The Ultimate Water Change??

[b_rad_G]

Exactly. This I what I was trying to say before

But you have to remember the opposite is also true. Any trace that is being used consistently will eventually be low as well.

 

[d2mini]

Here's some responses from Randy on the subject of no water changes I'm pulling from a thread on Reef Central. I hope he doesn't mind.
This is what I was getting at earlier. As someone else tried to explain for me, the average reefer is not thinking about a lot of this.

Are there any good test kits that will help test for trace elements?


I don't believe there are any whatsoever, good or bad, if you really mean trace elements.


All corals are doing great with only dosing cal and alk 4 times a day with apex.


Dosing what, exactly?


All such products will bring in trace elements, as will fish foods. Top off water may as well, unless you use good quality RO/DI.


But some nontrace elements might need repleneshment eventually if the supplements you use do not contain sufficient amounts. Magnesium is a notable one. Silicate may be another if you are keeping sponges.


As to trace elements, iron may or may not be useful, depending on whether you are trying to grow macroalgae.


I know that you are not interested in water changes, but I detail what they can and cannot accomplish here:


Water Changes in Reef Aquaria
Water Changes in Reef Aquaria by Randy Holmes-Farley - Reefkeeping.com


the conclusion from it:


Conclusion
Water changes are a good way to help control certain processes that serve to drive reef aquarium water away from its starting purity. Some things build up in certain situations (organics, certain metals, sodium, chloride, nitrate, phosphate, sulfate, etc.), and some things become depleted (calcium, magnesium, alkalinity, strontium, silica, etc.). Water changes can serve to help correct these imbalances, and in some cases may be the best way to deal with them. Water changes of 15-30% per month (whether carried out once a month, daily or continuously) have been shown in the graphs above to be useful in moderating the drift of these different seawater components from starting levels. For most reef aquaria, I recommend such changes as good aquarium husbandry. In general, the more the better, if carried out appropriately, and if the new salt water is of appropriate quality.


Calcium and alkalinity, being rapidly depleted in most reef aquaria, are not well controlled, or even significantly impacted by such small water changes. In order to maintain them with no other supplements, changes on the order of 30-50% PER DAY would be required. Nevertheless, that option may still be a good choice for very small aquaria, especially if the changes are slow and automatic.

I'm only asking for people that understand the science behind not doing the water changes. I don't want a bunch of comments just saying do 10%-30% ect...



Sure, we can do that. That's just not what you said.


OK, so the BRS additive. If you use the magnesium part that should come with it, then you are set in that regard. If not, then magnesium will decline over time. Other two parts systems might be a better bet if you never do water changes so you are not driving them down with the calcium and alk only additions. Things like potassium, for example, may not be present in those BRS additives in sufficient quantity. Sulfate is certainly being driven down long term if you are not adding any and are using chloride based calcium additions. Note that nothing I mentioned in this paragraph is a trace element.


I'm not worried about build up as most of the bad stuff nitrate phosphate are removed from biopellets and skimmer.


Not worried about heavy metals? OK, but some do build up since they come in with every feeding. Nitrate and phosphate are the least reasons for a water change, IMO. Toxic organics? OK, maybe they don't concern you. Chloride buildup relative to sulfate? Water changes help that, especially since you are not appearing to use a balanced chloride/sulfate additive system. Borate may get depleted, but that may not be a concern. Same for strontium, which will get depleted, but I wouldn't supplement it. You are adding iodine, which may or may not be useful, but it is certainly depleted. Silicate will be rapidly depleted. FWIW, none of these are trace elements.


Now as for the link you posted. Its really only showing what happens if you never dose anything to help replenish what is being used up.


Is it? I thought many of the graphs related to things building up and things being depleted.

But I think the original topic of Ben/Mike P's thread has gone way off topic.
It was about how you do your water changes. Not how you DON'T do them.

 

[reeffirstaid]

I do a 10% system volume water change weekly. 5% on Wednesday and 5% on Sunday. My total system is about 230 gallons of water. To me, they are super important.

 

[mrcoffee2]

Actually, there are a growing number of reefers that run their tanks this way. I know a guy who almost never does water changes, and he has run a very nice SPS dominant mixed reef for many years. So...it can be done.

Thank you for supporting me… I know I am not alone

 

[mrcoffee2]

I disagree and I am sure everyone else here dose as well.

Not doing water changes is bad very very bad.

It sounds crazy I know… However if you saw my tank growth I am sure you would be convinced otherwise

 

[kingsofke]

I also have not done any intentional water change in last 10 months my tanks is up and running. I have a 450 gallon display, 180 gallon sump and 75 gallon refugium. I have had to add saltwater due to salt loss from drips and have had two overflow accidents loosing 30-40 gallons of water. Over the last 10 months i have used 200 gallons worth of salt. So I guess i have changed 40% or so of water since its set up. Actually the water has probably all been replaced multiple times over as i have about 5-10 gallons evaporation daily which means i loose the total volume in evaporation within 3 months or so. I dose three parts per randy-holmes excellent post. I do add trace elements by kent as per their instructions, add vitamin supplements to food and extra Iron for macro refugium. I also feed heavily and have about 35 or so fishes in the tank. I do have phosphates creep up to 0.17 last checked and have started dosing vodka. I used 6-8 inch deep sand bed in refugium and my nitrates have never been more than 5 ppm.

If for the sake of discussion we assume that deficiencies of elements in the tank can be corrected (or over corrected in most cases, with all the additives being pushed in the market) the main question to ask is the export out of the tank. The main export needs being nitrates and phosphates, may be silicates, possibly chloride or sulfates. And many trace elements that are not being actively used or are present in salt in excess of what is present in ocean. There are excellent articles discussing ways to reduce nitrates, and no maximum tolerable nitrate level in the tanks have been formally decided, we do know that seawater does not have much nitrate. Phosphates targets are somewhat more clear and most people will accept 0.1 ppm a reasonable starting goal for maximum tolerable.

As for the heavy metals There is data to suggest that skimmer scum, macro algae, xenia corals are all good source of removing many such elements (at least the ones that can be tested for). However most research is lacking in this respect. It is clear that some elements are much higher in synthetic sea salts and will always stay at that high level with frequent water changes. However there toxicity is not clear at present. I would take Iron as an obvious example. But there are many examples. This also brings me to a burning question i always have: What is synthetic sea salt, how is it prepared, why the data on its composition a closely guarded secret and why we believe that taking some out and putting new one in is an extremely beneficial or unavoidable goal. Is it actually a dried sea salt ? from what part of ocean, is it the same sea water that is on the coral reefs that is evoparoted to make our excellent synthetic sea salts. Why are there so many brands. Why do people have trouble switching from one to other. If all these different composition can all work fine for everybody then whats wrong with just using the additives and three parts etc. What is so important about using the synthetic salt in water to be used. I guess the answer is that it is not about adding as much as it is about exporting the bad stuff out as i noted earlier in my assumption.

coming back to that we have already solve the nitrate/phosphate issue. We are not clear on the trace elements but i am suggesting that they do get exported out through our methods and may actually stay high with water changes due to high levels in synthetic salts. although evidence is not strong in either way in this. (lack of evidence here should not be confused with an evidence in itself). The last thing i have heard people through out is DOC or dissolved organic nutrients (taking out the Nitrogen and phosphate, it actually leaves mostly carbon to discuss here). We actually have debates now on importance of ADDING organic carbon as vodka, vinegar or biopellets (starch or similar polymers). hmm docent that make the situation suddenly very interesting.

No their is no conclusion here, it is an open ended post.

 

[Bronson Foster]

I'd like to know more about vodka dosing. pros & cons. also ratio.

 

[Diesel]

Well, we getting more info than I was expecting.
Good info so far, and I'm surprised that there are nice tanks out there that go with minimal or not at all a WC.
We should have a thread just for these systems, might be helpful for all of us.
Maybe we can see some pics from ppl that have tanks like that.
Maybe it was better "Water change, yes or no and if yes why as if no why no"

 

[Mike Paletta]

It is interesting that most of the focus on water changes has been on what they add. Most of the discussions that I have had in regards to doing small versus large have focused the other way, i.e. what they remove. That is why larger were thought better than smaller in that they removed more compounds that accumulated over time. like dissolved organics and heavy metals, which are difficult to test for. When I had my own water tested by a commercial laboratory I was amazed by how high the levels of some potentially toxic elements were in the tank such as arsenic and copper. That is why I have done larger versus smaller water changes, and also why I believe that is what was initially recommended in terms of how to do water changes.
Also I am curious as to the hobbyists who do minimal or no water changes and have successful tanks, as to what their fish loads are? In my own tanks, I have found that when my fish loads are high, which they generally are, and hence I feed more, I need to do more frequent large water changes in order to keep the tank performing optimally. So do you guys who are doing minimal water changes also have low fish loads or are you keeping only small fish or are you doing something else to keep bad compounds from accumulating?

 

[tyler1503]

But you have to remember the opposite is also true. Any trace that is being used consistently will eventually be low as well.

Good point, that's something I didn't consider i read your other comment describing how it works and I think you've got it spot on. I think that's where a single larger water change (say 50% or more every second month or so?) could be useful. I've never done that so I can't moment much further on that though.

It is interesting that most of the focus on water changes has been on what they add. Most of the discussions that I have had in regards to doing small versus large have focused the other way, i.e. what they remove. That is why larger were thought better than smaller in that they removed more compounds that accumulated over time. like dissolved organics and heavy metals, which are difficult to test for. When I had my own water tested by a commercial laboratory I was amazed by how high the levels of some potentially toxic elements were in the tank such as arsenic and copper. That is why I have done larger versus smaller water changes, and also why I believe that is what was initially recommended in terms of how to do water changes.
Also I am curious as to the hobbyists who do minimal or no water changes and have successful tanks, as to what their fish loads are? In my own tanks, I have found that when my fish loads are high, which they generally are, and hence I feed more, I need to do more frequent large water changes in order to keep the tank performing optimally. So do you guys who are doing minimal water changes also have low fish loads or are you keeping only small fish or are you doing something else to keep bad compounds from accumulating?

It's interesting you brought up both arsenic and copper. After a bit of research into natural seawater I did last night, it seems these are naturally occurring in the ocean. To my understanding, that means it has to have some use to some living organism in the ocean. If it weren't used up, it would continually build up and kill off....well, just about everything on the planet. SOMETHING in the ocean has to use it in order to keep the concentration low. I found that pretty interesting.
As for your question about those of us who don't do many water changes and our bio loads, I have a 5gal reef with LPS and softies. I have 2 sand gobys in it and feed pretty large amounts of flake and nori once a day and some type of meaty food once a day. I don't have any type of filtration besides live rock, sand, live rock rubble and flow. I have a bit of algae, but it grows slowly, so once I clean it off it's generally good for quite a while before the next scraping, at least no more than a tank with regular water changes.
I don't have the exact numbers on me, but my nitrates haven't exceeded 10 in over a year and phosphate is generally undetectable. I use API test kits so that might not be the most accurate numbers, but it's a reference point at least.