johnfallon135
New member
true I don't know why people always assume money or time
no water changes anyone?
- Thread starter Johnb123
- Start date
true I don't know why people always assume money or time
Green Chromis
New member
:fish1: Hi John, I didn't mean to imply the cost was a problem for you or anyone else, it's just that no matter how much time and money you put into this venture, you will never be able to replicate what a water change with NSW will accomplish in a saltwater system. Using NSW not only replenishes all the elements lost, it also adds a biological presence to you system. It has taken billions of years for the oceans to get the formula right so coral reefs, fish and everything else can live in them. :fish1:
Dugless
New member
huge waste of my time lmao! thanks captain obvious
I apologize that my response wasn't what you wanted to hear. Forge your own path and continue to challenge yourself with your homemade recipe of dosing this and that. If you are after exhausting more time and money than is necessary, then by all means continue. I can't help but notice responses by users with very recent join dates and wonder where such arrogance comes from? I'll assume it is gleaned from all those years of proven success. Good luck with your reef Mr. Know-it-all.
A guy without any experience here, so I am looking at this topic with unbiased opinion.
99% of reefers use synthetic sea salt. It is made of salt and other mineral and compounds needed by aquatic life. The main purpose of water change are to replenish the minerals consumed by aquatic life and to export SOME of undesirable stuff. Basically it is an attempt to keep the water in balance. Both tasks can be done by other means. The minerals can be replenished by dosing, and the undesirable stuff can be exported by aggressive filtration. So, what is the big deal?
The contention points are, is it possible to have a filtration good enough, and is there a way to accurately test and replenish the consumed minerals?
Handful of successful cases don't prove the methodology. More time and more successes are needed.
To the inexperienced like myself, it seems a lot easier to change water. One step accomplish both tasks - replenish and export. Also, it is a proven method. For someone who like to tinker with water chemistry and like to do a lot of testing, then no water change is an option.
99% of reefers use synthetic sea salt. It is made of salt and other mineral and compounds needed by aquatic life. The main purpose of water change are to replenish the minerals consumed by aquatic life and to export SOME of undesirable stuff. Basically it is an attempt to keep the water in balance. Both tasks can be done by other means. The minerals can be replenished by dosing, and the undesirable stuff can be exported by aggressive filtration. So, what is the big deal?
The contention points are, is it possible to have a filtration good enough, and is there a way to accurately test and replenish the consumed minerals?
Handful of successful cases don't prove the methodology. More time and more successes are needed.
To the inexperienced like myself, it seems a lot easier to change water. One step accomplish both tasks - replenish and export. Also, it is a proven method. For someone who like to tinker with water chemistry and like to do a lot of testing, then no water change is an option.
jason2459
Well-known member
My biggest concerns about those things we can't test for or can't easily and affordably test for to know what all needs replenished or if we are properly exporting those things we don't want that can be harmful if built up or slowly being absorbed by our rocks/sand and eventually leached out. To many unknowns that doing a water change can help provide a buffer against. For me it reduces the burden of in-depth testing and dosing. I will fully admit I'm lazy and overall don't test that often. I will get into moods of testing or experimenting but then go very long periods of doing none of that at all. Automating my water changes was one of the best things I've done and ensures it gets done.
One thing against water changes is that occasional bad batch that can throw things off. Or if collecting NSW that strain of a bad virus or bacteria or unknown pollution.
RHF is always a good read
http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-10/rhf/index.php
One thing against water changes is that occasional bad batch that can throw things off. Or if collecting NSW that strain of a bad virus or bacteria or unknown pollution.
RHF is always a good read
http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-10/rhf/index.php
Last edited:
Green Chromis
New member
:fish1: Hi Jason, on using NSW, yes you need to be careful where you collect your water from. I have been using NSW for over 30yrs. in various systems, including my current system for over 20yrs., and have never had a problem with pollutants of other dangerous organisms. I collect all my water form the Gulfstream or Outer Reefs off the Florida Keys, and use it only a few hours after collection. The way I use it would add a lot of undesirables to the system if present, but so far only beneficial plankton and other organisms. :fish1:
Not long ago many things in this hobby were unknown. People took chance, experiment, and achieved success. The masses like myself follow on their footsteps. Maybe people who are proponent of no water change are into something. Maybe they are discovering and solving another unknown. I believe we should applaud and encourage them instead of putting them down. I am not saying we should encourage everyone as their are lives at risk, but if someone like GlennF want to try and experiment, then we should support him. He obviously knows what he is doing. The guy makes his own salt!
jason2459
Well-known member
I don't think I have put down GlennF at all. In fact I mentioned him as a good example of a successful system that has gone with out water changes and that if he can do it I'm sure others can as well. I also commend him on posting his methods on his website (which unfortunately others have stolen and trying to make a profit on it).
I apologize. I didn't mean to direct this comment at you. I was talking in general. I see a lot of bashing for his method, even though he has been successful for 10 long years.
Wazzel
New member
I fall in the water change proponent camp. I am not interested in the extra kit or testing that would be involved. If you decide to go the no water change route, don't think you are going to be getting out of work. All you are doing is exchanging one husbandry method with another. There still has to be a method to export waste and replenish elements. It is not like we can get around that.
Reef Frog
New member
There is no doubt that skilled & accomplished SW aquarists can keep great tanks going without doing water changes.
But what about the average Joe with his 29g bio cube with 2 clowns and a BTA? He's not going to do Triton or balling. What are his/her chances of long term success without ever doing water changes? I'm talking 5, 10, 15 years. That's who I am thinking of when I read about this perennial debate. Many people latch on to the easy way if they've heard of someone who's done it....they are looking for some kind of validation that the easy way out (lazy?) is just as likely to work for them.
I think many on the water change side are just talking about the higher risk of trying to beat the odds when such an easy & reliable alternative exists. None of us want to lead new tank keepers astray.
My Uncle John smoked filterless cigs & drank large volumes of scotch until the day he died at 93. My friend Dave drives everywhere like he just robbed a bank, without ever wearing a seat belt. He's gone 40 years without an accident, has thick glasses and sometimes his tires approach iffy condition. Some can get away with going against the odds, but it's not for everybody.
But what about the average Joe with his 29g bio cube with 2 clowns and a BTA? He's not going to do Triton or balling. What are his/her chances of long term success without ever doing water changes? I'm talking 5, 10, 15 years. That's who I am thinking of when I read about this perennial debate. Many people latch on to the easy way if they've heard of someone who's done it....they are looking for some kind of validation that the easy way out (lazy?) is just as likely to work for them.
I think many on the water change side are just talking about the higher risk of trying to beat the odds when such an easy & reliable alternative exists. None of us want to lead new tank keepers astray.
My Uncle John smoked filterless cigs & drank large volumes of scotch until the day he died at 93. My friend Dave drives everywhere like he just robbed a bank, without ever wearing a seat belt. He's gone 40 years without an accident, has thick glasses and sometimes his tires approach iffy condition. Some can get away with going against the odds, but it's not for everybody.
Ask mother nature why she does constant water changes? I don't agree with this. I don't believe that mother nature does constant water changes. Water evaporates from the ocean, just like our tanks, leaving behind impurities. When it rains, the rain collects all kinds of junk from the land and flows back into the ocean. This does not make the ocean water cleaner...it makes it dirtier. Mother nature does not perform water changes on the ocean. It is a closed system and somehow takes care of itself. Probably by the vast amount of water and surface area for all the natural processes that occur to keep the water clean. Is it possible to run a successful tank without water changes? Some are.
Here is my question. If companies can make synthetic sea salt that has all the needed trace elements, why can't they just make an additive that has everything but the salt? Maybe just answered my own question...because unless you could test for everything, you wouldn't know what was building up too much and what you need more of...can't just keep dumping it in.
Last edited:
CStrickland
New member
I think that's kindve how the Balling method is supposed to work. You're meant to be able to do it for longer b/c the 3rd part is the "everything else" to keep your ions on track, so you don't get out of balance where all your SG is NaCl. Or something.
Also, yeah mother nature would not recognize herself in our tanks. I'm eating a green apple jolly rancher right now, it's delish but it's not an apple. That's about how close my tank is to the ocean.
PS here's a link to the type of NaCl-free salt I'm talking about, the 3rd part of the regimen http://fritzaquatics.com/product/super-salt-concentrate/
Last edited:
3dees
New member
sorry, but I just don't get it. with all the dosing, scrubbers, etc. etc. it seems to me that just doing a wc regularly is less work. I realize that a tank full of sps' will need dosing, but wc's to me is still the easiest thing to do. am I missing something? does going without wc's make for a better reef?
I'm in the no water change camp and I guess for me, it is much less work than water changes. Some things to keep in mind:
1) I run an SPS-dominant tank so I'd have to supplementally dose anyways
2) The only thing I really test for is alk weekly. The rest I do on a quarterly basis or if something looks wrong so I don't really see how I test any more than anybody else with a tank. The real factor here for testing more is because I have SPS, not that I do/do not do water changes.
3) I have a 215-gallon tank. Sheer volume makes it harder to do and more time consuming. I had a nanocube for 5 years prior and I wouldn't miss a single water change, it was basically a giant scoop of water for my 20% water change. I'd hate to see the scoop I'd have to use to change 20% of 215-gallons.
4) I realize that eventually, there may be a point where something we don't monitor/test for or a build-up of some type of pollutant is going to occur... I don't in any way deny the possibility, but until that point comes, I'm going to keep chugging along. I did it for 3 years on my 125-gallon and 1.5 years on my current 215-gallon with no issues so far. And when that moment comes, I fall back on my old friend the water change, and then see how long I can take it again from that point.
I just really wanted to point out since I've been on both sides of the equation for water changes and for no water changes, that it is no more work for no water changes in regards to testing or amount of time spent (actually I consider it much less work on a larger system), then it is to do water changes for me. Obviously water volume is a factor in difficulty of water changes to some people, mainly for me at least.
Just a thought-provoking question out there for those that are in the water change camp, has anybody been successful for more than 2 years with no water changes that decided they preferred water changes instead? I would wager to say that the majority of people who don't do water changes used to do regular water changes before... so they've at least actually experienced both sides of the argument to make a good case for one side or the other.
For the comment on new posters on ReefCentral, I feel that just because you're new to ReefCentral doesn't mean you have less knowledge than anybody else. I've been reefing for 11 years and just more recently decided to be more active on a larger forum and that may be the case for many others on here. I don't consider that I know everything there is to know about reefing but I feel like I've collected a wealth of experience over that time that I think might be beneficial to some new hobbyists, despite my post count or join date on any forum.
Here's a video of my tank so people don't think I'm one of those all theory and no application guys.
1) I run an SPS-dominant tank so I'd have to supplementally dose anyways
2) The only thing I really test for is alk weekly. The rest I do on a quarterly basis or if something looks wrong so I don't really see how I test any more than anybody else with a tank. The real factor here for testing more is because I have SPS, not that I do/do not do water changes.
3) I have a 215-gallon tank. Sheer volume makes it harder to do and more time consuming. I had a nanocube for 5 years prior and I wouldn't miss a single water change, it was basically a giant scoop of water for my 20% water change. I'd hate to see the scoop I'd have to use to change 20% of 215-gallons.
4) I realize that eventually, there may be a point where something we don't monitor/test for or a build-up of some type of pollutant is going to occur... I don't in any way deny the possibility, but until that point comes, I'm going to keep chugging along. I did it for 3 years on my 125-gallon and 1.5 years on my current 215-gallon with no issues so far. And when that moment comes, I fall back on my old friend the water change, and then see how long I can take it again from that point.
I just really wanted to point out since I've been on both sides of the equation for water changes and for no water changes, that it is no more work for no water changes in regards to testing or amount of time spent (actually I consider it much less work on a larger system), then it is to do water changes for me. Obviously water volume is a factor in difficulty of water changes to some people, mainly for me at least.
Just a thought-provoking question out there for those that are in the water change camp, has anybody been successful for more than 2 years with no water changes that decided they preferred water changes instead? I would wager to say that the majority of people who don't do water changes used to do regular water changes before... so they've at least actually experienced both sides of the argument to make a good case for one side or the other.
For the comment on new posters on ReefCentral, I feel that just because you're new to ReefCentral doesn't mean you have less knowledge than anybody else. I've been reefing for 11 years and just more recently decided to be more active on a larger forum and that may be the case for many others on here. I don't consider that I know everything there is to know about reefing but I feel like I've collected a wealth of experience over that time that I think might be beneficial to some new hobbyists, despite my post count or join date on any forum.
Here's a video of my tank so people don't think I'm one of those all theory and no application guys.
mhucasey
Acros & wieners, oh my!
If you are keeping any significant amount of SPS corals, you will need to dose Calcium and Alkalinity or use a Calcium Reactor. You cannot maintain adequate amounts of Ca and Alk(as well as Magnesium) through water changes alone.
johnfallon135
New member
+1 to the last 2 posts everyone that complains about the no water change method probably (not always) normally has high nitrates or haven't maintain SPS corals efficiently that they get butt hurt about the topic. we're already dosng for CA/KH/ and MG it doesn't really matter if we dose a few more additives and we all know about the dangers of this method as it was clearly stated in the first post "don't sob about this", "anyone able to replenish the trace elements"? yet we still have people such as dugless and reef frog chime in about the exact point that was laid out at the very beginning.
this thread wasn't about water changes vs no water changes yet there's always a person that ignorantly chimes in on this topic. if everyone were to think the way they did we wouldn't even be able to keep corals or fishes as people would have always been like "keeping corals and fishes in captivity that's ridiculous we don't even know what elements they need! lets just keep lugging ocean water and keep doing water changes with it" low and behold we developed salt, ca, kh, and mg and guess what could possibly be next? research and trial and error people it's what brings us forward! it's funny that the people who are studying the no water change method are considered lazy or cheap by those who aren't when in fact the people that are doing the water changes are the lazier ones that are simply doing easy cheap water changes that don't bring us forward. educate yourself people!
oh and 3dees yes you're missing something it was already said earlier that this was to have a sense of accomplishment as like in all hobbies when one gets really experienced they seek greater challenges but i wouldn't expect you to know anything about that
this thread wasn't about water changes vs no water changes yet there's always a person that ignorantly chimes in on this topic. if everyone were to think the way they did we wouldn't even be able to keep corals or fishes as people would have always been like "keeping corals and fishes in captivity that's ridiculous we don't even know what elements they need! lets just keep lugging ocean water and keep doing water changes with it" low and behold we developed salt, ca, kh, and mg and guess what could possibly be next? research and trial and error people it's what brings us forward! it's funny that the people who are studying the no water change method are considered lazy or cheap by those who aren't when in fact the people that are doing the water changes are the lazier ones that are simply doing easy cheap water changes that don't bring us forward. educate yourself people!
oh and 3dees yes you're missing something it was already said earlier that this was to have a sense of accomplishment as like in all hobbies when one gets really experienced they seek greater challenges but i wouldn't expect you to know anything about that
Last edited:
Green Chromis
New member
:fish1: Hi all, like I've stated earlier, I'm in the water change group, and for anyone willing to experiment and try to go a long time without water changes, good luck to you and your experimentation on adding additives to your tank to make it resemble NSW. The main reason's I do NSW water changes to my system are, I don't have the time or the equipment to measure all the elements that are in NSW or their correct concentrations. :fish1:
Similar threads
