Why do we do water changes so religiously if we can remove the nitrates?

[Perthegallon]

On the other hand - if you use a salt that matches the alkalinity in your tank - even doing a 100 percent water change shouldn't 'matter'. (As you said - you would of course need to dose to keep your alkalinity at a certain level). If we think about it - we basically do a '100 percent water change' - each time we add a new coral or fish (from the perspective of the new animal) - i.e. they are being exposed to your tank which is different than the one from which they came?

I’d say even way worse for a new coral or fish as this is a system now with different lights par temp and ext at least with a 100% water change you are using same salt,tank and ext

 

[Greg Gdowski]

I don't know... I guess I should do an exact cost comparison. I am no longer buying huge amounts of salt at >$50 a can. I am no longer generating a lot of RO/DI water (40g of RO/DI water utilizes about 160g of tap water). I am not measuring and mixing salt on a weekly basis and heating the water. I mix enough chemicals for about a month (that takes about 30min-1 hr depending on how efficient I am), I put it in a dosing container and I am done --- for a month. I do regular weekly chemical tests (weekly --- not daily now that my tank is stable). I would be doing the chemical tests regardless. I no longer carry water up stairs and dump it accidentally on the floor. The chemicals are really not that expensive with the exception of trace chemicals. I still occasionally do water changes but dosing has been very liberating for me. I know it is not for everyone, but it is really not as hard, or as expensive, as people are making it out to be. I did have to buy 3 dosing pumps.... and write the code into my Apex Jr.

 

[MnFish1]

Some have suggested that we are trying to mimic the ocean - and thus water changes aren't helpful, necessary or useful. I guess I see the tides, etc - as being constant 'water changes' in the ocean/natural reef. What the natural reef does not have is - UV sterilizers, protein skimmers (except waves on the beach), carbon reactors, GFO, ICP tests, calcium reactors, dosing pumps, etc) - the 'natural ocean' basically uses 'figurative water changes'. FWIW - I have no problem with no-water change techniques - Frankly - there are lots of beautiful tanks doing and not doing water changes - but that doesn't mean either method is 'right'. I mean - if you put a clown fish and 2 goniopora in a 400 gallon aquarium - you would not need 'weekly' water changes (or any)

 

[Greg Gdowski]

Totally agree on that one. Water changes would be essential if you were not dosing. In a fish only tank or a minimally coral-populated tank -- minimal intervention is only required to maintain square 1. I did appreciate some of the other comments about other trace changes (hormones, etc.) that are not accounted for in dosing. For the record, I think both techniques are "right". That said, I think the person employing water changes should do so for the same reason a person doses -- ie with a clear understanding of what their particular tank needs on a daily/weekly basis. There is certainly a "safe" zone for the new person, but eventually they are going to have to understand what is trying to be accomplished in changing the water. I think that is why the hobby experiences the 5yr and out problem. By the time someone is at 2-3yrs -- they have been lured into buying more and more corals which changes the needs of their tank. Eventually, those needs will exceed the "safe" zone they were taught early on.

 

[Sm51498]

I'm not sure I agree. I have only done 3 ICP tests in 3 years. You shouldn't need ICP tests to do dosing. I also think it is healthy for anyone to know what their tank is consuming -- regardless of whether they are dosing or doing water changes. I did water changes blindly for the first 8yrs of reefing ..... by following suggested guidelines. What I found was that being blind was not bliss. If you really want to understand how your tank is doing, you need to assess the rate of consumption. That really tells you what is going on with your tank. I consume about 1dkh/day in my tank. Dosing keeps that steady throughout the day. Changing water would work but I would be doing it daily. I can't do it weekly (ie. that would be an enormous change in alkalinity). Water changes only incrementally adjust your parameters. For example, if your tank drops to 7dkh and you change with new water (8dkH) -- that never brings you back to 8dkH unless you do a 100% change. So over time -- even with water changes -- you will either have do a huge water change or add chemicals to get back to square 1. Not sure it is easier. I would argue that you probably have to do more chemical tests to make sure you are not far from square 1. If your dosing amount is close to the rate of consumption -- your daily swings are actually remarkably small. But that is the key -- you have to dose with respect to the daily consumption. That is what makes it challenging for the novice.

KH is not a trace element and is easy to test and dose for and it's not generally considered optional for any tank with decent consumption. That's really not what we refer to when we talk about why we would change water vs why we would choose not to. Trace elements as long as you dose them in sensible quantities are fine to be managed by water changes to prevent depletion or over accumulation but when you forgo any significant water changes it becomes important to attempt to replace them in an intelligent way. My point about water changes VS ICP testing is simple. a bucket of salt and an ICP test are about the same price. on my 30 gallon tank if I thought I should do an ICP test I would be better off by just doing 4 10 gallon water changes over 4 days which would essentially reset the chemistry in the tank to known good values and I could do that 3-4 times per bucket. Let's not forget on top of an ICP test you then need to purchase additives to adjust the chemistry if you are really looking to avoid changing water. That's why it doesn't make sense until you get above a certain size tank at smaller sizes it is simply cheaper to not bother and just change water. How you could actually be monitoring your consumption of trace elements without ICP testing is a head scratcher to me. Changing ten gallons for me is probably 5 minutes of work and I'm not doing a bunch of testing because I know what my salt yields.

 

[MnFish1]

KH is not a trace element and is easy to test and dose for and it's not generally considered optional for any tank with decent consumption. That's really not what we refer to when we talk about why we would change water vs why we would choose not to. Trace elements as long as you dose them in sensible quantities are fine to be managed by water changes to prevent depletion or over accumulation but when you forgo any significant water changes it becomes important to attempt to replace them in an intelligent way. My point about water changes VS ICP testing is simple. a bucket of salt and an ICP test are about the same price. on my 30 gallon tank if I thought I should do an ICP test I would be better off by just doing 4 10 gallon water changes over 4 days which would essentially reset the chemistry in the tank to known good values and I could do that 3-4 times per bucket. Let's not forget on top of an ICP test you then need to purchase additives to adjust the chemistry if you are really looking to avoid changing water. That's why it doesn't make sense until you get above a certain size tank at smaller sizes it is simply cheaper to not bother and just change water. How you could actually be monitoring your consumption of trace elements without ICP testing is a head scratcher to me. Changing ten gallons for me is probably 5 minutes of work and I'm not doing a bunch of testing because I know what my salt yields.

Its probably the same with a larger tank... when you consider removing 'bad things' found in an ICP test

 

[Sm51498]

Its probably the same with a larger tank... when you consider removing 'bad things' found in an ICP test

Probably right but all sorts of interventions that don't make sense at a smaller scale begin to make more sense at a large scale which could easily reduce the use of water changes to seldom or even never.

 

[MnFish1]

Probably right but all sorts of interventions that don't make sense at a smaller scale begin to make more sense at a large scale which could easily reduce the use of water changes to seldom or even never.

I probably wasnt clear - what I meant was lets say - you find a level of xxxxx - that is 10 x normal - to me the problem (which is not a problem - but an issue) - is that when you find something too high - you either do water changes - OR - you pay for 'something' to remove them. If you have a 400 gallon tank - and your tin level - is sky high - what are you going to do? The point being - it seems to me - it all washes out in the end - and - I've yet to see ICP testing thats consistent.

 

[Sm51498]

I probably wasnt clear - what I meant was lets say - you find a level of xxxxx - that is 10 x normal - to me the problem (which is not a problem - but an issue) - is that when you find something too high - you either do water changes - OR - you pay for 'something' to remove them. If you have a 400 gallon tank - and your tin level - is sky high - what are you going to do? The point being - it seems to me - it all washes out in the end - and - I've yet to see ICP testing thats consistent.

yeah I see what you mean now. The question becomes at what point is the something cheaper than water changes? or does something besides water changes even exist, like in your example of tin. How would you remove that? probably water changes is your only option.

 

[Greg Gdowski]

KH is not a trace element and is easy to test and dose for and it's not generally considered optional for any tank with decent consumption. That's really not what we refer to when we talk about why we would change water vs why we would choose not to. Trace elements as long as you dose them in sensible quantities are fine to be managed by water changes to prevent depletion or over accumulation but when you forgo any significant water changes it becomes important to attempt to replace them in an intelligent way. My point about water changes VS ICP testing is simple. a bucket of salt and an ICP test are about the same price. on my 30 gallon tank if I thought I should do an ICP test I would be better off by just doing 4 10 gallon water changes over 4 days which would essentially reset the chemistry in the tank to known good values and I could do that 3-4 times per bucket. Let's not forget on top of an ICP test you then need to purchase additives to adjust the chemistry if you are really looking to avoid changing water. That's why it doesn't make sense until you get above a certain size tank at smaller sizes it is simply cheaper to not bother and just change water. How you could actually be monitoring your consumption of trace elements without ICP testing is a head scratcher to me. Changing ten gallons for me is probably 5 minutes of work and I'm not doing a bunch of testing because I know what my salt yields.

I don't think I said KH was a trace element. I thought I said that of the chemicals I buy, the trace elements are what cost the most.

The difference between a water change and an ICP test is only comparable by cost. One is a bandage and one is a diagnostic. If you had a rusty seal on an APEX level detector --- a water change covers up the problem and it recurs.

I don't monitor consumption of trace elements. I guess I could. Comparatively, when you mix salt -- you hope the same concentration of trace chemicals is distributed evenly in the can -- without actually checking. Remember --- they are trace elements after all. Kind of hard to know if they are evenly distributed amongst the other chemicals that have far more mass. Not trying to be a jerk -- that is just the reality. I at least know how much I am putting into the dosing jug when I mix it. Is that better -- probably not.

The bigger hassle in dosing smaller tanks is not the cost, but feasibility. It gets progressively harder to deliver the smaller quantities.

I will say this again. My utilization is 1dkh/day --- and my tank pales in comparison to many of the extraordinary tanks on the pages here. It might make for a good poll? How many tanks out there consume >1dkh/day. I suspect it is more than most people realize. I was sort of stunned when I was getting those numbers (I put a graph of this in the article I wrote for R2R). When I saw that number I realized water changes were not going to cut it for me.

 

[MnFish1]

I don't think I said KH was a trace element. I thought I said that of the chemicals I buy, the trace elements are what cost the most.

The difference between a water change and an ICP test is only comparable by cost. One is a bandage and one is a diagnostic. If you had a rusty seal on an APEX level detector --- a water change covers up the problem and it recurs.

I don't monitor consumption of trace elements. I guess I could. Comparatively, when you mix salt -- you hope the same concentration of trace chemicals is distributed evenly in the can -- without actually checking. Remember --- they are trace elements after all. Kind of hard to know if they are evenly distributed amongst the other chemicals that have far more mass. Not trying to be a jerk -- that is just the reality. I at least know how much I am putting into the dosing jug when I mix it. Is that better -- probably not.

The bigger hassle in dosing smaller tanks is not the cost, but feasibility. It gets progressively harder to deliver the smaller quantities.

I will say this again. My utilization is 1dkh/day --- and my tank pales in comparison to many of the extraordinary tanks on the pages here. It might make for a good poll? How many tanks out there consume >1dkh/day. I suspect it is more than most people realize. I was sort of stunned when I was getting those numbers (I put a graph of this in the article I wrote for R2R). When I saw that number I realized water changes were not going to cut it for me.

Just a comment - a water change is a treatment also - right - its removing 'potential bad things' - and adding 'potentially good things' depending on which salt one uses. I agree with your point (I think) - that its nearly impossible to manage dKH in a coral tank - only with 'water changes' - dosing is required. I do not dose trace elements though

 

[Spare time]

How often do you change your carbon?

About once a month or so. I tend to give it a soak in some RO water once a week to rinse off any bacterial film. However, I have seen that my carbon still clears up dirty water even after a month.

 

[Perthegallon]

Just a comment - a water change is a treatment also - right - its removing 'potential bad things' - and adding 'potentially good things' depending on which salt one uses. I agree with your point (I think) - that its nearly impossible to manage dKH in a coral tank - only with 'water changes' - dosing is required. I do not dose trace elements though

Yeah I definitely agree with that as I work under my car sometimes or handling oils for guns and ext. even though the glove-wearing and handwashing of ro water I dont believe im getting rid of those contaminants from my body as hard as I try (side not I don't run carbon Im thinking about it though)

 

[a4edwin]

We do water changes so the industry can sell us salt...

Isn’t that the real reason everything is made so cheaply now? So it doesn’t last forever!

 

[blasterman]

Please quit with trace element nonsense.

There is no standard in regards to what trace elements encompass and salt mix makers don't have a standard anyway. So, when you claim "I water change to replenish trace elements" all you are proving is the amazon driver knows where to deliver the package marked 1d10t.

If you do water changes and have good results then keep doing it but please stop with unproven nonsense. Many of us rarely do water changes and have great results.

Water changes do not 'reset' water conditions to 'perfect' or 'default'. Thats the myth perpetuated by the industry so you keep buying bags of over priced sodium chloride.

 

[Greg Gdowski]

Just a comment - a water change is a treatment also - right - its removing 'potential bad things' - and adding 'potentially good things' depending on which salt one uses. I agree with your point (I think) - that its nearly impossible to manage dKH in a coral tank - only with 'water changes' - dosing is required. I do not dose trace elements though

A while back I remember Terence (owner of Neptune Systems) showing a picture of a dead mouse in his sump in his basement. While I laughed at that picture, I did go into my basement and give my sump a good look. He found it because his ORP was changing. Ugh... I don't have one of those sensors and I don't see having one any time soon. Water changes are indeed a treatment. One of the biggest challenges I've had has been figuring out the root cause of the problem.

 

[Greg Gdowski]

Please quit with trace element nonsense.

There is no standard in regards to what trace elements encompass and salt mix makers don't have a standard anyway. So, when you claim "I water change to replenish trace elements" all you are proving is the amazon driver knows where to deliver the package marked 1d10t.

If you do water changes and have good results then keep doing it but please stop with unproven nonsense. Many of us rarely do water changes and have great results.

Water changes do not 'reset' water conditions to 'perfect' or 'default'. Thats the myth perpetuated by the industry so you keep buying bags of over priced sodium chloride.

I was trying to be a little more gentle on this topic. ;-)
I think the industry had to push water changes. Reefing is not trivial pursuits. If you want to make the hobby grow, you have to make it approachable for those that have smaller tanks and are just starting out. We have all been there.

The sad truth is that reefing is an addiction. We all want the stunning tank. All I'm saying is that as your interest grows, please read the warning on the label. Executing water changes has a purpose and it has limitations. I saw BRS now pushing water changes literally a few years after they had done some testing of the balling/dosing methods (and promoted them). Hmm... they just happen to also sell salt.

 

[Sm51498]

I don't think I said KH was a trace element. I thought I said that of the chemicals I buy, the trace elements are what cost the most.

Why are we talking about KH then?

The difference between a water change and an ICP test is only comparable by cost. One is a bandage and one is a diagnostic. If you had a rusty seal on an APEX level detector --- a water change covers up the problem and it recurs

Not really, you should be servicing your equipment and discover that seal no matter what a test tells you but if you keep up with your water changes than that rust will never be a problem anyways which is the same thing as testing and then seeking a solution. It just has fewer steps.

I don't monitor consumption of trace elements. I guess I could. Comparatively, when you mix salt -- you hope the same concentration of trace chemicals is distributed evenly in the can -- without actually checking. Remember --- they are trace elements after all. Kind of hard to know if they are evenly distributed amongst the other chemicals that have far more mass. Not trying to be a jerk -- that is just the reality. I at least know how much I am putting into the dosing jug when I mix it. Is that better -- probably not.

Bad salt batches do happen but its pretty vanishingly rare. Odds are you'll discover it pretty fast too and your problems will be bigger than a slight imbalance in trace elements. you hope your consumption remains constant, I hope my salt manufacturer is reliable. as you say, who knows which is better. I'm guessing you don't test your mixed dosing solution to confirm the concentration, nor do you test for contaminants. I would posit that is more or less the same as not testing your newly mixed salt water. some manufacturers ICP test each individual batch of salt and post their results (well at least one)

I will say this again. My utilization is 1dkh/day --- and my tank pales in comparison to many of the extraordinary tanks on the pages here. It might make for a good poll? How many tanks out there consume >1dkh/day. I suspect it is more than most people realize. I was sort of stunned when I was getting those numbers (I put a graph of this in the article I wrote for R2R). When I saw that number I realized water changes were not going to cut it for me.

As you say most people consume Ca ALK and Mg at levels which require dosing. using water changes as your sole source in a tank with calcifying animals is irresponsible these days and not really part of most people's thoughts when they think about doing water changes vs not doing water changes.

 

[131696]

You do water changes to get rid of the dirty water unless you use ozone or a sterilizer..After water change you will notice clearer water that’s about it..crystal clear .after 1 month do a water change in a white bucket look at the water next to new batch of saltwater. Some people don’t do water changes at all and they have awesome tanks but they use ozone or sterilizer to keep water crystal clear. you dont have to do a water change to replenish nutrients. The nutrients leave so slow will barely notice any difference watch BRS video Where they have a new formula just to replenish the nutrients every now and again do this and for sure no more water changes.video was in last month.product is on there site. All corals need is stability that’s all.

 

[Sm51498]

Please quit with trace element nonsense.

There is no standard in regards to what trace elements encompass and salt mix makers don't have a standard anyway. So, when you claim "I water change to replenish trace elements" all you are proving is the amazon driver knows where to deliver the package marked 1d10t.

If you do water changes and have good results then keep doing it but please stop with unproven nonsense. Many of us rarely do water changes and have great results.

Water changes do not 'reset' water conditions to 'perfect' or 'default'. Thats the myth perpetuated by the industry so you keep buying bags of over priced sodium chloride.

Demonstrably, you're wrong. if I do 4 30% water changes over 4 days, that will mean I've replaced 90% of the water and 90% of the elements over that time period. It's math, relatively simple math at that. That's not a myth, it's percentages. Most people would call a 90% remediation a reset. The only issue would be if your salt does not contain balanced elements but most do.

I would never encourage anyone to change what they are doing if they are succesful. the point I made is that water changes are cheaper and easier than comprehensive water testing and dosing a bunch of individual elements at smaller tank volumes.