question about last meeting topic.

[gregbot9000]

I forgot to ask Russel at the meeting... could water change's be done instead of adding chemicals? Like when he talked about using calcium reactors for large tanks, kalkwasser for small tanks..etc,etc. Does it have the same effect or is there benefits from the chemicals.

I remember he said that salt batches(when making salt water) could be off and have low amouts of elements...id' assume thats why its better to have the chemicals?....but if it the the new water water was fine, would it be just as good? I would think water cahnges would be better because you replace elements that cant be replaced with chemicals..he said there was 70..lol

help anyone =)

 

[Speckled Grouper]

If the new water had the proper combination of trace elements, I would say, definitely yes.
I asked him about NSW and if I didn't misunderstand, he consirered that the most ideal, as long as it was collected under the right circumstances.

 

[ninjamini]

I think he also said that natural unpolluted sea water is the best way to go if you have some way to kill the bacteria.

 

[jeffbrig]

Water changes are really only effective if you have light calcium/alk demands. Remember, every time you do a change, you're only replacing a percentage of what's been used up. Over the long run, you're still losing ground, unless you plan on doing near 100% water changes periodically. Or have an unlimited supply and can do continuous water changes with clean ocean water.

For a heavily stocked tank with lots of clams/stonies, water changes alone will not be able to keep up. I don't even consider my tank heavily stocked, and my alk can drop from 9-10dKH to 5-6dKH in a week if unattended.