That's the same way i think about it. But it seem that those who don't do water changes, always get condemned when they try to share that it can be done with great succes.
Most of them don't even bother sharing for for that reason.
people who go with "almost" no Water Changes needed!
- Thread starter Enzel
- Start date
That's the same way i think about it. But it seem that those who don't do water changes, always get condemned when they try to share that it can be done with great succes.
Most of them don't even bother sharing for for that reason.
What is the solution to accumulating trace elements and organics that are not effectively skimmed or removed by GAC?
Decadence
New member
Larger water changes, much less frequently. :spin2:
Many (not all) trace elements and organics can also be removed or neutralized through the use of macro or micro algae and the micro plankton/crustaceans which find refuge in them. It doesn't take much searching to know that these methods are successful. PaulB has taken advantage of quarterly water changes, macro algae, etc.. for almost half of a century.
Not dosing them when most corals don't seems to mis any of them.
I do believe some excess trace elements get build in into bacteria mass and skimmed off when using iron and carbon dosing to control nutrients.
My tank is already running since 2005 with nu water changes and still running fine with a great variary of corals now flourishing more than ever.
FWIW, I found that copper accumulated in my tank despite growing macroalgae, skimming, and GAC. I never dosed any intentionally. It comes with foods, and was reduced with each water change. Without water changes, it would obviously have been higher.
Decadence
New member
FWIW, I found that copper accumulated in my tank despite growing macroalgae, skimming, and GAC. I never dosed any intentionally. It comes with foods, and was reduced with each water change. Without water changes, it would obviously have been higher.
I believe I had read one of your threads about this and the accumulation was mitigated with the macro algae. I believe the levels were brought down to 10ppb which is lower than a lot of synthetic sea salts. Other heavy metals, I'm not sure about.
Does anyone know for a fact what elevated levels of each heavy metal is affecting corals negatively.
I have been running my tank now for many year with no water changes and i see no negative effects on any of the corals.
I don't do lab test for now, but i would not be surprised if some levels are elevated.
The bottomline is why try to mimic NSW, when i could be possible to keep healthy and thriving corals corals at elevated levels with less effort.
I have been running my tank now for many year with no water changes and i see no negative effects on any of the corals.
I don't do lab test for now, but i would not be surprised if some levels are elevated.
The bottomline is why try to mimic NSW, when i could be possible to keep healthy and thriving corals corals at elevated levels with less effort.
What about a mixed tank with all kind of corals sps, lps, zoa's, soft corals in high concentration and all thriving and colors are just fine.
Most "expert" even pressumed some couldn't be combined in one reef tank, because of released stinging cells and toxines which would affect coral growth.
You won't see many of them.
On top of it all... no water changes... most people would say impossible..
Well believe it or not, i say it's possible. I've been managing it for a while now.
I can ask the same question .
Why do ? if you can do without.
Just kidding.....
Logical question, because you were learned WC is mandatory for the hobby.
Why would you skip WC?
Because:
-it's possible
-you can get more than average results.
-it's easy
-it's cheaper
-it's more ecological than weekly wasting water and salt down the drain.
-you get to understand your tank better when you take control
-it's fun and you get to be more involved with your hobby.
-it can be done bij anybody with the right attitude.
-a possibility for people, who don't have unlimited resources and space for spare, to experience the hobby in a fun way.
-it save room. No extra holding tanks and technical room needed
-it saves on technical aids and keep it simple (less pumps, tanks, reactors etc)
-it saves on maintenance time
-no more water spills on the floor when doing manuel WC.
-no more barrels in the living room during manual WC.
The only drawback is : you need to measure and take control.
So whether "NO WC" works for your situation, depends on if above mentioned reasons suits you need.
mandarinfanatic
New member
Maybe mimic it cos it is what we do? Mimic reefs etc?
The only comparison that I made was synthetic sea salt I used (IO) compared to my tank. It was higher in the tank, so was lowered with each water change.
That said, I don't doubt macroalgae and all other creatures take up copper. But it wasn't enough in my system to keep it from being higher than the new salt water.
I have been running my tank now for many year with no water changes and i see no negative effects on any of the corals.
It is not generally known how high every metal needs to be to cause issues since every organism will have different sensitivity, but the response to your statement is that unless you compare the same tank with water changes and without, how would you know if they would do better or not?
Yes, you can conclude you can have a tank at least as nice as you did. That may be all you need or care to know. But it leaves unanswered whether water changes are helpful, even in your case.
It is not generally known how high every metal needs to be to cause issues since every organism will have different sensitivity, but the response to your statement is that unless you compare the same tank with water changes and without, how would you know if they would do better or not?
Yes, you can conclude you can have a tank at least as nice as you did. That may be all you need or care to know. But it leaves unanswered whether water changes are helpful, even in your case.
I have been running my tank now for many year with no water changes and i see no negative effects on any of the corals.
It is not generally known how high every metal needs to be to cause issues since every organism will have different sensitivity, but the response to your statement is that unless you compare the same tank with water changes and without, how would you know if they would do better or not?
Yes, you can conclude you can have a tank at least as nice as you did. That may be all you need or care to know. But it leaves unanswered whether water changes are helpful, even in your case.
Thanks Randy,
I do believe 100% it will make a difference , but is that difference for the worst or could it just enhanced things.
I have 180 species in a confined space and they all seem to be doing just fine. Isn't that what we are aiming for instead of chasing numbers?
My point is:
would you be surprised that corals can take a wider tolerance than most people assume?
Would you be suprised that elevated levels could even benefit them?
Of course having scientific facts backing it up is better, but by experimenting i have discovered many interesting facts.
The human race existed far before we even onderstood how things worked . We knew we needed food to survive and how we needed to reproduce.
Nowadays it seems you must have a university degree to select "healthy" food and raise children.
Of course we do live longer nowadays.
What is the benchmark for life expectancy of the humans race? The original livespan in ancient times or nowadays.
Last edited:
Mimic or enhance?
Parotting or thinking for yourselves?
Copying or improving?
Bottomline
We can't mimic the reef, but we can adopt parts of it and try to improve what we already understand by finding the limits and utilize that knowledge.
moses13
New member
My 135 mixed reef is coming up on its 10 year anniversary. I fought with it for the first two years with one bloom after another of various algae: hair, lobo, diatoms, bubble, you name it, I've been through it, and was doing biweekly (or more often) 5-20 gallon water changes to try to combat. I ran phos, carbon, etc. and changed it religiously. I pulled bucket after bucket of hair algae out of it for months. Eventually I got frustrated, went back to the drawing board, got a better skimmer and setup a fuge with chaeto and just let things run their course. I now change water maybe twice per year (20 gal each). I have a pretty good "feel" for when things are happy, and only test parameters when the "canaries" in the coal mine start to look off. At one point I went 2 years without logging a test (I'm sure I did test a couple times but just forgot to log it). I use kalk in the top off, and dose Alk, Ca, and Mg, and maybe a cap of trace elements every month or two. I have some bubble algae and some cyano spots here and there, but I figure that's just part of the biology of my system. Nothing runs out of control (except the ricordea!) and I have robust mix of softies, LPS, and low light SPS (T5 lighting). Corals have just about filled the entire tank at this point, so I have no room to add more. Bioload is fairly light since my flame angel and purple tang harass all newcomers to death. Those two have been in for 6+ years, and my three Pajama Cardinals have been in from day 1. I am always trying to improve my methods and care practices, but at the same time I hate maintenance, so the tank has kind of evolved as a balance between what I do and what it will support. In this case, it seems to work fine for both of us.
Thanks Randy,
I do believe 100% it will make a difference , but is that difference for the worst or could it just enhanced things.
I have 180 species in a confined space and they all seem to be doing just fine. Isn't that what we are aiming for instead of chasing numbers?
My point is:
would you be surprised that corals can take a wider tolerance than most people assume?
Would you be suprised that elevated levels could even benefit them?
.
FWIW, I chase numbers less than most any reefer. I only measure salinity and temperature. But that is only because after years of running my reef tank, I know what seems to work. But I would never claim that what I do is "best", only that it works for the organisms that are currently in it. Of course, not ever organism that I've added has survived long term.
We are very fortunate as reefers that organisms do have a wide tolerance for many things. That might be why artificial seawater works at all, and why people don't have worse problems not doing water changes.
As to the optimal levels, I'm not one who assumes that NSW is best in all cases, but there is little useful information about what chemicals can usefully be higher and which lower than NSW.
Such information is very hard to develop.
Any aquarium could be maintenance-free. It'll grow something. The question becomes what and is it what we want. Additionally, there feels something inherently wrong with the mentality "what's the minimum amount of effort to keep what I want to keep". Maybe the logic is frequent water changes are superfluous. Shouldn't we strive to do our best (versus our least) for the creatures we're entrusted to take care of? After all, it's not like they have any say in who their caretakers are -- aside from dying.
moses13
New member
That could certainly digress into a "why keep animals captive in the first place" discussion but is not part of this thread. I certainly think I do better by my reef than by my dog, who is a pack animal that sits home alone for 8+ hours a day...
