why do water changes?

[jda]

Dennis, that is the best no water change tank that I have ever seen. A. Robusta, A. Florida are no joke. At five years, this is a good indication of what is possible. Well done. I will start to include it as an example to go along with the others. JB is also starting a NWC regime, but a few more years need to pass, but I am excited to see what happens since his tanks are exceptional.

bronx - doing infrequent water changes is most of the hobby, myself included. This is a long way from not doing any. If you stop completely and then get a handful of years under your belt, then this will definitely tell a story.

 

[Sallstrom]

We have good growth on Acropora millepora, humilis, lokani, florida and a some more Acropora species in the tank I posted(four years without WC).
But Strawberry shortcake is too expensive for us

Do we really need to decide what "method " is the best? Why not just be glad that there are many ways to get good results?

 

[jda]

There is certainly no best way to do anything. I agree that it is foolish to think so. I also think that it is foolish to say stuff like "this proves that it works" without also giving the details and nuance. The proof is in the pudding... and just making pudding is not proof of anything. Details matter... the more that we offer, the better other hobbyists can be.

For example, the photos that Dennis just posted show me a top 1% reef tank, IMO. That beats every other NWC tank that I have seen which cap out at about top 25-20%, but I have not seen them all. This is a really good data point if somebody wants to do the same thing and try and have the same tank as Dennis then they can try and copy this, but others might see just one guy among others that might not be able to keep what he does and decide that they want to bet on the rule and not the exception. To each their own. Pointing out the differences (not what is better, just different) help people make choices and figure out what they want. This is also why limited/intermittent water change tanks need to be categorized as such and not truly NWC.

I pay attention and look for every detail in NWC tanks and these threads because if I see more like Dennis's (or JB's soon), then I would really like to go this way, but I need to see a critical mass of top 1% tanks to make myself feel good about changing. There is a critical mass of people who change water, so I stick with that for now while always keeping an eye out.

BTW - your A. Florida is as good as any shortcake, IMO. I love this acro.

 

[dennis tb]

There is certainly no best way to do anything. I agree that it is foolish to think so. I also think that it is foolish to say stuff like "this proves that it works" without also giving the details and nuance. The proof is in the pudding... and just making pudding is not proof of anything. Details matter... the more that we offer, the better other hobbyists can be.

For example, the photos that Dennis just posted show me a top 1% reef tank, IMO. That beats every other NWC tank that I have seen which cap out at about top 25-20%, but I have not seen them all. This is a really good data point if somebody wants to do the same thing and try and have the same tank as Dennis then they can try and copy this, but others might see just one guy among others that might not be able to keep what he does and decide that they want to bet on the rule and not the exception. To each their own. Pointing out the differences (not what is better, just different) help people make choices and figure out what they want. This is also why limited/intermittent water change tanks need to be categorized as such and not truly NWC.

I pay attention and look for every detail in NWC tanks and these threads because if I see more like Dennis's (or JB's soon), then I would really like to go this way, but I need to see a critical mass of top 1% tanks to make myself feel good about changing. There is a critical mass of people who change water, so I stick with that for now while always keeping an eye out.

BTW - your A. Florida is as good as any shortcake, IMO. I love this acro.

Thanks for the compliment,
I follow the DSR method developed by Glennf in the netherlands. What I think is key in this method is the assumption that not all trace ellements have to be maintained at NSW levels. It is a completely different way of looking at things if you ask me. Most method incorperate a lot of trace elements (also heavy metals) in their supplements. The question you can ask yourself is: do corals flourish because of the levels of all the metals present in the oceans or despite of. I know that most trace elements are needed in biochemical processes in our home reefs. But do we have to mimic the the ocean? In dsr you supplement all macro elements plus strontium, potassium, manganese, iodine and iron. And also phosphates and nitrates are added to keep them at least at 0.04 ppm (hanna URL) and 1 ppm respectively. Other elements are introduced by fish food (frozen food and flakes/pelets). According to my triton analysis I have to dose zinc, lithium ect because they are much lower than NSW values for years. This makes it more plausible for me that the presence of these elements is important yes, but not at the levels seen in the oceans. And what you dont add to the tank does not have to be removed. Which makes life easier if you do not do water changes.

 

[A3LXK]

And another tank from the Netherlands that's maintained without waterchanges. Tank life is almost 5 years. I started this tank in december 2013. The method I use is DSR.

View attachment 20180728_000748.jpg

View attachment 20180629_162935.jpg

 

[Reefahholic]

When NO3 is above 10. Or the tank looks like crap.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Yes, I agree everyone should spend $50/month in dosing/additives versus a $25/month water change

I'm in....



.

What rubbish.
For a start, everyone who keeps stoney corals doses major elements whether or not they do water changes.
So that leaves minor & trace elements. And it is far cheaper to dose those than doing a 10% weekly water changes, & if adding the cost of large barrels - plumbing - pumps - RODI filters (mixing stations) the difference becomes even greater.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

FWIW actually sodium and chloride do slowly build up.

Not when using the Balling method which incorporates non sodium chloride salts to keep the ionic balance.
AquaForest components 1, 2, & 3 is one example of this.

Using kalkwasser or calcium reactor will also maintain the ionic ballance.

 

[A3LXK]

If you really think that doing water changes is cheaper than no water changes than you should do some research in the DSR method. No NSW values, only the major elements and some trace elements like potassium, manganese, iodine and iron. And also phosphates and nitrates, that's it.

 

[beaslbob]

Not when using the Balling method which incorporates non sodium chloride salts to keep the ionic balance.
AquaForest components 1, 2, & 3 is one example of this.

Using kalkwasser or calcium reactor will also maintain the ionic ballance.

As I understand it the non salt saltmix is for the non sodium chloride trace elements. the two part part of the system will still have sodium chloride buildup. Just that the non salt stuff, the other trace elements will increase as well and adding water to bring the salinity up will keep those in line as well. As opposed to the diy two part which will reduce those things when the salinity adjustment is made.

But than I'm no expert on the balling method. So you'll probably show me what I don't understand. LOL

 

[glennf]

Keeping a mixed reef succesfull is about mixing all corals you love and keeping them healthy for a long while.. not about what give you stress and wanting to quit the hobby soon.....

 

[jda]

It is probably good to set aside the big-three from any cost equation... most people have to do that anyway. Some supplementation methods are not all that expensive, but some are... and some people do not do any. ICP tests are expensive and do add up.

Triton elements and their recommended tests can be many times more than what you would spend in money to change water. Just refilling your CaRx twice a year and doing nothing else would be a few bucks a month.

All of this being said, I cannot imagine that as much as this hobby does cost, that the price of salt would be the reason that anybody chose one method or another. The salt cost is almost a rounding error in some cases.

 

[A3LXK]

As I understand it the non salt saltmix is for the non sodium chloride trace elements. the two part part of the system will still have sodium chloride buildup. Just that the non salt stuff, the other trace elements will increase as well and adding water to bring the salinity up will keep those in line as well. As opposed to the diy two part which will reduce those things when the salinity adjustment is made. But than I'm no expert on the balling method. So you'll probably show me what I don't understand. LOL

The build up of salinity totally depends on how you run the tank without the water changes.
For instance, you sell frags out of your tank, the water you take out of the tank is replaced with RO
The same for the waste of your skimmer, just run your skimmer a bit wetter than normal and again this is replaced with RO.
Or just removed 1 or 2 gallon per week, also this is replaced with RO

When you do it like this, there is no build up.

 

[A3LXK]

It is probably good to set aside the big-three from any cost equation... most people have to do that anyway. Some supplementation methods are not all that expensive, but some are... and some people do not do any. ICP tests are expensive and do add up.

Triton elements and their recommended tests can be many times more than what you would spend in money to change water. Just refilling your CaRx twice a year and doing nothing else would be a few bucks a month.

All of this being said, I cannot imagine that as much as this hobby does cost, that the price of salt would be the reason that anybody chose one method or another. The salt cost is almost a rounding error in some cases.

It is not the costs why i choose for the no waterchange method. I am just a lazy hobbiest and i hated the waterchanges with pump, barrels, etc, etc every week in my living room.
That is the main reason why i started my tank without water changes.

True, if you choose for Triton or Koralzucht (the famous blue bottles) it can be more expensive, but with DSR it is way cheaper

 

[jayala12]

Water changes r very necessary. U get to get your hands wet. Gives me a reason to “tweak” a few things while cleaning and complain about it later [emoji1360]

 

[Scrubber_steve]

As I understand it the non salt saltmix is for the non sodium chloride trace elements. the two part part of the system will still have sodium chloride buildup. Just that the non salt stuff, the other trace elements will increase as well and adding water to bring the salinity up will keep those in line as well. As opposed to the diy two part which will reduce those things when the salinity adjustment is made.

But than I'm no expert on the balling method. So you'll probably show me what I don't understand. LOL

ok, so with calcium chloride, when the calcium is depleted the chloride is left over. The same thing with the sodium bicarbonate - the carbonates are used & the sodium left over.
So the sodium & chloride ions increase as a percentage of the overall salts, unless the other non sodium chloride salts - Magnesium sulphate, Calcium sulphate, Potassium sulphate, are added in the correct proportions.
So using the non sodium chloride salts prevents the increase of sodium & chloride as a percentage, & yes, some rodi water can be addaed from time totime to prevent an increase in salinity, although I've never needed to directly make this correction myself.

 

[Lasse]

If fuge and gfo remove phosphorus. If carbon removes what carbon removes. If skimmer removes all the gunk and particals. If calcium, magnesium, alk, major, and minor trace elements are added. If cycled tank removes all ammonia nitrite and nitrate. Then why should i do water changes?
this is not an argument. This is a legit question. Im willing to do water changes. I just don't understand why i am doing them.

This was the OP first post. Some of us has answered that WC is a tool like others but should be used only when is needed - not as a routine. Some of us has answered that´s it the most important tool in order to hinder "stuff" building up. What "stuff" means is rather unclear - it seems to vary a lot. But the general idea is that if you do not take away "stuff" - your tank will crash in the future. To do WC as a routine is the most common advise I see in here - still I read a lot of things about tank crashes and other things like algae problems. For me - doing regular WC is one way of reefing - but the holy graal - its not.

Other argue that they never seen any successful non routine WC tanks of age more than 2 years. To be honest - I doubt that the survival time for the average tank (with a routine for WC) is more that that Despite the use of WC - a crash sometimes happens anyway.

The last pages the thread is about the few promille who want a specialized high end coral aquarium with species that are hard to keep. It is impossible without regular WC - some says . I think that the picture invasion from Dutch aquariums have proven even that statement wrong

This with adding stuff. No one can argue against the fact that regular WC will expose a risk of adding impurities to the water. The general idea is further that this impurities will build up in the aquaria and in the end show up in the water column. My experiences is mostly the opposite - most compounds will be blocked in gravel and/or incorporated into biomass if they are not put into the aquarium on a routine based pathway.

IMO - if you run a NWC based regime - there is a couple of things that can improve the result. One is ICP testing - not cheap but a very useful tool. The other thing that is important for me is the food. I prefer natural, frozen food like adult artemia and copepods. I do not use dry food. IMO - normal dry food for fishes can be a agent for too high levels of zink in the water column as an example. I have notice that zink levels tends to build up in the water column of a total closed fish farm I work with.

@Matthew Morrison - I think that this thread has give you some ideas of the reason why people advocating routine WC. And also the contra arguments for this routine. Now it is up to you to chose pathway for your tank

Sincerely Lasse

 

[glennf]

Water changes are cost effective if the tank is small.

For a big tank... You need to add everything. No water change will make your levels stable in the high ranks. Unless you do them in a big percentage and continuously.

About the skimmer and the junk. I got a diamond goby. The ****** moved all the sand and all the junk came out. You just can't imagine how much junk there was. So syphon it's a good idea to keep things at check. And by doing it you do a water change. But again... It's not going to get all your main components in check.

That's my experience. So far and I have a 220 gallon.

Use a powerfilter. It will remove detritus and improve your waterquality

 

[glennf]

This was the OP first post. Some of us has answered that WC is a tool like others but should be used only when is needed - not as a routine. Some of us has answered that´s it the most important tool in order to hinder "stuff" building up. What "stuff" means is rather unclear - it seems to vary a lot. But the general idea is that if you do not take away "stuff" - your tank will crash in the future. To do WC as a routine is the most common advise I see in here - still I read a lot of things about tank crashes and other things like algae problems. For me - doing regular WC is one way of reefing - but the holy graal - its not.

Other argue that they never seen any successful non routine WC tanks of age more than 2 years. To be honest - I doubt that the survival time for the average tank (with a routine for WC) is more that that Despite the use of WC - a crash sometimes happens anyway.

The last pages the thread is about the few promille who want a specialized high end coral aquarium with species that are hard to keep. It is impossible without regular WC - some says . I think that the picture invasion from Dutch aquariums have proven even that statement wrong

This with adding stuff. No one can argue against the fact that regular WC will expose a risk of adding impurities to the water. The general idea is further that this impurities will build up in the aquaria and in the end show up in the water column. My experiences is mostly the opposite - most compounds will be blocked in gravel and/or incorporated into biomass if they are not put into the aquarium on a routine based pathway.

IMO - if you run a NWC based regime - there is a couple of things that can improve the result. One is ICP testing - not cheap but a very useful tool. The other thing that is important for me is the food. I prefer natural, frozen food like adult artemia and copepods. I do not use dry food. IMO - normal dry food for fishes can be a agent for too high levels of zink in the water column as an example. I have notice that zink levels tends to build up in the water column of a total closed fish farm I work with.

@Matthew Morrison - I think that this thread has give you some ideas of the reason why people advocating routine WC. And also the contra arguments for this routine. Now it is up to you to chose pathway for your tank

Sincerely Lasse

Agree totally..
I have seen these arguements so many times, i have become immune to them. I am beyound the point for the need to prove anything to anybody.
Anyone wanting to learn new ways are welcome to learn and ask me anything.
I believe a picture says more than a thousand words and i rather sumerise my thoughs on a platform, than go into these arguements over and over again.
For that reason i build a website in 2013
http://www.DSRreefing.nl

Followed this one in 2015
http://www.DSRreefing.com

Also look into this thread:https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink?ur...&share_tid=162872&share_fid=1020&share_type=t

I do love to see nice tank pictures of those why argue so hard against NWC though...

I have been doing the NWC thing so long i don't know anything else.
A majority of dutch reefers are beyound the point of argueing and now just going without waterchanges more succesfull than before.

 

[Montiman]

The biggest reason I do waterchanges is detritus removal. In the past I have tried no water changes and automatic water changes. The problem I had with both is that detritus would accumulate in the sump overflow box and dead zones in the tank. Even when I try to eliminate these with flow detritus appears in another areas. I just don’t believe there is any way the detritus is good and there is no easier way to remove it than a water change. Every 3 months I like to shop across the overflow box and whole sump to keep it clean. This equates to about a 10% water change per month which is not heavy but still beneficial IMO