Why are some people anti-waterchanges?

[MartinM]

Size of w/c and salt cost have risen as of late. Smaller tanks aren't an issue, with just pure water changes but with over 200g of water in my case, 25 gal a week of water changes eventually adds up.

Isn't this sort of the same thing as saying "I can't afford to take care of my animals"? Not to be mean, but they are alive, and if care can't be provided, they should be re-homed.

WC's are without a doubt hugely beneficial for my systems, noticeably so, and are performed without fail. I wasn't aware of any effort to avoid them until I saw this thread, at least not by the vast majority of hobbyists. I don't think anything more than a very small (albeit potentially vocal) minority would attempt avoiding them.

That being said, I know some mono-species commercial operations that rarely perform them in the interests of stability, but these are vastly different systems than a home mixed reef aquarium. IMO, WCs are an essential staple for the long term (years, decades) success of a home mixed reef tank.

 

[MartinM]

As a naturalist, I have camped, hiked, fished and hunted in climax forest, fresh water swamps and salt water marshes. For 30 years, I worked on and in the “Deep Blue” as a subsea control system engineer on underwater blowout preventers.

Nature is very efficient in how things work; not only in the macro but in the micro details. After 75 years of observation, I have come to respect how nature works in those minute details and I emulate Nature as best I can. It’s a challenge that I enjoy, to operate reefs with minimum equipment and maintenance by matching janitors ( CUC ) for the job, Five years ago, I choose cryptic refugium and reverse flow undergravel filter. Cryptic sponges consume both coral and algae DOC 5 fold more efficient than GAC (granulated activated carbon).
.

A deeper reason for reuse of water is:it’s more expensive than gasoline.

As a municipal waste water superintendent, I learned beneficial reuse as an agriculture soil additive by recycling spent bacteria after a Process to Significantly Reduce Pathogens. Water is more expensive than gasoline and nations will go to war over water. That is a much more recent concern that is a world wide provlem.




Scientific studies on the composition of waste/byproducts/exudates of photosynthetic corals are mostly lipids & proteins while the exudates of algae photosynthesis is mostly glucose. The “sponge loop” and in particular, cryptic sponges consume both coral & algae DOC at 5 fold more than granulated activated carbon resins 10 fold more efficiency than protein skimmers coupled with carbon dosing.

Have links to the research behind this? I'm very interested. That being said, my systems have tons of sponge life of all kinds everywhere, and still quite obviously need water changes. Allelopathy is a thing! (And I use Carbon and Ozone also)

 

[The_Paradox]

Has anyone from Team Water Change identified what X is? Ie the toxin that could be building up that cannot be tested for or remove with granulate activated carbon (GAC) ironically what we rely on heavily in our reverse osmosis filters.

On the flip side of this with elements, I find it paradoxical that people 100% trust their salt mix has all the trace elements needed but there could not possibly be an additive or additive combination that does.

Personally on the toxin build up issue my mind could be changed pretty easy. On the trace element not at all. Any trace element that is consumed will eventually bottom out with just water changes no matter how frequent.

 

[Lbrdsoxfan]

Isn't this sort of the same thing as saying "I can't afford to take care of my animals"? Not to be mean, but they are alive, and if care can't be provided, they should be re-homed.

WC's are without a doubt hugely beneficial for my systems, noticeably so, and are performed without fail. I wasn't aware of any effort to avoid them until I saw this thread, at least not by the vast majority of hobbyists. I don't think anything more than a very small (albeit potentially vocal) minority would attempt avoiding them.

That being said, I know some mono-species commercial operations that rarely perform them in the interests of stability, but these are vastly different systems than a home mixed reef aquarium. IMO, WCs are an essential staple for the long term (years, decades) success of a home mixed reef tank.

Are you serious? How did you come to a conclusion I can't take care of my animals? Seriously get out of here with that nonsense. I frankly spend more dosing trace elements to maintain parameters than just changing water with salt weekly.

I look at the simple fact that I choose to limit water changes due to significantly higher unit of water cost in my area and practicing real conservation as I live in a coastal city/state with REAL, consistent drought issues. Now dealing with higher salt cost to boot and higher rodi maintenance cost as my tds hovers between 320-375ppm thus no matter what I'm burning media at a fair quicker rate than most.

I also run gac, skim and roller filters on ALL my tanks thus a LOT of nasties are stripped from the water.

More than one way to skin a cat and I can care less about how others do things but I ain't gonna bash your methods so don't bash mine.

End game my fish are doing just fine doing what I'm doing.

Go troll elsewhere.

Edit: Really mods... REALLY.

 

[The_Paradox]

More than one way to skin a cat and I can care less about how others do things but I ain't gonna bash your methods so don't bash mine.

End game my fish are doing just fine doing what I'm doing.

Go troll elsewhere.

This reminds me of the so called gun debate. I’ve never seen a gun owner go out and start yelling at a random anti-gun person/group to buy a gun. I have seen it go the other way around though.

 

[gbroadbridge]

With Moonshiners, Triton, etc. the goal is a self-sufficient system. But how can that be when there are immeasurable DOCs, toxins, etc. that are not being removed and left to build-up overtime? Why do we ignore common sense in hopes of avoiding waterchanges?

Why is it with FW hobbyists they are more religious about their waterchanges, while SW [some not all] hobbyists are looking for ways to avoid them?

Isn't it cheaper and better overall to do waterchanges and play it safe rather than risk stunting, algae problems, coral die offs, etc.?


This isn't meant to offend, just to open a discussion on this issue as it is concerning.

Why do people drive cars rather than ride horses?

Water changes except when necessary are just so last century.

Tech moves on, but some folks dont.

 

[Troylee]

I am speaking for myself only. I am certainly not against WC. I used to do 25% WC weekly, however I now run the Reef Moonshiners program and have not done a WC since March 28, 2023. I do intend to do 1 large WC per year (over 50%) in January in order to reduce any buildup of things that aren't removed by my filtration. I am located in AZ where water supply is quickly becoming an issue so I figure getting away from regular WC with a program that has resulted in healthier corals is a win win and a hedge against possible water shortages and price increases in the future. I was skeptical before starting the program, but the results have been very convincing for me.






I feel so lazy and foolish...

Lazy fool!

Looks amazing!

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

7. Low percent water changes do not significantly impact or improve water parameters and can't be used as a corrective measure for anything in the tank. (doing a 20% water change to reduce 20ppm of nitrates will only drop it to 16ppm)

That one simplistic calculation is obviously correct, but over time, water changes can add up to a big effect. IMO, they are mostly useful for lowering things not readily dealt with other ways.

Ignore the axis label as nitrate since it applies equally well to anything that accumulates:

Figure 2. Nitrate concentration as a function of time when performing water changes of 0% (no changes), 7.5%, 15% and 30% of the total volume each month. 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.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Have to disagree, because what slowly builds up can be controlled with tools like algae, bacteria, GFO, GAC, ozone, etc. to the point that they have no impact on the aquarium.

How do you know that? Do you know if and how ANY organic toxins are rmeoved from your tank?

Since no reefer has the technology at home to measure ANY organic material, I think your statement lacks supporting evidence.

You have to fall back on:

"well, the tank looks great",

which is countered by

"Yes, but you do not know how it might look with water changes"

 

[The_Paradox]

which is countered by

"Yes, but you do not know how it might look with water changes"

Counter point. Yes I do. Do they know how great their tank could look with no changes?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Has anyone from Team Water Change identified what X is? Ie the toxin that could be building up that cannot be tested for or remove with granulate activated carbon (GAC) ironically what we rely on heavily in our reverse osmosis filters.

On the flip side of this with elements, I find it paradoxical that people 100% trust their salt mix has all the trace elements needed but there could not possibly be an additive or additive combination that does.

Personally on the toxin build up issue my mind could be changed pretty easy. On the trace element not at all. Any trace element that is consumed will eventually bottom out with just water changes no matter how frequent.

There are many inorganic toxins building up in many tanks. That is easily demonstrated by ICP. Water changes help keep them in check.

The whole problem with organic toxins is we cannot identify or quantify them with certainty in any reef tank, but there are a great many known candidates:

Organic Compounds in the Reef Aquarium by Randy Holmes-Farley - Reefkeeping.com

Negative Effects of DOM: Toxins

Marine organisms can produce a multitude of organic toxins. It is beyond the scope of this article to go into the many toxins that might concern aquarists, but some discussion is certainly merited. These toxins may be intentionally released by organisms to kill neighbors or competitors, or they may be kept internally to ward off predators (being released only during predatory encounters which may or may not end in death). Some are fairly simple biochemicals. Domoic acid, for example (Figure 2), is a fairly simple biochemical that is produced by many species of diatoms. Ciguatoxin, on the other hand (Figure 3), is a complicated molecule made by a dinoflagellate. As it works its way up through the food chain to people, it has been implicated in many fatalities and is reported to sicken 20,000 people per year.

Caulerpin (Figure 4) and caulerpicin are sometimes referred to as toxins, although they appear to be primarily growth regulators present in various species of macroalgae, especially Caulerpa. They are not particularly toxic to animals or bacteria in most studies.4-10 Many aquarists decline to keep Caulerpa sp. in their aquaria, sometimes citing the possibility of elevated levels of such toxins as a reason. Whether these particular "toxins" are of primary concern or not, looking at the structures of these sorts of toxins can help suggest ways to remove them (carbon, for example, since they are very hydrophobic), but I have never seen measurements of the levels of any toxins in aquaria, or comparisons of how well different export mechanisms might reduce those levels. I would consider such measurements to be of significant value to aquarists.

 

[Jay Hemdal]

That one simplistic calculation is obviously correct, but over time, water changes can add up to a big effect. IMO, they are mostly useful for lowering things not readily dealt with other ways.

Ignore the axis label as nitrate since it applies equally well to anything that accumulates:

Figure 2. Nitrate concentration as a function of time when performing water changes of 0% (no changes), 7.5%, 15% and 30% of the total volume each month. 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.

And the inverse holds true for for compounds that are being depleted, but not being supplemented, or are being supplemented in an unknown amount....water changes have a general stabilizing influence - sort of a "reset" to the baseline level.

Decades ago, my father (an engineer) helped me with the math for this - and showed me for the first time, that larger single water changes were more effective than multiple smaller water changes, even when the total volume exchanged was the same (because subsequent small water changes are replacing some of the water that was just changed).

Jay

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Counter point. Yes I do. Do they know how great their tank could look with no changes?

I don't know. You'd need to ask them. I'm just pointing out the fallacy of the commonly used argument, which is used a lot in this thread as well.

IMO, it is a HUGE misconception in this hobby that one can look at a great tank, maybe even the worlds single best reef tank, and then take one aspect of the multifaceted husbandry used there, and say ANYTHING at all about that one practice as being desirable, undesirable, or just no effect at all.

It's exactly akin to looking at a picture of a 90 year old man who smoked a pack every day, and conclude, that's part of living a long time.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

And the inverse holds true for for compounds that are being depleted, but not being supplemented, or are being supplemented in an unknown amount....water changes have a general stabilizing influence - sort of a "reset" to the baseline level.

Decades ago, my father (an engineer) helped me with the math for this - and showed me for the first time, that larger single water changes were more effective than multiple smaller water changes, even when the total volume exchanged was the same (because subsequent small water changes are replacing some of the water that was just changed).

Jay

Yes, I certainly agree. It helps keep everything trending toward the salt mix composition, rather than away.

 

[The_Paradox]

There are many inorganic toxins building up in many tanks. That is easily demonstrated by ICP. Water changes help keep them in check.

As you said they/some can be monitored with testing. And water changes for sure “help” lower them. Helping or not I have not seen that tanks have a set lifespan where they will eventually crash which they would if the x was not being handled by some mechanism.

 

[BeanAnimal]

. But how can that be when there are immeasurable DOCs, toxins, etc. that are not being removed and left to build-up overtime? Why do we ignore common sense in hopes of avoiding waterchanges?

If they are immeasurable then how do we know that they are there and if they are immeasurable then How do we know that they are harmful?

Why is it with FW hobbyists they are more religious about their waterchanges, while SW [some not all] hobbyists are looking for ways to avoid them?

Two wholly different ecosystems, means of natural reduction, export and sequestration.

Isn't it cheaper and better overall to do waterchanges and play it safe rather than risk stunting, algae problems, coral die offs, etc.?

Any method that is not successful is expensive.

 

[The_Paradox]

I don't know. You'd need to ask them. I'm just pointing out the fallacy of the commonly used argument, which is used a lot in this thread as well.

IMO, it is a HUGE misconception in this hobby that one can look at a great tank, maybe even the worlds single best reef tank, and then take one aspect of the multifaceted husbandry used there, and say ANYTHING at all about that one practice as being desirable, undesirable, or just no effect at all.

It's exactly akin to looking at a picture of a 90 year old man who smoked a pack every day, and conclude, that's part of living a long time.

100% agree. But this is the hobby where we swear natural sea water (NWS) is best despite purposely trying to keep phosphorus and nitrates magnitudes higher than NWS.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

As you said they/some can be monitored with testing. And water changes for sure “help” lower them. Helping or not I have not seen that tanks have a set lifespan where they will eventually crash which they would if the x was not being handled by some mechanism.

There's a constant stream of failed tanks. Often we do not know why.

 

[The_Paradox]

There's a constant stream of failed tanks. Often we do not know why.

I mean I like the theory that all tanks have a lifespan no matter what is done. Even if true though I do not think most people would accept the inevitable and we would still be having this debate.

 

[flashsmith]

For a couple of years I always did water changes in both of my tanks every two weeks a 170g and an 80g. After alot of research and wanting some time back I decided to cut them back to every two months. Both tanks are auto dosed and both tanks have excellent filtration and refugium, ATO,skimmers etc... Over the last 8 months nothing has changed in my systems. With dosing and the ATO replenishing 5-10 gallons a week through evaporation and a healthy refugium I honestly don't think they are needed very often. The main reason I do it is to clean out my sumps. I also blow off rocks every other day and lightly stir my sand to get all that suspended and filtered out too. If you have stability why would you change the water? My strategy is keeping a clean tank and not letting detritus and decaying food build up so I don't have those crazy swings. Works for me.