people who go with "almost" no Water Changes needed!

[glennf]

water changes are fine for those who don't like to beat themselves and learn how to manage it, but just prefer doing the changes. It's save and you can do it without having to much chemical knowledge.

the result you are aiming for is the effort you need to put into you tank.
if you stay within certain "known" or "subscribed" healthy limits you can reach good results even without water changes.

a tank with mayorly soft coral is quite easy to maintain without water changes (if you stay within certain limits). Control over nutrients, Alk, Ca and Mg gets you far enough. i have that that for years now

a SPS tank require some more effort and knowhow about water parameter. it won't go bij itself, yes need to take control. Going without water changes can't be be done without some extra effort. you need to take control over a few more elements. the more elements you control the better the chances for good result. after a few failure

but in my opinion you don't need to manually add or remove all elements meticulously.
Corals have a wide tolerance, so why spend so much effort mimicking NSW.
Finding the healthy boundaries seem to me to be a more productive way.
subconsciously we are already doing that, so why not start document and use it.

 

[OrionN]

IMO, glennf is right. You need to control the parameters of your tank in order for the corals to do well, especially with some anemones and sensitive SPS. Fish and soft coral are easy and can tolerate a wide range of condition and chemistry. Some (not all) of the SPS are harder. IMO, our test kits are not sensitive enough to check some of these levels so checking and maintaining them is a shot in the dark. Sometime you hit it, most of the time you missed. What chemical in the food and will build up in the aquarium is anybody's guess. While on can keep SPS living with minimal water change and just add additive, adding things will not remove chemical that will become toxic at some level. Adding without knowing accurately what needed is not recommended IMO.

In order to control nutrients, in tank that subscribe to no water change will need to severely control feeding and control the number of fish in the system. I feel that fish added a lot to the tank. I have a lot of fish and water change will keep my nutrient level down and remove, toxic minor elements and replace the essential elements. By nutrients control, I am not only talking about nitrate and phosphate only. These level are easily control without water change. There is a lot more to nutrients than just phosphate and nitrates. As everyone of us know, new tanks go though cycles of algae that have nothing to do with nitrates and phosphates. These micro nutrients/ or micro toxins are growth limiting for certainly corals and plants. Only water change will easily replace them. For me, it is cheap and easy. I do water changes and my tank is much more healthy for it.

And that is my closing argument

 

[reefwiser]

Most hobbyist do not want to keep track of their aquarium to the point of knowing the parameters of each element week after week. An just do water changes this will work. But this has one catch when something goes wrong with your tank an I then do a test an you see the "All my parametes are fine but things are dieing post's" This can be caused by out dated test kits or spoiled test kits that where not store properly or not knowing the correct method of each test( only doing a test when things are going south does not make you good at using a certain kit.) As we know things can creep up on you and you wake up with a problem. Doing test on a regular basis and keeping a log of the data to me is one of the great reasons to use DSR it gets you more attuned to the chemistry of "YOUR" tank. So you can see a trend an fix it before it turn's into a tank crash.

 

[JMorris271]

This is good news to me. Where did 10 % a week come from for gosh sakes?

 

[tmz]

There is more control and consistency not less with with small water frequent water changes with a reliable salt mix . They provide a myriad major, minor and trace elements( iron, iodine, potassium, calcium,alkalinity , magnesium , etc)and export excess helping to balance ratios . Understanding and monitoring the chemistry to meet the specific aqaruiums needs is a good thing either way,IMO.
However, without water changes additional supplements of these elements are more necessary than without them.
A method that replaces some and not others in a cavalier fashion while ignoring any export of excesses is incomplete.

 

[JMorris271]

Still waiting on white 5/g bucket pics. That tells the truth about water.

Nope. Sorry but clear water says nothing about healthy water. Only the most astheticaly pleasant.

 

[Aquarist007]

Nope. Sorry but clear water says nothing about healthy water. Only the most astheticaly pleasant.

I agree with this. I've had crystal clear water before and had super high nitrates and phosphates. That was in the past B.C. (Before carbon dosing) :lol:

 

[Aquarist007]

There is more control and consistency not less with with small water frequent water changes with a reliable salt mix . They provide a myriad major, minor and trace elements( iron, iodine, potassium, calcium,alkalinity , magnesium , etc)and export excess helping to balance ratios . Understanding and monitoring the chemistry to meet the specific aqaruiums needs is a good thing either way,IMO.
However, without water changes additional supplements of these elements are more necessary than without them.
A method that replaces some and not others in a cavalier fashion while ignoring any export of excesses is incomplete.

Tom , what would you consider your bioload to be?

I'm sure I'm reading this post wrong but I would not consider a 1 % water change a way to replenish alk cal and mag?

 

[tmz]

It does add some of those not enough though. I use fully saturated limewater /kalkwasser spread out as top off 24/7 for alk and calcium( the sytem stays around : Magnesium 1470ppm, calcium 500ppm, alk 9.5 ppm) The water change does handle the magnesium and potassium though and the others noted. Of course food plays a role does as well with many of the elements.The total 650 water volume includes : 450 tanks packed with corals of a wide variety ;a large majority are sps. In addition there is also and a 75 gallon with considerable coraline growth for seahorses . The rest is refugia, sumps etc.

The bioload in terms of consumers is dense. My tanks are packed including growing sps and other calcareous organisms .

 

[tmz]

Nope. Sorry but clear water says nothing about healthy water. Only the most astheticaly pleasant.

Discolored water usually contains humic and fulvic acids etc ,discoloring organic compounds which are refractory. They don't break down easily and are largely unrelated to dissolved nitrogen levels or PO4 but will interfere with light penetration and can clog up porous materials used in filtrattion. They also add to the the TOC level and may ultimately degrade under some conditions . The can be removed with GAC or skimming ;some are removed with water changes but GAC and skimming are more selctive in removing them. Overall They are not "healthy" ,imo.

 

[glennf]

i suppose we human can't survive without food meticulously balanced by manufacturer?
so those people in the third who who don't have the knowhow and resources to compose balanced food are doomed?
how did the human race survive all the ages without the knowledge we have now?
can we only survive with balanced food prepared?
is the situation we human live in our natural habitat and how do we survive that?

i feel healthy, but i don't eat meticulously balanced food ...... i eat anything i like.
We human live in a dense population, we live in a house with limited space and the air inside is not being meticulously refreshed every minute/hour/day. With the way some may think now, we soon we will need air recycle/purifiers in our home to survive.

as long a s we don't cross the line we are OK.

soo..... why are the corals and fish so much different in their demands?
why isn't it plausible to stretch the limit without instantly being penalized for it.

all I am saying you would be surprised what is possible and plausible.
By sticking to known facts we will never move forward. isn't it that called progress when you are trying to explore new boundaries.
if we were not exploring ourself, we still would be living in a cave and eating from the land (our natural habitat in thee ancient history).
we would have been sooo..... much healthier and happier according to a few....
i don't think so...., because we would'nt have been able to experience this great hobby we have....


for now i eat whatever i like and enjoy it (using common sense and within certain limits). i feel healthy and don't spend my time looking for the "perfect balanced" food to eat. isn't that what life and a hobby is about .... enjoy...

 

[OrionN]

i suppose we human can't survive without without food meticulously balanced by manufacturer?
so those people in the third who who don't have the knowhow and resources to compose balanced food are doomed?
how did the human race survive all the ages without the knowledge we have now?
can we only survive with balanced food prepared?
is the situation we human live in our natural habitat and how do we survive that?

i feel healthy, but i don't eat meticulously balanced food ...... i eat anything i like.
We human live in a dense population, we live in a house with limited space and the air inside is not being meticulously refreshed every minute/hour/day. With the way some may think now, we soon we will need air recycle/purifiers in our home to survive.

as long a s we don't cross the line we are OK.

soo..... why are the corals and fish so much different in their demands?
why isn't it plausible to stretch the limit without instantly being penalized for it.

all I am saying you would be surprised what is possible and plausible.
By sticking to known facts we will never move forward. isn't it that called progress when you are trying to explore new boundaries.
if we were not exploring ourself, we still would be living in a cave and eating from the land (our natural habitat in thee ancient history).
we would have been sooo..... much healthier and happier according to a few....
i don't think so...., because we would'nt have been able to experience this great hobby we have....


for now i eat whatever i like and enjoy it (using common sense and within certain limits). i feel healthy and don't spend my time looking for the "perfect balanced" food to eat. isn't that what life and a hobby is about .... enjoy...

Glenn,
I a better analogy would be the air that we breath rather than the food that we eat. Our body evolved to eat the food that we eat and our body extracted what it need and poop or pee out the rest.
We evolved to do well in the specific constant air that is essentially uniform for millennium. Varies the percentage of O2, CO2 Nitrogen and we will get sick. Water for the coral and fish is a lot more complicated because not only they get air, it also get nutrients and eliminated waste in it.

I guest I would say a best analogy would be but human in the box, feed him food but not water. Leave all the excrement in the box, both liquid and solid. He have to drink the water and eat the food that is contaminated with his excrement.
I propose that we remove these excrement with water/air changes while you propose that we should add chemicals to this soup because the human take up stuff and it will be short of "whatever" trace elements.
I think given 1-2 person per a square mile of surface area, they will be fine but if we put 1000 people in a square mile, they won't do well after a few years. If you add to this environment with various things that you don't know if they need, let say lead, they will be dead in a few years.
If you added Iron, which they needed, at a too high level, they get toxic on Iron and died also. There are so many element and chemical that we need at trace dose, but toxic at higher level that you would not believe.

 

[glennf]

how about the cities we are packed in high density out there

air can be purified, waste can be recycled, isn't that what we are doing and evolving in our confined tanks
the technology is already available.

isn't it our goal to create i full cycle

Glenn,
I a better analogy would be the air that we breath rather than the food that we eat. Our body evolved to eat the food that we eat and our body extracted what it need and poop or pee out the rest.
We evolved to do well in the specific constant air that is essentially uniform for millennium. Varies the percentage of O2, CO2 Nitrogen and we will get sick. Water for the coral and fish is a lot more complicated because not only they get air, it also get nutrients and eliminated waste in it.

I guest I would say a best analogy would be but human in the box, feed him food but not water. Leave all the excrement in the box, both liquid and solid. He have to drink the water and eat the food that is contaminated with his excrement.
I propose that we remove these excrement with water/air changes while you propose that we should add chemicals to this soup because the human take up stuff and it will be short of "whatever" trace elements.
I think given 1-2 person per a square mile of surface area, they will be fine but if we put 1000 people in a square mile, they won't do well after a few years. If you add to this environment with various things that you don't know if they need, let say lead, they will be dead in a few years.
If you added Iron, which they needed, at a too high level, they get toxic on Iron and died also. There are so many element and chemical that we need at trace dose, but toxic at higher level that you would not believe.

 

[Paul B]

isn't it our goal to create i full cycle

I think so, that is why I don't quarantine, don't sterilize anything and add mud and NSW right from the sea. I feel that our animals came from and evolved in these conditions and have become acclimated to it and if we change these things by eliminating bacteria and parasites, our fish and corals will eventually lose their natural immunity and be very susceptible to these things, sort of like the boy in the bubble.

 

[OrionN]

What about the city? they get their waste truck out to be bury in a land fill and sewer treated somewhat and dumped into the ocean. Without removal of waste we end up like Europe in the 1400, the black death that decimated the population.
I don't think we have the technology to fully cycle everything. Our tank just not big enough. We cycle the major waste, but things like some of the metal, we cannot recycle them. It just get higher and higher. A lot of the complex chemical just does not break down. We don't know what trace element are needed and at what level. As reefer (at least average reefer like me), we do not have the resources to do the chemical analysis that the commercial salt producer can. They only mimic natural ocean water without really know the effect of some of the trace elements in there.

 

[OrionN]

The yellow of the water when we don't use carbon are examples of some of the chemicals that just does not breakdown.
Other chemicals, (like DDT not like we use them, just example of toxic organic chemical that will not go away), that will be in the environment for ever (not really but you get what I mean).

 

[glennf]

What about the city? they get their waste truck out to be bury in a land fill and sewer treated somewhat and dumped into the ocean. Without removal of waste we end up like Europe in the 1400, the black death that decimated the population.

so what's the difference between than and now ?
same city, larger populations still health has become a lot better since then.
we have the technology to move waste , far away instead dumping it where we live.
in holland all waste is incinerated and not put into landfill nowadays. All sewer water is being recycled before entering the river. Metals and ohter stuff are being separated and recycled. That is called progress my friend
legislation is being made to save the environment.

I don't think we have the technology to fully cycle everything. Our tank just not big enough. We cycle the major waste, but things like some of the metal, we cannot recycle them. It just get higher and higher. A lot of the complex chemical just does not break down. We don't know what trace element are needed and at what level. As reefer (at least average reefer like me), we do not have the resources to do the chemical analysis that the commercial salt producer can. They only mimic natural ocean water without really know the effect of some of the trace elements in there.

 

[OrionN]

Well, the wastes are removed from the enviroment which is what happen in our cities, not in our fish tank. It is still there in the tank unless you do water change. Adding trace elements to the tank when you cannot effectivey measure the level is not the way to keep a healty reef tank, IMO.
If we can reliably measure all the levels of various chemicals in our tank, then I guess that the level of most trace element will increases, a few will decreases. IMO, the only way we can restore this to balance is by water change because we are not sure which is which. We cannot incinerated them like cities in Holland. Carbon can remove some complex molecues but will not bind to and remove small molecues. Protein skimmer will remove larger molecues but not the small ones.

I expressed my points as well as I can. If you still don't see it, then we just have to agree to disagree. We have no idea what Copper (animals need them but only in tiny amount), Iron, Boron, Platinum, zinc.... go or does in our tank. We have no idea the level of these elements in our tank. Even Iodine, there is a lot of problem measure the active iodine level in our tank. You see what I mean.

 

[glennf]

Well, the wastes are removed from the enviroment which is what happen in our cities, not in our fish tank. It is still there in the tank unless you do water change.

*************
Our skimmers does a great job removing waste from the tank. Using filter wool also add to the removing of excess dirt and bouded elements.
So we do export waste...
We do remove some "waste and some get used some get bonded and exported.
We can't control every element. My point is there is no need to meticulously control every parameter. Only the one that are known to have a impact on the live we want to keep.

With mixed reef we have polluters and users. So when you get the right balance the need for intervention becomes less urgent.
****************

Adding trace elements to the tank when you cannot effectivey measure the level is not the way to keep a healty reef tank, IMO.
If we can reliably measure all the levels of various chemicals in our tank, then I guess that the level of most trace element will increases, a few will decreases.

*********
We can measure many parameter quite good. Some test are better than others and can be used quit well.
Selecting the right test is part of the process of taking control.
*********

IMO, the only way we can restore this to balance is by water change because we are not sure which is which. We cannot incinerated them like cities in Holland.

***************
So in europe we do, otherwise we would be buried in our own dirt. The necessity to do so make sure we developed the technology.....
***************

Carbon can remove some complex molecues but will not bind to and remove small molecues. Protein skimmer will remove larger molecues but not the small ones.

***********
They can be remove when they are bounded by lager parts like bacteria.
************

I expressed my points as well as I can. If you still don't see it, then we just have to agree to disagree. We have no idea what Copper (animals need them but only in tiny amount), Iron, Boron, Platinum, zinc.... go or does in our tank. We have no idea the level of these elements in our tank. Even Iodine, there is a lot of problem measure the active iodine level in our tank. You see what I mean.

******************
Point taken and i understand your concerns.
I don't favour dosing stuff i don't see any benefit in and if i can't measure it i won't even start.

Thats the beauty of it all, we can agree to disagree. When everyone does the same thing, we will never explore new ways and the hobby would be boring.

 

[JMorris271]

Nope. Sorry but clear water says nothing about healthy water. Only the most astheticaly pleasant.

Discolored water usually contains humic and fulvic acids etc ,discoloring organic compounds which are refractory. They don't break down easily and are largely unrelated to dissolved nitrogen levels or PO4 but will interfere with light penetration and can clog up porous materials used in filtrattion. They also add to the the TOC level and may ultimately degrade under some conditions . The can be removed with GAC or skimming ;some are removed with water changes but GAC and skimming are more selctive in removing them. Overall They are not "healthy" ,imo.

While I do agree with what you said I wasn't speaking to the quality or lack of with discolored water. Only to the fact that clarity is not necessarily indicative of healthy water. imo