Why are some people anti-waterchanges?

[The_Paradox]

That's fair, but I would point out that a salt mix matching NSW is a well known thing with perhaps just a single answer, while a given trace element supplement optimal for one tank's set of needs might not match another.

So is NWS prams the starting point of a good reef tank or the gold standard?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

So is NWS prams the starting point of a good reef tank or the gold standard?

It's certainly the starting point when no other info is known. As hobbyists learn or realize more information about both organism needs and the limitations of a reef tank compared to the ocean, the guides often need to deviate.

For example, nitrate and phosphate. Likely due to lack of particulate foods in many reef tanks, we may want keep them higher than the open ocean to provide sufficient nutrition to a corals.

Another example is higher alk and pH to boost growth rates in hard corals, if that is a goal. In the ocean they can be limiting to calcification, so providing more can help them grow faster.

 

[MnFish1]

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.

First of all there is there really a 'team water change' ? - I do not know of a set protocol that everyone (or even most people) uses for water changes. The 'common wisdom' used to be 10% per week - but I think has gone.

Second - Many here have multiple pieces of equipment for 'nutrient export' - water changes can obviate the need to have some of these pieces of equipment and simplify the system (JMO).

Third - If you just read one of the other threads in which people are debating ICP vs hobbiest test kits, you can see that there is huge debate as to whether and how accurate the testing is with regards to 'trace elements' - as well as whether or not specific elements are even being used. Then - if an element is high on an ICP test - what's the solution - a water change (usually)

So - since so many people use water changes, trace elements, ICP, etc so differently, and all methods have been shown that corals, etc can grow, thrive, etc I'm not sure what the argument is? Trace elements are added by feeding as well.

As to the X you ask about - ie.. has anyone identified the substance(s) that are being removed. There are probably multiple and they are probably different depending on what other nutrient export methods a person uses. Which leads me to the question - of the 30-40 items measured, for example, on ICP how many of them are actually 'needed'

 

[Lbrdsoxfan]

One thing I have learned in the last 32+ years is not every tank is the same, and after you get to the 300+ gallon tanks water changes are costly. I had to sell my perfect 310 with all my large angels because I was up to 100 gallon water changes to keep up with the pristine looking tank with coral and fish. The person who bought the tank has spent a ton of money on coral, fish, dosing, moonshiners and yes some water changes. You must be old to still be using the skin a cat saying which I have not heard that phrase in many years. The following attachment was a 158 that I had in my office that maintained itself with only 5 gallon water changes and 99% of the time the skimmer stayed unplugged. I would probably still have it if our company had not decided to change locations. The slimmer in the picture started as a 1" frag, and had a way of propelling itself from Xenia and GSP take over. Today in my 120 office tank and my 180 home tank I do 60 gallon water changes on a need to basis. Sometimes that's once a month, sometimes every two weeks?
158

120 at work

Old enough, lol. I still use that saying, regularly Beautiful tanks!

I used to subscribe to the 10% weekly water change formula for years on freshwater and salt water tanks. Back then I wasn't using rodi, just tap conditioner and wet/dry filters. The technology has changed so much, it seems like everything is stripped out with now high end filtration, better quality skimming and chemicals that weren't available at the consumer level. If I changed water weekly my tanks would be sterile and n&p would be constantly bottomed out.

 

[Viking_Reefing]

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.

Yeah, it’s kind of a half baked idea. Things WILL accumulate over time and some of those things you can’t even test for…not even accounting for the fact that ICP oes is highly unreliable.
If it wasn’t for this simple fact I’d be all over the no water change methodology.
There are ways to somewhat mitigate this, a large volume of corals will be the primary way through bioaccumulation.
However, it very rarely works long term. I have a number of friends with very large, mature tanks (2000L+) that jumped on the hype train when triton came out but no one lasted. They all ran in to issues and over a long enough time scale it wasn’t sustainable.

 

[MnFish1]

I have found that dosing trace elements as needed is much less destabilizing than regular WC and, in my opinion, is a better option. I do agree that if you don't have a solution for the polution then you should use dilution i.e. water changes, and most new reefers don't start by using one of the Trace Element dosing methods so they should be doing regular water changes. The OP's original question was "Why are some people anti-water change?", and while I am not "anti-water change", the reasons stated in my comments are why I no longer do regular water changes and I feel it has been very good for my systems.

Agree completely - and I think most of the people stating the benefits of water changes (of any sort), myself included, feel that its an easier way to manage a tank for early reefers, as compared to multiple tests, doses, etc. IMHO - the reason people seem to have so many problems with 'adding coral too early' - is not lack of biodiversity, but rather not knowing how to keep a tank stable.

 

[The_Paradox]

If I changed water weekly my tanks would be sterile and n&p would be constantly bottomed out.

That’s what brought me to my method. With the exception of my frag my youngest tank is 12 years old and gets dosed a stupid amount of phosphorus and nitrate hourly to keep it at 26ppb and 2ppm respectively. Last thing I want to do is have to mend fresh water, or lower my nutrient level with every water change.

 

[Treefer32]

This is erroneous thinking; NO3 and PO4 are not the only toxins building up overtime. FW hobbyists have the benefits of plants to remove NO3 and PO4 [they even have to dose these for high-tech setups], yet they still do waterchanges on a weekly basis to reset nutrient levels, remove DOCs, etc.

Moreover, protein skimmers do not remove all DOCs, etc. Protein skimmers were never a substitute for waterchanges. Just another arsenal in overall water filtration.

Keep in mind that SW fish are N times more expensive than FW species. So why risk their wellbeing over a couple of gallons of SW per week?

If only it were a couple gallons a week! Ugg. a 25% -30% water change a week for me would be 75-100 gallons

 

[The_Paradox]

Yeah, it’s kind of a half baked idea. Things WILL accumulate over time and some of those things you can’t even test for…not even accounting for the fact that ICP oes is highly unreliable.

The exact same is true with water changes just at a different rate.

 

[Spare time]

I have never met an anti water change person in the hobby. Not doing water changes doesn't mean someone is anti water change. It's simply a different strategy that can be done effectively. It's not being lazy as honestly it requires more filtration and it's maintenance, more testing, more dosing, and more caution.

 

[liddojunior]

I understand that stability is an issue. I think for huge farm systems. It makes sense to focus on dosing and not water changes.
Especially since they are always removing water from the system when bagging corals and moving things around.

At home aquariums probably do best with regular water change, the key term regular. That means that to maintain stability you have to regularly change

 

[Northern Flicker]

I actually just kind of enjoy doing water changes. It's a pretty peaceful experience, and I find it's the time each week/other week where I get to just be in the zone with my reef. I usually notice all kinds of things. I run a very simple system, and the infusion of freshly mixed water seems to really perk the tank up.

For a few months I told myself I didn't need to do w/cs, I got into dosing, etc...in the end though, it was just my own laziness that I was propping up with a very poor understanding of reef chem.

Just that few hours a month really seems to keep me grounded with this tank. I enjoy my tank and having living, growing animals thriving in my house, but my tank is not a high performance reef like many here have or strive for. Maybe when growth and reproduction are the goals, a more nuanced approach is worthwhile.

 

[Treefer32]

I maintain a 6 going on 7 year old 340 gallon mixed reef. I have acros, euphylia, and softies. All are doing great including gonipora that I didn't think I could have. I have around 18 fish, (plan to get that to 40 at some point). I maintain an average of Nitrates @ 11-15, phosphates around .1 - .2, and alk around 8.0-8.5, ph between 7.8 and 8.0.

Thos parameters are for the past 6 months, with no water changes.

As with anything reefing, know the why, before asking when and how often. Why do water changes? Why have a skimmer? Why have xyz.

What is it one seeks to accomplish.

1. I have a skimmer to remove gunk that nothing else removes.
2. I have an algae turf scrubber to primarily export phosphates via natural means and add oxygen to the water
3. I have a reef mat to remove uneaten food particles and bacteria
4. I have a cannister filter filled with matrix rock to denitrify my water - reduced nitrates from 65 to a constant average now of 11-15
5. I'm also adding a 120 watt UV sterilizer this winter with flow meter to manage parasites and after a few months, adjust the flow for managing algae and bacteria.


Additives
1. I have a doser to add alk (baked baking soda), Calcium Chloride, and magnesium chloride / Magnesium sulfate mixture, as well as a separate doser to add kalkwasser at maximum saturation to help raise PH and cheaper supplement to alk / calcium chloride.
2. I manually dose once a week - red sea trace elements - A,B,C,D and Chaetogrow. around 30 ml of each.

The trace elements last around 16 weeks - $80.

When I do a water change, I do around 150 gallons, which is over 1 bucket of Reef Crystals at 1.026. $60.

If I did 25% water changes weekly that'd be 2 buckets of salt a month $120 a month. vs. $80 every 4 months (or $20 a month) for trace elements. The Chaetogrow lasts even longer.

Plus I would still need to dose alk and calcium and magnesium in between water changes, because there's no way even 25% weekly water changes would maintain the alk and calcium consumption I go through, not to mention 25% weekly water changes would only replenish 25% of the trace elements. So, I would still need to dose those.

Now if the goal of the water change is to remove stuff from the water, then yes water changes are critical. I have 4 export mechanisms. On a smaller tank, if the goal is to replenish elements then a few gallons a week is probably sufficient depending on coral population.

It comes down to what is the goal of a water change? It's not a magical process. There are key reasons to do them, there are key reasons not to do them. I do them twice a year, large ones, around 50%. To ensure I'm removing anything that builds up that my 4 export mechanisms are unable to remove.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

That’s what brought me to my method. With the exception of my frag my youngest tank is 12 years old and gets dosed a stupid amount of phosphorus and nitrate hourly to keep it at 26ppb and 2ppm respectively. Last thing I want to do is have to mend fresh water, or lower my nutrient level with every water change.

Suppose you are dosing 10 ppm nitrate a day to keep your levels. Changing 1% daily would drive that to a whopping 10.1 ppm per day.

That's the "last thing" you'd want to have happen?

 

[Mr. Roboto]

I agree with the post above.... I have never met anyone anti water change.

 

[Someshmuk]

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.

I agree with this point provided that the tank in question is does not use any nutrient export equipment or the equipment is undersized for the nutrient input. In cases like that, I'd agree that water changes can maintain a standard level provided the aquarist is diligent in water changing as any deviation (forgetting a water change) has compounding side effects.

If a tank is well equipped with a protein skimmer and some method of nitrate reduction (refugium, ATS, macro algae reactor) and those pieces of equipment are sized adequately for the nutrient addition to the system, then the nutrient export from a water change would be not necessary.

Legitimately, I think that most aquarists quit the hobby due to the rigidity and stamina required to maintain a reef tank without corrective controls. (kinda like exersize and dieting) Alternatively and understandably, the equipment and knowledge required to go no water change is also a huge undertaking that is excessive to perform for smaller tanks, absolutely necessary when dealing with anything greater than 50 gallons, and unreasonable to expect aquarists to learn alternative water parameter controls.

Personally, going with either solution will net positive results provided that the knowledge and care is taken to learn how and why we use these follow these methodologies. Often times, the right solution for someone's unique tank situation will sit in either of these extremes.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

But even doing a 20% saltwater change on any 100+ gallon tank sounds like a logistical nightmare.

I recommend automatic water changes for such scenarios. Takes only a few minutes a month to make a batch of new salt water. Everything else runs itself.

I also think AWC is better from other perspectives (such as no need to match anything). I changed 1% daily (actually comprised of many 15 minute change periods each day) on a total system volume of 250-350 gallons.

 

[MnFish1]

I agree with this point provided that the tank in question is does not use any nutrient export equipment or the equipment is undersized for the nutrient input. In cases like that, I'd agree that water changes can maintain a standard level provided the aquarist is diligent in water changing as any deviation (forgetting a water change) has compounding side effects.

If a tank is well equipped with a protein skimmer and some method of nitrate reduction (refugium, ATS, macro algae reactor) and those pieces of equipment are sized adequately for the nutrient addition to the system, then the nutrient export from a water change would be not necessary.

Legitimately, I think that most aquarists quit the hobby due to the rigidity and stamina required to maintain a reef tank without corrective controls. (kinda like exersize and dieting) Alternatively and understandably, the equipment and knowledge required to go no water change is also a huge undertaking that is excessive to perform for smaller tanks, absolutely necessary when dealing with anything greater than 50 gallons, and unreasonable to expect aquarists to learn alternative water parameter controls.

Personally, going with either solution will net positive results provided that the knowledge and care is taken to learn how and why we use these follow these methodologies. Often times, the right solution for someone's unique tank situation will sit in either of these extremes.

I don't think anyone knows why people quit 'the hobby'. If I had to guess, the reason people don't start the hobby are the costs of the multitude of potential equipment that is touted to do xyz.

However, I've done it all 3 ways (weekly water changes, minimal water changes, and minimal water changes with a bunch of equipment for export). The method that failed was minimal water changes without great export. The other 2 seemed identical

My comment only relates to the fact that it took a lot of stamina to maintain all of the equipment, dosing, testing as well to have a WELL functioning export system. Cost is also an issue with this method. Frankly - I could do a 40 gallon water change in 15 minutes without carrying anything. This was (for me) far easier than fiddling with equipment all the time, and less costly. *Note - I have no objection to people who use a different method*

 

[Treefer32]

I recommend automatic water changes for such scenarios. Takes only a few minutes a month to make a batch of new salt water. Everything else runs itself.

I also think AWC is better from other perspectives (such as no need to match anything). I changed 1% daily (actually comprised of many 15 minute change periods each day) on a total system volume of 250-350 gallons.

I have thought about setting this up using 2 Versa pumps, one to pump water out of my sump and the other to pump water in daily with a versa controller unit.

the question I have for this, is on 350 gallon system (340 gallon display 75 gallon sump half full with rock displacement probably 350 total volume). Say 2 gallons daily, that's .57% per day = 17% monthly.

That still wouldn't replace the alk, calcium, mg, and trace elements consumed (by both macro algae in the ATS and the corals in the display). So the only advantage here is a less manual way to export water and replace with new in the hopes of reducing any other toxins / pollution that might be in the aging water. I think it'd be fun to do this just to say I have it. And it's a reasonable cost, the pumps around $500 or so. And I like the option to say, oh, today let's change out 10 gallons instead of 2 gallons. And to ensure my top off doensn't mess with things I'd have to have the export run at the same time as the import to ensure water levels stay the same. Outside of the "funness" of seeing this in operation, I'm not sure what it actually would get me from a husbandry perspective?

Given I have a lot of export mechanisms already. The only measurable thing that builds up now is phosphates, and I dose Phosphate-e at the rate of 5-10 ml 2-3 times a week manually and that keeps it in check.

 

[Dakota_reef]

My personal experiences include NOT doing water changes on FW unless I test high nitrates. Planted tanks seem to take care of themselves for the most part, and as long as my FW shrimp are happy, I know the water is fine. My little 5gal can go months w/o a water change.

My SW tanks are a different story. The 18 year old nano tank can handle ignoring water changes for WEEKS, but still need to be dosed with alk/ca/mg/iodine, but even my LPS is happy in there (Nitrates/Phosphates don't register much at all).

My 150g gets ticked when I go more than 2 weeks w/o a water change so I have to keep up on that more, but it beats losing corals.