Reasons for Doing Water Changes?

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

What about Chloride Ions? Can those get too high if there are no water changes? I have always wondered. Does anybody test for them?

Together, chloride and sulfate comprise nearly all of the negatively charged ions of seawater.

Since the total negative charge is controlled by the salinity, the total of of sulfate plus chloride is essentially controlled by salinity.
Thus, the only the only way chloride can rise is if sulfate falls, and the only way chloride can fall is if sulfate rises.

That certainly can and does happen, for example, if you supplement calcium with only calcium chloride.

 

[MnFish1]

I don't think there are much value on debating whether a tank could work with no water change, cause people proofed it work already. There are some other questions are more interesting to me.

1. Is no water change method have higher success rate or not? It's not about if there is successful examples, it's about percentage of success. Or from another perspective, is margin of error increase or decrease with these methods. Assuming higher margin of error, lower chance of failure.
2. Is this cheaper than just water change in terms of consumables? From the prices from triton method, it don't seem to be cheaper than salt price of 10% water change weekly. But more actual data is better.
3. Is it easier/cheaper to implement, both as initial implementation and ongoing effort? Water change is straightforward to do, no need to dancing around numbers. But ongoing effort will be pretty high if you do it with 5 gallon bucket. The ongoing effort can be reduced a lot by plumbing design to enable easy water change, or even automated or continuous water changes, but the initial implementation is harder/more expensive. For dosing, if dose manually daily, the effort could be a lot. If dosing automatically, is investment in decent doser higher or lower than that to automated water changes. Also what's the effort to tune it dosing amount, and the risk of mis-tuning.

I don't think there is overall clear winner. It's all about trade off according to each reefer's circumstances, and picking the one that best fit your situation. For me, I want it as simple as possible, I don't want to worry testing levels of trace elements and their dosing and adjustments. Weekly water change is the simplest way to achieve what I need and the cost and effort of doing it is ok to me. If I were to do no water change method, I see myself spending a lot more time and/or money on doing testing on all kinds of levels, and worrying about fixing them. Or being paranoid if I were not testing as much.

Just because some tanks go without water changes, doesn't mean that the livestock in those tanks are in their best condition. In all these tanks people hold up as examples of 'the nitrate is 30 - and everythings perfect' or 'I dont do water changes', etc.etc. Pick one of several possible heretical statements seen here from time to time. It is very likely, that the reason these tanks succeed with the levels they have been 'left at' is because the stuff that cant tolerate the conditions just die off - and others do better. Im not sure its a good idea to suggest doing 'no water changes' based on 2 or 3 tanks - each with their own unique fauna. Even the video from Sanjay - he says 'of course I wouldn't put corals that could not possibly live in this tank in it'

 

[Coronus]

Wow, I am totally floored now!!!!
It is new to the tank though. So not quite what your saying. All the minor and majors are new, the salt is new, and def not as old because I would most of it starts through rain ect.

 

[spiraling]

With ICP testing made available to the average reefer I think water changes for experienced active reefers may or may not be necessary. But for the average reefer water changes help promote good husbandry and testing. For most of us establishing the habit of regular water changes also establishes the habits of testing and checking on the tanks inhabitants, looking for pests, cleaning pumps, checking heaters, and siphoning out yucky stuff.

By stating that you can test with ICP and change your chemicals accordingly is very simplified. There is a lot of other husbandry that is just as important. I think that style works for people who know what they are doing and have already established good husbandry habits, and it is very possible now to not have to do water changes and have a healthy system as noted by the examples in this thread, but I think many newer reefers will fail with the "no water change" system.

 

[TbyZ]

Just because some tanks go without water changes, doesn't mean that the livestock in those tanks are in their best condition. In all these tanks people hold up as examples of 'the nitrate is 30 - and everythings perfect' or 'I dont do water changes', etc.etc. Pick one of several possible heretical statements seen here from time to time. It is very likely, that the reason these tanks succeed with the levels they have been 'left at' is because the stuff that cant tolerate the conditions just die off - and others do better. Im not sure its a good idea to suggest doing 'no water changes' based on 2 or 3 tanks - each with their own unique fauna.

You can go forever without water changes & have zero NO3 & PO4 as measured on a hobbie test kit .
You can go forever without water changes & have an ionically balanced system via dosing & ICP testing. & there's a case for ICP testing even with, or especially if doing water changes.
You can go forever without water changes & have a low DOC content.
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.
But it can be dealt with, at the least, with ozone. Or even a water change, say at six, or twelve month intervals.

 

[TbyZ]

Wow, I am totally floored now!!!!
It is new to the tank though. So not quite what your saying. All the minor and majors are new, the salt is new, and def not as old because I would most of it starts through rain ect.

There's the old joke - 'I don't drink water, fish poop in it'.
Every drink of water you take has at some time been in a river, lake, stream, ocean & every other place you can think of.
By the time it gets to your tap it has been >>>filtered<<<. There's no new water molecules on this planet.

 

[MnFish1]

You can go forever without water changes & have zero NO3 & PO4 as measured on a hobbie test kit .
You can go forever without water changes & have an ionically balanced system via dosing & ICP testing. & there's a case for ICP testing even with, or especially if doing water changes.
You can go forever without water changes & have a low DOC content.
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.
But it can be dealt with, at the least, with ozone. Or even a water change, say at six, or twelve month intervals.

The problem is, that you have no proof whatsoever for any of these statements. Firstly, no one has kept an aquarium without doing water changes 'forever' - Even Sanjays tank was 5 years. ICP testing has only been around a short period - so again you cant say what would happen after 5 years etc. But, it makes sense that certain foods will contain more/less trace elements and potential for organic buildup than others - and this will likely lead to build up of certain things - requiring water changes. You also cant say you can go on for ever and have a low DOC content - because - how are you measuring it? I do agree with you there is a high likelihood that toxic agents will build up - causing either problems - or severely limiting the types of corals that can coexist in your tank. Dont know where you came up with the recommendation to do a water change (what percent) at 6 or 12 months - and that will solve any problems unless it was a 100% water change.

 

[bif24701]

My tank is 30 years old and I have never been a big proponent of water changes. I went about 10 years without a water change and for a while even experimented with minimal feedings just to see how self-sustaining the tank could become. My tank is heavily infested with sponges and tube worms and I have always grown large amount of macro algae.

That said - my corals grow much more quickly with small water changes. And once I started with the Triton tests I realized (ironically perhaps) that small water changes with the salt I use was the most cost effective way to deal with most of the Triton test dosing recommendations.

I guess my main observation over the years is that nothing is really static in an aquarium. I'll notice a sudden increase in certain worms, microfauna or algae types until water conditions change and the worm or algae populations diminish. I expect it is often the extra growth of certain algae or microfauna that causes the depletion of whatever nutrients triggered the growth in the first place. My point being the tank always seems to be self-adjusting and self-regulating. So trying to understand what to dose is difficult. It is a moving target.

I don't enjoy doing water changes, I prefer to dose what the tank needs if possible, I use ROX carbon and I have lots of filter feeders to take up organics. But I do water changes because my salt is a cost effective way to replenish what is being depleted, my corals grow faster and I recognize I just don't know enough to dose exactly what the tanks needs.

Water changes are more cost effective than Triton supplements. In fact I believe that WC may be the best way to ensure balance of elements.

 

[Scott Campbell]

Thanks for the input SC, very informative. And I don't doubt your observations are accurate, or that regular water changes are the way to go for you.

Two questions if I may SC ?

1. Do you dose anything in the way of elements at all ? including for calcium & alkalinity?

2. What elements do you believe are in the salt mix you use, that makes the positive difference to your tank, that wouldn't be, or couldn't be in a dosing suppliment, such as the one I'm using, Aquaforest, for example?
A.F. has three parts - sodium bicarbonate, calcium chloride & non sodium chloride salts plus all the other minor & trace elements, at least the apparently important ones.
I can't imagine that there is anything in your container of salt that isn't in A.F ?

Currently I dose calcium chloride, sodium bicarbonate, magnesium, potassium, iron & manganese. I started dosing potassium after the Triton tests made me realize my water changes were woefully insufficient to restore potassium. My tank is consistently high in molybdenum which is probably because I use NoPox. Without water changes I would obviously have to dose more of the six elements I currently dose but would also need to dose strontium, boron, iodine, silica and maybe elements like vanadium. It seems easier and cheaper to just do small water changes and keep my dosing regimen simpler. I use Tropic Marin salt which is high in everything I seem to need and yet low in molybdenum.

To answer your question - small water changes seem a more efficient approach to dealing with all the "lower use" elements like boron that I know I need to dose. I calculate my water change to take as many elements off the dosing schedule as reasonable. If I need a lot of something then I will dose. For some elements (like zinc and cobalt) I have no clue what my tank is or is not using. The Triton test just always reads zero. I suppose I could add a supplement (like AF) that includes a mix of all the trace elements but a water change seems a safer way to replenish elements that I don't have enough information about to calculate a dosing schedule. And I need water changes to keep the molybdenum levels in check any way.

So absolutely nothing magical in my salt. As stated in my earlier post, I find small water changes compensate for the complexity and variability of dosing and for my general ignorance about what actually needs to be dosed. Which I believe in turn helps my tank.

 

[TbyZ]

The problem is, that you have no proof whatsoever for any of these statements. Firstly, no one has kept an aquarium without doing water changes 'forever' - Even Sanjays tank was 5 years. ICP testing has only been around a short period - so again you cant say what would happen after 5 years etc. But, it makes sense that certain foods will contain more/less trace elements and potential for organic buildup than others - and this will likely lead to build up of certain things - requiring water changes. You also cant say you can go on for ever and have a low DOC content - because - how are you measuring it? I do agree with you there is a high likelihood that toxic agents will build up - causing either problems - or severely limiting the types of corals that can coexist in your tank. Dont know where you came up with the recommendation to do a water change (what percent) at 6 or 12 months - and that will solve any problems unless it was a 100% water change.

Hi MN;
No proof for any of these statement ?

Well for one, you can measure NO3 & PO4 to start with.
Two, you can measure the ionic balance using ICP tests.
And three, if you using skimming & or activated carbon, and the take up of DOC by bacteria, the DOC content will be low & quite similar to levels found on a natural reef, as measured by Feldman in his articles - http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/9/aafeature2 & http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/8/aafeature3/

And I didn't actually agree that "there is a high likelihood that toxic agents will build up". I said there was "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" because its somewhat inconclusive. and I showed previously that this issue could be dealt using ozone, quoting Randy, from his article - http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-03/rhf/index.php#12 Ozone Reduction of Organic Toxins in the Water.

 

[Scott Campbell]

Water changes are more cost effective than Triton supplements. In fact I believe that WC may be the best way to ensure balance of elements.

There is a diminishing return. A small water change replenishes everything. Eventually, however, you get to a point where the water change is just replenishing calcium and bicarbonate. And then it becomes cheaper to just add calcium and bicarbonate. The cool thing about the Triton test is that you can figure out roughly what your tank is using each month and then compare it to your salt mix and calculate the optimal amount of water to change. From a financial return standpoint that is. But you also need to find a salt mix that aligns nicely with what your tank is using and / or accumulating.

 

[MnFish1]

Hi MN;
No proof for any of these statement ?

Well for one, you can measure NO3 & PO4 to start with.
Two, you can measure the ionic balance using ICP tests.
And three, if you using skimming & or activated carbon, and the take up of DOC by bacteria, the DOC content will be low & quite similar to levels found on a natural reef, as measured by Feldman in his articles - http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/9/aafeature2 & http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/8/aafeature3/

And I didn't actually agree that "there is a high likelihood that toxic agents will build up". I said there was "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" because its somewhat inconclusive. and I showed previously that this issue could be dealt using ozone, quoting Randy, from his article - http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-03/rhf/index.php#12 Ozone Reduction of Organic Toxins in the Water.

The point that you missed is that I was focusing on the word forever. No one has tested these things for extended periods of time let alone ‘forever’.

The other point you conveniently ignored is that many of these no water change tanks have inhabitants that have adapted to the toxins etc in that one tank. Even Sanjay in the video alludes to this.

You have a theory. That is all. You have some anecdotal evidence to support your theory. You have not proven any of the statements in your post above.

 

[jda]

people who dose only two part - sodium bicarbonate & calcium chloride have this problem because after the carbonates are used the sodium is left behind, as is the chloride after the calcium is used up. Because regular water changes cannot replenish the carbonates & calcium to the degree they are taken up, in most cases, dosing becomes necessary. There are ionically balanced supplements which also include non sodium chloride salts, & adding them keeps the salts in the proper ratio. Using a calcium reactor also solves the problem, as does dosing calcium hydroxide (kalkwasser).

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.

 

[Scott Campbell]

The point that you missed is that I was focusing on the word forever. No one has tested these things for extended periods of time let alone ‘forever’.

The other point you conveniently ignored is that many of these no water change tanks have inhabitants that have adapted to the toxins etc in that one tank. Even Sanjay in the video alludes to this.

You have a theory. That is all. You have some anecdotal evidence to support your theory. You have not proven any of the statements in your post above.

Having gone a ridiculous number of years without changing any water - I can tell you it is indeed sustainable. It wasn't really a grand plan on my part. I had a business to run, small children and cancer. But I continued to grow a lot of macro algae and macro algae is remarkably effective at keeping a tank in balance. Even so, the tank certainly did not thrive. Coral growth was glacial. Keeping more than one or two fish created more macro algae than I wanted to deal with. My assumption was that if I dosed calcium, bicarbonate and magnesium then feeding the fish a varied diet would provide everything else the corals needed. That clearly was a false assumption given what I know now. I learned a lot from the experience but I wouldn't go back to zero water changes. But you can certainly go an indefinite period of time without a water change depending on your fish load and the corals you wish to keep.

 

[TbyZ]

The point that you missed is that I was focusing on the word forever. No one has tested these things for extended periods of time let alone ‘forever’.

The other point you conveniently ignored is that many of these no water change tanks have inhabitants that have adapted to the toxins etc in that one tank. Even Sanjay in the video alludes to this.

You have a theory. That is all. You have some anecdotal evidence to support your theory. You have not proven any of the statements in your post above.

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.

 

[Newb73]

Having gone a ridiculous number of years without changing any water - I can tell you it is indeed sustainable. It wasn't really a grand plan on my part. I had a business to run, small children and cancer. But I continued to grow a lot of macro algae and macro algae is remarkably effective at keeping a tank in balance. Even so, the tank certainly did not thrive. Coral growth was glacial. Keeping more than one or two fish created more macro algae than I wanted to deal with. My assumption was that if I dosed calcium, bicarbonate and magnesium then feeding the fish a varied diet would provide everything else the corals needed. That clearly was a false assumption given what I know now. I learned a lot from the experience but I wouldn't go back to zero water changes. But you can certainly go an indefinite period of time without a water change depending on your fish load and the corals you wish to keep.

Might be a problem with my 4 tangs, 8 chromis, 2 anthias, 2 cardinals, 4 clowns, orchid dotty back, 4 turbos, 3 shrimp, star fish and assorted hermits then.....

 

[bif24701]

There is a diminishing return. A small water change replenishes everything. Eventually, however, you get to a point where the water change is just replenishing calcium and bicarbonate. And then it becomes cheaper to just add calcium and bicarbonate. The cool thing about the Triton test is that you can figure out roughly what your tank is using each month and then compare it to your salt mix and calculate the optimal amount of water to change. From a financial return standpoint that is. But you also need to find a salt mix that aligns nicely with what your tank is using and / or accumulating.

IO cost less than a Triton test. So I am saving money right there already. I just don't see if saving myself any money.

 

[TbyZ]

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.

The problem can occur whether or not regular water changes are done.
What an unhealthy level is I don't know, but it can be measured using the ICP tests many here get done.
As I said, the potential problem can be overcome by also dosing non sodium chloride salts (Balling Method), using instead a calcium reactor, or kalkwasser.

 

[TbyZ]

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

 

[MnFish1]

Even so, the tank certainly did not thrive. Coral growth was glacial.

Keeping more than one or two fish created more macro algae than I wanted to deal with. My assumption was that if I dosed calcium, bicarbonate and magnesium then feeding the fish a varied diet would provide everything else the corals needed. That clearly was a false assumption given what I know now. I learned a lot from the experience but I wouldn't go back to zero water changes. But you can certainly go an indefinite period of time without a water change depending on your fish load and the corals you wish to keep.

Right - I agree with you Scott - you can do almost anything to a tank - and certain inhabitants will survive others will not. I dont think its appropriate to congratulate the survivors and forget the ones that did not survive the experiment. I agree with you - you can get away with no water changes - but it is not optimal - and the inhabitants in your tank will suffer from this.