Why are some people anti-waterchanges?

[Js.Aqua.Project]

For me, it was cost.

I'm a low budget reefer trying to afford this hobby on a teacher's salary. I have a 240 gal tank and trying to do water changes weekly and dosing to maintain the water quality is more expensive than running a calcium reactor, skimmer, refugium, carbon/GFO, and testing all in addition to keeping an eye on the occupants to make sure they are happy and safe.

With salt being around $100 per 200gal mix depending on the brand you prefer it is much cheaper to go without at my size tank since I'd be doing a 25gal w/c weekly to do 10%. That's $600/year in salt alone.

 

[GARRIGA]

I think the cryptic zones are a fun and interesting thing to employ, and my systems had them. I also dosed silicate which boosted their growth. But I caution against taking subseas's comment below too expansively for the reasons I outline below it:

"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."

1. First, it isn't sensible to claim something (sponges) consumes 5 fold more DOC than something else (GAC or skimming) does without quantifying how much of each (sponges and GAC) was used. Obviously that ratio can be jiggered from a million fold more to a million fold less by adjusting the relative amounts of each.

2. If the actual comparator in the study was not amount consumed, but reduced to a lower concentration, then that limits the utility even more. If some random DOC is reduced from 100 to 1 ppb by GAC and 100 to 0.2 ppb by sponges, one might correctly claim the sponge was 5 times more efficient. But functionally, is that an important difference?

3. The types of DOC subsea quotes are readily metabolized and "wanted" by sponges and other organisms. But if you alternatively looked at toxins (natural from tank creatures or man made from foods and other additives) such as caulerpacin from caulerpa or organotin compounds from tubing, , would organisms that may not want to be exposed to these at all be just as effective or more so than GAC, which only cares about chemical functionality, as opposed to biological toxicity?

My only concern is finding something to avoid a WC from being the only solution to resolving the unknown. Therefore would employing a cryptic zone along with other filtration including a Fuge, ozone and GAC help solves this concern?

Storing water of ample volume is going to be a problem. Why I'm looking into using Ultrafiltration plus other means of stripping that RODI would have provided just to fill it and top it off as well as reducing evaporation and relying on dual Fuge to ensure plants are functioning round the clock to solve gas exchange.

Have a spot where a 500 can take residence yet no place to store enough beyond perhaps 100 for emergencies and my garage is on the opposite side of the house relative to it's placement. AWC would be a plumbing nightmare and running a hose through the house more than absolute minimum gets me divorced quickly

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

My only concern is finding something to avoid a WC from being the only solution to resolving the unknown. Therefore would employing a cryptic zone along with other filtration including a Fuge, ozone and GAC help solves this concern?

I don't know.

 

[saltwaterpicaso]

I went a year without a water change even with uv ozone over size skimmer and dosing i started to lose coral. then gha started i have had tanks for over 20 years and never had gha. im convinced once the rock becomes saturated it starts leaching it back into the water column. even with everything i have in place the water that i remove weekly now is dirty looking compared to what i am putting in the tank. i don't think long term no water changes are obtainable. maybe a few years but you don't hear of anyone on 5th or 10th year no water change.

 

[MnFish1]

My only concern is finding something to avoid a WC from being the only solution to resolving the unknown. Therefore would employing a cryptic zone along with other filtration including a Fuge, ozone and GAC help solves this concern?

Isn't one of the problems with any of these solutions the fact that its impossible to know whether/if a given toxin will be removed by a given refugium - or if the chosen plants remove every toxin one wants removed. How does one know whether they have enough plants to remove a given amount of toxin from the tank. With water changes, one knows exactly (or relatively exactly) what percent of 'toxins' is being removed. The studies I've seen with regards to phyto-detoxification seem to involve looking at using a specific plant(s) to solve a specific problem?

 

[Raul-7]

Exactly; no amount of filtration, sponges, sulfur bacteria, etc. will replace waterchanges. There's no magic formula that will remove everything we do not want and keep everything we do want.

The ideal solution would be a dialysis machine that selectively removes everything that isn't NaCl, Ca++, Mg++, and H2O. But that does not exist and will likely cost in 10's of thousands.

Hence WCs are the safest and cheapest method we currently have available.

 

[GARRIGA]

Isn't one of the problems with any of these solutions the fact that its impossible to know whether/if a given toxin will be removed by a given refugium - or if the chosen plants remove every toxin one wants removed. How does one know whether they have enough plants to remove a given amount of toxin from the tank. With water changes, one knows exactly (or relatively exactly) what percent of 'toxins' is being removed. The studies I've seen with regards to phyto-detoxification seem to involve looking at using a specific plant(s) to solve a specific problem?

Makes sense and in the end might have to go off how my inhabitants as they appear to be thriving as to when that water change must occur or pick inhabitants that best fit my style because chasing rainbows not how I go although an Acro heavy tank would be nice yet not necessary to enjoy my hobby. Mushrooms and coralline might suffice plus as many tangs as that police will allow

 

[GARRIGA]

Exactly; no amount of filtration, sponges, sulfur bacteria, etc. will replace waterchanges. There's no magic formula that will remove everything we do not want and keep everything we do want.

The ideal solution would be a dialysis machine that selectively removes everything that isn't NaCl, Ca++, Mg++, and H2O. But that does not exist and will likely cost in 10's of thousands.

Hence WCs are the safest and cheapest method we currently have available.

Ultrafiltration used in dialysis yet only solves to 0.025 microns and still doesn't remove everything but perhaps these toxins are larger than that. Being these are an unknown then size likely as such. Wouldn't be expensive and something I'm toying with for QT and might be doable in a reef display although would require several down sizing filters to avoid getting the final clogged and not something run daily but perhaps periodically same as we did with diatomaceous earth filters back in the 70s.

 

[MnFish1]

Makes sense and in the end might have to go off how my inhabitants as they appear to be thriving as to when that water change must occur or pick inhabitants that best fit my style because chasing rainbows not how I go although an Acro heavy tank would be nice yet not necessary to enjoy my hobby. Mushrooms and coralline might suffice plus as many tangs as that police will allow

This is another point I meant to make - IMHO the reason it seems like so many different water parameters and methods for keeping a 'reef tank' succeed, is that, without really realizing it, the tank and inhabitants 'self-select'. I.e., A coral that does not do well with method A will likely die/be outgrown in one tank, yet, does wonderfully in a tank with method B. I think this in part explains tanks where let's say nitrates are > 100 yet the owner says - everything is doing well.

 

[MnFish1]

Ultrafiltration used in dialysis yet only solves to 0.025 microns and still doesn't remove everything but perhaps these toxins are larger than that. Being these are an unknown then size likely as such. Wouldn't be expensive and something I'm toying with for QT and might be doable in a reef display although would require several down sizing filters to avoid getting the final clogged and not something run daily but perhaps periodically same as we did with diatomaceous earth filters back in the 70s.

Ultrafiltration (which is one part of a full dialysis treatment) basically removes excess water, minerals and small molecules The 'Dialysis portion' replaces the some of the water and desirable minerals (like potassium, sodium, bicarbonate) simultaneously - which is actually much like a 'water change'.

There are times that ultrafiltration alone is used to remove 'water' - but ultrafiltration alone does not 'clean' the blood/plasma.

I do not see how the system you're proposing would work to remove 'toxins' from the tank - but I'm probably misunderstanding!

 

[GARRIGA]

This is another point I meant to make - IMHO the reason it seems like so many different water parameters and methods for keeping a 'reef tank' succeed, is that, without really realizing it, the tank and inhabitants 'self-select'. I.e., A coral that does not do well with method A will likely die/be outgrown in one tank, yet, does wonderfully in a tank with method B. I think this in part explains tanks where let's say nitrates are > 100 yet the owner says - everything is doing well.

Exactly why I'll build best design that fits my life style and constraints then see what best survives. Don't see the value in jumping through unnecessary hoops trying to solve an impossible task. Although I'm doing my research and running test to best solve that design and luckily I still have plenty of time. Plus nothing wrong with coralline laced rocks and mushrooms plus inverts. In the 80s those were considered reef tanks. Perhaps one monster plating Monti will be enough. Like those and yet seems they get ignored because too easy to grow.

 

[GARRIGA]

Ultrafiltration (which is one part of a full dialysis treatment) basically removes excess water, minerals and small molecules The 'Dialysis portion' replaces the some of the water and desirable minerals (like potassium, sodium, bicarbonate) simultaneously - which is actually much like a 'water change'.

There are times that ultrafiltration alone is used to remove 'water' - but ultrafiltration alone does not 'clean' the blood/plasma.

I do not see how the system you're proposing would work to remove 'toxins' from the tank - but I'm probably misunderstanding!

Not knowing how small these unknown toxin are then I don't know if 0.025 micron filtration will remove them. That's my only concern. It's able to remove pesticides, my understanding.

As for the part about replacing potassium and such, that gets solved with trace replenishment. Why I'm only focused on the removal part. Solve that and one doesn't have to physically change water to actually change water.

 

[sfin52]

For me, it was cost.

I'm a low budget reefer trying to afford this hobby on a teacher's salary. I have a 240 gal tank and trying to do water changes weekly and dosing to maintain the water quality is more expensive than running a calcium reactor, skimmer, refugium, carbon/GFO, and testing all in addition to keeping an eye on the occupants to make sure they are happy and safe.

With salt being around $100 per 200gal mix depending on the brand you prefer it is much cheaper to go without at my size tank since I'd be doing a 25gal w/c weekly to do 10%. That's $600/year in salt alone.

Time to look at instant ocean. 55 for 200g box.

 

[Js.Aqua.Project]

Time to look at instant ocean. 55 for 200g box.

IO is widely too inconsistent box-to-box in its Ca and dKH. The last time I saw it on BRS it was $70 for 150gal bag and prices are rarely known to go down in this hobby.

I know it is tried and true for a lot of people but it just isn't my slice of pie. I strive for stability without having to doctor the salt to achieve the same parameters batch-to-batch.

I'm going on year 3 without consistent water changes, and I would like to point out that word consistent. If the tank is having an issue that cannot be resolved through a simple dosing correction I will perform a water change - the last one was about 9 months ago due to a Cyano outbreak that I ended up treating and performing the requisite water change after.

 

[sfin52]

IO is widely too inconsistent box-to-box in its Ca and dKH. The last time I saw it on BRS it was $70 for 150gal bag and prices are rarely known to go down in this hobby.

I know it is tried and true for a lot of people but it just isn't my slice of pie. I strive for stability without having to doctor the salt to achieve the same parameters batch-to-batch.

I'm going on year 3 without consistent water changes, and I would like to point out that word consistent. If the tank is having an issue that cannot be resolved through a simple dosing correction I will perform a water change - the last one was about 9 months ago due to a Cyano outbreak that I ended up treating and performing the requisite water change after.

That right there is your problem. You go to brs. Chewy and petsmart.

If it was so iff I doubt many aquariums would use it. Take any brand of salt and I'll show you very successful tanks. If it's good enough for shed aquarium it's good enough for me

 

[Js.Aqua.Project]

If it was so iff I doubt many aquariums would use it. Take any brand of salt and I'll show you very successful tanks. If it's good enough for shed aquarium it's good enough for me

Agreed, I've always been partial to Red Sea Coral Pro as it has always been consistent for me and I've had good coloration and growth with it.

Granted, I tend to shop BRS for convenience, but I am a savvy shopper and price compare before I hit checkout. I referenced BRS because the last time I was comparing salt prices it was their site I was on.

Shedd budget: $$$$$
My budget: ¢

Shedd staff: hundreds
My staff: me

I've done tons of tours at public aquariums and yes, a lot of them use IO and RC, most of them do a lot of testing, dosing, run CaRx, sulfur denitrification systems, deep sand bed reactors, and some of them don't do water changes the way we think of them. One public aquarium in Destin, FL is fortunate enough to be situated on the gulf coast and for a lot of their systems just pumps the water in through their systems and right back out to the Gulf (they filter it before they return it to the Gulf).

I've toured UF's Tropical Aquaculture Laboratory and Indian River Research facility where they are both figuring our better methods to conserve one of the aquaculture industry's biggest expenses: water. They were both studying different denitrification methods and water reclamation methods to minimize/eliminate water changes in the high nutrient environment.

All of this is to say, there will always be people in this hobby and industry that are pro-W/C and people that are anti-W/C. In my 240 I am against it because of the long term cost being too high - but I just did a W/C on my son's 32 gal freshwater tank and will probably do one on my wife's 20gal nano reef this weekend. I interact with my tank daily and take frequent photos to log changes, and while this puts me in a reactive instead of proactive situation - do we really have the knowledge at this point to be proactive to every scenario to befall our hobby/industry?

Some people are anti-W/C because of the work involved, maybe it's because they believe a fuge is efficient enough, or they truly believe in testing. It will always annoy the pro-W/C crowd (insert generic "there are two types of people" meme here).

There is a lot we don't know, we know math says water changes alone will never get out all the impurities or replenish everything we need - but they may help reducing DOC and other toxins because we don't know for certain what toxins and DOCs are effectively removed by skimmers and carbon (but again that pesky math - can't remove all of it with water changes alone).

Can we just call this discussion moot as it is now spiraling into other threads?

 

[jda]

Tyree and the cryptic zone filtration guys used to recommend water changes still when they were all of the rage back when Reef Farmers was not a joke. I don't remember the specifics, but most of the sponges and other cryptic zone things were not capable of filtering heavy metals or toxins and might even create some of their own.

I want to say that they recommended diatom filters to get toxins bound to organics at a super high rate. Most folks probably don't know what these even are anymore or how effective they were. If you tried to tell most of the r2r crowd they might think that this was horse-and-buggy stuff since BRS does not do videos on them (unless they have).

Buy IO in the 200g box when it is on sale, use the whole bag in a 44g brute and no salt is ever as consistent as this - I have tried nearly all kinds of salt. The stuff needs extensively dry mixed if you buy the bucket.

I don't care if people change water or not. I think that everybody knows that I do not think that it is possible to never change water. However, the costs, frequency, work, etc. all should be reported accurately. I can change 44g of water with about 3 minutes worth of effort spread over a few days for about $10 with other costs - or 176 gallons for $40. I got my IO boxes for $32 shipped and I have a few left - no idea when the next sale will be so it could be more next time, like everything else. Nothing is cheaper, takes less time or is less risk for me.

 

[vlangel]

Water changes are tried and true. Folks who utilize WCs can have their tank up for decades along with their inhabitants. I know folks whose tanks fit this description. I myself have experienced having a thriving tank for over 12 years and I only took it down to move to a specie specific tank. The tank I have now has been up since 2016 and is better now than when it was only 2 or 3 years old. I have been able to slow down on WC because the tank is matured and more balanced where it is removing nutrients naturally by growing macroalgae. Then I prune the macros thus removing nutrients from the tank. However even with macros removing nutrients and dosing trace minerals to replenish, nothing is as economical and easy to resetting the balance of a tank as doing a water change. Remember, it is tried and true!

 

[Robs Reef]

Antiwater changes is a thing now? I dont believe we have a filteration system that can combat the accumulation of impurities that can build up overtime, especially if you have a heavy bioload. I skim heavy, I dont use socks or filter sleeves, or GAC or GFO. But I do water changes every 6-8 weeks, like clock work. Old Tank Syndrome is a thing, I believe in dilution in reducing organic compounds and other nuisances, and it's also important to know we can have too much of a good thing, When levels of even the beneficial bacteria start to overgrow and altered bacterial community structures have been linked to both fish and coral diseases and bleaching of sps.

 

[Raul-7]

Agreed; look at this way. Would you live in a room or house without fresh air or ventilation? You might survive, but is it really healthy?

Now apply that analogy to our aquariums [actually it's worse because they excrete waste into that water not only CO2].