Reasons for Doing Water Changes?

[Reef Monkie]

Not sure what you mean by the Balling example. Tropic Marin claims they have a Perfect sodium chloride free salt mix to use with sodium carbonate and calcium chloride in that method (Lou Ekus has claimed it here multiple times). If you have such a perfect mix, you can have a perfect salt mix. Whether that is true or not I do not know.

That said, loads of salt mixes have been measured many times.

I didn't want to just 'pick' on Triton so I also mentioned the balling method as that seems quite popular in Europe and I thought they were one of the earliest to say their product was 'complete' and replaced the need for water changes. I was trying to be fair so if I am critical of the idea of just trusting that water changes solve problems or simply trusting a manufacturer that each batch of their salt is 'perfect' then I also have to point out that the same can be said of companies like Triton and Tropic Marin, even if they have generally good reputations. Perhaps this is a cultural thing, in Europe there seems to be a lot more natural scepticism of claims by manufacturers or the wonders of 'mystery' products. Although I do also understand that is a massive generalisation.

I'm not claiming it is "the answer' and I don't think most people do. The sole question (IMO) is whether it is desirable, neutral, or undesirable, and opinions vary on that.

danged scientists! I try to phrase things precisely and I know I should take extra care when their are trained professionals in the room but still I manage to trip up because otherwise my whole post becomes a series of qualifications. I did not mean to imply that you claimed water changes were the answer, I did not get that impression from you, but reading discussions around this subject there are quite a few people (but perhaps not more than 50% as you say) that quite forcefully defend the concept of water changes.

As to the sole question, from my reading I would say water changes are very effective but it would require quite massive water changes to remove all known unwanted compounds that remain in the tank in a standard Berlin system. One then still has to dose to account for the needs of the corals and it seems quite wasteful as both the skimmer and the water changes throw out the useful with the unwanted compounds.

 

[Reef Monkie]

I don't think it was unfair at all? Both practices will work fine for different people and tanks. Are you saying now that anyone with a tank needs an icp test to run a tank properly? I do the same testing of basic parameters I've always done and I do water changes weekly, it works for me. I simply said the sizes of different tanks might require a different approach and I also said I'm not against no water changes. Not unfair at all.

I am not against the idea of water changes. In my fresh water tank I do massive weekly water changes (25%), it works really well. What I though made it a unfair comparison by you was the suggestion that you had constantly send in for ICP tests if one was to not do water changes. I am not saying everyone has to do ICP tests to run a tank properly just that ICP testing is distinct from the idea of not doing water changes.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Perhaps this is a cultural thing, in Europe there seems to be a lot more natural scepticism of claims by manufacturers or the wonders of 'mystery' products. Although I do also understand that is a massive generalisation.
.

Frequent readers of this chemistry forum will likely agree that most reefers will never find a reef site that challenges manufacturer claims more carefully and consistently.

 

[DSC reef]

Not trying to beat a dead horse here but I've seen the question arise that people trust salt manufacturers to have the right amount of trace, ect. But isn't it safe to say that the same is being done with tritons products? Are they supposed to be more dependable than red sea or instant ocean for example? Just wondering here. A lot of debate as which is best as far as water change or no water change, I like to stick with what works for me. A lot of ways to reef.

 

[Velcro]

With the massive led usage, people don’t see those heavily purple tanks any more.

Haha... lemme get back to you with a pic of the coralline in my 100% LED tank. It took off once I ditched T5.

 

[Velcro]

I recommend 1% daily changes, which is close to equivalent of 50% monthly. That actually has quite a large impact on anything that might be accumulating slowly, from nitrate to zinc to palytoxin.

Wouldn’t that be 50% every two months?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Wouldn’t that be 50% every two months?

Sorry, that's what I meant. I'll correct it.

 

[Velcro]

Sorry, that's what I meant. I'll correct it.

Thought I was losing my mind!

 

[Ranjib]

Not trying to beat a dead horse here but I've seen the question arise that people trust salt manufacturers to have the right amount of trace, ect. But isn't it safe to say that the same is being done with tritons products? Are they supposed to be more dependable than red sea or instant ocean for example? Just wondering here. A lot of debate as which is best as far as water change or no water change, I like to stick with what works for me. A lot of ways to reef.

I would say so. As they have categorically said that their way is "Modern Way". The distinction between classic and normal should be more than usual, incremental progress.

 

[CNDReef]

What are you referring to "if something else goes bad?" Not everybody keeps 1,000 gallon tanks so water changes are feasible to a lot of reefers. Ive had a 75 gallon for over 7 years running on 15%water changes and manual dosing. I'm not against the no water change method but I also see where other arguments come in as well. It would be impractical for me to constantly send in for triton tests while having to buy there products when I can buy 200 gallons worth of coral pro salt and continue the routine that's worked for many years. Now if I had a system that was 1,000 gallons plus then I might think of a new approach. One of the many things I love about reefing, so many ways to do it!

I agree there is a lot of ways to maintain a reef tank and there are always new equipment coming out to make our life easier. I do know that our tanks adjust to the owner not the owner to the tank. Everyone runs it slightly different and none the less everyone has pretty good results. I don’t have a water change level but I can tell by looking at my tank when I do need to change something and usually that does imply doing a water change but that happens every other month or so because I do over feed ( fish love me );Smuggrin

 

[DSC reef]

I agree there is a lot of ways to maintain a reef tank and there are always new equipment coming out to make our life easier. I do know that our tanks adjust to the owner not the owner to the tank. Everyone runs it slightly different and none the less everyone has pretty good results. I don’t have a water change level but I can tell by looking at my tank when I do need to change something and usually that does imply doing a water change but that happens every other month or so because I do over feed ( fish love me );Smuggrin

Overfeeding, yep guilty here! Lol.

 

[dz6t]

I didn't want to just 'pick' on Triton so I also mentioned the balling method as that seems quite popular in Europe and I thought they were one of the earliest to say their product was 'complete' and replaced the need for water changes. I was trying to be fair so if I am critical of the idea of just trusting that water changes solve problems or simply trusting a manufacturer that each batch of their salt is 'perfect' then I also have to point out that the same can be said of companies like Triton and Tropic Marin, even if they have generally good reputations. Perhaps this is a cultural thing, in Europe there seems to be a lot more natural scepticism of claims by manufacturers or the wonders of 'mystery' products. Although I do also understand that is a massive generalisation.


danged scientists! I try to phrase things precisely and I know I should take extra care when their are trained professionals in the room but still I manage to trip up because otherwise my whole post becomes a series of qualifications. I did not mean to imply that you claimed water changes were the answer, I did not get that impression from you, but reading discussions around this subject there are quite a few people (but perhaps not more than 50% as you say) that quite forcefully defend the concept of water changes.

As to the sole question, from my reading I would say water changes are very effective but it would require quite massive water changes to remove all known unwanted compounds that remain in the tank in a standard Berlin system. One then still has to dose to account for the needs of the corals and it seems quite wasteful as both the skimmer and the water changes throw out the useful with the unwanted compounds.

Agree, that is why water change is not used “alone” to maintain water quality for large aquariums. For smaller tank such as nano, water change is the most effective way to maintain water quality.
For larger system, water change is normally used along with media reactors, calcium reactors and/or dosing.
I don’t know where the concept of no water change required for Triton method comes from.

 

[CNDReef]

I don’t know where the concept of no water change required for Triton method comes from.

Worst is every time that someone’s tests are off triton just says do a water change lol

 

[LouieP]

[QUOTE="Reef Monkie,
danged scientists! I try to phrase things precisely and I know I should take extra care when their are trained professionals in the room but still I manage to trip up because otherwise my whole post becomes a series of qualifications. [/QUOTE]

I also try to be very careful because I know Randy is a whole lot smart than I am!!! I do like the fact he doesnt talk down to us hobbiest calls us misguided, ill informed & dont know what we are talking about (which all might be true) like others.

 

[Newb73]

1% daily water changes works well I assume....because those unwanted contents build up very slowly in most reef systems so even at 1% per day you are removing them faster than they build.

With the exception of ozone and a nitrate reactor, much of my husbandry is designed around Randys articles.

 

[Reef Monkie]

1% daily water changes works well I assume....because those unwanted contents build up very slowly in most reef systems so even at 1% per day you are removing them faster than they build.

With the exception of ozone and a nitrate reactor, much of my husbandry is designed around Randys articles.

Perhaps 1% is not enough and unwanted contents do build up faster.

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/1/aafeature_album/image021.jpg/image_preview

That Image is from a article in Advanced Aquarist that tests if skimmers are effective in dealing with TOC (Total Organic Carbon), a measure of water quality. The relevant quote from the article:

Two meaningful conclusions can be drawn upon examination of these data. First and foremost, the TOC level does increase over time. Thus, neither microbial action nor skimming removes all of the accumulating TOC. Second, the less presumptuous downdraft skimmer appears to do a better job at holding TOC levels lower over the course of a month compared to the Bubble King clone. In more quantitative terms, the aggregate TOC values averaged for both skimmers increase from about 0.53 ppm of C at T = 0 to about 0.95 ppm of C at T = 30 days; a 79% increase! If Sanjay would have performed water changes of just 10% at 7, 14, 21, and 28 days during this experimental time course, the TOC level would have increased to only 0.66 ppm of C - a 25% increase. Thus, this experiment illustrates the importance of conducting regular water changes as a means to keep organic nutrients in check.

In the experiment a skimmer was operated for 30 days, GAC was also used continuously for 30 days (I presume without changing). The bacteria in question are those naturally in the system and no addition of carbon or other nutrients that might be a bottleneck for the bacterial are mentioned. So perhaps by changing GAC more frequently or feeding the bacteria a 10% weekly water change is enough, otherwise it seems more/larger water changes are needed if one doesn't want TOC to build up over time.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Perhaps 1% is not enough and unwanted contents do build up faster.
.

The link doesn't work, but I don't understand what you are saying any way.

No amount of water changes can completely prevent any accumulation of something that is added every day, it just blunts the rise. Sure, more changes give a bigger blunting effect, but 1% daily will limit the rise of anything not in the changed water.

The axis of my graph says nitrate, but it can be anything. It is just a math model:

Figure 8. Nitrate concentration as a function of time when performing daily water changes equivalent to 0% (no changes), 7.5%, 15% and 30% of the total volume each month (in other words, 0%, 0.25%, 0.5% and 1% per day). In this example, nitrate is present at 0 ppm at the start, and is accumulated at a rate of 0.1 ppm per day when no water is changed.

 

[naecO rM]

I recommend 1% daily changes, which is close to equivalent of 50% every two months. That actually has quite a large impact on anything that might be accumulating slowly, from nitrate to zinc to palytoxin.



Actually, they all have heavy metals, and the best ones clearly say so. You might word that

"should not have excessive heavy metals" but then you are either trusting them (which can be fine) or aren't sure or have tested them for metals.

Sorry, 1% daily is equivalent of 60% of WC about salt, effectiveness of that amount is 40%reducing.
50% is 50% of reducing and use less salt to prepare a new water.
If we choose a salt with similar parameters KH, Ca, Mg like we have in tank, better to make 50%WC every second months.
And also it will work for every six months.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Sorry, 1% daily is equivalent of 60% of WC about salt, effectiveness of that amount is 40%reducing.
50% is 50% of reducing and use less salt to prepare a new water.
If we choose a salt with similar parameters KH, Ca, Mg like we have in tank, better to make 50%WC every second months.
And also it will work for every six months.

Yes, there is a slight inefficiency in doing more smaller water changes (I show that in the article that the above graph came from):

Water Changes in Reef Aquaria by Randy Holmes-Farley - Reefkeeping.com
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-10/rhf/index.php

30 x 1% changes = 1 x 26%, but it is, IMO, more than made up for by making the changes less stressful on both myself and the aquarium.

When doing slow, automatic changes, nothing needs to match the tank, not salinity temp or anything, and I spend only a few minutes a month making up new water.

 

[naecO rM]

Yes, there is a slight inefficiency in doing more smaller water changes (I show that in the article that the above graph came from):

Water Changes in Reef Aquaria by Randy Holmes-Farley - Reefkeeping.com
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-10/rhf/index.php

30 x 1% changes = 1 x 26%, but it is, IMO, more than made up for by making the changes less stressful on both myself and the aquarium.

When doing slow, automatic changes, nothing needs to match the tank, not salinity temp or anything, and I spend only a few minutes a month making up new water.

I am agree of few benefits what you ate talking about (not necessary to adjust Temperature, salinity KH, Mg, Ca)
It's more benefits of you have automotive daily WC, something like that device.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uOvGAEb6S5K87FMVdnjJcXmi9h-tfpkW0Czj9PRmOfo/edit?usp=drivesdk

https://docs.google.com/document/d/132R6Br5u6ODnTfhRbMC-vONguX2ELNtaIeJpckEfh04/edit?usp=drivesdk

But if we are talking about effective WC to compensate or reduce some elements for the better water quality, more effective is a higher amount of WC.
Of cause daily WC is keeping more stability because of small amount of water.