Reasons for Doing Water Changes?

[ksed]

So in other words there are no remaining DOC left?

 

[TbyZ]

Another from this forum -

I have ran R/C for my salt for years, but I had recently noticed that I seem to be getting a film on my circulation pump and the bigger problem is that the last box I received had low magnesium, with 0 tds RODI water at a .026 salinity I tested it at 800. So I thought this was a bad batch so I replaced it what the heck a new box and it tested out at 850. Sothat being the case I switch...

Worse than Lasse suggested

And more-

"Dont do Fritz, i would stick with RSCP. I know multiple awesome tanks that crashed from Fritz. Its very controversial right now also with very high ALK btw."
- - - - - - - -
"agree I was using Fritz and switched back to RSCP. I may end up switching to ESV for the ALK reason. Fritz was mixing all over the place from batch to batch."
- - - - - - -
If they can't get the majors right what hope do they have with the trace.

 

[TbyZ]

So in other words there are no remaining DOC left?

Gets washed around the reef from the mucus excretion. There's always DOC in reef water.

 

[dz6t]

I just read somewhere that algae releases 7X more DOC than corals. I try to see if I can find the article.

Algae indeed release quite a bit of DOC. But most of them are various sugars which are used by Coral as food source.

 

[MnFish1]

From another forum, 10/10/2017

I have a 150 reef tank running well for 8 years and i've been regularly using io rc salt. and this week the unthinkable happened. did a water change recently with io rc. then had to be away from home for a week for a business trip. a couple days later i saw some of my sps started bleaching. after investigating, something wasn't right with the water. tested my params and found my mg and ca dropped drastically. everything read normal except my mg was down to about 800 and ca 120
so i frantically mixed a new bucket of salt water with the io rc and to my horror, there were hardly any traces of ca or mg. salinity read 1.026 and dkh and ph read normal. the salt bags looked normal. no clumping. i buy 200 gall boxes from amazon. nothing out of the ordinary. i wasnt ready to accept the fact that this was a bad batch of salt. so my buddy gave me a bag of his regular io salt tonight and i just tested a newly mixed batch of water using io salt. to my dismay, the io mixed normal. mg in the 1400s and ca in the 400s. so that proves that none of my test kits were off. it was the salt! ugghhh

i dont have ro water handy so i am making some right now, but my sps corals are literally dying by the hour. it is painful to watch. fish seem ok, and lps look all bloated.

i admit i never test my new water. just for salinity and ph. i had no idea that there could be batches with no ca or mg. this was a painful lesson learned.

Another anecdote that means nothing. You post videos in which the videographer recommends against what you’re suggesting yet you keep going and going. So everyone. Just don’t do water changes. Have a sump 5x as big as your tank and a skimmer designed for a tank 5 Times your tank. And you don’t need to do water changes. This is seriously the most ridiculous. And I’m really reaally trying not to be offensive. Several people have posted their tanks and methods who I support. One person seems to post research that had no relation to reef aquaria and other stuff that does not relate to the discussion because he/she has an agenda. The op here seems only desirous of an argument which he is determined to win. Go for it bro. No more water changes. I will watch the tank emergency forum going forward

 

[FarmerTy]

My old tank prior to me moving this past March to a new house ran for 3 years without water changes. I ran a tank before that for 3 years as well with no water changes before I upgraded tanks.

I had a large fish population with mainly acropora, though there are other types of corals in there as well. I added plenty of new fish and corals during that time so acclimation to my water was not the reason why the current coral and fish survived, new inhabitants faired well.

I ran an overrated skimmer, UV, GFO, biopellets, calcium reactor, and GAC. I dosed aminos for awhile but then stopped.

Here's the system prior to me moving.



I appreciate Tbyz's discussion points as well as the counter arguments made in this thread. It achieved the desired goal, a critical look at the need for/against water changes.

For me personally, its much easier to run my reactors than water changes. I must emphasize, FOR ME. For others they may feel different. I top off my CaRX every 6 months, my biopellets every 6 months, my GFO and carbon get changed out monthly, and feed the heck out of my fish. If you think about it, the only maintenance I did monthly was swapping out GFO and carbon. I take my trash out way more than that.

I'll take that over lugging heavy boxes of salt, making large batches saltwater in brute trashcans, pumping water out of the system, and pumping new water into the system. Sure, described in that way, water changes sound easy. Do it for 250-300 gals and it easily becomes a chore for me at least.

Please don't take it as I'm advocating to newbies to not do water changes. But if you're experienced, know what you're looking for, understand the principles of reefkeeping, then maintaining a tank without systematic water changes can be done.

Just from the discussions in this thread, I may be open to being a bit more cautious and just doing an annual water change to dilute toxins if that really is an applicable issue. Nobody knows so please don't jump on the bandwagon too quick with the toxins actually being an issue but I'm game to do it once a year just in case.[emoji4] I guess that would encompass correcting drifts in elements as well.

Slightly off topic but I find it odd that two of the "no water change" tank examples supplied here that mainly grow SPS have what I consider weedy SPS. Caps, stags, and stylos which all grow like weeds. I have a giant, 6 year old, slow growing Oregon tort grown entirely with no water changes. I'm not saying that it's better than stags, birdsnests, caps, or stylos but wanted to emphasize that no water changes can grow more difficult SPS as well as stags, stylos, caps, and birdsnest can still grow in non-optimum conditions. To me, that's like the SPS version of when people say, I grow star polyps and xenia like crazy. Of course you do, they are weeds! [emoji12]

 

[MnFish1]

My old tank prior to me moving this past March to a new house ran for 3 years without water changes. I ran a tank before that for 3 years as well with no water changes before I upgraded tanks.

I had a large fish population with mainly acropora, though there are other types of corals in there as well. I added plenty of new fish and corals during that time so acclimation to my water was not the reason why the current coral and fish survived, new inhabitants faired well.

I ran an overrated skimmer, UV, GFO, biopellets, calcium reactor, and GAC. I dosed aminos for awhile but then stopped.

Here's the system prior to me moving.



I appreciate Tbyz's discussion points as well as the counter arguments made in this thread. It achieved the desired goal, a critical look at the need for/against water changes.

For me personally, its much easier to run my reactors than water changes. I must emphasize, FOR ME. For others they may feel different. I top off my CaRX every 6 months, my biopellets every 6 months, my GFO and carbon get changed out monthly, and feed the heck out of my fish. If you think about it, the only maintenance I did monthly was swapping out GFO and carbon. I take my trash out way more than that.

I'll take that over lugging heavy boxes of salt, making large batches saltwater in brute trashcans, pumping water out of the system, and pumping new water into the system. Sure, described in that way, water changes sound easy. Do it for 250-300 gals and it easily becomes a chore for me at least.

Please don't take it as I'm advocating to newbies to not do water changes. But if you're experienced, know what you're looking for, understand the principles of reefkeeping, then maintaining a tank without systematic water changes can be done.

Just from the discussions in this thread, I may be open to being a bit more cautious and just doing an annual water change to dilute toxins if that really is an applicable issue. Nobody knows so please don't jump on the bandwagon too quick with the toxins actually being an issue but I'm game to do it once a year just in case.[emoji4] I guess that would encompass correcting drifts in elements as well.

Slightly off topic but I find it odd that two of the "no water change" tank examples supplied here that mainly grow SPS have what I consider weedy SPS. Caps, stags, and stylos which all grow like weeds. I have a giant, 6 year old, slow growing Oregon tort grown entirely with no water changes. I'm not saying that it's better than stags, birdsnests, caps, or stylos but wanted to emphasize that no water changes can grow more difficult SPS as well as stags, stylos, caps, and birdsnest can still grow in non-optimum conditions. To me, that's like the SPS version of when people say, I grow star polyps and xenia like crazy. Of course you do, they are weeds! [emoji12]

Awesome experience nice tank

 

[MnFish1]

Unless you are in a small space, run a much larger generator than is needed, run without a controller, do not run your exit from a reactor through carbon, and are just plain incompetent, reports of Ozone toxicity are grossly exaggerated.

Um. Can you supply some documentation for this?

1. Which 'controller' would you recommend. My Apex controller consistently gave me ORP levels higher than what would be considered. (and yes - there was no algae, etc on the probe)
2. Running the exit through carbon can be difficult - Firstly, Ozone through a skimmer also goes into the air (requiring some kind of system to prevent that), Second, Ozone through a reactor also requires a fair amount of work to ensure that whatever you're using to react with the ozone depletes it completely.
3. If there are reports of Ozone toxicity that are 'grossly exaggerated' - show me where this reports are. I have a child who is exquisitely sensitive to ozone (with asthma). Your comments though perhaps correct for many people are irresponsible (IMHO).
4. The comment that the rest of the people who dont like ozone are 'just plain incompetent' reflect a poor understanding on your part (again IMHO)
5. What is a 'small space'. Do you have some directives for the proper use of Ozone in a given number of cubic meters of space?

 

[Lasse]

How much HP do you use per gallon of water volume.
Also HP have stabilizers, which can present itself with concerns as well.

The oxidator slowly release 6% HP and I´m dosing around 100 ml/week. I´m aware of the stabilizer in the solution and for
safety reasons - I only use HP from the producer of the Oxidator although I can see the factory of northern Europe´s largest producer of HP from my bedroom – and know people working there.

I do not know which common stabilizers are used for HP – maybe @Randy Holmes-Farley knows?

In Europe – solutions over 12 % can´t be sold to consumer. There is also a lot of restrictions according to HP in Sweden - therefore it is easier to buy the original product.

However – the producer of the product says that its solutions are for use in aquariums and for the moment I trust their solution.

It is rather common in freshwater tanks in Europe and very popular among breeders of freshwater shrimps. It’s the standard method for these shrimps. When a freshwater aquarist ask me if he/she can use their tap water to fresh or salt water – my first question always is – Do most freshwater shrimps survive in your tap water? If so – you can normally use it directly according to toxic substances - some freshwater shrimps is very sensitive.

But as normal– if you put anything into your aquaria – you gamble a little. For what it's worth - the oxydator concept have been working for me during 1.5 year ((in saltwater - in freshwater I have run it now and then since the 80:ties) and I know people that have used it for decades in saltwater tanks

Sincerely Lasse

 

[TbyZ]

Another amazingly successful no regular water change aquarium

 

[Lasse]

The ozone question

Unless you are in a small space, run a much larger generator than is needed, run without a controller, do not run your exit from a reactor through carbon, and are just plain incompetent, reports of Ozone toxicity are grossly exaggerated.

.

The problem with Ozone is that we have to less high up in the sky and to much of it at the surface of the earth.

Its estimated that the annual crop lost in Sweden caused by elevated levels of Ozone can be as high as 10 %. And this is the start point in your living room . The use of Ozone in air purifier – especially in restaurants are in question in Sweden as an example.

Personally I´m not so worried of it – I`m 67 years old and I will be dead before the cancer hit me as I use to say when I handle dangerous chemicals (humour from Gothenburg – please do not be offended).

When I run Ozone before – I had a controller but my best tool was my nose and I run low concentrations in my skimmer. When I looked at the plastic´s in my Ozone resistant skimmer after a year – I change my mind especially because I have grandchildren sleeping over in my apartment now and when. Look at the plastics is wrong to say – because they was not there – most of the interior parts of the skimmer was gone!

The main reason for me to run Ozone was to get rid of the CDOM (yellowing substances) and I have found that running an oxidator is a safer and easier way to achieve the same goal.

Of cause – there is a lot of environmental concerns with HP also (mostly production and transporting issues) – for me personally it would be a catastrophe if the HP production plant 600 meters from my bedroom blow up in the air

Sincerely Lasse

 

[TbyZ]

Another anecdote that means nothing. You post videos in which the videographer recommends against what you’re suggesting yet you keep going and going. So everyone. Just don’t do water changes. Have a sump 5x as big as your tank and a skimmer designed for a tank 5 Times your tank. And you don’t need to do water changes. This is seriously the most ridiculous. And I’m really reaally trying not to be offensive. Several people have posted their tanks and methods who I support. One person seems to post research that had no relation to reef aquaria and other stuff that does not relate to the discussion because he/she has an agenda. The op here seems only desirous of an argument which he is determined to win. Go for it bro. No more water changes. I will watch the tank emergency forum going forward

It appears that, the more people post on my thread here with experience & opinions that disagree with yours, and tanks that proves how ridiculous your arguments are, the more deplorable your behaviour & attitude becomes.

 

[Amoo]

So let's review some fact here now that things seemed to have calmed down (CoughMNFishCough still love you bro).

First the Goes Ins:

1. Almost NONE of us have access to NSW as a result we all mix synthetic salts.

2. As a result we all "know" what should be in our tanks at 1.026 the minute it goes inside the glass (or acrylic for you crazy reefers out there who do that sort of thing)

3. No matter how hard they try, every salt company from the cheapest to the most expensive still needs to add "X" number of elements to try to mimic NSW as closely as possible (Some add more but let's not go there)

4. If a dosing system was created which adds every single element our favorite bucket of the good stuff adds, I think we could all agree that would be great as our only concern would be buildup of baddies?

Example: Let's say you have a 100g tank and you do a 10 gallon weekly water change. You just took 10 gallons of water with reduced "elements" and replaced it with 10 gallons of water with all the "elements".

We're all still on the same page here still right? Good just checking.

A. Do you have any idea at what rate all of those elements are being depleted?

B. Can you be sure you're adding them back fast enough with the good ol' change 10% recommendation?

C. As has been stated already literally every "generic" salt mix on the planet has had a bad batch, if somebody can name 1 who hasn't please let me know, because I'm sure we can find somebody on these forums who got some bad.

D. How much good water and how many elements did you remove to replace the ones that were lacking?
Da. What is your ongoing cost to throw away all those good elements? (Oh and please don't give me just the "well I pay $45 for a bag of IO so it cost me $45) How much do your RODI filters cost, water bill, tests you hopefully run for at least the major elements on every new bucket or bag at least once. Additives you have to add to make the params match where you keep your tank. Mixing pumps, heaters, hoses...etc.

Still awake?

My only point is, everybody's situation is different. I can kill a DI filter in a month, others can probably replace one, once every 6 months and be fine.

Literally everybody's incurred cost at the end of the year on doing water changes is going to be different.

At the end of the day, we don't keep aquarium, LOL no my friends, you've been fooled if you came here for that. We keep giant giant glass chemistry experiment in our homes and when we get to check all the boxes, we throw some stuff in and then hope it doesn't jump out because we forgot to put the lid on tight.

So yeah, no matter what you do in this hobby, experienced reefers know at some point in maintaining and establishing your reef tank you HAVE to test. I think most all of us also know the more things you can test the better.

So if we can test most all the things that go in, and can dose all the things that go in, I THINK we can all agree be it water change or dosing the Goes Ins are being accomplished sufficiently.

The only problem and dilemmas to water changes are the goes outs.

So can we successfully remove all the goes outs without regular water changes (NOTICE I DID NOT SAY AN INFREQUENT ONE because your kid dumped Chineese in the tank to feed nemo)

The honest to God truthful answer to that question, which I think even our lord and savior @Randy Holmes-Farley would agree with (maybe), is we do not know for 100% certainty if we can or can not.

You can all go home now. Be sure to tip your waitress.

 

[Reef Monkie]

Another logical fallacy I have noticed from some of those who argue against the idea of no water changes is that people don't know what is building up in their tank, and if they do want to know then they can only partially correct this by running expensive tests from the likes of Triton. While this is true is it not also true that people who do change 10% water a week (which I see is most commonly advised and/or executed) also do not know what is building up in their tank, nor do they know the composition of the water they are adding too the tank. So at best they are diluting mystery substances to a mysterious degree, something that can also only partially be addressed by those 'expensive' Triton tests.

As for data, this article from Advanced Aquarist seems relevant as it challenges some commonly held beliefs. This article examines the effectiveness of skimmers and found that even if one ran a skimmer 24/7, ran Carbon (unchanged) for 30 days, and did weekly 10% water changes TOC increased by about 25% over that month. The article also showed that in the short term (24H) the bacterial population alone was as affective at bringing down TOC to a baseline as a system using a skimmer. This article from Advanced Aquarist examines bacterial counts in aquaria shows that tanks using the 'standard' method had bacterial counts that are 1/10th of a natural reef and TOC that was in line with a natural reef and that tanks that did not use skimmers or do water changes had bacterial counts in line with natural reefs but the TOC was 2-3x that of natural reefs.http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2011/3/aafeature
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/1/aafeature
This would suggest to me that there is something missing from the 'standard' method of reef keeping and perhaps explains why people are attempting to find alternative methods. What seems missing is longer term data on the 'standard' method and what builds up in a tank (and its effects on the inhabitants), or comparable data on the alternatives. What we do have is a lot of anecdotal evidence from people using all kinds of devices and methods in widely differing configurations with some level of success but seemingly without any conclusive data to show what parts of these methods are really necessary or effective.

Either I am missing something, or my lack of formal training in (bio) chemistry and marine biology is showing, but I have quite some sympathy for those that are questioning the status quo and searching for alternatives.

 

[Big E]

I just read somewhere that algae releases 7X more DOC than corals. I try to see if I can find the article.

Here ya go---
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2017/9/aafeature

"Heterotrophic bacteria feed on DOM from algae as well as that from corals. Releases from algae are different from those from corals. Firstly, algae release DOM at a rate that is as much as seven times higher than that of corals. Additionally, algal exudates differ from coral exudates in gross composition. Most significantly, DOM released from algae is rich in carbohydrates whereas DOM from corals is rich in proteins and lipids. These differences in food composition do not appreciably alter the microbial community; they do, however, alter the metabolic pathways utilized in microbial food consumption. It could be said that algal DOM is bacterial junk food."

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Another logical fallacy I have noticed from some of those who argue against the idea of no water changes is that people don't know what is building up in their tank, and if they do want to know then they can only partially correct this by running expensive tests from the likes of Triton. While this is true is it not also true that people who do change 10% water a week (which I see is most commonly advised and/or executed) also do not know what is building up in their tank, nor do they know the composition of the water they are adding too the tank. So at best they are diluting mystery substances to a mysterious degree, something that can also only partially be addressed by those 'expensive' Triton tests.

It's voodoo. lol

Seriously, we have a lot better understanding than you suggest, even in the absence of any tank specific testing.

If tin is highly elevated in my tank (as it is for some current posters in this forum) then whether I know it or not, a water change with a decent salt mix (none of which have elevated tin that i have seen) will tend to reduce the tin level. The 1% daily water change regimen I use would tend to lower it 1% each day, or by about 50% in two months. That seems both significant and useful to me.

Part of the advantage of a water change is that you need not know what is elevated and what is depleted for a water change with a good mix to bring the levels back toward what is present in that mix, as I show in the tin example.

So as long as you have a mix that you think has suitable levels of the things that you care about, I can't really see the problem with a water change.

 

[dz6t]

Randy, that is very well said!

Triton method has two components, testing and dosing.

ICP testing can be useful to find out if there is element/elements that are off balance.
With this testing method, provided the results are reliable, can be useful to troubleshoot when an issuer arises, aka something just don’t like right, etc.

Or you are curious about what are in your tank.

The second part is dosing.
Here becomes a little bit more complicated. First, we want to make sure the testing results are accurate. Then due to the actual water volume is kinda a guesstimate due to live rock, sand etc, to calculate precisely how much to dose is a little tricky in terms a trace elements. As we know some trace elements can be toxic at higher level.

Then the precision of the dosing pumps or measuring devices used come into play.

After that, it is better to send in another test after dosing to make sure the dosage is correct. Then the turn around time for the test becomes important.

As previously posted by others, the consumption rates of these traces elements need to be measured and calculated, that means more tests are important to establish the consumption rates.

For non trace elements like Calcium, magnesium etc, currently available test kits are accurate enough and immediately accessible by hobbyists.

 

[dz6t]

So far I see many people are using ICP testing to catch elements that are elevated, the corrective action is water change, lol

 

[Reef Monkie]

It's voodoo. lol

Seriously, we have a lot better understanding than you suggest, even in the absence of any tank specific testing.

If tin is highly elevated in my tank (as it is for some current posters in this forum) then whether I know it or not, a water change with a decent salt mix (none of which have elevated tin that i have seen) will tend to reduce the tin level. The 1% daily water change regimen I use would tend to lower it 1% each day, or by about 50% in two months. That seems both significant and useful to me.

Part of the advantage of a water change is that you need not know what is elevated and what is depleted for a water change with a good mix to bring the levels back toward what is present in that mix, as I show in the tin example.

So as long as you have a mix that you think has suitable levels of the things that you care about, I can't really see the problem with a water change.

I have kept African Cichlids for years so I am quite familiar with the use of Voodoo like rituals to care for my fish, I just wasn't aware that it was also common in the reef tank community.

As to your example, I don't think anyone is arguing against the use of water changes to correct a build up of a known contaminant that has a detrimental effect? That said it is hard to disagree with you when you say that one does not need to know what is elevated or depleted if one does water changes with a good mix and your example of doing small daily changes seems very sensible advice. If I am correct then the argument of those that say water changes are not necessary under normal circumstances is that one does not know if the mix is good since it has not been measured (this seems to be Triton's argument, and that of the creator of the balling method) although that argument could be turned against those advocates since one also does not know exactly what is in the Triton and balling products.

The one other issue I see with those that advocate water changes as 'the answer' is that going by the data that those articles I linked to presented then they are not changing enough water to correct the issues they say make them a necessity.

Perhaps I should not be commenting because I don't even have a salt water tank yet, but I am trying to educate myself and with so much conflicting information, a lot of which seems to be driven by the the 'need' to buy equipment or products, so I am left with a lot of questions. With the Cichlids it was easy, just do massive water changes with my excellent municipal water and add a diy mix to adjust a few parameters to mimic the water from the lake that the fish originally came from.

 

[Larry L]

The oxidator slowly release 6% HP

Lasse, do you know if the Oxydator will work with 3% hydrogen peroxide, or is that too low? 3% is what is commonly available at e.g. grocery stores in the US.