A testament to Water Changes

[BeanMachine]

Originally Posted by Reef Keeper

I have a reef 125 gallon with overflow boxes. I used to do PWC 20 gallons once every two weeks. Then there was a period of time where I had to be out of town so I did 20 gallons/month. I notice the corals grow and look better if they are "disturbed" once a month rather than every two weeks. So now, it is once a month with daily RO/DI water top off. All of my readings are undetectable including Nitrate. All of my corals are thriving to the point I have to give away to friends and LFS. My live stock include one Powder Blue Tang, 4 Tomato clowns, 8 blue Damsels, one Mandarin fish, one Blenny, one Cardinal fish, one Fox face, one Flame Angle. Feeding is one cube once evey two days with bi weekly Nori sheet. RK

Dang you have 4 Tomato Clowns in a 125?? Their all juvi's right? Really curious how they've gotten along without a Cage Fight going on.

1 cube every other day? That doesn't seem like enough for all those fish.

Not trying to knock your husbandry, just trying to improve mine.

[thomasp123]

You seem to be the type that like to argue incessantly. But I can go another round. Stylolvr has a 55 which is totally do able for a water change. I have a 75/95 because I want to be able to control costs. Both salt and electricity. no comment on the concept of avoiding work as it speaks for its self. A skimmer removes dissolved organic materials as by precipitating them in the surface of the bubbles. The more bubbles the more area for this to happen. Foam fractionation has been around a lot longer than hobby tanks. The growth in a fuge removes nitrogen containing salts NH4+ N0- and NO2- as alga can fix carbon but not nitrogen. It also provides a place for pods and other natural fish foods to grow where the fish can't wipe them out. Lastly did you ever wonder why the new england aquarium is located right on boston harbor or why the monteray bay aquarium has a view of the pacific or why sea world is located less than 20 miles from the coast? think about it

[L98-Z]

Originally Posted by thomasp123

You seem to be the type that like to argue incessantly. But I can go another round. Stylolvr has a 55 which is totally do able for a water change. I have a 75/95 because I want to be able to control costs. Both salt and electricity. no comment on the concept of avoiding work as it speaks for its self. A skimmer removes dissolved organic materials as by precipitating them in the surface of the bubbles. The more bubbles the more area for this to happen. Foam fractionation has been around a lot longer than hobby tanks. The growth in a fuge removes nitrogen containing salts NH4+ N0- and NO2- as alga can fix carbon but not nitrogen. It also provides a place for pods and other natural fish foods to grow where the fish can't wipe them out. Lastly did you ever wonder why the new england aquarium is located right on boston harbor or why the monteray bay aquarium has a view of the pacific or why sea world is located less than 20 miles from the coast? think about it

I recently saw a thread about the Atlanta Aquarium... you bring up water changes at big aquariums, but they have skimmers as well.

I'm a firm believer that water changes are safe, reliable way to reduce nitrates. Doesn't mean there aren't other ways though. Having a somewhat large tank myself, I can under the desire to reduce water changes though.

[porthios]

You seem to be the type that like to argue incessantly.

i enjoy getting past the 5min argument that water changes are probably a good idea for most reefkeepers but yes i tend to rail against dogmatic statements like..

So just do them

forgive me.

no comment on the concept of avoiding work as it speaks for its self

really? you're going to argue that a system requiring more maintenance is superior to one requiring less? i love to tinker with my tank as much as the next guy but surely the less required the better right?


gary -

Over time parameters in a closed sytem can drift.
A water change is the "reboot".

i KNOW you know this gary but this analogy shouldn't be taken too literally. it's helpful to explain husbandry to a new reefer but not entirely correct. a white lie if you will.

yes parameters and elemental concentrations drift but not always in the good->bad direction this analogy implies. ASW is not 'pristine' in terms of optimal concentrations for the animals we keep, nor is it even remotely close to NSW with regards to several of our precious trace elements.

replacing some portion of our tank water with fresh ASW is often a net win for our system but there's a little evil involved ..

[stylolvr]

Originally Posted by Gary Majchrzak

Now... that being said , perhaps it's time you consider getting a skimmer to help you maintain your aquarium. A skimmer will certainly make your aquarium less dependent on water changes.

I am in the midst of a possible relocation, and if the family ends up moving, I will be selling this tank before the move (leaving some of my favorite pieces with a friend or two to get back later, of course!) and setting up a new one with some more bells and whistles once we get settled. The move would be accompanied by a nice salary increase which would allow for some nice bits of equipment, a skimmer being the first on the list. I plan on having a drilled system with a sump to make things a bit easier for my wife, as I will be away from home quite a bit (maybe months at a time). Luckily, she's the cool kind of wife that loves looking at the tank as much as I do!

For now, the water changes will be my way of keeping everything happy!

[Gary Majchrzak]

IME skimming is especially important during long breaks between water exchanges and asking a wife to do a water change is a mistake!

Jason- I don't have reason to tell lies of any color. Plenty of aquarium corals have been in the hobby for over a decade now and they're well adapted to artificial seawater. I'll stand by the reboot suggestion.
Care to explain what evils might be involved?

[porthios]

Care to explain what evils might be involved?

sure. pick any heavy metal that exists in toxic concentrations in ASW that is exported via skimming, macro uptake, coral uptake, etc. faster than it is replaced by the foods and other additive inputs of that metal. wc's with regards to this metal are evil as they would continually replenish towards the toxic concentrations present in the original ASW.

shimek's 'it's in the water' series and follow ups (even refutations) by other authors give several examples of metals to choose from.

Plenty of aquarium corals have been in the hobby for over a decade now and they're well adapted to artificial seawater

the fact that they've had to adapt at all and the horrid morbidity rate of wild coral introduced to our captive systems is a perfect argument AGAINST the capabilities of ASW to provide an optimum environment for the animals we keep.

we're happy when we're able to keep them alive. we even boast when they grow. if you're REALLY good, you can get them to reproduce, then write magazine articles and speak at MACNA!

yeah, yeah.. i know there are a lot more challenges to blame for our inabilities to repeat natures successes (food obviously) but surely you wouldn't argue that ASW's one of them.

i'm just trying to caution against the parroted beliefs that we see so often in threads like these, such as..

I maintain trace element levels with the WCs, as the salt mix contains correct amounts.
Dilution is the solution to pollution
everything about this hobby costs money

all of which are, at best, partial truths..

[thomasp123]

well since there is no real practical alternative to ASW I guess we should all stop doing water changes and close down our tanks. I am guessing that Jason will be the first.

If you want to talk about parroted beliefs on this or any forum lets start with the minority that believe that water changes are unnecessary or that ASW is toxic. If that were really true there would be no forum because there would be no tanks in peoples homes.

There very well could be some trace toxic materials in ASW but that is one reason we run carbon or pura brand products (i use pura pads to grab such things) but it is way over the top to argue against water changes because the ASW is toxic.

Someone brought up this concept

I maintain trace element levels with the WCs, as the salt mix contains correct amounts

This was shot down and I want to bring it back up. There are many brands of salt on the market and it is in the best interest of the manufacture to make the best product they can in order to win market share. It is also true that our systems use some components in the sea water faster than others and so they become depleted. So it seems reasonable to do a water change to replenish those components. A lot more reasonable than to fear some unknown toxic materials.

can we please stop the Sarah Palin type arguments.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

yes parameters and elemental concentrations drift but not always in the good->bad direction this analogy implies. ASW is not 'pristine' in terms of optimal concentrations for the animals we keep, nor is it even remotely close to NSW with regards to several of our precious trace elements.

replacing some portion of our tank water with fresh ASW is often a net win for our system but there's a little evil involved

I agree that a more balanced representation is that it tugs the tank back toward the ASW (or NSW), but assuming the ASW is reasonable, many things will be tugged in the right direction.

A classic example is copper. For years, Ron Shimek blasted IO for copper and other metals (and he probably still does). He said I was killing my inverts using IO. He never once stopped to listen to me when I continually pointed out that despite his measurements of copper in IO, and his ideas on what that might do, that my careful measurements (more careful than his) showed more copper in my tank water than in the IO I was using. So EVERY water change with IO reduced the copper in the tank, despite the fact that he asserted that the IO was lethal in copper. And for that matter, inverts typically did fine in that tank.

[Paul B]

I will not say that changing water is good or bad, I will let you guys all argue about that but I will say that if you have to change your water to control "nitrates" then something is wrong with your system. A properly run "matured" system should go on forever with no rise in nitrates no matter if you change water or not. Thats what the bacteria is for.
I change water for other reasons but my nitrates will remain near zero even though I only change 20% of my water 5 or 6 times a year. Yes I know that is too little but it has worked for almost 4 decades so it can't be too bad.
I occasionally add bacteria from the sea and some NSW. I know not everyone can not do that and I have always said this stuff should be available through mail.
Also I know about Dr. Rons take on excess metals, I wrote to him once about it and he did not get back to me. The copper reading in my reef is .05.
That is a little high for a reef but no big deal. A professional lab tested it last year. Some of that water has been in there since 1971. The water has never been 100% changed so I don't believe that theory about excess metals.
I even used copper many times in this tank before it was a reef and tap water for 20 years presumably some of that copper is still in there (there goes that theory that rock is no good after you add copper)
There have been LPS corals and clams liveing in there over ten years so I guess they don't know about the copper reading.
So change water if you like but figure out why your nitrates are rising.

[Gary Majchrzak]

Originally Posted by porthios

Care to explain what evils might be involved?
sure. pick any heavy metal that exists in toxic concentrations in ASW that is exported via skimming, macro uptake, coral uptake, etc. faster than it is replaced by the foods and other additive inputs of that metal. wc's with regards to this metal are evil as they would continually replenish towards the toxic concentrations present in the original ASW.

shimek's 'it's in the water' series and follow ups (even refutations) by other authors give several examples of metals to choose from.

a-HA.. THOSE evils!
There was a point in time several years ago when I was extremely concerned about the possibility of toxic metal concentrations in ASW... but no more... with the possible exception of Crystal Sea saltmix.

And a lot of us can remember what Dr. Ron's thoughts were on THAT saltmix.

[porthios]

thanks randy. as usual, that's a far better summary of what i was trying to say than what i could come up with..

gary, i don't think we disagree. i'm just picking nits a bit. i specifically included a refutation because i'm aware of the challenges to his methods and conclusions.

thomas, you're assigning arguments to me that i haven't made. that doesn't seem fair. and do you think we could tone down the character attacks a little? just trying to have a discussion mate..

[thomasp123]

To All

I apologize for getting a bit worked up but I am very sensitive to water change issues. I get upset when I find that many people start up tanks both fresh and salt and either get strange ideas about husbandry or just are lazy and end up killing everything. When I forst started on RC I got very mixed ideas about how to care for things and ended up just doing what seemed most like good common sense. Regular water changes fit that description to me, so I was glad to see the original post of this discussion. Then it turned into some type of fight against water changes. Next time I will simply have a drink and go watch my tank.

[Gary Majchrzak]

I hope you're drinking something good....
perhaps a Sam Adams?

Ooops... another topic for debate!

[Kreeger1]

Originally Posted by porthios

I don't want to start another 'Water Changes vs. No Water Changes' debate, but the evidence is pretty substantial.

horse-pucky..

all you did is demonstrate that nutrient management is a good idea. there are plenty of other ways to manage nutrients and many can be less expensive than wc's.

Agree as well, All you found out was that your filtration method is not up to par for what you have in your tank is all.
Bi yearly water changes for me probably been on that for atleast 10-15 years or more.

[Paul B]

I get upset when I find that many people start up tanks both fresh and salt and either get strange ideas about husbandry or just are lazy and end up killing everything.

Thomas, there was no actual fight on here. Some people get worked up when they feel their opinions are questioned. I for one probably have the strangest ideas about husbandry but I don't care one bit if someone, or even everyone disagrees with me.
It is a hobby and by defination, not very important, except maybe to us. And if we lost our hobby tomorrow the worst thing that would happen realistically is we would have more money and more free time.
This is a discussion and very little of it is fact, there are just too many variables.
There are many fantastic looking tanks on here and they all have different husbandry ideas but they all work.
I run a reverse UG filter, I am probably the only one and I feel that all other systems are useless, but being that is my opinion and there are so many nicer tanks than mine, who cares? I try not to push my RUGF on other people too much (I know I sometimes fail at that)
Anyway, a discussion is just that.
Have a great day
Paul

[Gary Majchrzak]

so I figured it would be a good time to snap a quick pic of my aquarium (which I just did here!). No special prep for this shot (ie: cleaning the sandbed, tripod, camera etc.). When researching the possible benefits of regular water changes it would do well to reseach the credentials (and aquariums) of those giving advice.
My aquarium animals react quite positively to a water change.

Maybe they're into heavy metal!



dang frag in the sandbed grew too close to the glass this week and got knocked off by the cleaning magnet. What a shot spoiler!

[tydtran]

Beautiful shot, Gary.

I really agree with you, that the proof of the success of a method is in the resulting tank. There should be a thread here where everyone whose interested can post a picture of their tank along with a brief summary of their tank maintenance practice, salt brand, equipment lists etc. That way, when someone chimes in with advice, you can see the practical result of what they have achieved and then judge the qualitiy of their advice.

[thomasp123]

Gary nice Pic! here is a full shot of my mixed softie LPS tank.

http://i571.photobucket.com/albums/s...1touchedup.jpg

Tom

[thomasp123]

opps try again

[thomasp123]

Someday I aspire to a nice sps tank

[Paul B]

Gary, beautiful tank you have there

I think my tank was about 34 years old in this picture.
Water changes 5 or 6 times a year, about 10% NSW. No additives except two part home made calcium and occasionally Lugols Iodine.
RUGF




This fireclown was about 15 here

[Gary Majchrzak]

I've always admired your aquarium, Paul.
Not only your aquarium- but your longevity keeping a reef aquarium.
It's very obvious you're doing something right!

I'll bet you don't drink Busch

[Gary Majchrzak]

Paul- does the Idol bother any of those corals?

[theJiggyfly]

I have a mixed reef heavy on the SPS side and its my experience no water change is better. I keep my parameters straight and all is very well. when I do water changes I notice my coral lacks luster for about a week before it starts to pop back. I also only run my skimmer 1 day every 2 weeks. It doesn't make since to run it full time if it isn't pulling. Its a great skimmer SWC 250 and it can pull everything out of my tank in about 5 hours.black funk skimmate. the best my corals have ever looked is when I was building my current tank. I kept everything in a trough for 4 months with no skimmer or water changes and thats the craziest color I have ever had. It looked like a zeo tank.