Reasons for Doing Water Changes?

[MnFish1]

crickey, I haven't conveniently ignored anything thanks.

If you want to go down that road, you have conveniently ignored the fact that there is no evidence that any tank necessarily has any toxins in it to adapt too.
you're guessing, & such, making a strawman.

sorry - you are the one - with no evidence whatsoever, suggesting that with the 'triton method' that water changes are not necessary. It is a ludicrous and foolish statement to make (as a fact). Again - Like I said you have a theory - and good luck with your theory - you have no data to prove (or disprove) your theory). I dont care if you never do another water change. I do care that other people reading this will think its ok. There are alot of potential problems with the Triton method depending on the foods, etc and the bio load in yoru aquarium (IMHO). Dont change any more water - who cares if you do or dont - just dont suggest it as a plan for others without any data to support it

 

[MnFish1]

Ryan from Bulk Reef Supply

I have personally become prettyinterested in water changes roll in reefing. Mostly because when we internally debate methods like Triton I have to ask why am I doing these water changes anyways. With many of today's common approches to reefing they certainly seem to be less critical. The only reason seems to be general unidentifiable contaminants. Nitrate and phosphate just aren't an issue today, odors and yellowing pigments can be handled with 2 bucks in carbon and there are a variety of easy ways to manage trace elements. So I think it is reasonable to question if "general unidentifiable contaminants" is a good enough reason to buy, mix and store saltwater.

Water changes might be critical but why not explore other options and learn something?

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/b...here-we-come-brstv.319607/page-4#post-3957834

With no offense to Ryan - what benefits does BRS have to support the 'Triton method'. Im all for a study lets say a year - comparing the Triton method to changing water and doing things the usual way. Its funny - there are already several posts on the forums 'what do I to - I got this high iodine level, etc etc etc.' My guess is that this will be a fad - and the workload and brainload trying to figure out whether the 'bromine' (just an example) is significant or not - will not be worth it in the end.

 

[TbyZ]

sorry - you are the one - with no evidence whatsoever, suggesting that with the 'triton method' that water changes are not necessary. It is a ludicrous and foolish statement to make (as a fact). Again - Like I said you have a theory - and good luck with your theory - you have no data to prove (or disprove) your theory). I dont care if you never do another water change. I do care that other people reading this BS will think its ok. There are alot of potential problems with the Triton method depending on the foods, etc and the bio load in yoru aquarium (IMHO). Dont change any more water - who cares if you do or dont - just dont suggest it as a plan for others without any data to support it

LOL. Take it easy pal, you'll blow a fuse. Which salt company do you have an interest in. Or is it RODI filters you sell?:cool:

 

[TbyZ]

With no offense to Ryan - what benefits does BRS have to support the 'Triton method'. Im all for a study lets say a year - comparing the Triton method to changing water and doing things the usual way. Its funny - there are already several posts on the forums 'what do I to - I got this high iodine level, etc etc etc.' My guess is that this will be a fad - and the workload and brainload trying to figure out whether the 'bromine' (just an example) is significant or not - will not be worth it in the end.

Come on, Ryan' s saying exactly what I've said. Aren't you going to berate him?

LOL

 

[MnFish1]

LOL. Take it easy pal, you'll blow a fuse. Which salt company do you have an interest in. Or is it RODI filters you sell?:cool:

The only interest is in logic man:). I dont believe that the Triton method will allow 'no water changes'. And in any case - I dont think the logic you presented to defend your theory that this will happen makes any sense. Its just my opinion.

 

[MnFish1]

Come on, Ryan' s saying exactly what I've said. Aren't you going to berate him?

LOL

I haven't berated anyone. BRS has chosen to endorse/use Triton. Therefore BRS isn't an independent source to consider (IMHO). I love BRS - I was confused when they decided to do this - but then - it was probably a business decision - as compared to another type of decision. I have no issues with BRS and what they do. Dont make a fuss where there is none.

 

[TbyZ]

I haven't berated anyone. BRS has chosen to endorse/use Triton. Therefore BRS isn't an independent source to consider (IMHO). I love BRS - I was confused when they decided to do this - but then - it was probably a business decision - as compared to another type of decision. I have no issues with BRS and what they do. Dont make a fuss where there is none.

Aren't you going to demand evidence from Ryan. His statement was identicle to mine?

Though evidence is wasted on you obviously.

 

[MnFish1]

Aren't you going to demand evidence from Ryan. His statement was identicle to mine?

Though evidence is wasted on you obviously.

Ryan has no more or less information than you. Whats your point? Whats your agenda through this whole thread. You cant defend your statements. You have no evidence. You have a theory - it may prove to be true in 5 years. It may not. Stop pretending you know the answers - you dont (at least based on what you posted).

 

[TbyZ]

The only interest is in logic man:). I dont believe that the Triton method will allow 'no water changes'. And in any case - I dont think the logic you presented to defend your theory that this will happen makes any sense. Its just my opinion.

I'm sure it doesn't make sense, to you.

 

[TbyZ]

Ryan has no more or less information than you. Whats your point?

You should relax & appreciate that people having different opinions to yours doesn't make them wrong. Especially when their opinions are based on good evidence & your argument is based on a presumption.

 

[MnFish1]

You should relax & appreciate that people having different opinions to yours doesn't make them wrong. Especially when their opinions are based on good evidence & your argument is based on a presumption.

I said you have a theory - it may be right - it may be wrong. You presented your theory as fact from the start. It is not fact. It is your idea. I didnt ever say it was 'wrong'. You may be completely correct. But - again - there is no data whatsoever to justify your statements at the start of the thread. Its unfortunate that you phrased your points the way you did - but you did it - no one else.

 

[TbyZ]

Ryan has no more or less information than you. Whats your point? Whats your agenda through this whole thread. You cant defend your statements. You have no evidence. You have a theory - it may prove to be true in 5 years. It may not. Stop pretending you know the answers - you dont (at least based on what you posted).

I don't get the part about no evidence you keep banging on about?

Your arguement is based on a build up of toxic organics. But you cannot prove that happens. You're presuming it happens. And as i said, if it is an issue it can be negated by ozone, according to Randy's article ( but that's not evidence to you).

 

[MnFish1]

I don't get the part about no evidence you keep banging on about?

Your arguement is based on a build up of toxic organics. But you cannot prove that happens. You're presuming it happens. And as i said, if it is an issue it can be negated by ozone, according to Randy's article ( but that's not evidence to you).

There is no evidence that water changes do not need to be done 'forever' - your words. If you had read and paid attention to what I tried to write - I suggested that (and Sanjjay in his video alludes to it as well) that the tanks that are treated in this manner may have some inhabitants that have adjusted to the conditions in that particular tank - but this does not make it an 'optimal' habitat for the general aquarist. The triton method hasn't been tested long enough to decide whether it will be applicable to every type of coral/invert and fish we might want to keep together in a tank

Changing a little water every week as compared to the triton method is a no brainer to me. I would never want to be 6 months into the triton method - and then have to ship a test off to somewhere - and wait while I have a problem in my tank - only to find out that 'maybe' my strontium is low (or more likely high).

I also dont want to have to start Ozone to help reduce organics - when I can do the same with simple water changes. Ozone has its own dangers/drawbacks.

And lastly - even though Triton is a 'sponsor' of this forum - I hope that doesn't mean that people are required to bend over and praise Triton - if that is the case - I would ask them not to be the sponsor. Its tsupposed to be a free forum.

 

[TbyZ]

I said you have a theory - it may be right - it may be wrong. You presented your theory as fact from the start. It is not fact. It is your idea. I didnt ever say it was 'wrong'. You may be completely correct. But - again - there is no data whatsoever to justify your statements at the start of the thread. Its unfortunate that you phrased your points the way you did - but you did it - no one else.

I never stated my theory :confused: was fact. I raised three reasons to do regular water changes.
1. To reduce NO3 & PO4. Regular water changes are no longer needed to perform this function. In fact many people are dosing it, intentionally.

2. To replenish elements including trace elements . . . . . (balling dosing)
You simply do not need to do regular water changes to accomplish.

3. To reduce DOC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (activated carbon, sponges, bacteria) and add ozone.

Its only number 3 that has issues and that is based on a presumption of toxic doc being unable to be removed from the aquarium, or detoxified, by those methods.
OK, so do a water change once every six or twelve months if you want to believe thats a problem.

Fixed :)

 

[MnFish1]

I never stated my theory :confused: was fact. I raised three reasons to do regular water changes.
1. To reduce NO3 & PO4. Regular water changes are no longer needed to perform this function. In fact many people are dosing it, intentionally.

2. To replenish elements including trace elements . . . . . (balling dosing)
You simply do not need to do regular water changes to accomplish.

3. To reduce DOC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (activated carbon, sponges, bacteria) and add ozone.

Its only number 3 that has issues and that is based on a presumption of toxic doc being unable to be removed from the aquarium, or detoxified, by those methods.
OK, so do a water change once every six or twelve months if you want to believe thats a problem.

Fixed :)

1. What if you overshoot the trace elements with dosing - or feeding (since you dont have an elemental analysis of each food you use) - how do you decrease them? (without water changes)
2. What do you base the idea that a water change (you dont mention the amount changed etc) every 6-12 months to reduce organics (which you haven't measured) - to a 'safe level'.
3. How do you mitigate the negative effects of Ozone in a reef tank - as compared to doing simple water changes. You seem to be making an entire protocol to allow 'no water changes' - but the protocol is much more difficult than just doing a couple water changes a month.

 

[TbyZ]

There is no evidence that water changes do not need to be done 'forever' - your words. If you had read and paid attention to what I tried to write - I suggested that (and Sanjjay in his video alludes to it as well) that the tanks that are treated in this manner may have some inhabitants that have adjusted to the conditions in that particular tank - but this does not make it an 'optimal' habitat for the general aquarist. The triton method hasn't been tested long enough to decide whether it will be applicable to every type of coral/invert and fish we might want to keep together in a tank

Changing a little water every week as compared to the triton method is a no brainer to me. I would never want to be 6 months into the triton method - and then have to ship a test off to somewhere - and wait while I have a problem in my tank - only to find out that 'maybe' my strontium is low (or more likely high).

I also dont want to have to start Ozone to help reduce organics - when I can do the same with simple water changes. Ozone has its own dangers/drawbacks.

And lastly - even though Triton is a 'sponsor' of this forum - I hope that doesn't mean that people are required to bend over and praise Triton - if that is the case - I would ask them not to be the sponsor. Its tsupposed to be a free forum.

Theoretically a nutrient export method can continue to remove NO3 & PO4 indefinitely.

Theoretically one can continue to dose the major minor & trace elements, & test their levels indefinately.

And;
Feldman showed that tanks using skimmers & activated carbon, alone, had levels of organics inline with natural reefs, suggesting that organic levels can be managed using those methods, indefinately.

There's a new word for you otherthan " forever"; Indefinately. :)

 

[TbyZ]

1. What if you overshoot the trace elements with dosing - or feeding (since you dont have an elemental analysis of each food you use) - how do you decrease them? (without water changes)
2. What do you base the idea that a water change (you dont mention the amount changed etc) every 6-12 months to reduce organics (which you haven't measured) - to a 'safe level'.
3. How do you mitigate the negative effects of Ozone in a reef tank - as compared to doing simple water changes. You seem to be making an entire protocol to allow 'no water changes' - but the protocol is much more difficult than just doing a couple water changes a month.

Look, your arguments cannot be taken seriously, and I've argued with you more than enough. Its seems your attitude is simply to be intentionally negative to any concept you've decided against, & argue for the sake of arguing.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

The only possible negative in a no regular water change system seems to be the possibility of a buildup of toxic (or maybe not all that toxic) organics that aren't removed by skimming or activated carbon or purigen, for example.

I would caution that selectively removing many inorganic trace elements that are elevated is beyond our current capabilities.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

My tank is consistently high in molybdenum which is probably because I use NoPox. .

Have you seen any evidence NOPOX contains molybdenum?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I was more asking if they can accumulate to a unhealthy level if water is not changed. I don't even know if they can get dangerous... and if so, if there is a certain level at which they become so... and if there is even a test for it.

Yes they can, and yes there are tests, but a good two part used as directed will not mess with chloride and sulfate amounts/ratios. :)