Why are some people anti-waterchanges?

[MnFish1]

Not all bacteria are the same. Nitrification bacteria double in 20 minutes while denitrification bacteria take 16 hours to double in population.

Tribal instincts.

Actually - I would say that certain aspects of stability requirements are overstated. In shallow reefs - coral can be exposed to sun and dry conditions during low tide, etc etc etc.

My guess is though that there would be only an extremely low likelihood of an alkalinity change > 1dKH suddenly.

And yes - of course not all bacteria are the same - but the point is the bacteria floating around in an aquarium are likely those with a quicker doubling time. I believe some of the data from @AquaBiomics would testify to that.

 

[d2mini]

The point is that reef habitants don’t need stability.

Oceaneering 101. Dynamic Equilibrium

ok gotcha. Fish not so much. But sensitive coral like SPS surely do in our tiny environments.
Many here can recount issues they've had when they've had sudden parameter changes, myself included.

 

[jda]

Dr. Joshi perhaps said this best when we was on one of the YouTube video podcasts... maybe with ReefBum? I am paraphrasing, but he said something along the lines that he does not really see anything when he goes a while without doing a water change, but when he does do one that things "perk up" and he sees a difference then. The main reason that many come around and do water changes again is because of this - they don't know what they don't know and then they see it when they change some water.

Can we leave the cycle out of this? Most folks on this board do not even know what they real nitrogen cycle is, including some of the self-proclaimed experts. The cycle is not done until Nitrogen is removed from the system as fast as it is introduced and the tank can handle a dynamic even. The cycle is not complete when it can turn a little bit of ammonia into nitrite. Some of the true cycle is having organisms that uptake nitrogen where it does not even turn into a waste product like nitrate - in tanks with large fuges, diverse live rock and stuff you might not even have any AOB left since the film algae, plants and corals can uptake most of the nitrogen. In any case, the handing of fish waste shifts and changes over time and is dynamic, so talking about it in this context is folly, IMO.

 

[MnFish1]

Dr. Joshi perhaps said this best when we was on one of the YouTube video podcasts... maybe with ReefBum? I am paraphrasing, but he said something along the lines that he does not really see anything when he goes a while without doing a water change, but when he does do one that things "perk up" and he sees a difference then. The main reason that many come around and do water changes again is because of this - they don't know what they don't know and then they see it when they change some water.

Can we leave the cycle out of this? Most folks on this board do not even know what they real nitrogen cycle is, including some of the self-proclaimed experts. The cycle is not done until Nitrogen is removed from the system as fast as it is introduced and the tank can handle a dynamic even. The cycle is not complete when it can turn a little bit of ammonia into nitrite. Some of the true cycle is having organisms that uptake nitrogen where it does not even turn into a waste product like nitrate - in tanks with large fuges, diverse live rock and stuff you might not even have any AOB left since the film algae, plants and corals can uptake most of the nitrogen. In any case, the handing of fish waste shifts and changes over time and is dynamic, so talking about it in this context is folly, IMO.

So those people with FOWLR tanks should just ignore the topic? I only say that because it might be harder to run that type of highly stocked tank without inverts, etc. The thread - I thought was about why some people are anti-water changes. That said - I agree with you - the longer a tank is 'up and running' the more stable it (should) become.

 

[jda]

So those people with FOWLR tanks should just ignore the topic? I only say that because it might be harder to run that type of highly stocked tank without inverts, etc. The thread - I thought was about why some people are anti-water changes. That said - I agree with you - the longer a tank is 'up and running' the more stable it (should) become.

I know that you like to be argumentative for no reason and then drop in a - however - or - I agree with you - but who said that FOWLR people don't care about this? Do they not have film and surface algae and bacteria that change the course of how fish waste get handled? Does doing a large water change in a FOWLR vs a reef make any difference? Nobody posted that that I saw. I was not even thinking that. Some fish are very sensitive to higher levels of heavy metals and waste products like nitrate and phosphates. I still did water changes in my FOWLR tanks. I would argue very strongly that having near-reef water parameters in a FOWLR can be a huge key to keep microfauna happy to that they can hunt and eat any disease tomonts that might come around.

 

[Reefer Matt]

The point is that reef habitants don’t need stability.

Oceaneering 101. Dynamic Equilibrium

That could be the case in the ocean, but my experience tells me otherwise with my aquariums. If the alkalinity in my sps tanks sway by more than 1.5-2 dkh, I start to lose acros, and montipora may bleach. I personally don't believe our tanks are like the ocean anymore than a terrarium is to the rainforest though.

 

[Subsea]

ok gotcha. Fish not so much. But sensitive coral like SPS surely do in our tiny environments.
Many here can recount issues they've had when they've had sudden parameter changes, myself included.

I don’t doubt those sceanarios. Biochemistry is very complex and most hobbiest have a superficial understand of what happens in our captive tanks.

@Reefer Matt
Also, I choose not to place high alkalinity demanding SPS in my systems. I prefer the challenge of filter feeding invertebrate using low tech approach from Mother Nature and Intelligent Design.

PS: Oldest tank at 25 years young.

 

[MnFish1]

I know that you like to be argumentative for no reason and then drop in a - however - or - I agree with you - but who said that FOWLR people don't care about this? Do they not have film and surface algae and bacteria that change the course of how fish waste get handled? Does doing a large water change in a FOWLR vs a reef make any difference? Nobody posted that that I saw. I was not even thinking that. Some fish are very sensitive to higher levels of heavy metals and waste products like nitrate and phosphates. I still did water changes in my FOWLR tanks. I would argue very strongly that having near-reef water parameters in a FOWLR can be a huge key to keep microfauna happy to that they can hunt and eat any disease tomonts that might come around.

I think water changes are a good idea. Not clear why you're being argumentative? I was referring to this comment in your post: "Some of the true cycle is having organisms that uptake nitrogen where it does not even turn into a waste product like nitrate - in tanks with large fuges, diverse live rock and stuff you might not even have any AOB left since the film algae, plants and corals can uptake most of the nitrogen. In any case, the handing of fish waste shifts and changes over time and is dynamic, so talking about it in this context is folly, IMO."

Seemingly it was implied that since most people don't understand the cycle - and that a true cycle doesn't occur until (read above) - I was mentioning FOWLR tanks.. Thats it - not trying to be argumentative. I was asking for clarification.

 

[Reefer Matt]

I don’t doubt those sceanarios. Biochemistry is very complex and most hobbiest have a superficial understand of what happens in our captive tanks.

@Reefer Matt
Also, I choose not to place high alkalinity demanding SPS in my systems. I prefer the challenge of filter feeding invertebrate using low tech approach from Mother Nature and Intelligent Design.

That's cool. I can dig that too. I like everything about reefing. Sweet tank!

 

[jda]

FWIW - I think that people really need to pay attention to what corals get in the ocean. They also need to figure out different ways to get those things to their corals in captivity. You cannot just simply say, the ocean does X so I have to do X too, but you probably should think along the lines of that corals receives Y in the wild, so I need to find a way to get Y in my tanks. X and Y are not the same.

The easiest example is flow - corals get flow in the ocean, but moon cycles and wind is not going to help us, so we have flow pumps. Corals have waste product moved away in the ocean and building blocks brought in - you have to do this too, but tides and currents are not going to help you so you have to figure out some other way. "the ocean does not change water" is a dumb thing to say, IMO. Of course there is no bucket of Instant Ocean, mixing pump and brute trash can. This is a fool argument, IMO. Saying that what does or does not happen in the ocean is worthless is dumb, IMO, but so is saying that it has to be done the same way as in nature.

 

[YOYOYOReefer]

People are lazy and water changes take effort unless you automate.
why would anyone not want to do a water change. Do the same people not change the oil in their cars. Ne

I think water changes are a good idea. Not clear why you're being argumentative? I was referring to this comment in your post: "Some of the true cycle is having organisms that uptake nitrogen where it does not even turn into a waste product like nitrate - in tanks with large fuges, diverse live rock and stuff you might not even have any AOB left since the film algae, plants and corals can uptake most of the nitrogen. In any case, the handing of fish waste shifts and changes over time and is dynamic, so talking about it in this context is folly, IMO."

Seemingly it was implied that since most people don't understand the cycle - and that a true cycle doesn't occur until (read above) - I was mentioning FOWLR tanks.. Thats it - not trying to be argumentative. I was asking for clarification.

FYI we have reefs and discus. Believe it or not breeding discus is all about water quality and I don’t know any discus breeders who don’t change their water

 

[MnFish1]

People are lazy and water changes take effort unless you automate.
why would anyone not want to do a water change. Do the same people not change the oil in their cars. Ne

FYI we have reefs and discus. Believe it or not breeding discus is all about water quality and I don’t know any discus breeders who don’t change their water

Interestingly enough - I am not a big water changer in my discus tank - and I have (I think) 5 pairs that lay eggs regularly that hatch. However - as someone else said (somewhere) - it's a heavily planted tank - and my guess is that if I measured nutrients - they would be very low.

 

[Troylee]

Really.

Not knowing what’s in your display tank, I am glad that works for you.

If I did that in this tank, flame scallop & sea apple would starve. Because this tank is heavy with ornamental sponges and NPS corals, it would create a serious upset.

Sps, LPs, clam.. and tons of them..

 

[steve bergmann]

I’m middle of the road when it comes to water changes. Do them if you feel and see that your tank is benefitting from it but if your tank is stable and doing good without them why bother. The last water change I did was in April. If I feel I need to do a water change I’ll drive the 20 minute or so trip to the Scripps Pier here in San Diego to get a fresh batch of water (I use NSW). My tank is doing well though and I’m getting good growth and color with stable parameters and no algae. Why fix something if it ain’t broke.

I agree, after your tank matures, you don't really need to do a water change just monitor the chemistry and add as needed. My tank is 13 years old and I haven't done water changes on a regular basis in 10 years. Maybe I average one 2-3 times a year usually if I sand the acrylic tank down on the inside to clean it up.

Here is my tank at 13 years:


I dose trace elements and even Nitrate instead of water changes.

 

[michealprater]

Reef moonshiners looks pretty cool. I would assume that is a viable option to waterchanges. Tough to argue the science.

 

[MnFish1]

I know that you like to be argumentative for no reason and then drop in a - however - or - I agree with you - but who said that FOWLR people don't care about this? Do they not have film and surface algae and bacteria that change the course of how fish waste get handled? Does doing a large water change in a FOWLR vs a reef make any difference? Nobody posted that that I saw. I was not even thinking that. Some fish are very sensitive to higher levels of heavy metals and waste products like nitrate and phosphates. I still did water changes in my FOWLR tanks. I would argue very strongly that having near-reef water parameters in a FOWLR can be a huge key to keep microfauna happy to that they can hunt and eat any disease tomonts that might come around.

Just to answer - I was 'argumentative' (in quotes because I do not think I was argumentative) because - I disagree with some of your comment. Which - I thought was the reason for a discussion group - discussion - I was not arguing with you. I agreed with a part of your post - and I disagreed the some of it - if you want to suggest that R2R create a 'like button' - that suggests I agree with part of this but not everything - go ahead.

 

[MnFish1]

Reef moonshiners looks pretty cool. I would assume that is a viable option to waterchanges. Tough to argue the science.

What science? I'm just curious - because I haven't seen any experiments, etc - to suggest method x is better/worse than method y.

 

[jda]

Reef moonshiners looks pretty cool. I would assume that is a viable option to waterchanges. Tough to argue the science.

There is actually a many-page thread that does show that the science for ICP based dosing is mostly supposition and faith, that hobby-grade test kits might be better for most things and that the elements that cannot be tested with hobby-grade test kits have no proven set level to keep or to dose.

 

[Troylee]

I agree, after your tank matures, you don't really need to do a water change just monitor the chemistry and add as needed. My tank is 13 years old and I haven't done water changes on a regular basis in 10 years. Maybe I average one 2-3 times a year usually if I sand the acrylic tank down on the inside to clean it up.

Here is my tank at 13 years:


I dose trace elements and even Nitrate instead of water changes.

Amazing tank! How big is that beast?

 

[MnFish1]

There is actually a many-page thread that does show that the science for ICP based dosing is mostly supposition and faith, that hobby-grade test kits might be better for most things and that the elements that cannot be tested with hobby-grade test kits have no proven set level to keep or to dose.

No - it doesn't - it shows that x hobby kits compared to x ICP tests are about the same. It says nothing about the value of ICP testing - or the other elements it measures. In fact from a statistical point of view - it says very little -due to the small measurement size. And several of the 'measurements' - are not measured by ICP anyway - so it's the ICP doing another non ICP test. For example Nitrate is not measured by ICP