Are waterchanges really needed?

[Junkzoo]

BTW/FWIW, i do w/c's,,,,,how else am i gonna get ALL those tall buckets w/ plastic plants (that my Clown Trigger and Queen Angel, luv to munch on )

[SteveNichols]

"how often do you need to add salt?"

Oh, about 3 years ago. I guess the seachem has enough "extra" crap in it to keep the salinity at 34-35 ppt.

[SPC]

Originally posted by mojoreef
Analytical grade is basically lab grade components, so thier is none of the food grade ad ins. Lets just say a purer form. Also it is made from Calcium oxide. This allows for a more concentrated mix.

Mike

Thats what I was thought it was Mike. I presume you get this through work then (high cost?)?
Steve

[NewReefer]

Originally posted by Spanky
I just run a hose from the canal.

Is that Sewer grade or just plane Ol Canal water?

[mojoreef]

Steve actually I asked John from Warner Marine for a sample of his product Kalk Plus. He came buy the house with a 5 gallon pail, lol. even at 10 gals a day, I think I have enough to last till 2010.

Mike

[tdwyatt]

Originally posted by Spanky
I just run a hose from the canal.

jeeze...

[tdwyatt]

Originally posted by mojoreef
...even at 10 gals a day, I think I have enough to last till 2010..

Yeah, that should do... ...for a bit

On the Kalk, as far as skewing the proportion of the conservative elements, the use of a product that does not contribute any "extra" elements into the mix would be the best means of extending the proportionality of the Conservatives. Kalk takes CO2 from the atmosphere to make the alkalinity proportion of the Ca/Alk supplementation and does not supply anything else. The impurities (clays) from the kalk powder may supply some minor trace amounts of insoluble particulates (they stay in the reactor), but by scale, this should be insignificant as long as it is at least food grade. CO2-based Ca reacctors should be pretty much on the same level as the kalk reactors, although they will provide whatever trace elements, etc that are in the reactor sand (on a greater scale than Kalk). These should not be a problem, as the source of tropical aragonite would have primarily been coral skeletons. The use of 2 part Ca/alk additives would be problematic in systems that do not do water changes, as the amount of equimolar sodium and chloride provided by these additives will skew the proportion of these two elements to in time form a brine of primarily sodium chloride. Keep in mind, whatever goes into the tank stays in the tank (except evaporative water) unless it is exported by some mechanism, whether it be macroalgal growth, benthos biomass, fish or other critter biomass, dentirification, etc.

You could manipulate the numbers, test, and titrate to make up these differences over time, but it would be a lot easier and much more consistant to just do water changes.

[aqua maniac]

i swear by water changes! you know that add for the "eco aqualizer" in the most recent issue of tfh (the testomonial)? well i strated doing weekly water changes about a year ago and if you took out the word "eco aqualizer" and replased it with "water changes" that would about describe my results! i think some should wright a thread called "are eco aqualizers necesary"

[trodder]

The only bit of insight I can add to this discussion is this.... the water we drink, swim in, wash our clothes, dishes, & cars in, and the water in the Ocean and lakes that fish swim in is over 4.5 to 5 billion years old. There is NO SUCH THING as FRESH water! Clean water??? by what standard??? Clean drinking water is different then clean water that I would water my plants with or wash my car with or even subject my fish to swim in. It is different between my fresh and my salwater fish... Do you all see where I'm going with this? Water changes should be done only as needed! If you are testing the proper elements and all seems well... don't risk it with a water change even if it has been doing well for a year or more. On the other hand if your water is chemically (by chemically I mean nutrients/elements/etc) imbalanced than do changes as needed. There really is no true right or wrong question to the answer. Now keep in mind the theory that was said about fresh water always rushing through the ocean that the fish live in... constant fresh water... how do you figure?? The water that evaps from ocean is replaced with rain water!! Kind of like an aquarium having its water replaced with top-off water (in a reef tank that water is calcium enriched in most cases as well as with other nutrients as needed. The ocean does not get a 20% water change every month!! maybe 1% a month if that (due to evap followed by rain.) The water is only as FRESH as it is made by the desired form of filtration, i.e. live rock combined with a mechanical filtration and maybe a protien skimmer(equivilent to the oceans shores were large wastes are washed up combined with crashing waves mixing O2 with water to cause a bubbly froth to wash up on rocks and sand.

To make this very long story short there is no right or wrong answer it all depends on you and the envoronment you have provided!!! Use your best judgement! All else will fall into place

[SPC]

Water changes should be done only as needed! If you are testing the proper elements and all seems well.

Which elements would these be, trodder?

Steve

[trodder]

PH, Ammonia,Nitrites, Nitrates, etc....

[SteveNichols]

trodder,
Are you familiar with the water study Ron Shimek did? It showed that even NSW, after a very short time in our tanks, has little in common with the water the animals live in. The creatures we have assumed ultimate responibility for are quite used to a particular environment. In not changing water on a relatively large scale, pretty frequently, we are subjecting their systems to an environment not of their haitat. You could probably equate it to changing theair you breath to contain a number of toxic chemicals. It doesn't cause immediate death, but it certainly isn't conducive to a long and healthy life. Perhaps some can make it through, as some smokers don't get sick, but would you argue the cigarteete smoking doesn't affect smokers to their detriment? Same goes for the animals we have accepted responsibility to provide the best environment we can.

What about all the stuff we can't even accurately test for? Are you using the best test kits available, ones that can measure these quantities to those found in nature? I didn't do water chages for a long time. THe more I educate myself, the more I realize how little I know, how poor a job of providing for the creatures I so love I have been doing. Up until the water stud, I didn't do them at all, since then, I have done few. The more I read, though, the more I understand that even though these creatures are incredibly hardy and adaptable, I haven't been giving them my best, or what is best for them. I am going to start doing much more frequent, larger water changes.

I would posit that much of the problem we as hobbiests have in getting fish to their natural size, besides too small a tank, is that we subject them to a chemical soup that is far from what they are used to.

[wasabi]

Which elements would these be, trodder?

ph, ammonia,nitrates nitrites etc.

i dont believe any of those(elements) have a whole lot to do with a needed water change. in a stable system that has been running well, i have never noticed a detectable nitrate,nitrite,or ammonia level.ph in my systems has to be kept in check thru additives or adjusting the reactor. i do water changes on my largest system because it has been working so far. i have a 135 gallon softie/sps mix that hasnt had a water change for over a year, all is well. i do notice the refugium in the no change system has a lot more undesireble algea and cyano. i change 70 gallons every 4-6 weeks in my larger system (500 gallon) roughly 15%. this system has less (actually none)undesirable algeas. so if i had to take a vote based on my experience i'd go with the 15-20 percent changes on a regular basis.

[SPC]

Originally posted by trodder
PH, Ammonia,Nitrites, Nitrates, etc....

Hi trodder,
The ammonia and nitrite will be taken care of quite easily by the bacteria in our tanks, in fact, so will the nitrate as long as we don't overload them with a high bioload.

Clean water??? by what standard???

The standard, or should I say goal, is what would be found on the natural reef for people running a reef tank. It makes no difference if the water is billions of years old, the make up is what the animals need to thrive. Unfortunately, the very nature of our little closed systems will not allow this, so we need to try and duplicate it as close as possible.

Steve

[trodder]

I think most everyone has taking me the wrong way... What I'm saying is that when things get out of the norm do a water change but if all is in the norm and more than a month goes by and you have not done a water change don't do it just because you were told to do a scheduled water change. Let the tests tell you. Wasabi, whenI say PH, ammonia, nitrites, & nitrates please keep in mind I said "etc." I gave those as an example for they are the most important in any aquatic living environment...

SPC, you pretty much made my point about the bacteria in our tanks taking care of ammonia, nitrates, & nitrites. A good eco system maintains itself. Now again I'm not saying don't do water changes!! Don't do them when it's not needed. Someone said on this thread... Let the critters tell the story... I agree with that very much. I'm not saying you need to do tests ALL the time, as we all know they can be time consuming. But here are some tips that we all watch for that tell us how certain things are doing... i.e. if the water is a bit cloudy or the fish are breathing a little more heavily you may be high in ammonia, if you have escessive algea check your Nitrates (I think... I always get confused and reference if it is nitrates or nitrites that promotes algea growth, but really it doesn't matter because you should check both when excessive algea occurs.) I believe in water changes as much as the rest of you and perform them on occasion especially on new tanks... but as an example on my Piranha tank I took all the water from the 30 gal that they were first raised in that I did a number of water changes in at the beginning, I then transfered it into my 90 gallon along with the fish... I have not done a water change on that tank since. That was done 9 months ago. I still do not see a need to change the water any time soon. They have continued to thrive. The only fatalities I hvae ever had in keeping fish are the feeders that I feed my piranhas. Now even with the swing of a major bio-load of 100 large feeder gold fish every week all is very stable do to the environment that I provided. I had many live plants in the tank which is a natural filter in itself. I also have a UGF with 2 powerheads that pump 200 gph and a Tetra Tec II SP500 power filter that does a pretty bang up job. I recently took many of the plants out and moved them into a different tank so now I will have to be more careful of the bio-load or do a water change every so often.

SPC, you also mentioned... The standard, or should I say goal, is what would be found on the natural reef for people running a reef tank. It makes no difference if the water is billions of years old, the make up is what the animals need to thrive. Unfortunately, the very nature of our little closed systems will not allow this, so we need to try and duplicate it as close as possible.

we also can't exactly duplicate it with RO water, tap water (obviously), rain water or anything. All those elements in the lakes and oceans are disbursed by the all the living and dying and dead organisms. Like calcium.. not a lot coming from any water source, it comes from the dead coral or something of that nature.

On a final note don't take what i say as the way it is... it is simply a point of view. Some of it is theory, some is fact, and some is my experience... Not the way of life!! It WILL VARY in every environment... I wish the best of look to all of you in the methods and practices that you use because again everyone tends to have different results than others.

Thomas