Reasons for Doing Water Changes?

[Lasse]

The whole thing cook down to one question

What´s more likely with a WC at a given non problematic timestamp. - You will transport out unknown metabolites or unwanted compounds from the aquaria or you will transport in wrong amounts of wanted (or unwanted) molecules into the aquaria ?

If we do not test we will never have a clue about this 1-million-dollar question.

For the moment - I feel safe to send in a test to Triton every third month and skip regular WC – the change I have done to my dosing have given reasonable change in the readings next time. One of my parameters has been out of all boundaries – the Si level. I have been very close to do some WC to bring it down – but because I have not seen any negative effects – I have decided to wait.

At the moment I will do a WC – I will send a sample to Triton before the WC and take a new one week later. I will get a hint of the salt I use but its not a complete artificial salt – therefore it will not be a good test for most of the total artificial salts on the market. I´m also curious of the result.

Sincerely Lasse



Sincerely Lasse

 

[Scott Campbell]

Even as someone who really doesn't like to do water changes, I still don't understand why "no water changes" should be a goal. The best arguments presented so far is that salt mixes can be off and that very large water changes can be stressful. But that would just indicate limited and smaller water changes might be more prudent. If you are trying to minimize risk, then reliance on one protocol (no water changes) still seems riskier than relying on multiple protocols. You have eliminated the risk of salt inconsistencies but you have increased your reliance on ICP testing, on dosing accuracy and equipment, and on consistent and accurate liquid concentrations of the same elements we are worried about in dry salt mixes.

This debate seems similar to a recent debate about turf scrubbers. I think it is fascinating and very cool that people run their tanks with just algae scrubbers or without any water changes. I love to hear about their set-ups and successes. A single protocol is certainly more interesting to discuss because the variables are fewer. But as pointed out already in this thread - simply because "no water changes" works as a strategy doesn't make it better than other strategies. Or at least I haven't seen any convincing evidence for that.

 

[Lasse]

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.

I think it will work from a technical point of view – you only ad some more catalyst.

But the question of the stabilizers remains unsolved. I do not know if it’s a concern or not

Sincerely Lasse

 

[ksed]

Here is some info on stabilizers.
http://h2o2uses.com/hydrogen-peroxide-grades-and-stabilizers

 

[ksed]

Stannate can be of concern . Don’t know how much HP needs to be used before elevated levels of Tin may appear.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stannate

 

[Lasse]

I have not saying that no regular WC works better for me and my actual aquaria compared with regular WC – because I have not run this aquaria in another way and has no experiences of other management of this aquaria.

I´m only saying - it works in a way that I´m satisfied and has no plan for the moment to change the way I manage this aquarium. I have try to show that that there is nearly the same degree of uncertainty regardless which road you will walk - but for me I´ll try to do it without WC

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

Here is some info on stabilizers.
http://h2o2uses.com/hydrogen-peroxide-grades-and-stabilizers

Stannate can be of concern . Don’t know how much HP needs to be used before elevated levels of Tin may appear.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stannate

Thank you

Sincerely Lasse

 

[TbyZ]

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.

.

The participant i believe you're refering to is performing 15% water changes on his system monthly, which falls into your recommendation. Yet his test showed his tin is off the scale as is his iodine, P & PO4.
His P problem could be controled by fitration. His high iodine must be from a particular food he uses as he doesn’t dose it directly. Where his tin is comming from I don't know, as he only doses "recipe 2" for alk and calc" but regular water changes have been more than inadequate, so he needs to address those problems directly.

 

[Amoo]

Even as someone who really doesn't like to do water changes, I still don't understand why "no water changes" should be a goal. The best arguments presented so far is that salt mixes can be off and that very large water changes can be stressful. But that would just indicate limited and smaller water changes might be more prudent. If you are trying to minimize risk, then reliance on one protocol (no water changes) still seems riskier than relying on multiple protocols. You have eliminated the risk of salt inconsistencies but you have increased your reliance on ICP testing, on dosing accuracy and equipment, and on consistent and accurate liquid concentrations of the same elements we are worried about in dry salt mixes.

This debate seems similar to a recent debate about turf scrubbers. I think it is fascinating and very cool that people run their tanks with just algae scrubbers or without any water changes. I love to hear about their set-ups and successes. A single protocol is certainly more interesting to discuss because the variables are fewer. But as pointed out already in this thread - simply because "no water changes" works as a strategy doesn't make it better than other strategies. Or at least I haven't seen any convincing evidence for that.

Two things here:

1. I think everybody has agreed that even if you are running a "No water change" tank, a WC is and sometimes can be the best solution to a problem if one arises. I haven't seen that debated yet.

2. Relying on "no" water changes though takes most all of the testing error out of the reefers hands and gives it to a lab professional with fancy equipment.

2a. Regardless of whether you WC or not most are still probably dosing and most are still probably testing (sadly most only test for the big 3 and nutrients). Assuming those pass they assume everything is good because "hey I'm changing water". I feel it's just as easy if not easier to deplete something and be unaware of it if you're not testing for it EVEN IF you add a small amount each day. If that small amount doesn't cover the drop over a 24 hour period (or whatever frequency you WC at) it still goes to 0 and has the risk of limiting growth.

So really whether you water change or not.

-You're still testing a lot using hobby grade test kits.

-An ICP every few months can still have great value in telling you about your system.

-Like @Lasse stated very specifically and correctly, even a WC is a tool in the toolbox of a "no water change" reefer.

 

[MnFish1]

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.

Sorry - I have complimented and posted several times the example (no water change) tanks are nice and its an interesting discussion.
I have never said that people couldn't have tanks without water changes.

I also haven't seen many people disagree with my opinions (which I list below):

1. Its possible to have a tank (a great tank) with no water changes (and with water changes)
2. Part of the ability to do this relates to bioload/filtration/chemical removal and testing - which can add to the cost/work and may not be attainable by the average reef tank owner.
3. Different flora/fauna tolerate different conditions. It may be that in some of these (no water change) tanks the inhabitants have adapted slowly to whatever conditions are present. It may also be that others - that weren't as tolerant were lost along the way.
4. At best - a no water change tank is probably no better or worse than one that does water changes (at what ever regimen is done for changing water).
5. It still is unclear to me why people doing no water changes need to send tests in every 3 month (or as some suggest every month) if substances are not likely to build up in the tank. If the tank and corals look good - what is the purpose to the testing (except to make money for the testing company). As Randy HF has said - doing water changes avoids this issue in any case. (and is it proven - anywhere - that if, for example element x is low that supplementing is beneficial?). Several of the elements that fall into this category (ie. require supplementation have test kits readily available.

You started this thread out - why do water changes - the answer (from me) is that it is (to me) as easy, as effective, as having the equipment that it requires to use a non-water change method. The Triton method actually seems the easiest of all of the methods you have mentioned (doesn't require ozone/carbon/biopellets/etc). I have read many of the German forums concerning the Triton method - and there are certainly success stories - no doubt. There are also several posts concerning 'what do I do about (elevated level xxx) or 'I added solution 3 instead of solution 5'.

 

[MnFish1]

2. Relying on "no" water changes though takes most all of the testing error out of the reefers hands and gives it to a lab professional with fancy equipment.

Im not sure this is true, is it? Depending on which regimen you are using. I don't think I would abandon testing ca/alk/and occasional mg if I wasn't doing water changes. I think it would be interesting to hear (and maybe Triton has literature on this) - how many tests they receive that result in an 'actionable result' - especially from tanks that have no sign of problem (either an element that is much to high or much too low - and has been proven to affect tank health).

 

[FarmerTy]

I send a test to Triton once a year to monitor annual trends. For me its just a safety check. I agree with you that I don't understand the need for quarterly checks if you aren't doing water changes and keep your foundation elements in line with hobbyist grade kits.

 

[Newb73]

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?

4500sq ft home, open floor plan, almost one big room

Ozone at 57mg/hr in a 265g system.

ORP probe just a few inches from reactor maxes out at 400 to 410, only on from 8am to 8pm.

I also ran much higher levels through a reactor with heavy duty carbon on both effluent air and water.

Would not use in a confined space less than 1,000 sq ft, without major carbon filtering and a good controller set to lower levels.

If someone got an above normal level exposure it's their own poor planning

Paul B. Has run ozone in his tank for 40 plus years and he will let you know real quick that he hasn't grown 2 heads or suffered respirator failure.

Ionic air filters produce more ozone I the room if they are too near a fan.

 

[Newb73]

The ozone question

.

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

Ozone is not like radiation, it is simply aggrivating to sensitive airways and will quickly dissipate and degrade into regular 02 as soon as it encounters something to oxidize. It has a short life at low concentrations.

 

[Newb73]

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.

Some of us like the lower alk and higher mg levels in fritz

 

[Newb73]

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

1) RC is known to be inconsistent.

If yoou use it you should do small water changes and test the water frequently.


Actually that's sop for any tank.

 

[Newb73]

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.

Fair enough, but that's why you don't JUST do water changes.

You also run intermittent carbon, chateto, have poly filters at the ready and test frequently etc.

 

[Sallstrom]

Here is an example of a system at the Aquarium with no water changes in 4 years. Would the tank be better with WC, I don't know. But I like to try things and since this tank wasn't working well I tried the a method without WC
It's a slightly different system, the first sump was to small to fit a proper calcium reacor into. And all in all it was hard to keep KH and Ca stabil. So we decided to pump water up to an old tank, and let the water overflow back to the exhibit tank. Since the second, larger sump, is not so much higher up, we can only pump about 50 % of the aquariums volume per hour. We still use the small sump for a small skimmer and 2 returpump back to the aquarium(just for flow, it's hard to hide pumps inside the tank). The water goes from the small sump to the large. This is probably a bit hard to follow, so I put together a drawing of the system

A=Air pump
S=Skimmer
P=Pump
LR=live rock
Ca=Calcium reactor

The picture is lying a bit, the sump is acually on the right side of the tank.. Anyway, hope you get how the water flows. And I will post some better pics of the tank futher down.
So the basic water system is the on on the picture. We send in ICP tests every 2-3 month and adjust the dosing after the results. Besides Mn and Iodine we also dose Fe every day since May just to see if we get any effect. Other parameters we adjust if we need is B, K, Sr, Mo, V, Zn and Br. Maybe some more I don't remember now. But usually the calcium reactor keeps the parameters okey. So it isn't any large amount of the additives we need.
To keep N and P down we grow some macro algae in the large sump. We also add some ethanol, ususally a very small dos a day. NO3 is around 1-3 and PO4 0,03 or lower. And since the nutrients are low we also dose EasyBooster phytos for the filter feeders.
Here are some pictures

So is this easoer then doing water changes? I don't know, probably not. But I think it's fun to chase numbers and to test water parameters

Haven't seen any downside of this method yet. This is kind of our frag factory, I have to remove corals once in a while otherwise the grow up to the surface.

Still, I would do WC if something was wrong. I'm not that stubborn

/ David

 

[Newb73]

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.

Didn't Red Sea already figure out a good way to estimate trace elements consumption based on Ca uptake, as trace elements are thought to be taken up in a fairly predictable ratio compared to the Ca uptake.

 

[MnFish1]

4500sq ft home, open floor plan, almost one big room

Ozone at 57mg/hr in a 265g system.

ORP probe just a few inches from reactor maxes out at 400 to 410, only on from 8am to 8pm.

I also ran much higher levels through a reactor with heavy duty carbon on both effluent air and water.

Would not use in a confined space less than 1,000 sq ft, without major carbon filtering and a good controller set to lower levels.

If someone got an above normal level exposure it's their own poor planning

Paul B. Has run ozone in his tank for 40 plus years and he will let you know real quick that he hasn't grown 2 heads or suffered respirator failure.

Ionic air filters produce more ozone I the room if they are too near a fan.

Thanks - I have had ozone off and on - I found that eventually it wasn't worth the hassle it always seemed to escape - but I was using a fair bit more - in a smaller tank. It did keep the water clear - the Ozonizer stopped working one day - and I just didnt replace it.