Reasons for Doing Water Changes?

[TbyZ]

Just a test, typically. Most, however, would be worse without water changes, since salt mixes are not typically the cause of those elements being too high.

Still, people performing regular water changes are experiencing those same problems. The partial regular water changes are only partially reducing the problem. Just how much water needs to be changed on a weekly basis to negate this problem? 50% ?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Still, people performing regular water changes are experiencing those same problems. The partial regular water changes are only partially reducing the problem. Just how much water needs to be changed on a weekly basis to negate this problem? 50% ?

I have no idea (depends on how elevated it is, how fast it is being added, etc.), but I am certain that if they are doing water changes, and the salt mix is not the source of the elevated ion, then the levels are lower when doing water changes than when not.

 

[FugeTown]

I would assume it's cheaper than the dosing methods if you have a smaller tank like me. Don't get me wrong I dose the main elements but a good water change every month replaces the trace elements I don't care to test for or even pay for(test kits)

 

[TbyZ]

, but I am certain that if they are doing water changes, and the salt mix is not the source of the elevated ion, then the levels are lower when doing water changes than when not.

Sure, I agree, but if the levels are still way too high then their regular water changes are a waste of time in that case.

My point is, regular water changes aren't necessarily going to have any significant impact on the problem you raised, unless a ridiculous amount of water is replaced every week.

Just how bigger problem is this point you've raised ?

Water changes aren't the answer. A better way to deal with elevated trace inorganic ions, introduced from sources other than salt mixes, surely must be to find the source & deal with that directly.

 

[bif24701]

I personnel find that a simple method has worked best for me. Mostly because there are far fewer chances for a mistake or other kind of problem so I have eliminated them altogether.

I use Kalk, this has to be the simplest method of maintaining ALK/Cal levels. Also my system for adding top off and Kalk is as simple as possible. The entire system is a 32g Brute a BRS 50ml dosing pump and a timer (my APEX is used to turn on the pump for 4 min every 1/2 hour, it is not controlled by any switches, probes, or any other functions than time). RO/DI and 4 cups vinegar are added to the Brute with ~1.5 cups Kalk and mixed. I put on the lid and ensure the pump I take is secured above the settled Kalk at the bottom with a magnetic tube holder.

10" SRO-5000 skimmer with Avast neck Cleaner.

30 gallons chaeto refugium. Reacently replaced the fuge light with a powerful LED grow light and doubled the flow through it. The growth of cheato has increased so much, before I would harvest 1-2 months maybe. Now I am harvesting every 14-19 days because it completely fills the entire fuge.
This is two weeks growth:

Use BRS ROX .8 carbon in reactor once a month or so. No GFO as the chaeto completely handles the PO4 accumulation and in fact I have watched it fall consistently and yesterday test @ 0.01ppm via Hanna Checker ULR Phosphorus.

3 Each MarinePure blocks in my 100 gallon sump.

High flow (80x's display turn over)

Good light, 300-500 PAR, (Kessil AP700s, 2 each 80w T5 ATI Blue Plus)

Decent fish load and feed good food, PE mysis, RODs food, nori and some pellets. Few times a week I add Reef Chili and Reef Roids.

I built a RO/DI collection and salt mixing station that enables me to change water as quickly and easily as possible. ~100 gallons of RO/DI fill the station and a float valve automatically shuts it off when full. The pump, an Iwaki 40RLT both mixes and moves the water directly to my sump with a 3/4" hose with a CEPEX valve near the outlet gives me full control of flow. I need only open the lid and add two bags of IO then turn on pump. When the water is ready I just turn a valve and ready to fill sump. The display is drained via a Python hose to the sink. Never spill a drop. Never have to shut down the system, just a heater and powerhead in sump, fish never even notice something is happening. Altogether involves a total of 5-10 minutes of actual work. I love it.

I don't add additional additives other than some potassium nitrate once a month to maintain 2-5ppm NO3.

All I know for sure is that my tank has never looked better, corals happier, growth faster, colors better, or clearer water. Also cyano, dinos, diatoms, pest algae, and other nasties have virtually disappeared. This all directly linked to regular 100 gallons water changes with IO salt and 000 TDS RO/DI.

I wouldn't change anything and I feel like the system is doing well because I have eliminated potential problems and/or disaster. Not because I'm any kind of expert Reefer. I've just kept things simple and easy so that my water is the most consistent it can be. I would recommend to everyone that water changes are mandatory, but reserve the idea that "No water changes can be done" for those experts for which I am not.

I don't understand how the valve of water changes has been questioned. Certainly there may be fewer than 10-15 years ago but still the simplest effective and least risky method for maintaining water quality.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Sure, I agree, but if the levels are still way too high then their regular water changes are a waste of time in that case.

My point is, regular water changes aren't necessarily going to have any significant impact on the problem you raised, unless a ridiculous amount of water is replaced every week.

Just how bigger problem is this point you've raised ?

Water changes aren't the answer. A better way to deal with elevated trace inorganic ions, introduced from sources other than salt mixes, surely must be to find the source & deal with that directly.

If something is very high, high enough to be a problem of some sort, is it a waste to drop the levels by 30% over the course of a month?

I don't see that as a waste. It might be the difference between toxic and very toxic, or slightly toxic and more toxic, etc.

Water changes aren't the answer. A better way to deal with elevated trace inorganic ions, introduced from sources other than salt mixes, surely must be to find the source & deal with that directly.

Sure is. But folks often can't find the answer, or don't ever know they have an elevated ion problem if they didn't do a test for it.

 

[TbyZ]

I personnel find that a simple method has worked best for me. Mostly because there are far fewer chances for a mistake or other kind of problem so I have eliminated them altogether.

I use Kalk, this has to be the simplest method of maintaining ALK/Cal levels. Also my system for adding top off and Kalk is as simple as possible. The entire system is a 32g Brute a BRS 50ml dosing pump and a timer (my APEX is used to turn on the pump for 4 min every 1/2 hour, it is not controlled by any switches, probes, or any other functions than time). RO/DI and 4 cups vinegar are added to the Brute with ~1.5 cups Kalk and mixed. I put on the lid and ensure the pump I take is secured above the settled Kalk at the bottom with a magnetic tube holder.

10" SRO-5000 skimmer with Avast neck Cleaner.

30 gallons chaeto refugium. Reacently replaced the fuge light with a powerful LED grow light and doubled the flow through it. The growth of cheato has increased so much, before I would harvest 1-2 months maybe. Now I am harvesting every 14-19 days because it completely fills the entire fuge.
This is two weeks growth:

Use BRS ROX .8 carbon in reactor once a month or so. No GFO as the chaeto completely handles the PO4 accumulation and in fact I have watched it fall consistently and yesterday test @ 0.01ppm via Hanna Checker ULR Phosphorus.

3 Each MarinePure blocks in my 100 gallon sump.

High flow (80x's display turn over)

Good light, 300-500 PAR, (Kessil AP700s, 2 each 80w T5 ATI Blue Plus)

Decent fish load and feed good food, PE mysis, RODs food, nori and some pellets. Few times a week I add Reef Chili and Reef Roids.

I built a RO/DI collection and salt mixing station that enables me to change water as quickly and easily as possible. ~100 gallons of RO/DI fill the station and a float valve automatically shuts it off when full. The pump, an Iwaki 40RLT both mixes and moves the water directly to my sump with a 3/4" hose with a CEPEX valve near the outlet gives me full control of flow. I need only open the lid and add two bags of IO then turn on pump. When the water is ready I just turn a valve and ready to fill sump. The display is drained via a Python hose to the sink. Never spill a drop. Never have to shut down the system, just a heater and powerhead in sump, fish never even notice something is happening. Altogether involves a total of 5-10 minutes of actual work. I love it.

I don't add additional additives other than some potassium nitrate once a month to maintain 2-5ppm NO3.

All I know for sure is that my tank has never looked better, corals happier, growth faster, colors better, or clearer water. Also cyano, dinos, diatoms, pest algae, and other nasties have virtually disappeared. This all directly linked to regular 100 gallons water changes with IO salt and 000 TDS RO/DI.

I wouldn't change anything and I feel like the system is doing well because I have eliminated potential problems and/or disaster. Not because I'm any kind of expert Reefer. I've just kept things simple and easy so that my water is the most consistent it can be. I would recommend to everyone that water changes are mandatory, but reserve the idea that "No water changes can be done" for those experts for which I am not.

I don't understand how the valve of water changes has been questioned. Certainly there may be fewer than 10-15 years ago but still the simplest effective and least risky method for maintaining water quality.

So bif, if you got an ICP test performed on your tank water & it showed you had significantly elevated levels of some of the trace inorganic elements Randy mentioned, & it is quite likely you do, what would you do ?

 

[TbyZ]

If something is very high, high enough to be a problem of some sort, is it a waste to drop the levels by 30% over the course of a month?

I don't see that as a waste. It might be the difference between toxic and very toxic, or slightly toxic and more toxic, etc.

I imagine that you are somewhat familiar with glenf & his DSR system. This possible toxicity you raise doesn't appear to be an issue at all with any of his no regular water change systems that he runs.

 

[MnFish1]

Sure, I agree, but if the levels are still way too high then their regular water changes are a waste of time in that case.

My point is, regular water changes aren't necessarily going to have any significant impact on the problem you raised, unless a ridiculous amount of water is replaced every week.

Just how bigger problem is this point you've raised ?

Water changes aren't the answer. A better way to deal with elevated trace inorganic ions, introduced from sources other than salt mixes, surely must be to find the source & deal with that directly.

What you say about changing a ridiculous amount of water needing to be changed/week isn't true (depending on your definition of what a ridiculous amount of water is). If you take a 100 gallon aquarium with a nitrate of 100 and change 20 gallons of water every 3 days, for x 5 changes, at the end nitrate will be decreased by about 70%. If you to 10 changes it will be decreased by 95% (even assuming that nitrate is increasing by .5 ppm between changes). If you take a 100 gallon aquarium and change 20 gallons/week, there should be no buildup at all. Unless whatever 'chemical' you are trying to remove is building up faster than the rate you are removing it (and that would be a problem in a no water change tank as well).

If the elevated trace elements come from food that a person is feeding because of the type of fish (high in iodine, for example) or another supplement, etc - how would you discover that? The problem with your logic is that it is impossible to tell how big the problem is - because most people do water changes.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I imagine that you are somewhat familiar with glenf & his DSR system. This possible toxicity you raise doesn't appear to be an issue at all with any of his no regular water change systems that he runs.

lol,
and I didn't have any issue with them while doing water changes.

But neither of those statements suggests that those who do have these problems wouldn't have benefitted from water changes, whether they knew it (by test) or not. :)

 

[bif24701]

So bif, if you got an ICP test performed on your tank water & it showed you had significantly elevated levels of some of the trace inorganic elements Randy mentioned, & it is quite likely you do, what would you do ?

A water change. However I have recently got both Triton and ICP-Analysis tests completed on my water and both returned with good results. Neither showed any significant deviations. I actually created a thread I order to compare the two tests and posted results here on R2R.

Question: Why do you assume I would have elevated substance? Because of the Kalk or my IO water changes?

 

[ksed]

Sure, I agree, but if the levels are still way too high then their regular water changes are a waste of time in that case.

My point is, regular water changes aren't necessarily going to have any significant impact on the problem you raised, unless a ridiculous amount of water is replaced every week.

Just how bigger problem is this point you've raised ?

Water changes aren't the answer. A better way to deal with elevated trace inorganic ions, introduced from sources other than salt mixes, surely must be to find the source & deal with that directly.

Your treating every tank as if if it’s a large volume aquarium. Not being specific enough. If you have a 20 gallon tank or even 100 gallon tank Triton become far more expensive than simply water changes.
You can easily do a 50% water change, decreasing what ever toxin by approximately 50% almost immediately .

 

[TbyZ]

Question: Why do you assume I would have elevated substance? Because of the Kalk or my IO water changes?

Not you specifically, it was a generalisation, based on Randy's point that inorganic trace elements are introduced to the aquarium via various sources.

Got a link to your thread concerning your icp tests & their results?

 

[MnFish1]

The goal according to `GlennF' was an experiment - to see if he could manage a reef tank without water changes. Why not (he said) since if there was a problem - he could always do a water change. He stirs up his gravel to move organics then filters them out with filter floss. Im still not sure why it has become a 'goal' to not do water changes - at the expense of more equipment, more testing, more fiddling and probably more cost (if one takes into account to do the testing), etc.

The most disconcerting thing I have seen with regards to this shotgun testing of everything is that - with every test one performs, the probability of a false positive or negative increases. We see this already - with people questioning 'why is my vanadium low'. Leading to more tests and more concern. It seems to be a better way to approach testing is to look for symptoms of a problem - and test the likely causes.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

.

Just curious, are you a Minnesota Fish, or in the spirit of the chemistry forum, a Manganese Fish? lol

 

[TbyZ]

If you have a 20 gallon tank or even 100 gallon tank Triton become far more expensive than simply water changes.

Triton is a supplement program. Cal, alk, mag etc. These are typically dosed whether doing regular water changes or not.

You can easily do a 50% water change, decreasing what ever toxin by approximately 50% almost immediately .

Sure, you could do a 50% water change to decrease whatever toxins might accumulate, almost immediately, every six or twelve months. Or use ozone & negate the need for that 50% water change.
Or do both.

 

[MnFish1]

Just curious, are you a Minnesota Fish, or in the spirit of the chemistry forum, a Manganese Fish? lol

Manganesotan

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Sure, you could do a 50% water change to decrease whatever toxins might accumulate, almost immediately, every six or twelve months. Or use ozone & negate the need for that 50% water change.
Or do both.

What should these folks do? In these cases, regular water changes may well have limited the peak levels attained, and ozone may not reduce them.

In this sense, it is insurance. :)

SUPER high Iodine in ICP results
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/super-high-iodine-in-icp-results.328066/

High Si levels
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/high-si-levels.317519/#post-3922521

Removing lithium, nickel, and zinc
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/removing-lithium-nickel-and-zinc.327856/

Triton ICP.. High Zinc.. Advice needed.
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/triton-icp-high-zinc-advice-needed.326992/

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Manganesotan

Good to hear. lol

 

[Scott Campbell]

Triton is a supplement program. Cal, alk, mag etc. These are typically dosed whether doing regular water changes or not.


Sure, you could do a 50% water change to decrease whatever toxins might accumulate, almost immediately, every six or twelve months. Or use ozone & negate the need for that 50% water change.
Or do both.

TbyZ - There have been quite a number of sensible reasons offered for using water changes as part of your maintenance regimen. Just to recap:

1. Regular water changes can greatly simplify your set-up. 100% or 200% monthly water changes would completely remove the need for basically any other equipment. No dosing equipment, no skimmers, no carbon dosing, no algae refugium, no MarinePure blocks, no Triton testing - really, with enough water changes what else would you need? For a small tank or for a person with limited space or a limited inclination to deal with equipment - this is a great option.

2. While you can certainly reduce nitrates and phosphates without water changes, some people don't wish to grow algae or bacteria. I read a great quote on this forum a while back that made me laugh. Something like - "I didn't set up my aquarium to grow bugs and algae. I set it up to grow coral."

3. For some of us, water changes are *part* of our dosing schedule. It is easier to do a small calculated water change than dose 6 or 7 additional elements.

4. Dosing is not exact. I know with pretty good certainly what is in the salt I use. Do you know with certainty what you are putting in your aquarium when you add that AquaForest grab bag of trace elements?

5. People often deal with elements in excess of NSW. And sometimes they are content to simply manage those excess levels with water changes. For example, many foods contain high levels of zinc. But I might be very happy with the foods I currently use and would prefer to manage zinc levels with water changes rather than "eliminate the source" of the excess zinc.

6. Depending on the set-up, water changes can be cheaper than investing in dosing equipment, a refugium, a skimmer and such.

And so on. This is a complex hobby. At this point in the discussion I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish?