others will end up with their brains all over the wall, on in this case a tank that has serious problems.

Water changes are a basic and time tested method of successful maintenance. Why risk it??

If you're too lazy to do them, perhaps you should find a new hobby. They don't take much work at all.

 

[RonMidtownStomp]

A horse and buggy was a time tested means of transportation.. Nobody's clearly stated why they're necessary on a large system with good measurable parameters.

 

[BeanAnimal]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13219694#post13219694 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RonMidtownStomp
A horse and buggy was a time tested means of transportation..

That is a straw argument. Just because one methodology becomes outdated, does not mean other will

Nobody's clearly stated why they're necessary on a large system with good measurable parameters.

The point is that even on a LARGE system, there needs to be a sufficient means of export. What does "good measurable parameters" mean? Systems sometimes fail with good "measurable parameters" and sometimes thrive with "poor measureable parameters".

In general the easiest way to maintain water quality is to use water changes to export unwanted compounds and therefore dilute what is left in the system. Of course there are other means of export, but in many (MOST) cases they are not as inclusive as the water change method. I.E. with a water change, you get some of EVERYTHING and with other methods you get a SUBSET of everything. The question becomes can you get enough in those subsets to sustain a healthy system. In most cases, the answer appears to be a resounding NO. That does not mean that there are instances or examples that fall outside what is expected. Taken to the extreme, we would look at a system with NO exports, one that re-uses everything in it. In reality such a system does not exist (other than the Universe, and that is even debatable).

Even the sealed ecosystems have a limited lifespan

 

[RonMidtownStomp]

It was as strong of an argument as "that's how we've been doing it." I still want to know what the "bad" things are that don't break down or aren't consumed by other organisms in the system, refugium, or skimmed out.

 

[RonMidtownStomp]

I think it's worth noting that I'm not trying to reduce my workload. I can do water changes easily enough. It does seem that if I could avoid wasting salt and avoid unnecessarily throwing away good salt water it would be less expensive. I think reducing unnecessary waste seems like a good goal.

All of the reasons so far are very "hand-wavey" as my college calculus professor would have said. I'd like to know more exactly than "everything I can measure looks "good" but I'm doing this because I'm supposed to."

I agree with the question "what are good parameters and what exactly should we be measuring? It's certainly a lot more advanced than an introduction chemistry lesson on the nitrate cycle that you get when you first start. It also seems like there should be more consistency between tanks than what people in the forums seem to observe.

It's not quite like Russian Roulette for fish but seems to share some common elements.

 

[BeanAnimal]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13220219#post13220219 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RonMidtownStomp
All of the reasons so far are very "hand-wavey" as my college calculus professor would have said.

There is NOTHING "hand-wavy" here at all. On the contrary we can easily put it in terms of MATH and CALCULUS. I suggest reading the very MATH heavy water change articles by Randy Holmes-Farley (you can find a link to it (them) in the chem forum or the recent continuous water change thread).

Furthermore, in simple math terms. I used (or infered) the terms SET and SUBSET. The tank water is a somewhat homogenous mixture (it is for our purposes) of STUFF.

A skimmer takes out only a SUBSET of that STUFF.
A carbon filter only takes out a SUBSET of that STUFF.
...Etc.

A water changes takes out a SET of that STUFF.

It is very easy to see (without even taking the trouble to DEFINE what COMPONENTS make up the STUFF) that a water change reduces the levels of ALL components that make up the STUFF.

It is also very easy to see that to get the same effect without water changed, you would have to incorporate several subsystems (a skimmer, carbon, etc) thats subsets intersect the ENTIRE set and in a manner that was AT LEAST as efficient at removal of each component as the water change.

I can create a Venn Diagram if needed.

You are asking that somebody define those components, or otherwise this is a bunch of hand waving. That is more than a little obtuse in the context of what we know to be true about what skimmers, carbon filters, bioballs, sandbeds, and other filtration methods do. Have these "components" been defined. Sure, many have. Skimmer do well with certain easy to break organic bonds, but not so well with others. Activated carbon does well with certain organics and not others. Etc. Etc.

Nobody said a system could NOT be setup to eliminate water changes. What most people are trying to convey is that setting up such a system is in most cases much harder than it sounds (especially when compared to water changes.)

It also seems like there should be more consistency between tanks than what people in the forums seem to observe.

Why would you say that? There are hundreds, if not thousands of variables. Light spectrum and photoperiod, local air quality, temperature, stock load, stock diversity, air pressure, feeding habits, makeup water parameters, salt type, dosing regimen, general husbandry, filtration system differences, and a countless number of other variables.

 

[eznet2u]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13215891#post13215891 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by DaveJ
If you're too lazy to do them, perhaps you should find a new hobby. They don't take much work at all.

Ok, I thought I made it perfectly clear that the "Work" of a water change was taken away by the plumbing I setup. I guess I needed to spell it with fewer words.

This is not about being too lazy to do water changes. This is about trying something new. You know like the first guy that built a skimmer, Or the first guy to use foam to build a background in their tank.

I am not saying that this is on the same scale as a skimmer or Calcium reactor. I am saying that this hobby is constantly evolving. There are things being done today that when I first started out sounded like snake oil. They are now being accepted into the hobby as a viable means of keeping a tank.

So maybe the same sentiment could be applied to you Davej, If you are not willing to further the hobby with experimentation...you should find another hobby.

 

[DaveJ]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13220386#post13220386 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by eznet2u
Ok, I thought I made it perfectly clear that the "Work" of a water change was taken away by the plumbing I setup. I guess I needed to spell it with fewer words.

This is not about being too lazy to do water changes. This is about trying something new. You know like the first guy that built a skimmer, Or the first guy to use foam to build a background in their tank.

I am not saying that this is on the same scale as a skimmer or Calcium reactor. I am saying that this hobby is constantly evolving. There are things being done today that when I first started out sounded like snake oil. They are now being accepted into the hobby as a viable means of keeping a tank.

So maybe the same sentiment could be applied to you Davej, If you are not willing to further the hobby with experimentation...you should find another hobby.

No water changes is nothing new. People do it all the time and end up with a soup in the tank or dead fish, many threads about hair algae, parameters out of whack etc.

Some few may get by for periods of time or longer as each system is different. But one thing that bothers me is individuals suggesting or endorsing techniques that the vast majority of people shouldn't do as some "new" improvement or method. It you wish to screw up your system fine, but don't try to champion something that the vast majority of people who come here looking for help or solid advice simply can't or should not do. Just because this is the advanced discussion section, does not mean that others who are not advanced are not reading it.

I'm sorry if you think this is a new subject or that you are on to the secret of life... you're not.

 

[eznet2u]

I am not trying to "Champion" anything. I am only interested in replies from people
that have had success doing it for extended periods of time. (Years, not months)
By comparing notes, maybe I just might learn what is going on in a "closed" system.

I am trying to learn why/how this works. And what is needed to sustain it.

If you are not interested in helping, please do not reply.

 

[DaveJ]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13227132#post13227132 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by eznet2u
I am not trying to "Champion" anything. I am only interested in replies from people
that have had success doing it for extended periods of time. (Years, not months)
By comparing notes, maybe I just might learn what is going on in a "closed" system.

I am trying to learn why/how this works. And what is needed to sustain it.

If you are not interested in helping, please do not reply.

Ahh so you are only interested in hearing people tell you what you want to hear, not what is best based on their own experiences and thousands of others. Gotcha.....

 

[eznet2u]

Satisfied now...?

 

[BeanAnimal]

DaveJ

I find your comments rather rude and shortsighted, if not condescending and outright confrontational.

I do not see ANYPLACE in this thread where the OP has done ANYTHING but ASK for opinions and kindly ACCEPT the answers provided. He has provided a QUESTION and the REASONS for asking that question.

You entered the thread and called him LAZY. He, out of frustration of your unwarranted attack, EXPLAINED his reasoning AGAIN for asking his question. Your subsequent replies were even more confrontational and condescending.

Why lay into a guy with both feet for kindly seeking information? If you had not noticed, MOST of us that HAVE provided the OP with relevant information have done so in a kind manner, even those of us who feel water changes are more often than not a MUST for a healthy system.

 

[eznet2u]

Again Mister B, you have cut through the fog of antagonism, and gotten to the heart of the matter.
Thank you for your understanding.

I have said it before and I'll say it again...

You da man Bean...I'm sorry, MISTER Bean.

 

[DaveJ]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13227945#post13227945 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BeanAnimal
DaveJ

I find your comments rather rude and shortsighted, if not condescending and outright confrontational.

And I think your being overly sensitive... and overbearing. So where does that leave us? Same place as before.

Asking the questions or getting the information is fine, tabling it as a valid methodology based a few successes is silly. If he wants to discuss something in an open forum he shouldn't try to downplay others opinions.

FYI.. the lazy comment was a general you.. not a directed YOU. If I had wanted to direct towards him, I would have spelled it out or quoted his original post.

So get off your high horse and have a beer, play with your tank or something more constructive than trying to brow beat or chastise people on this board who tell people when things are a bad idea so others who are less informed have some idea of things NOT to do.

Now I am off to prepare for a water change tomorrow...

 

[BeanAnimal]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13228080#post13228080 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by DaveJ
And I think your being overly sensitive... and overbearing. So where does that leave us? Same place as before.

No Dave, I am not being sensitive. I am pointing out that you were more than a little rude and for absolutely no reason. Why try to defend your actions instead of simply apologizing?

Me and you? Same place? Not by a long shot.

Asking the questions or getting the information is fine, tabling it as a valid methodology based a few successes is silly. If he wants to discuss something in an open forum he shouldn't try to downplay others opinions.

Dave, he did not downplay the opinions of anybody. You jumped into the thread and talked down to the guy just for asking a question and then took it two notches further when he tried to explain WHY he asked the question. You are still defending your actions like they are justified.

So get off your high horse and have a beer, play with your tank or something more constructive than trying to brow beat or chastise people on this board who tell people when things are a bad idea so others who are less informed have some idea of things NOT to do.

Dave, it is YOU who brow beat and chastised somebody before I (or anybody in this thread) ever spoke a word to you. You have been FAR from constructive and certainly do appear to be on a high horse yourself. I am sure the OP can defend himself, but MANY of us are tired of responses like yours. Be nice, it does not cost anything!