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

[Prospec1]

I have a 150gal and I do a 30gal water change every month. I would like to do less but don't want any issues.

 

[SCIFI_3D_zoo]

I'm not gonna chg right now either. I'm still trying to wrap my head around this. And nobody wants to lose any animals either. But it's definitely worth discussing and not dismissing. If this is all true then in the very near future a lot of people will be doing it this way I bet my life on it. And eventually everybody will. When I first stated reading it I was like... "Is it April 1st, what's the date, is this a joke". Last time I heard stuff like this it was fake april fool's news stories.

 

[Paul B]

I feel that if you have a newer tank like 3 or 4 years old, water changes are more important. Older tanks can go much longer. I am not sure why but I know they can by the number of old tanks with old water.

 

[sirreal63]

If you stop and take a look at Nano's filtration, it is easier to understand what is keeping the tank healthy. He skims, is carbon dosing, has a fuge packed full of life, is using bio-balls and rings, grows Chaeto and uses GFO. The system is in balance, what he puts in is consumed, converted or exported. The abundance of life and the variety helps keep it in check.

He has found a system that works but it is not the same as a tank that has no skimmer, no carbon, no water changes and relies only on an ATS for export. I am not the least bit surprised that it is working. He exports well. His tank does not say it works because I do not do water changes, it says that he has it in balance. No one knows how long it will remain in balance. We have had members here who went several years with no water changes before things went bad. I hope it works for as long as he keeps the tank.

I am a firm believer in challenging our methods. Over the years we have learned a lot, and we will continue to learn. When I started in this hobby it was expected to have a large return pump and push a lot of water through the sump. A member who is no longer here challenged that and from it most of us now run a much lower flow through the sump. We used to try and keep a stable temp and spent thousands of dollars to ensure that our temps never varied and kept them at low temps. We learned that this is not a productive thing to do and can cause issues. Someone challenged that based on the research he was conducting on reefs around the world and we learned that we don't need to keep a constant cold temp, that fluctuation is healthy and happens daily on the reefs. This is a good thing, and a reason to question what we do. Chemistry is different, for the most part, it doesn't change but we do learn methods of using it to our advantage. I remember when people first started carbon dosing, it was deemed idiotic to do. The chemistry did not change, we just learned a better way to keep nutrients in check.

Whether you do water changes or not is your choice. If you find a way to keep the tank healthy long term without it, that is good, but for the majority, water changes are still the best way to keep the tank in balance.

 

[thelizardkin]

I can't remember the last time I did a wc in my 400g reef it's heavily stocked has a few sps that are all doing great the color's not the best but it's from the lighting i skim dose CA, MG, and AK and top off with R/O when the tank is low I also never test the fish are all looking good so are the corals I see no reason to unless they start to die

 

[SCIFI_3D_zoo]

However there's lots of people with all those methods employed but would never go 4 years without a water change. True that wtr chg is mostly to remove nutrients (may not be issue if you got that covered) and to replenish trace elements (nano doesn't do this either). So maybe the answer to all of that is you don't need the trace elements so much or he's getting them from that "mountain water"? What IF it did start looking a little bad... then do ONE wtr chg at 7 years. That's a HELLUVA lot better than every 2-4 weeks that Randy and them recommend. I'm about about 2-3 months myself.

I don't think he's getting much from that skimmer. Maybe some small percentage that helps. He has a full beautiful tank full of the most difficult corals. It is amazing what is going on here to me. Yea... I don't recommend everybody stop wtr chg's. We want to take care of our animals. If you wanted the best thing to do is analyze his system and play with yours and watch color and growth as you alter your routines .. if you want. That would be the "prudent" way to do this. May have something to do with the bacteria he is adding all the time too.

Difference with me is maybe... I just think this may be something that will become part of the "new way". It's amazing what he's doing. He's just using plastic bowls for his ceramics. Crazy. If somebody was selling this it would be some elaborate sump, filters you gotta change, etc. He throws a tupperware bowl in there.

 

[joelespinoza]

I don't believe in short term tanks, but I suppose some people think of it that way

Who said anything about short term? You said you felt the average from what you seen is 4-5 years for tanks without water changes.... Think about that word "average".

Think about all the tanks that fail or crash within the first 6 months or so, then consider that there has to be just as many that make it to 7.5-9.5 years to average those out. Obviously this is an oversimplification but you get the point. If the "average" lifespan of all reef tanks was 4-5 years this hobby would be MUCH more popular than it is.

Next, how many people who have dead stable tanks and have had them for years are likely to hang out and post on forums that completely disagree with their ideology? My guess is very few, so chances are you are seeing the majority of the failures, and the minority of the successes.

Honestly I hope to go longer then 5-10 years, and I plan for it, but I dont expect it. Even if I had the most stable tank in the universe, I will be lucky if the area I live in wont be hit by a hurricane in that time, honestly I am not sure that the country I live in will exist in anything like the condition it currently pretends to be in 5-20 years from now.

The abundance of life and the variety helps keep it in check.

Absoutely, biodiversity is the key to balancing and sustaining any eco system.

If you stop and take a look at Nano's filtration, it is easier to understand what is keeping the tank healthy. He skims, is carbon dosing, has a fuge packed full of life, is using bio-balls and rings, grows Chaeto and uses GFO. The system is in balance, what he puts in is consumed, converted or exported.

He has found a system that works but it is not the same as a tank that has no skimmer, no carbon, no water changes and relies only on an ATS for export.

What is it that you think a Skimmer + Carbon dosing, bio balls + rings, cheato and GFO removes that an ATS does not eventually remove, besides the food to grow the diversity of life that is so important?

Randy has discussed the need for water changes here.
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-10/rhf/index.php
You can argue it with him if you like. If you take the time to read all of the article above you will see why it is a good idea to do water changes.

And another good discussion that HighlandReefer did an excellent job of explaining this.
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2056840

All those articles pretty much say the same thing I said here:

Saltwater itself does not wear out. Nutrients and chemicals go in, export (via whatever) goes out, the frequency you change you tank water should be a inverse relationship to how well you balance those while maintaing the required levels of macro and micro elements as required by your critters.

Clean is not the issue. Dealing with nutrients in/out are easy, that should not even be a discussion here. The only hard part of not doing water changes is the macro/micro elements issue, and honestly keeping Cal/Mag/Alk is not very difficult either.

So what you really run into when you seriously consider no water changes is simply trace elements, both making sure the tank has enough available and that you dont have anything building up to toxic levels, that is the core of the issue with reefkeeping for long periods of time. However unless you are doing 100% water changes there will always be build up and depletion, sure water changes act as a buffer, but the same issues still apply.

 

[Purple Rocks]

Im probubly a little nuts but my tank has been up and running for 2 years and have done 2 water changes, first one was done about 2months into cycling and the other was done a while ago due to a skimming issue and a inexperienced fish sitter ,lol, i had to replace about 5 gallons.

Other wise i top with fresh tap water and prime, and keep up on trace elements.
My skimmer ( Nac 6 ) and evaporation is my means of water changes.

As for dosing, i do use a few items, Kalk, Dolimite, Cal-Mag, Mag-Sulfate, Amino acids, B vitamin, Fulvic acid, Fancy molasses, and a brand of complex carbohydrates.
However i also have approx 500 lbs of sand, 200 lbs of rock, 80 lbs of sea shell. I harvest caulerpa prolifera, and some sort of short red leafed algae i feed to my tangs.(they seem to love it).
Nature does it best IMO.

 

[sirreal63]

Joel, discuss your method with Randy, you have gaps in your logic. If you actually read those articles, then you would have a better understanding. I already know you wont, you do not want to be told anything that differs from you understanding. It isn't worth my time, you have your head burried in the sand, but it is your head, your tank and your attempt. It's ok to do it your way, but it is not a method that has a record of success for the majority.

 

[joelespinoza]

Joel, discuss your method with Randy, you have gaps in your logic. If you actually read those articles, then you would have a better understanding. I already know you wont, you do not want to be told anything that differs from you understanding. It isn't worth my time, you have your head burried in the sand, but it is your head, your tank and your attempt. It's ok to do it your way, but it is not a method that has a record of success for the majority.

You just really dont listen to anything I ever say do you? Please, dont ever respond to my posts again, your responses are just annoying and useless.

 

[sirreal63]

I did not respond to your post, you responded to mine. I could not possibly care less about what you do, but I wish you luck in it. :beer:

 

[SCIFI_3D_zoo]

I agree. Nothing good can come from talking to each other with rudeness, sarcasm, etc.

 

[joelespinoza]

I could not possibly care less about what you do, but I wish you luck in it. :beer:

Then stop responding to my posts. You insistance that my method of filtration is wrong is annoying. When I ask why you think its wrong you come up with BS answers, when I ask you to clarify you have no response. I still have yet to hear from you what you think it is that a skimmer removes that an algae filter does not eventually remove as well.

This is why I say your responses are useless, you are simply parroting what you have heard with no understanding of it, then berating people when they do not follow what you think is correct, when you yourself have no clue why you think it is correct. Stop it.

For your information, I did read the articles you posted, all of them, and I paraphrased what they said accurately here:

"Saltwater itself does not wear out. Nutrients and chemicals go in, export (via whatever) goes out, the frequency you change you tank water should be a inverse relationship to how well you balance those while maintaing the required levels of macro and micro elements as required by your critters."

And here was my comment on it:

"So what you really run into when you seriously consider no water changes is simply trace elements, both making sure the tank has enough available and that you dont have anything building up to toxic levels, that is the core of the issue with reefkeeping for long periods of time. However unless you are doing 100% water changes there will always be build up and depletion, sure water changes act as a buffer, but the same issues still apply."

I never said how to fix this issue. I simply stated that it is an issue with long term reef tanks that do not do 100% water changes.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Saltwater itself does not wear out. Nutrients and chemicals go in, export (via whatever) goes out, the frequency you change you tank water should be a inverse relationship to how well you balance those while maintaing the required levels of macro and micro elements as required by your critters.

Clean is not the issue. Dealing with nutrients in/out are easy, that should not even be a discussion here. The only hard part of not doing water changes is the macro/micro elements issue, and honestly keeping Cal/Mag/Alk is not very difficult either.

So what you really run into when you seriously consider no water changes is simply trace elements, both making sure the tank has enough available and that you dont have anything building up to toxic levels, that is the core of the issue with reefkeeping for long periods of time. However unless you are doing 100% water changes there will always be build up and depletion, sure water changes act as a buffer, but the same issues still apply.

I think it is more than trace elements that can get corrected by water changes. I agree that nutrients are best dealt with other ways, although water changes can help.

The more important reasons for water changes relate to things that you do not measure, or cannot measure, or may not be easily dealt with any other way even if you know what the value is.

Some of these may be depleting and need additions (and a water change adds some amount), and some may be accumulating and need more export via water changes.

These include, for example, sulfate, chloride, bromide, fluoride, borate, potassium, iron, copper, zinc, silicate etc. Many (not all) of these can really only be corrected with water changes.

I'd add to the list certain organics which are neither skimmed nor bound to GAC well. Those can accumulate without water changes.

 

[sirreal63]

What do you do about the metals that are in everything added to the tank? From one of Cliff's excellent posts, which was linked earlier.
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2056840

This is the list of elements that Randy provides that we are interested in from the above article:

Element Symbol Atomic Number Seawater Concentration Range Approximate weight concentration*

Lithium Li 3 25 �M 174 �g/L
Beryllium Be 4 4-30 pM 270 pg/L
Boron B 5 0.42 mM 4.5 mg/L
Carbon C 6 2-2.5 mM 30 mg/L
Nitrogen N 7 0-45 �M 630 �g/l
Fluorine F 9 68 �M 1.3 mg/L
Sodium Na 11 468 mM 10.8 g/L
Magnesium Mg 12 53.2 mM 1.29 g/L
Aluminum Al 13 5-40 nM 1.1 �g/L
Silicon Si 14 0-180 �M 5 mg/L
Phosphorous P 15 0-3.2 �M 99 �g/L
Sulfur S 16 28.2 mM 900 mg/L
Chlorine Cl 17 546 mM 19.4 g/L
Potassium K 19 10.2 mM 398 mg/L
Calcium Ca 20 10.3 mM 412 mg/L
Scandium Sc 21 8-20 pM 900 pg/L
Titanium Ti 22 few pM 150 pg/L
Vanadium V 23 20-35 nM 1.8 �g/L
Chromium Cr 24 2-5 nM 260 ng/L
Manganese Mn 25 0.2-3 nM 165 ng/L
Iron Fe 26 0.1-2.5 nM 140 ng/L
Cobalt Co 27 0.01 - 0.1 nM 6 ng/L
Nickel Ni 28 2-12 nM 700 ng/L
Copper Cu 29 0.5-6 nM 380 ng/L
Zinc Zn 30 0.05-9 nM 590 ng/L
Gallium Ga 31 5-30 pM 2 ng/L
Arsenic As 33 15-25 nM 1.8 �g/L
Selenium Se 34 0.5-2.3 nM 180 ng/L
Bromine Br 35 0.84 mM 67 mg/L
Rubidium Rb 37 1.4 �M 120 �g/L
Strontium Sr 38 90 �M 7.9 mg/L
Yttrium Y 39 0.15 nM 1.3 �g/L
Zirconium Zr 40 0.3 nM 27 ng/L
Niobium Nb 41 50 pm 4.7 ng/L
Molybdenum Mo 42 0.11 �M 10.5 �g/L
Technetium Tc 43 none stable none stable
Ruthenium Ru 44 "¹0.05 pM "¹5 pg/L
Palladium Pd 46 0.2 pM 21 pg/L
Silver Ag 47 0.5-35 pm 3.8 ng/L
Cadmium Cd 48 0.001-1.1 nM 124 ng/L
Indium In 49 1 pM 115 pg/L
Tin Sn 50 1-12 pM 1.4 ng/L
Antimony Sb 51 1.2 nM 146 ng/L
Iodine I 53 0.2-0.5 uM 64 �g/L
Cesium Cs 55 2.2 nM 290 ng/L
Barium Ba 56 32-150 nM 21 �g/L
Lanthanum La 57 13-37 pM 5.1 ng/L
Cerium Ce 58 16-26 pM 3.6 ng/L
Praseodymium Pr 59 4 pM 560 pg/L
Neodymium Nd 60 12-25 pM 3.6 ng/L
Samarium Sm 62 3-5 pM 750 pg/L
Europium Eu 63 0.6 - 1 pM 150 pg/L
Gadolinium Gd 64 3-7 pM 1.1 ng/L
Terbium Tb 65 0.9 pM 143 pg/L
Dysprosium Dy 66 5-6 pM 975 pg/L
Holmium Ho 67 1.9 pM 310 pg/L
Erbium Er 68 4-5 pM 835 pg/L
Thulium Tm 69 0.8pM 135 pg/L
Ytterbium Yb 70 3-5pM 865 pg/L
Lutetium Lu 71 0.9 pM 157 pg/L
Tungsten W 74 0.5 nM 92 ng/L
Rhenium Re 75 14-30 pM 5.6 pg/L
Iridium Ir 77 0.01 pM 1.9 pg/L
Platinum Pt 78 0.5pM 98 pg/L
Gold Au 79 0.1-0.2 pM 39 pg/L
Mercury Hg 80 2-10 pM 2 ng/L
Thallium Tl 81 60 pM 12 ng/L
Lead Pb 82 5-175 pM 36 ng/L
Bismuth Bi 83 "¹0.015 - 0.24 pM 50 pg/L

*This column uses the high end of the concentration range. 1 mg/l � 1 ppm;
1 �g/L � 1 ppb; 1 ng/L � 1 ppt (part per trillion); 1 pg/L � 1 ppq (part per quadrillion); see this linked article on unit definitions for more information on the relationships between these units.

Also take note regarding how small the amounts are that we are trying to measure (well below hobby grade test kit ranges). Adding too much of many of these elements will kill or cause problems for our tank organisms. Many of these micro-elements likely become too high from food inputs and need to be reduced regularly .

The micro-nutrients that we may be most concerned about in our reef tanks are the heavy metals. From the few studies that have been completed on reef tank water these heavy metals are usually at higher levels than we like. Meaning they usually need to be reduced on a regular basis which water changes accomplishes. Our tank organisms are very sensitive to these heavy metals and higher concentration have negative impacts. These heavy metals are constantly being added in our alk, calcium and mag supplements, salt mixes & in our food sources. IMO, it is unlikely that hobbyists need to supplement them.

What are the heavy metals? This article lists them and describes some of the negative effects they can have in a marine environments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_(chemistry)

From it:

"Heavy metal pollutionMotivations for controlling heavy metal concentrations in gas streams are diverse. Some of them are dangerous to health or to the environment (e.g. mercury, cadmium, lead, chromium),[3] some may cause corrosion (e.g. zinc, lead), some are harmful in other ways (e.g. arsenic may pollute catalysts). Within the European community the eleven elements of highest concern are arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, chromium, copper, mercury, manganese, nickel, lead, tin, and thallium, the emissions of which are regulated in waste incinerators. Some of these elements are actually necessary for humans in minute amounts (cobalt, copper, chromium, manganese, nickel) while others are carcinogenic or toxic, affecting, among others, the central nervous system (manganese, mercury, lead, arsenic), the kidneys or liver (mercury, lead, cadmium, copper) or skin, bones, or teeth (nickel, cadmium, copper, chromium).[4]

Heavy metal pollution can arise from many sources but most commonly arises from the purification of metals, e.g., the smelting of copper and the preparation of nuclear fuels. Electroplating is the primary source of chromium and cadmium. Through precipitation of their compounds or by ion exchange into soils and muds, heavy metal pollutants can localize and lay dormant. Unlike organic pollutants, heavy metals do not decay and thus pose a different kind of challenge for remediation. Currently, plants or microrganisms are tentatively used to remove some heavy metals such as mercury. Plants which exhibit hyper accumulation can be used to remove heavy metals from soils by concentrating them in their bio matter. Some treatment of mining tailings has occurred where the vegetation is then incinerated to recover the heavy metals.

One of the largest problems associated with the persistence of heavy metals is the potential for bioaccumulation and biomagnification causing heavier exposure for some organisms than is present in the environment alone. Coastal fish (such as the smooth toadfish) and seabirds (such as the Atlantic Puffin) are often monitored for the presence of such contaminants."

I am not a chemist, but I have enough sense to listen to those who are. You do not have to agree, there are still people who believe the Earth is flat. They have a different belief, it doesn't make them right.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I still have yet to hear from you what you think it is that a skimmer removes that an algae filter does not eventually remove as well.

.

I don't think algae will remove most types of organic matter. In fact, algae are net producers of organic matter, not net consumers. Skimmers also remove some whole bacteria and other planktonic organisms, algae do not.

 

[joelespinoza]

I don't think algae will remove most types of organic matter. In fact, algae are net producers of organic matter, not net consumers. Skimmers also remove some whole bacteria and other planktonic organisms, algae do not.

I do appreciate the input Randy, however, my point was not that skimmers and ATS remove the exact same things. I kept asking sirreal63 what HE thinks a skimmer removes that an ATS does not, because he keeps telling me I have to use a skimmer, without knowing why himself. That is annoying.

Sirreal63 has been harassing me on a number of different threads on this same subject, I have yet to make a single disparaging remark on his tank and how he runs it, however he has side tracked a number of threads by doing so to me.

I am not advocating anyone here run their tank the way I run mine. I would very much appreciate it if Sirreal63 would apply that same courtesy to me. THAT is why I asked him to stop responding to my posts.

 

[Paul B]

You guys are really going to hate me for this but it is what it is.
I think we are also missing the fact that older water is healthier in certain respects which is the reason "some" tanks can go for many years and look beautiful with no water changes. If water changes were "critical" to the well being of a system then absolutely no tanks would be around for long if they did not change water. But we have many. And some of those tanks are extreamly healthy looking. Why is that?
Also why do new tanks with all new water look lousy, have unusually unhealthy animals which are extreamly prone to infections and paracites?
"Artificial" sea water is not sea water which is why it is called "artificial" It is an aproximation and is lacking most of the elements in real water which has every chemical known and unknown to man along with compounds that took millenia to form. Eventually ASW takes on properties of real seawater through the actions of bacteria and algae.
This is Randy's deal as I am an electrician and he is a chemist.
(Randy I got this from Guido Huckstedt, I didn't invent it.)
but it goes along with my theory that if some tanks go without water changes and look great, we are missing something.
"I myself change water", but not too much because as I said, new water is not as healthy as mature water, providing it is clean unpolluted water.
If you have a tank a few years old it doesn't matter if you ever changed water or not because a tank can go a few years with no water changes with no problems as is proven on here many times.
Changing water every week or two is fine if that is what you want to do, but it is IMO unnecessary, wasteful, unhealthy and costly. Now I did say "IMO" so if you don't agree with me that is OK because you are just objecting with my opinion. But being my tank is fairly old, my "opinions" carry a little weight. :beer:

 

[sirreal63]

Joel, I know you think I am picking on you, even though I have told you several times I am not. I have never insisted on you running a skimmer, it isn't my place to, I have suggested you do something, anything, to help export what the ATS does not. Water changes, carbon, skimmer, anything other than just the ATS, especially when carbon dosing. Not because I am picking on you, but because I see you a bright person who is setting the tank up for a very possible failure. I hate to see anyone do something that can be problematic. If I did not care, I would have done as so many have and just ignored you. I am completely at fault for caring, but it is who I am. If you had not replied to my post here, you would not have heard from me. I have wished you well numerous times and still do. There are many paths to success, some are just easier than others.

No single person knows everything, I have made many mistakes with my tanks, and watched many others make the same mistakes. I may be wrong here, but the purpose of this forum is to share knowledge and experience. No one is forced to accept it, but it is here for the taking just the same. Over the years I have watched people make poor choices, refuse any help and when it fails they just fade away. My hope is that will not be you.

 

[discocarp]

Also why do new tanks with all new water look lousy, have unusually unhealthy animals which are extreamly prone to infections and paracites?

IMO this is completely false. I have set up many tanks and moved corals right into them as long as the rock wasn't going to do a hard cycle. I've also done near 100% water changes at times and haven't seen any issues as long as temp and salinity match pretty close. I just flat out do not believe that new salt water is 'unhealthy'.

But I don't hate you Paul.