Waterchanges might be a farce

[Waynerock]

I guess I am one of the fools that enjoy water changes. It gives me a change to reconnect with my tank and really go through everything. I have caught more starting issues that way that left unchecked would result in a crash. My tank is only 65g and I only change 5G a week so super easy compared to the rest of y’all. The water changes are mostly used to vacuum the glass and get rid of detritus. Prob not necessary but I am kinda old school and strongly believe in being hands on, no controller and only 1 doser. Like I said I still enjoy doing it after all these years and I honestly believe it’s a key for success. Not Necessarily the changing water part to getting in tune with the tank and gettin all in it and catching problems before they are one.

 

[TxReefer21]

So my background is reefing since 2005.

I use to be this big believer in bimonthly waterchanges .... but now slowly AND firmly changing my mind.

First off, I'm not a SPSer (acros and the like) ... thats a whooooole different ballgame. I'm a LPS'er, heavily involved in zoas/palys

Okay...to the point of this post:

Ever since discovering dosing the strain of blue-green Phytoplankton... im starting to truly believe that waterchanges are only really necessary for major/minor element control that get low or high.

So I'm asking myself;

"If I'm doing regular waterchanges "just because...", am I taking out all that good biochemistry that includes built up phytoplankton? I mean... look at a natural reef swarming in blue-green phytoplankton giving that ocean reef water that turquoise look"

"Is adding brand new saltwater putting a stress on my little ecosystem, where this new water has to biochemically cook and convert??"

Ever since:

* slowing down my waterchanges

* using my skimming to more-wet

* dosing blue-green strain of phytoplankton

* dosing trace elements thru a product called Replinish

* testing and looking for out of range Calcium, Alk and Mag

..... Im seeing mushrooms, zoas, palys plump up to sizes ive never seen before.

So religious Waterchanger ppl might say "What about nitrate/Phosphate control? You gotta change your water every 2 weeks!"

In some mild researching, I'm reading how dosing the strain of Blue-Green Phytoplankton OUTCOMPETES nuisance algae and makes for a more balanced tank.

I'm reeeeally starting to think regular waterchanges is dumping good biochemical water down the drain that worked so hard to achieve a balance.

If I can control my NO3 and PO4 thru heavy skimming, dosing phytoplankton .... why would I do a waterchange UNLESS smthg like Calcium or Carbonate or Magnesium was off?

And if I can dose major and minor elements to keep them within range...AND my no3/po4 are in check... why do a waterchange?

Dilute my biochemistry and the phytoplankton > zooplankton > corals and fish ecosystem chain (?)

To where new saltwater has to "re-cook" that biochemistry?

WHATS YOUR OPINION ON WATERCHANGES????




.

As I do quiet a bit of water changes I think I’m going to feed VERY LITTLE and see how well things can go with little to no water changes at all just top off with rodi however if coraline algae takes over and gets out of control it can take way any neutrients the corals feed off of

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

If you're doing even a subset of these things why would you change out water? What are you trying to replace or remove?

Export of organics and inorganics that may accumulate and that are resistant to removal in other ways.

Keeping the major ions such as potassium and bromide tugged toward normal, whether they tend to accumulate or be depleted.

Since I used only limewater (kalkwasser), a big benefit of water changes long term is to keep calcium from rising excessively. I cannot think of any other way to keep it in line in my system, aside from messing with other dosing systems at the same time:

This from one of my article:

Calcium (Ca). In my reef aquarium, I use only Instant Ocean salt and I have not added any additional calcium except as limewater for a number of years (during which time I have continued regular 1% daily water changes). So why is my calcium level (472 mg/L) higher than one would normally expect for Instant Ocean (maybe between 350 and 400 mg/L)? That long term rise in calcium is actually the expected result when using limewater to maintain alkalinity.

Limewater adds calcium and alkalinity in exactly the same proportions as in pure calcium carbonate. So if that is what is used by corals to make skeletons, and what precipitates on pumps and such, then calcium would stay constant.

But both magnesium and strontium get into growing calcium carbonate crystals in place of some of the calcium. A few percent of the calcium is replaced this way. Consequently, since the same amount of alkalinity (the carbonate) is used over time, and somewhat less than the balancing amount of calcium, calcium rises if alkalinity is maintained. I’m happy to see the result match the theory, and the calcium level seems fine to me.

 

[rmurken]

Yeah come to think of it, for a higher-demand tank, seems like unless you rely solely on kalk or a calcium reactor, you’d need to use something like Triton or very careful supplementation to get away with no or very rare WC’s. Maybe obvious. Maybe lost on a 10%/week WC Luddite like me.

 

[Skibum]

I guess I am one of the fools that enjoy water changes. It gives me a change to reconnect with my tank and really go through everything. I have caught more starting issues that way that left unchecked would result in a crash. My tank is only 65g and I only change 5G a week so super easy compared to the rest of y’all. The water changes are mostly used to vacuum the glass and get rid of detritus. Prob not necessary but I am kinda old school and strongly believe in being hands on, no controller and only 1 doser. Like I said I still enjoy doing it after all these years and I honestly believe it’s a key for success. Not Necessarily the changing water part to getting in tune with the tank and gettin all in it and catching problems before they are one.

Nobody said people who do WC were fools. Some of us just believe it's unnecessary. Remember when your mom told you that all the nutrition of the bread was in the crust? Water changes are like that. ;-)

 

[jaxteller007]

I culture my own. I started with some phyto from a local company a few years ago. They are no longer open, but one of the partners started his own business doing the same thing. His name is Sam and he is a great guy.

here is the link to his website. You can give him a call, as he is still working out the website and such. He does ship, as well.

SEAHORSE SAM AQUACULTURE - Google Search

I'll have to check him out. That's not far from me.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Nobody said people who do WC were fools. Some of us just believe it's unnecessary. Remember when your mom told you that all the nutrition of the bread was in the crust? Water changes are like that. ;-)

lol

My mother was a chemist and never made false science claims.

Have you ever tried running your tank with everything the same as now, but doing small frequent water changes to see if there is a difference?

 

[Eagle_Steve]

I'll have to check him out. That's not far from me.

He is right down the road from Emerald Bay.

 

[Skibum]

lol

My mother was a chemist and never made false science claims.

Have you ever tried running your tank with everything the same as now, but doing small frequent water changes to see if there is a difference?

I've never tried regular water changes since the tank was operational. The reason being is that I observe my tank every day for hours (I work from home). I have yet to see any deleterious effects from not changing water. Others (Glenn Fong et al) have noted that too. I'm not arguing about the ratio of ions or the lack of trace minerals that get replaced with WC. I don't think that's really arguable unless you're testing for those things constantly and replacing them with dosing. I do test for SG as that seems to be the one that can get out of control and really wreak havoc if it gets too high. So if a WC consists of me sometimes replacing too salty water with Fresh water then I'm in that camp.

The real reason I don't do WC is because I don't have the time or space. If I were to take you up on your challenge to do 10% weekly I would imagine nothing would happen and my animals would be as happy as they are now. But it would be hard to measure if they were "more" happy. I would have to set up lots of growth rate tests and other objective measurements for elements I don't test for now. My current measurement stick is Acropora. I have 9 species of Acropora, 8 of which are growing really well. The common assumption for a long time in the hobby is that Acros are the hardest SPS to keep. I agree with that sentiment as they tend to be the most finicky and hardest to adapt. But adapt they do, and they do grow in my system. As to what is better WC or no WC ... who knows? I DO know that by not doing WC I save money and time and mess.

I think the thing that gets me is the argument that WC is the key to success in this hobby. It's not the key and demonstrably so. I do think it's an easy way for new hobbyists to have a catch all for every problem with water chemistry. WC works for lots of folks and that's awesome. No WC works for lots of folks and that's awesome too. From everything I've observed from my tank and read from others, no WC is simply another way to do the hobby.

JM2C

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I've never tried regular water changes since the tank was operational. The reason being is that I observe my tank every day for hours (I work from home). I have yet to see any deleterious effects from not changing water. Others (Glenn Fong et al) have noted that too. I'm not arguing about the ratio of ions or the lack of trace minerals that get replaced with WC. I don't think that's really arguable unless you're testing for those things constantly and replacing them with dosing. I do test for SG as that seems to be the one that can get out of control and really wreak havoc if it gets too high. So if a WC consists of me sometimes replacing too salty water with Fresh water then I'm in that camp.

The real reason I don't do WC is because I don't have the time or space. If I were to take you up on your challenge to do 10% weekly I would imagine nothing would happen and my animals would be as happy as they are now. But it would be hard to measure if they were "more" happy. I would have to set up lots of growth rate tests and other objective measurements for elements I don't test for now. My current measurement stick is Acropora. I have 9 species of Acropora, 8 of which are growing really well. The common assumption for a long time in the hobby is that Acros are the hardest SPS to keep. I agree with that sentiment as they tend to be the most finicky and hardest to adapt. But adapt they do, and they do grow in my system. As to what is better WC or no WC ... who knows? I DO know that by not doing WC I save money and time and mess.

I think the thing that gets me is the argument that WC is the key to success in this hobby. It's not the key and demonstrably so. I do think it's an easy way for new hobbyists to have a catch all for every problem with water chemistry. WC works for lots of folks and that's awesome. No WC works for lots of folks and that's awesome too. From everything I've observed from my tank and read from others, no WC is simply another way to do the hobby.

JM2C

My point is that stating that water changes are not necessary (I definitely agree) is VERY different than claiming the tank would not or could not be better with them.

You experience is a good example of the former, without any evidence to the latter being true or not.

 

[AngryOwl]

I've never tried regular water changes since the tank was operational. The reason being is that I observe my tank every day for hours (I work from home). I have yet to see any deleterious effects from not changing water. Others (Glenn Fong et al) have noted that too. I'm not arguing about the ratio of ions or the lack of trace minerals that get replaced with WC. I don't think that's really arguable unless you're testing for those things constantly and replacing them with dosing. I do test for SG as that seems to be the one that can get out of control and really wreak havoc if it gets too high. So if a WC consists of me sometimes replacing too salty water with Fresh water then I'm in that camp.

The real reason I don't do WC is because I don't have the time or space. If I were to take you up on your challenge to do 10% weekly I would imagine nothing would happen and my animals would be as happy as they are now. But it would be hard to measure if they were "more" happy. I would have to set up lots of growth rate tests and other objective measurements for elements I don't test for now. My current measurement stick is Acropora. I have 9 species of Acropora, 8 of which are growing really well. The common assumption for a long time in the hobby is that Acros are the hardest SPS to keep. I agree with that sentiment as they tend to be the most finicky and hardest to adapt. But adapt they do, and they do grow in my system. As to what is better WC or no WC ... who knows? I DO know that by not doing WC I save money and time and mess.

I think the thing that gets me is the argument that WC is the key to success in this hobby. It's not the key and demonstrably so. I do think it's an easy way for new hobbyists to have a catch all for every problem with water chemistry. WC works for lots of folks and that's awesome. No WC works for lots of folks and that's awesome too. From everything I've observed from my tank and read from others, no WC is simply another way to do the hobby.

JM2C

One way to measure if the tank is more or less happy on WC is to just test the Alk and see if consumption goes up or down. Higher consumption = happy and Lower = unhappy. Not saying you should experiment, just wanted to throw in a arbitrary way to measure it.

 

[Skibum]

One way to measure if the tank is more or less happy on WC is to just test the Alk and see if consumption goes up or down. Higher consumption = happy and Lower = unhappy. Not saying you should experiment, just wanted to throw in a arbitrary way to measure it.

I tested Alk daily for over 3 years. It had fluctuations like any other aquarium. I test it 2x montly now. I can barely keep my Alk above 7. I'm dripping Soda Ash to the tune of about 100ML daily now.

 

[Skibum]

My point is that stating that water changes are not necessary (I definitely agree) is VERY different than claiming the tank would not or could not be better with them.

You experience is a good example of the former, without any evidence to the latter being true or not.

I'm not sure you could actually prove the latter, however I don't recall making the claim that not doing WC is better. In some ways you could argue that no WC is better objectively ($, time, mess). But in terms of the health of the animals, I would suggest you need to set up tests that are beyond the capabilities of most hobbyists, myself included. The problem with open ended threads is that people *myself* included make inferences on arguments people are trying to make. I'll try to synthesize my arguments here:

Objective:

1. No WC = more time saved
2. No WC = less mess around the tank
3. No WC = less money spent on salt

Subjective:

1. You can grow corals by not performing WC
2. Is the health of the animals better by performing WC or not?
3. Do trace element limitations, absences, or ION imbalances effect the health of the animals?

For the subjective arguments:

1. Lots of people have made the correlation that WC are unnecessary to grow coral and keep fish. I'm in this camp. From my observations on my own system, corals grow just fine with no WC. As to why it works who knows, I think it has to do with the animals ability to adapt but like most things I'm usually wrong as that's just an assumption on my part.

2. I'm not aware of anyone making a claim that not doing WC is better for the health of the system or the fish. Maybe Glenn F has made this argument but he does lots more testing and supplementing than most.

3. I definitely have no way of proving that and I would assume you would need some extensive long term tests to draw a conclusion either way.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I'm not sure you could actually prove the latter,

Of course you could. You start doing water changes on a tank without them and track something that shows an improvement. Could be anything: coral color, growth, yellowing of the water, polyp extension, days to green glass, fish more active. Anything you care about and can quantify before and after. I'm not claiming any specific one will hold true, just that doing it is not hard. Folks make these sorts of claims constantly for the latest and greatest additive. Why not the same with a water change?

Or you could stop doing water changes and track something that gets worse.

I did this experiment for myself with skimming. When I had some sort of skimmer issue, i stopped skimming for several months. The main problem I quantified was inadequate aeration as noted by the ph rising excessively (I dose limewater). Simple and clear: the pH rose too much with inadequate aeration from the skimmer. That is why I now recommend skimmers, if for no other reason than aeration.

I also did this experiment for myself when I initiated ozone. Lots of before and after pictures of corals and yellowing of the water, etc. I publlished those experiments for folks too see for themselves the effect.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I tested Alk daily for over 3 years. It had fluctuations like any other aquarium. I test it 2x montly now. I can barely keep my Alk above 7. I'm dripping Soda Ash to the tune of about 100ML daily now.

But you do not have the comparator: same tank with water changes.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

One way to measure if the tank is more or less happy on WC is to just test the Alk and see if consumption goes up or down. Higher consumption = happy and Lower = unhappy. Not saying you should experiment, just wanted to throw in a arbitrary way to measure it.

Consumption goes up in most tanks with a pH increase and an alk increase.

Is that a sign of "happy", or just a response to conditions?

 

[AngryOwl]

Consumption goes up in most tanks with a pH increase and an alk increase.

Is that a sign of "happy", or just a response to conditions?

Yes? lol - I'm not a scientist by any stretch but it can be both IMO. There is a response to every condition good, bad or neutral... sometimes a bad response can even come before the good. When I increased my pH with a scrubber I had to supplement with increased dosing... indicating to me the tank is "happy" and rewarding my change in conditions with increased growth. Maybe I am missing your point here?

 

[LgTas]

I only do water changes with locally sourced unpolluted sea water. I do this because of the likely micro- fauna and flora suspended in sea water. There is a noticeable response from my corals and my hitch-hiker chili coral has thrived without any focused feeding. Only reason I would do synthetic salt water changes is to add or removed elements. Our seawater is naturally dkh 7, calcium 380 ppm and Mag 1200 ppm so I dose these to raise to my desired levels. Has worked for me and is backed by my wife who is a chemist for our state water and sanitation agency.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Yes? lol - I'm not a scientist by any stretch but it can be both IMO. There is a response to every condition good, bad or neutral... sometimes a bad response can even come before the good. When I increased my pH with a scrubber I had to supplement with increased dosing... indicating to me the tank is "happy" and rewarding my change in conditions with increased growth. Maybe I am missing your point here?

The only point is that while many folks recognize the faster growth at higher pH and alk, many folks would not recognize that means they are healthier or "happier", hence the trendy idea to "not chase" pH.

 

[TanksJB]

Of course you could. You start doing water changes on a tank without them and track something that shows an improvement. Could be anything: coral color, growth, yellowing of the water, polyp extension, days to green glass, fish more active. Anything you care about and can quantify before and after. I'm not claiming any specific one will hold true, just that doing it is not hard. Folks make these sorts of claims constantly for the latest and greatest additive. Why not the same with a water change?

Or you could stop doing water changes and track something that gets worse.

I did this experiment for myself with skimming. When I had some sort of skimmer issue, i stopped skimming for several months. The main problem I quantified was inadequate aeration as noted by the ph rising excessively (I dose limewater). Simple and clear: the pH rose too much with inadequate aeration from the skimmer. That is why I now recommend skimmers, if for no other reason than aeration.

I also did this experiment for myself when I initiated ozone. Lots of before and after pictures of corals and yellowing of the water, etc. I publlished those experiments for folks too see for themselves the effect.

Can't you just put in an air stone in your sump? That is what I plan to do in place of a skimmer. I agree there needs to be some extra aeration other than water movement, but I haven't experimented with that enough to know. If I decide I need a skimmer for protein removal, I will put one in, but right now I plan on not having one. I also have lower bio load than most but we shall see I guess.