Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

Booger, I have noticed you ignored several requests
from several different people who wanted to see your
tank(s) run over a year without a water change...

Why don't you show people here your method works ?

Is there maybe something wrong with your tank and
you do not want to show it ? What are you ashamed of?

Check this out:
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-11/totm/index.php
Tell me, is your tank looking like this one or better ?

Show me the picture of your tank - I want to nominate
your tank for a "Tank Of The Month" contest! ;-)

Or... I have a better idea - write an e-mail to the
owner of this tank, Menard Villaber, and tell him
he is wasting his time and money changing water... :-)

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

"Pszemol" wrote in message
...
Booger, I have noticed you ignored several requests
from several different people who wanted to see your
tank(s) run over a year without a water change...

Why don't you show people here your method works ?

Is there maybe something wrong with your tank and
you do not want to show it ? What are you ashamed of?

Check this out:
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-11/totm/index.php
Tell me, is your tank looking like this one or better ?

Show me the picture of your tank - I want to nominate
your tank for a "Tank Of The Month" contest! ;-)

Or... I have a better idea - write an e-mail to the
owner of this tank, Menard Villaber, and tell him
he is wasting his time and money changing water... :-)


I second that !
I would like to see the b00ger tank.
1 year, no water change....here is what I imagine it would look like...
http://www.southparkx.net/gallery/da...a/1/toilet.jpg

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

Come to think of it, I think we would all like to see it..

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

Well, I don't know who Booger is but here's some pictures of my tank
....

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/alanfromw...ank/index.html

Last water change was about a year ago, I add Kent's "essential
elements" once a week but I've no idea if it makes any difference.
Nitrates are almost zero, phosphates are zero: I grow Chaeto in the
sump export them. Can't really think of any good reason to waste money
and effort on water changes.

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

wrote in message ups.com...
Well, I don't know who Booger is but here's some pictures of my tank
...

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/alanfromw...ank/index.html

Last water change was about a year ago, I add Kent's "essential
elements" once a week but I've no idea if it makes any difference.
Nitrates are almost zero, phosphates are zero: I grow Chaeto in the
sump export them. Can't really think of any good reason to waste money
and effort on water changes.

Not bad...
Tell me, do you use any chemical filters like activated carbon
or phosphate removers ? Please tell me more about this tank.

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

I use Phosban. Until recently this was just in a filter bag hung in the
sump but I've just bought a reactor: I'm hoping I'll get more milage
out of the Phosban and the reactor will pay for itself in the long run.
It only needed changing every 3 months or so before but it's expenisve
stuff.

I've also just started running some carbon in a bag in the sump just to
see what happens. Can't honestly say I've noticed any difference yet.

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

wrote in message
ups.com...
Well, I don't know who Booger is but here's some pictures of my tank
...

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/alanfromw...ank/index.html

Last water change was about a year ago, I add Kent's "essential
elements" once a week but I've no idea if it makes any difference.

Ditto! I do the same thing, only I add Kent Marine essential elements 1once
a month or so. No water changes in 2-years! Just a little algae I need to
remedy.

These people here (for the most part) are brain washed into thinking you
need to water changes all the time.

Nitrates are almost zero, phosphates are zero: I grow Chaeto in the
sump export them. Can't really think of any good reason to waste money
and effort on water changes.

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

"bo0ger1" .@. wrote in
m:



wrote in message
ups.com...
Well, I don't know who Booger is but here's some pictures of my tank
...

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/alanfromw...ank/index.html

Last water change was about a year ago, I add Kent's "essential
elements" once a week but I've no idea if it makes any difference.

Ditto! I do the same thing, only I add Kent Marine essential elements
1once a month or so. No water changes in 2-years! Just a little
algae I need to remedy.

These people here (for the most part) are brain washed into thinking
you need to water changes all the time.


Mmm. You (deliberately, at this point?) mis-characterize water changes,
and the people who make use of them. Derisive comments directed at their
proponents does not hold nearly as much weight as demonstrated proof of
their being unnecessary. Talk is cheap, (and insults are free), especially
on the Internet. In that respect, blackhole555 has contributed an order of
magnitude more content with one post, than you have in the last three weeks
at r.a.m.reefs. You go on about water changes being a grand conspiracy of
unneeded work for the laboring aquarium proletariat, but have yet to offer
a shred of evidence that it works for you, other than your dubious word.

Water changes are a health/preventative measure for a closed aquatic
system, with a conscious reason for their use, not some mindless habit.

Analogy; People can live to be sixty or older on an exclusive McDonald's
diet. Some people can even thrive on it, usually if they're picky about
what they choose off of the menu. But for most of us, a healthy diet and
regular exercise are a much surer road to longevity. Water changes are the
equivalent of a person having a light workout 3 times per week, i.e. a
simple, proven, reliable method for improving one's health.

Application of analogy; Sure, just about everyone here has _already_
recognized that you can maintain a simple FOWLR tank without water changes,
and fairly easily so (keep the fish mass down vs. tank size, amount of
liverock and number of supporting detrivores, pick species which don't
produce an abundance of secreted toxins, and avoid messy eaters).
There are also instances of reefkeepers who can strike a balanced system
without water changes (often with either a technologically elaborate setup,
a means of nutrient export, or both), but that doesn't detract from the
value of water changes for those for whom it works, either. There are
several ways to live a healthy lifestyle...


To blackhole555, that's a beautiful tank! How big is it, and the sump?
A sump/refugium type-setup for nutrient export seems to be a recurring
theme to those reef tanks I've seen which report little/no water changes.
Do you think you would you be as confident of not changing your water, if
you were lacking that aspect of your setup? ...Do I see a Vecton UV
sterilizer in that cabinet, too?

Regards,
DaveZ
Atom Weaver

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

The tank is 36x24x24, the sump is 24x12x15, about 350L of water in
total, I think.

There is indeed a UV unit in there, also a fairly recent addition, I
added it after reading "The reef aquarium" vol 3 by J.Sprung (Excellent
reference book, BTW). he says they have "many advantages and no
disadvantages" & I reakon he knows his stuff!

I think the desicion to stop water changes (I did originally do them)
came more from my growing understanding of the reef chemistry and the
nitrogen cycle rather than "I've got all the kit, I don't need water
changes" type of thinking.

Might be better to stand the question on it's head and ask those who do
water changes "what do you think they achieve". I don't need to remove
NO3 (It varies between 0 & 5ppm) or PO4 or anything else I can think of
right now. If adding trace elements is your reason, then you're
assuming that the salt mix you buy has the correct trace elements in it
(Some don't event get the Ca & alk. right).

BTW: It's not laziness either, I also have 4 FW tanks & they get 20%
changed every 2 weeks. Anyone got any live rock that works in FW?

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

Might be better to stand the question on it's head and ask those who do
water changes "what do you think they achieve". I don't need to remove
NO3 (It varies between 0 & 5ppm) or PO4 or anything else I can think of
right now. If adding trace elements is your reason, then you're
assuming that the salt mix you buy has the correct trace elements in it
(Some don't event get the Ca & alk. right).

I have been arguing with these nuckleheads for about 2-weeks regarding
unnecessary water changes. I have received 3-reasons that they do them.

1) In order to add trace elements/remove nitrate.
2) It's enjoyable
3) Because coral release toxic chemicals into the water ??

I think the real reason they do it is for a lack of understanding at the
chemical/biological level. It is easier for them to do a water change than
to grasp what is going on in their tank at a biological level.


BTW: It's not laziness either, I also have 4 FW tanks & they get 20%
changed every 2 weeks. Anyone got any live rock that works in FW?

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

bo0ger1 wrote:
Might be better to stand the question on it's head and ask those who do
water changes "what do you think they achieve". I don't need to remove
NO3 (It varies between 0 & 5ppm) or PO4 or anything else I can think of
right now. If adding trace elements is your reason, then you're
assuming that the salt mix you buy has the correct trace elements in it
(Some don't event get the Ca & alk. right).


I have been arguing with these nuckleheads for about 2-weeks regarding
unnecessary water changes. I have received 3-reasons that they do them.

1) In order to add trace elements/remove nitrate.
2) It's enjoyable
3) Because coral release toxic chemicals into the water ??

I think the real reason they do it is for a lack of understanding at the
chemical/biological level. It is easier for them to do a water change than
to grasp what is going on in their tank at a biological level.


BTW: It's not laziness either, I also have 4 FW tanks & they get 20%
changed every 2 weeks. Anyone got any live rock that works in FW?




OK...I am very much a newbie here and come from a freshwater tropical
background where water changes are your saviour....reducing nitrates,
phosphates, docs and other nasties....has to be done....just a way of
life....but I am also very fascinated about finding the way to do this
naturally....in my freshwater tanks this is dead easy....just plant
everywhere and fertilise to promote the growth of the higher plant
species to get rid of algea (OK it isn't really that easy but it is
achievabale..) but water changes still play a big roll in this....now to
get a biotope working in a freshwater tank is quite a challenge as
well....Amano works towards doing this...and I know that there are
schools of thought that suggest that in a heavily planted tank gravel
vaccuming is a bad rather than a good thing.....

Now when it comes to water changes, and I am very much a newbie brought
up on the freshwater tank mentality.....I see gravel vacs in my 15 gall
Nano tank as a bad thing - afterall the whole thing balances on the
little critters living in my rocks and sand.....no way I want to suck
them up.....if my nitrates and phosphates are zero or only just dectable
then there is no need to change the water based on these readings....and
the Protein Skimmer is visibly doing its job.....but my corals are dying
and suffering, from what the process of elimination has determined, some
sort of toxins in the water then water changes is the only way to
go....if the tank was older than 10 weeks plus then I would look at
other issues...but even if the nitrogen cycle is complete this tank is
still developing (6 months down the line I hope I laugh at the traumas
I've had in the last 2 weeks - or at least be a little wiser)......and
rather hope I still have some corals living as a testament to my
learning process....

Failing all other measures....I will do water changes....and really I
get quite curious....if you are not doing water changes you are
obviously topping up the water to deal with evaporation....and this
might just be enough.....afterall it is still a slow and gentle water
change....and as far as I can see slow and gentle is the key.....

Would love to see pics of your tank

Gill

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

"bo0ger1" .@. wrote in message
m...

Might be better to stand the question on it's head and ask those who do
water changes "what do you think they achieve". I don't need to remove
NO3 (It varies between 0 & 5ppm) or PO4 or anything else I can think of
right now. If adding trace elements is your reason, then you're
assuming that the salt mix you buy has the correct trace elements in it
(Some don't event get the Ca & alk. right).

I have been arguing with these nuckleheads for about 2-weeks regarding
unnecessary water changes. I have received 3-reasons that they do them.

1) In order to add trace elements/remove nitrate.
2) It's enjoyable
3) Because coral release toxic chemicals into the water ??

I think the real reason they do it is for a lack of understanding at the
chemical/biological level. It is easier for them to do a water change
than to grasp what is going on in their tank at a biological level.


BTW: It's not laziness either, I also have 4 FW tanks & they get 20%
changed every 2 weeks. Anyone got any live rock that works in FW?



Stop skirting the subject.
We still haven't seen a picture of your tank boog.
I will say, I'm finding this subject quite interesting
Fact or fiction: The toilet bowl effect.

You're basically telling us knuckle draggers that
if your eat, sleep and **** in water it some how stays clean enough
to live in. Call me silly, but isn't it true if you drink you
urine more than 3 times it gets toxic ?

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

/The Conscientious Marine Aquarist

http://www.wetwebmedia.com/watrqualmar.htm

Marine Aquarium Water Quality

What is this ideal, this oxymoron, this mythical beast "Water Quality"?
Asked to name the 'secret' to successfully keeping marines, what would you
say? Buying the 'right' specimens? Proper acclimation, feeding? All these
are critically important; as is keeping parasitic and infectious diseases at
bay.
You may well recall, the third triad in our model of factors determining the
well-being of any system is suitability of the environment. For the majority
of situations/circumstances we are talking about water quality. Of the
controllable variables of aquariculture, it is the most important. Let's
make this perfectly clear; everything about the health of your system is
tied to water quality. If your fishes appear ill, do not first suspect
disease, refrain from changing their food, light, or anything else; check
the quality of your water. I swear more aquatic life has been 'saved' by
moving to new water, or executing a massive water change, than the use of
all medications combined.
To put this concept in more succinct terms: Nearly all livestock problems
start and end with the appropriateness of their liquid medium.
Let's work our way into a definition of what good water quality is and how
it is best approximated. You won't have to become a chemist or physicist, I
promise.
An Ideal Set-up:
Take a gander at the photographs of public aquariums offered in this
magazine. How do they keep the water in their tanks so clean and clear? I
know what you're thinking; "They must have super-filtration systems, with
digital dosimeters like a nuclear power plant, exotic towers, and a
full-time scientific staff." "Bob the Fishman lied; I am going to have to
become an engineer". Well, guess what, that gin-clear water is often due to
a sand filter, the beach. Some of these public aquariums dig sal****er wells
and pump up the seawater that percolates to it through the surrounding
porous rock. Good deal. Their "open circuit" and "semi-open" (recirculated)
systems return the barely used natural water back to the adjacent ocean.
We're not quite so fortunate with our "closed", recirculating units. Our
water starts out as good as we can make it and degrades from there,
chemically and physically. The use of various filter modes, additives and
maintenance only serves to slow down the pace; water quality dis-improves.
Be aware, but don't let this bum you out. The majority of organisms
available to the hobby have a wide tolerance and are adaptable to initial
and aged water conditions.
Natural Seawater
Is not used by most aquarists. Look in the hobby magazines; you don't see
many advertisements promoting gear for manipulating real seawater.
Synthetics are almost universally employed; huge public aquaria even use
them. For instance the "new" National Aquarium @ Baltimore. Even though it's
right on the Bay, they mix up and recirculate hundreds of thousands of
gallons of synthetic seawater.
Discussion and arguments for natural/synthetic sal****er I've covered before
(see Bibliography). Let's focus our attention here on artificial mixes; what
most everyone employs.
It's the Water, & A Lot Mo
The United States has gone from agricultural, to manufacturing, to services
and through the eighties well into the information age. Forget about
investing in the technical highway; get with a real booming field Sal****er
Mixes. I wish you and I got to have the money all the manufactures spend
advertising every month in the hobby magazines. Talk about a growth
industry.
Is there really that much difference (besides price) amongst all the brands?
Yes & No. Some are more "pure" in that they are composed to a greater degree
from "technical" and "reagent" grade constituents (yes, I used to teach
chemistry and physics). Others can portend they are more "complete" in that
they specifically have tested (more) vigorously for and/or added more
elements and compounds mimicking "real" seawater. Admittedly they vary in
initial pH, alkaline-reserve, re-dox, etc.; but ostensibly they all will/do
support most forms of captive marine life. Other factors in artificial
seawater-making loom large in consideration of "quality".
Some Background:
The composition of seawater in it's various salts (about 35 parts per
thousand), minerals, metals... is often presented as being of rigid, and
homogeneous constitution throughout the world's oceans. And the wildlife in
it being of narrow tolerance of change in this 'holy grail' consistent
medium.
This is only part of a/the big picture as regards the waters our livestock
hail from. Almost all are collected from places that are opportune to
humans, not surprisingly. They are typically shallow water, coastal, near
population (polluted) centers, that are subjected to varying specific
gravity, run-off, sewage, wave action induced pH fluctuations... What's
more, all living things show a broader-narrower tolerance /range to
environmental conditions.
Hence our chances at successfully meeting their needs in artificial media.
The principal ingredient, by weight and volume in a marine system is... H2O.
Your tap water has much more to it then Hydrogen and Oxygen. Ordinary mains
water sports dissolved and suspended gases, solids, other liquids, remnants
of, and organic life; and a sanitizer (usually chloramine). Here in Southern
California we regularly have several hundred parts per million (ppm) of
total dissolved solids (TDS) in our tap.
Does all this glop (non-scientific term) pose real problems for an earnest
marine aquarist? No, in all honesty, it's minor spuds (small potatoes)
compared with all the other contributing factors affecting the make-up of
your system's water.
Hear me out. The E.P.A., among other agencies, mandates just how much of
several (from the Middle English, meaning 'many') chemical and biological
species are allowable in potable water. For instance, tap must have a
concentration of less than 1.0 ppm total Nitrate (NO3). Further influences?
Have you thought of the ongoing effects from dissolving substrates, rock,
decor, feeding (one ounce of food in one million ounces of water would be 1
ppm), biological processes going on in your closed system? And what about
the interactions between all this and the salts and more you add to the
water?
If you've grown fond of lugging bottled water, utilizing reverse-osmosis, or
even distilled water, more power to you. But let's keep all this in
perspective. The bulk of undesirable "extras" in tap water can be either
ignored or easily removed either through an in-line chemical contactor"
(e.g. Aquarium Pharmaceutical's Tap Water Purifier (tm)) or commercially
produced conditioners.
Not to disparage the use of more "purified" water out of hand/proportion; my
point is that compared with other contributing factors, for marine systems,
ordinary treated tapwater is not a major source of concern in terms of added
nutrient, pollutants, metals... Freshwater biotopes (e.g. wild discus, some
killies) that appreciate far less in their water are a different matter.
Keeping Water Quality High: Filtration
Some of the general techniques used to preserve water quality will introduce
here; and discuss them more fully in upcoming issues.
Biological Filtration: is the sum-total of interactions between the micro-
(one's you can't see with the naked eye) and macro- (one's you can) life,
rendering less-noxious the waste-production of the latter. 'Sterile' new
marine systems don't stay that way for long. Colonizing microbes come in via
the air, water, items that find their way into the system, intentionally or
not. Eventually (after a few weeks) without adding desirable varieties,
beneficial microbes become established in a system sufficient to readily
process livestock wastes.
These processes are expedited by use of undergravel filtration, wet-dry
techniques, live-rock, fluidized bed, nitrate et al. scrubbers...
Chemical Filtrants: like activated carbon and specialized resins are used to
remove dissolved organics. They do also remove trace materials you want in
the system, but this is an agreeable trade-off.
Mechanical Means: of removing particulates; power filters, diatomaceous
earth, cartridge types, etc. take out suspended matter aiding their removal,
digestion by microbes.
Air-stripping, aka Protein skimming is a given for me; all marine systems
benefit from their use and should be outfitted with them. Where properly
built (a rarity) and used, skimming is supreme at improving water quality
via fractional removal of organics.
Ozone the tri-atomic (O3) form of Oxygen, added through a skimmer or by
itself raises reduction oxidation potential, adds to conversion or organics.
Ultraviolet Sterilization is of some, but limited value with other
filtration and system maintenance considerations taken into account. U-V's
are useful in reducing free-floating microbe populations and their
biological effects, nominally raising re-dox, oxygen and ozone levels.
To recap; it is my opinion that marine systems must be outfitted first with
working Biological Filtration, then with a protein skimmer, with or without
an ozonizer. Ultraviolet is and should be a last concern.
Loading otherwise known as stocking, crowding a marine system with livestock
is difficult to quantify, and seemingly impossible to control for aquarists.
Obviously, the less "fixed-carbon" (life), concomitant addition as food, the
minimized effects of induced-pollution, metabolite build-up... So small is
beautiful in stocking your system. Public aquaria allow as little as a few
ounces of livestock per hundred gallons of system water. My guideline is any
more than a cubic inch of any given mix of specimens per five gallons is
pushing it, asking for increased maintenance, and trouble.
Water Changes are the single most important means you have to reduce the
effects of captive containment, ultimate shift, loss of water quality.
Diluting ill-effects, adding "trace" materials from new seawater should be
done on a regular, consistent time schedule. Do not be sold on any given
technology that purports to make "water changing unnecessary". Frequent,
partial water changes are the least expensive, most effective way to ensure
and sustain aquariums successfully; period.
This being written (and believed), remember 'cleanliness is not sterility';
there are beneficial substances produced by life processes. You want to
vacuum clean only a portion of a system at any time. Depending of course on
your systems' size, configuration, particulars of filtration, circulation,
foods/feeding... probably ten to twenty percent every few weeks.
Supplements: The relative merits of additives will be covered later in a
piece titled Adjuncts to Water Quality
Test Gear: How can you tell when and to what degree your efforts are
necessary or productive? Hydrometers to measure specific gravity, test kits
of myriad types can be useful tools, "windows" for looking into changing
conditions in your water quality.
In Summary:
It is easy to see how easily our water quality degrades in such small,
overcrowded, often underfed captive systems. It can be bewildering to get
too involved in understanding, or worse, driving one aspect of "water
quality" without concomitant awareness of how that change affects other
aspects of chemistry, physics and biology of your system. Fear not, as most
appropriate livestock that has been collected and held properly is quite
tough and resistant to the vicissitudes of aquarium confinement.
Do learn the consequences of the major testable criteria of water quality,
avail yourself of the gear for evaluation (test kits), and be fastidiously
regular in your maintenance; in particular frequent, partial water changes.

Bibliography/Further:
Anon. 1974. Sal****er quality. Aquarium Digest International 2:4/74.
Bidwell, Joseph P. 1976. Water quality and the bioassay. Marine Aquarist
7:7/76.
Campbell, Douglas G. Water quality in the marine system, parts I & II. FAMA
6,7/95.
Dawes, John. 1988. Water quality in marine systems. Pets Supplies Marketing
8/88.
Emmens, C.W. 1989. Water quality in the marine aquarium. FAMA 8/89.
Fenner, Bob. 1989. Frequent partial water changes. FAMA 4/89.
Fenner, Bob. 1991. Seawater, natural or synthetic? (Which way to go?). FAMA
9/91.
Glodek, Garrett. 1993. The properties of seawater. FAMA 2/93.
King, John, M. 1972. Marine aquariums are NOT miniature oceans. Marine
Aquarist 3(4)/72.
Smit, George. 1989. The water quality factor in marine aquariums, parts 1 &
2. FAMA 1,3/89.
Sprung, Julian. 1996. Water quality: Sal****er; more than just numbers. AFM
6/96.
Thiel, Albert J. 1993. Introduction to water quality. FAMA 3/93

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

/The Conscientious Marine Aquarist

Frequent Partial Water Changes



Probably the most important aspect of maintenance a keeper of an aquatic
system can do to optimize water quality and health of their charges is to
change some of the water is a regular basis. This Section deals with the
reasons for, and some rules of thumb as to how often, how much and how to
make these changes.
Rationale:
There are several major benefits of frequent partial water changes: Dilution
of nutrient, removal of particulate matter, reduction in microbial
populations and their metabolites. Results anticipated are faster, more
vigorous growth, reduced algae growth, color and odor.
It has been written in many fisheries, limnological and hobbyist texts that
along with temperature and photoperiod, metabolite ("wastes") build-up is
one of the three most important factors influencing the health, growth and
reproduction of livestock.
More specifically; in the trade, ammonia and other nitrogenous wastes are
recognized as the number one killer of aquatic life in captive conditions.
Not to say that all the "stuff" produced by the system's desiraable life is
toxic. Some metabolites, like pheromones, are actually known to have calming
effects. Therefore the concept of partial, not total water changes.
In doing these water changes we are interested in a dilution-solution; that
is, keeping these so-called waste products at tolerable levels.
There are several ways this is otherwise accomplished. Most common are some
forms of biological filtration and chemical filtration like carbon and
ion-exchange materials. The last are useful but often labor and money
intensive. Moreover, these chemical filtrants do remove desirable chemicals
as well.
As stated in so many previous Sections it is imperative vital that as much
extraneous materials: foods, dirt from decor, material from the immediate
outside environment be kept from getting in the system. What little does
make its way in should be removed by netting/vacuuming, diluted or removed
by making partial water changes.
Some potential pollution will probably be added to your system in the way of
food and chemical additives/fertilizer. Even without over- or mis- feeding
and/or fertilizing, freshwater evaporation adds to a decided negative
chemical effect on an aquatic system. This "Salton Sea Syndrome" occurs as
water evaporates leaving behind its' chemical constituents.
So enough of the reasoning for making water changes; onto the nuts and bolts
of how to do them:
How often:
Depending on your pump/filter/circulation system, stocking and feeding
regimen et al., partial water changes about once a week to about once a
month are about right. More frequent smaller amounts are better than
infrequent mega-changes, with one possible exception. Some writers advocate
an occasional massive change (50% or more) as a stop-gap measure to dilute
metabolites, nitrates in particular. I'd rather encourage you to stick to
regular, smaller volume changes; they're safer and accomplish about the same
ends.
Make a schedule/notebook for your system and keep track of what you do and
how it works for you. Patterns will emerge and give you a guideline for how
frequent you should change water.
How much:
Five to ten percent for larger systems and twice that for smaller is
generally sufficient. The chemical/physical/biological shock from changing
too much too soon is to be avoided.
Though some marine authors state that water treatment chemicals are
unwarranted with such frequent small percentage change, I'd encourage you
"to be safe, rather than sorry", and treat to remove chlorine/chloramine
unless you're preparing water a week or more in advance of use.
How to:
However it is achieved, the part of the water and what's dissolved in it are
mainly to be found at and in the bottom.
Solids are systematically removed from part, but never all of the bottom of
the tank and possibly sump by using a "gravel vacuum". We don't want to vent
all the beneficial microbes along with the solids, so a plan is made to move
the decor and vacuum a half, third, what have you, of the base in a given
water change period.
New water is replaced with pre-mixed synthetic of similar temperature and
specific gravity.
Summary:
Regardless of how well a system is designed and constructed, there will
always be maintenance. Frequent partial water changes are one of the best
ways of ensuring continuing success.
There are manufacturers who claim their products do away with the need for
frequent partial water changes. Their products may well extend the amount of
time between changing or ostensibly eliminate it, but at what economic cost?
With the proper tools and materials, water changes are a breeze. Water
changing is the cheapest, easiest, most sure method of diluting wastes and
replenishing buffering capacity, "trace materials", while concurrently
cleaning the system of undesirable solids and liquids.
Bibliography/Further Reading:
Bauman, Edward. 1994. Water wisdom; as if changing a little water will kill
you. AFM 12/94.
Branscome, Lee. 1985. How to stop carrying those buckets of water. FAMA
11/85.
Dow, Steve. 1986. Heavy water. TFH 5/86.
Fenner, Bob. 1999. Frequent partial water changes. FAMA 5/99.
Hanford, Wilber L. 1969. A change of water. TFH 5/69.
Mowka, Edmund J. 1979. Water changes in the marine aquarium; partial water
changes in the marine system are often neglected for a variety of reasons.
Here's why water changes are essential, as well as a method of calculating
the necessary amount. FAMA 12/79.
Ostrow, Marshall E. 1981. Water changes. TFH 5/81.

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

The "Perfect" Water Change Regimen?

A Healthy Habit For The Hardcore Fish Nerd!

By Scott Fellman

One of the best things that we can do to assure continuing success with our
captive marine systems is to perform regular water changes. So very simple,
yet so amazingly beneficial! Water changes achieve several valuable things,
including the dilution of dissolved organic wastes, nutrient export, and
replenishment of trace elements, just to name a few. When performed on a
regular basis, water changes provide the inhabitants of the closed marine
system a stable, consistent environment. And, environmental stability is one
of the keys to success in our hobby!

Water changes tend to be viewed by most hobbyists as a necessary evil; a
practice that we begrudgingly embrace to achieve a modicum of success with
our aquariums. Many hobbyists will do the occasional 10%-25% water change
once a month, once every couple of months, or even less often (oh, the
horror!)! There is, however, a better way!

5% Twice A Week. That's All I Ask!

As I just asserted, one of the primary benefits of the water change in a
closed system is the dissolution of dissolved organics in the water. In the
closed system, fish wastes and other organics are broken down by the
beneficial bacteria that reside in the sand bed, live rock, and filter
media. However, over time, the end products of the biological filtration
process (nitrate and phosphate, in particular) tend to accumulate in the
system. The accumulation of these products can lead to significant
degradation of your tank's water quality, and a reduction in the pH of the
tank water. The key to eliminating this problem is, of course, regular water
changes! If done consistently, regular small water changes can help dilute
organic wastes before they ever have an opportunity to accumulate in your
system. Trace elements will be replenished with fantastic regularity. Think
of the money that you'll save by not having to purchase all of those
additives you've been using!

"Ok", I can hear you saying, "I get the picture.Regular water changes are a
good idea. But how much do I have to change.And how often?" Less than you
think.but more often than you'd assume! My recommendation for an
easy-to-accomplish, highly beneficial water change regimen is to perform two
5% water changes per week. "Twice a week! What a pain! Is this guy nuts?"
Well, yes, but that's another topic for another time! Seriously, though,
this is a lot easier to accomplish than you might think.

Think about it. Five percent of your tank volume (that's only 5 gallons in a
100 gallon tank, or just 2.5 gallons in a 50 gallon tank), performed on,
say, Wednesday and Sunday. By following this routine, you're aquarium's
inhabitants are never more than 3 days from the next water change.and that
is some serious frequency, my friends! However, this is not a daunting task,
by any means. In fact, you can perform an efficient water change in as
little as 10 minutes (Trust me here- I timed it!) . Using decidedly "low
tech" methods, you can create a healthy, stable environment in your
aquarium. When I say "low tech"- I mean it! We're talking a flexible

plastic hose, nothing more! Sure, you could use one of those fancy
store-bought numbers, but the tubing works just fine for me!

Obviously, when conducting the water change, you need to be sure to utilize
high quality source water (such as RO/DI water), a good salt mix, and
similar specific gravity, temperature, and pH. Environmental consistency is
extremely important, and conducting water changes in a manner that breeds
consistency will assure stability in your aquarium! Another side benefit of
frequent small water changes is that you are "involved" with your tank on a
rather "intimate" level, on a very regular basis. You'll see what's really
going on in your tank, notice changes or sudden problems, and be able to
correct them in a rapid manner. You'll save money on additives, too! Rather
than spend tons of cash on lots of different trace elements, additives, and
assorted vitamin products, you'll be able to replenish the majority of these
compounds through these frequent water changes. Sure, you may need to
supplement calcium, iodine, and possibly, a few other compounds which your
animals utilize on a daily basis, but you'll use far less of them in many
cases.

And, while you're making these regular water changes, why not use the
opportunity to empty the collection cup and clean the neck of your protein
skimmer (you do use one, right?), replace chemical filtration media , and
clean mechanical filter pads and/or filter "socks"? By cleaning the
mechanical media within your system often, you'll help prevent detritus and
organics from building up within them, which can measurably degrade water
quality if left unattended.

Most amazing of all will be the noticeable results in your aquarium: Fishes
will display brighter colors, eat better, and be more alert and active than
you've ever seen them! Corals and invertebrates will display significant
improvement in color, growth, and recovery following imposed propagation
techniques. You'll enjoy a whole new dimension of success with your system.
Water parameters will remain more stable, nuisance algae will begin to
disappear from your system, and your tank will take on a visual clarity that
will astound you! All in all, your system will benefit enormously from the
employment of these frequent, small water changes. Give them a try, and
watch your system thrive as never before!

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

amen!
So far three people in this newsgroup do little or no water changes at all,
you, blackhole..., and myself.
It is true what you say, it is just lack of knowledge.
My system is similar to blackhole's except that I don't add any supplements
but I will start using them after seeing his tank.
I use Rowaphos for the PO4 and my circulation system is producing a lot of
debris with lots of PO4.
As soon as I change the lighting system, T5, I will post some pictures here.
See, the three of us have some level of knowledge on science. This people
rely on LFS for their decisions, feel sorry for them, lol
iy
"bo0ger1" .@. wrote in message
m...

Might be better to stand the question on it's head and ask those who do
water changes "what do you think they achieve". I don't need to remove
NO3 (It varies between 0 & 5ppm) or PO4 or anything else I can think of
right now. If adding trace elements is your reason, then you're
assuming that the salt mix you buy has the correct trace elements in it
(Some don't event get the Ca & alk. right).

I have been arguing with these nuckleheads for about 2-weeks regarding
unnecessary water changes. I have received 3-reasons that they do them.

1) In order to add trace elements/remove nitrate.
2) It's enjoyable
3) Because coral release toxic chemicals into the water ??

I think the real reason they do it is for a lack of understanding at the
chemical/biological level. It is easier for them to do a water change
than to grasp what is going on in their tank at a biological level.


BTW: It's not laziness either, I also have 4 FW tanks & they get 20%
changed every 2 weeks. Anyone got any live rock that works in FW?

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

atomweaver wrote:
In that respect, blackhole555 has contributed an order of
magnitude more content with one post, than you have in the last three weeks
at r.a.m.reefs.

It's been going one much longer than that - he used to post under the handle
"stoutman." In essence, he used to be fat, now he's just snotty.

As "stoutman", he stated he has a fish-only tank but couldn't understand why a
reef tank would be any different as regards water changes.

George Patterson
Those who do not study History are doomed to repeat it. Those who DO
study History are doomed to watch every one else repeat it.

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

Buried in that excellent article is this -
"Do not be sold on any given technology that purports to make 'water changing
unnecessary'. Frequent, partial water changes are the least expensive, most
effective way to ensure and sustain aquariums successfully; period."

George Patterson
Those who do not study History are doomed to repeat it. Those who DO
study History are doomed to watch every one else repeat it.

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

I started reading those long posts but have to confess I got distracted
and spent an hour or so peering into my reef instead: that sort of
thing seems to happen a lot. Skipping down to the references I note
that some of them are 25-30-35 years old! Reefkeeping has changed a lot
from that time of the old "coral graveyard", I think the needs of
modern reef tanks are quite different and maybe you can't use the same
agruments anymore.

If you have high NO3 (or PO4) then you need water changes, completely
agree with that. Originally mine were up in the 40-50ppm, I solved this
by:-

1) starting to grow Cheato in the sump
2) changing my feeding regiem
3) adding a DI pod to my RO system.

On point (3), I discovered that my RO water had about 7ppm of NO3 in
it, top-up & water changes were actually contributing to high NO3! DI
pod fixed that.

As an aside, I'm amazed that one of the articals above advocates using
tap water rather than RO for top up & water changes, a sure-fire recipe
for high NO3, I think. Although I'm guessing that most of you are on
the other side ofthe pond (I'm a Brit.), maybe you have better water
quality than me!.

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

wrote in message
oups.com...
I started reading those long posts but have to confess I got distracted
and spent an hour or so peering into my reef instead: that sort of
thing seems to happen a lot. Skipping down to the references I note
that some of them are 25-30-35 years old! Reefkeeping has changed a lot
from that time of the old "coral graveyard", I think the needs of
modern reef tanks are quite different and maybe you can't use the same
agruments anymore.

If you have high NO3 (or PO4) then you need water changes, completely
agree with that. Originally mine were up in the 40-50ppm, I solved this
by:-

1) starting to grow Cheato in the sump
2) changing my feeding regiem
3) adding a DI pod to my RO system.

On point (3), I discovered that my RO water had about 7ppm of NO3 in
it, top-up & water changes were actually contributing to high NO3! DI
pod fixed that.

As an aside, I'm amazed that one of the articals above advocates using
tap water rather than RO for top up & water changes, a sure-fire recipe
for high NO3, I think. Although I'm guessing that most of you are on
the other side ofthe pond (I'm a Brit.), maybe you have better water
quality than me!.


Yeah but you have better beer !

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

"Gill Passman" wrote in message ...
Failing all other measures....I will do water changes....and really I
get quite curious....if you are not doing water changes you are
obviously topping up the water to deal with evaporation....and this
might just be enough.....afterall it is still a slow and gentle water
change....and as far as I can see slow and gentle is the key.....

When water evaporates it LEAVES minerals behind making
the solution more concentrated. In other words, only "pure"
water evaporates leaving all the dirt in the tank... Toping off the
tank is NOTHING CLOSE to the water change in this regard.
If you do not use demineralized water for top-offs than you
in effect accumulated minerals from tap water due to the
constant, long term process of evaporation...

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

"Inabón Yunes" wrote in
:

amen!
So far three people in this newsgroup do little or no water changes at
all, you, blackhole..., and myself.
It is true what you say, it is just lack of knowledge.
My system is similar to blackhole's except that I don't add any
supplements but I will start using them after seeing his tank.
I use Rowaphos for the PO4 and my circulation system is producing a
lot of debris with lots of PO4.
As soon as I change the lighting system, T5, I will post some pictures
here.

See, the three of us have some level of knowledge on science.

See, I'm curious. Why is it that you feel your "knowledge on science"
somehow trumps others' scientific skepticism? When you get past the ad
hominem attacks, assertions of superior authority, flame wars, nym-shifting
etc, what you have are basically attempts to have booger 1) show evidence
of the success of his assertions, and 2) specify further the conditions
under which he obtained his claimed success.
It seems to me like you're suggesting that, since booger's experiences
correlate with your own, that should somehow validate his unevidenced
assertions scientifically for the rest of us. If so, I think you need to
brush up on your science fundamentals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Even with those two above points adequately addressed by booger, and
accepted as valid, your "knowledge on science" should also allow you to
discern that this amounts to a grand total of one (1) data point in
opposition to the accepted practice of small regular water changes. In
booger's case, you cannot even apply that data point to the realm of reef
aquaria (he has a FOWLR tank, remember?).
*shrug* Sorry, Inabon, my "knowledge on science" tells me that is not
sufficient data to warrant a change in my habits. Add yours, and
blackhole's contributions to the pile, and that is three (3) data points.
That's a start, and maybe even motivation to try some experiments myself
(I'd be pleased to try to mimic a setup like blackhole's) but its hardly
substantive enough to give your collective opinions any level of authority
in the matter.

This people rely on LFS for their decisions, feel sorry for them, lol

Mmm. Neither Delbeek, Tullock, Sprung, Fenner, nor Fellman work at my LFS.

Regards,
DaveZ
Atom Weaver

At least IY didn't reference a Grand Water Change Conspiracy by the Man,
to Keep a Brother's Reef Tank Down.

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

See, I'm curious. Why is it that you feel your "knowledge on science"
somehow trumps others' scientific skepticism?

Because their scientific skepticism is a product of their lack of scientific
knowledge. A skeptic is limited in knowledge of the topic at hand. You
better brush up on skepticism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptic

When you get past the ad hominem attacks, assertions of superior authority,
flame wars, nym-shifting
etc, what you have are basically attempts to have booger 1) show evidence
of the success of his assertions,

How can I show evidence that my water quality is just as good as those that
do water changes? Shall I mail you a sample?
A picture is not going to tell you anything about my water quality.

Secondly, why do I have to prove anything? You can take it or leave it.
This is a newsgroup, not a court room.

and 2) specify further the conditions
under which he obtained his claimed success.

Here are my conditions: No water changes. I use a skimmer and supplement
with Kent Marine Essential Elements.

It seems to me like you're suggesting that, since booger's experiences
correlate with your own, that should somehow validate his unevidenced
assertions scientifically for the rest of us.

No, what he is stating is that I am not alone. People do exist, other than
those that have responded in this thread, that do not do water changes and
still maintain a successful aquarium.

If so, I think you need to
brush up on your science fundamentals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Even with those two above points adequately addressed by booger, and
accepted as valid, your "knowledge on science" should also allow you to
discern that this amounts to a grand total of one (1) data point in
opposition to the accepted practice of small regular water changes.

Really? In order to make this statement you have to make an assumption.
Your assumption is that we (those that have addressed this thread in
opposition) are alone. Have you polled everyone that maintains a marine
aquarium? You are also making the assumption that the practice of regular
water changes is the only accepted practice for maintaining a healthy
aquarium.

In booger's case, you cannot even apply that data point to the realm of
reef
aquaria (he has a FOWLR tank, remember?).

The fact that I have a FOWLR aquarium is still relevant to the discussion.
My water quality is superb. Do you have any reason to think my aquarium
could not sustain life for coral?

*shrug* Sorry, Inabon, my "knowledge on science" tells me that is not
sufficient data to warrant a change in my habits.

Than don't change your habits. Old habits are hard to break. Continue to
do your water changes and leave the non-water changing to those that are
more qualified (I mean no offense here).

Add yours, and blackhole's contributions to the pile, and that is three (3)
data points.

Are you really convinced that there are not more than 3? You better redo
your poll.

That's a start, and maybe even motivation to try some experiments myself
(I'd be pleased to try to mimic a setup like blackhole's) but its hardly
substantive enough to give your collective opinions any level of authority
in the matter.

No one has said it would. In fact, I'm not sure anyone cares if your
experiments lend authority to our opinions on this matter. Furthermore, my
success with non-water changing is not an opinion. It is fact. My
experience, and the experiences of many others have shown that water
changing is NOT necessary to maintain a healthy FOWLR or reef aquarium.

You better brush up on what an opinion is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion

This people rely on LFS for their decisions, feel sorry for them, lol

Mmm. Neither Delbeek, Tullock, Sprung, Fenner, nor Fellman work at my
LFS.

And it's a good thing none of them maintain my aquarium.

Regards,
DaveZ
Atom Weaver

At least IY didn't reference a Grand Water Change Conspiracy by the Man,
to Keep a Brother's Reef Tank Down.

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

NO3 is a compound usable by plants.
They will do the job for you, all you have to do is harvest them. That will
also take care of the PO4 and other nutrients.
iy
"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:r%t8h.4864$J5.1127@trnddc04...
wrote:

Might be better to stand the question on it's head and ask those who do
water changes "what do you think they achieve". I don't need to remove
NO3 (It varies between 0 & 5ppm) or PO4 or anything else I can think of
right now.

I need to remove NO3.

George Patterson
Those who do not study History are doomed to repeat it. Those who DO
study History are doomed to watch every one else repeat it.

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

I need to remove NO3.

This is done by bacteria. Look into denitrification (anaerobic bacteria).


George Patterson
Those who do not study History are doomed to repeat it. Those who DO
study History are doomed to watch every one else repeat it.

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

"bo0ger1" .@. wrote in
m:


See, I'm curious. Why is it that you feel your "knowledge on
science"
somehow trumps others' scientific skepticism?

Because their scientific skepticism is a product of their lack of
scientific knowledge.

So says you. But then, they cite various researchers who verify the
validity of water changes. The validity of their practice is a matter of
record.

A skeptic is limited in knowledge of the topic
at hand. You better brush up on skepticism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptic


Hmm. Misdirection to a different definition... I said scientific
skepticism (a specific term), not generic skepticism (where one gets to
conflate various definitions). Try this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism

Quote:

"Scientific skepticism or rational skepticism sometimes referred to as
skeptical inquiry, is a scientific, or practical, epistemological position
in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence.
In practice, a scientific skeptic generally focuses on critically examining
claims and theories which they believe to be far beyond the mainstream of
science."

When you get past the ad hominem attacks, assertions of superior
authority, flame wars, nym-shifting
etc, what you have are basically attempts to have booger 1) show
evidence of the success of his assertions,

How can I show evidence that my water quality is just as good as those
that do water changes? Shall I mail you a sample?

Do you track water quality regularly? What are the most recent test
parameters for your water? What is your tanks size? fishes kept and their
size? amount of live rock/sand? inverts kept? sump/refugium? You've
already said you have a skimmer. Other filtration? UV Sterilizer?

A picture is not going to tell you anything about my water quality.


Probably true, especially since you don't maintain corals (which after a
year tend to scream out the exact state of things in your tank), but its a
start.

Secondly, why do I have to prove anything?

First, you're the one who asserted that everyone else is doing things
"wrong" with their water changes. Second, you're the one who claims to
have some degree of scientific knowledge, and insight into the lack of
scientific knowledge of others. Science is founded on evidence, as I'm
sure you know. If you want to claim a superior scientific position, then
it should be no suprise when someone asks you to show your evidence.

You can take it or leave
it. This is a newsgroup, not a court room.


It doesn't need to be a "court room". I'm not looking for "beyond
reasonable doubt", or a "preponderance of the evidence". I'm merely
looking for anything you can offer to back up your claim of scientific
knowledge, other than your anonymous word (which, in itself, holds no
scientific value) and snarky comments against a proven method and its
proponents... I'll admit freely, your attitude towards the regulars on
this forum, (people whom I've had disagreements with myself, but whose
advice on reefkeeping has generally been sound), and your denigrating
attitude towards a commonly useed, evidenced practice, does put an extra
burden of expectation on you to prove your claims. *shrug* That's your
own fault, but its easy enough to correct.

and 2) specify further the conditions
under which he obtained his claimed success.

Here are my conditions: No water changes. I use a skimmer and
supplement with Kent Marine Essential Elements.

You've said that already, but that is hardly sufficient information to
characterize a tank, don't you agree?

It seems to me like you're suggesting that, since booger's
experiences
correlate with your own, that should somehow validate his unevidenced
assertions scientifically for the rest of us.

No, what he is stating is that I am not alone. People do exist, other
than those that have responded in this thread, that do not do water
changes and still maintain a successful aquarium.


I've already recognized their presence (and success) as a minority. But
without more specific knowledge about their setups, the mere fact that they
don't change water doesn't mean that I or anyone else will be able to
reproduce their results, does it? What I'd really like is for No Water
Change (NWC) tank proponents to get down to specifics, so we can all try to
see what trends lead to success in those NWC tanks. Blackhole has been
very accomodating in that respect. You've chosen instead to support your
position by attacking the opposing (majority) view, the only thing that
ever does is damage your credibility when you _do_ have something relevant
to say...

If so, I think you need to
brush up on your science fundamentals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Even with those two above points adequately addressed by booger, and
accepted as valid, your "knowledge on science" should also allow you
to discern that this amounts to a grand total of one (1) data point
in opposition to the accepted practice of small regular water
changes.

Really? In order to make this statement you have to make an
assumption. Your assumption is that we (those that have addressed this
thread in opposition) are alone.

No. My only assumption is that the sum total of *your* experience would
amount to one data point in support of not changing water (in FOWLR tanks),
were you to substantiate it somehow (setup, water parameters, pictures).

Have you polled everyone that
maintains a marine aquarium? You are also making the assumption that
the practice of regular water changes is the only accepted practice
for maintaining a healthy aquarium.


Not at all, and since I started posting to this thread with a specific
acknoweldgement that you _can_ maintain FOWLR and, under specific
conditions, sometimes reef tanks without water changes, there is evidence
that your characterization of my position is false;

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...35374d09b7d9a6
8?dmode=source&hl=en

From paragraph 4,atomweaver:
"Sure, just about everyone here has _already_
recognized that you can maintain a simple FOWLR tank without water changes,
and fairly easily so (keep the fish mass down vs. tank size, amount of
liverock and number of supporting detrivores, pick species which don't
produce an abundance of secreted toxins, and avoid messy eaters). There
are also instances of reefkeepers who can strike a balanced system without
water changes..."

Care to continue supporting that assertion?

TTBOMK The nutrient export method has been used at the Smithsonian
Institute since at least 1996, and probably earlier than that. I know
plenty of FOWLR tanks whose owners are either inconsistent, or NWC-types,
and many of them have perfectly fine water parameters. FOWLR tanks which
don't change water are nothing new.
Approaching a reef tank with the same tactic is an altogether more risky
proposition, given the known greater sensitivity of inverts to water
quality. That fact is what causes me to approach your claims with
scientific skepticism, especially when you feel you know reef tanks well
enough to project from a FOWLR background. IME, (having only recently
moved to the reefkeeping) that's already obvious as a very risky projection
to make, and not one I'd take myself. That will likely make me treat your
observations as having less relevence to reefkeeping, although certainly
valid (but not particularly noteworthy) for FOWLR.

In booger's case, you cannot even apply that data point to the realm
of reef
aquaria (he has a FOWLR tank, remember?).

The fact that I have a FOWLR aquarium is still relevant to the
discussion. My water quality is superb. Do you have any reason to
think my aquarium could not sustain life for coral?


I have no reason to think one way, or the other. You've offered almost no
insight into your system that I can find, other than: "Here are my
conditions: No water changes. I use a skimmer and supplement with Kent
Marine Essential Elements."

If your fishes are reef-safe, and you've got some reasonable lighting, why
don't you put in some button mushrooms, or green sea mat, and see what
happens?

*shrug* Sorry, Inabon, my "knowledge on science" tells me that is
not
sufficient data to warrant a change in my habits.

Than don't change your habits. Old habits are hard to break.
Continue to do your water changes and leave the non-water changing to
those that are more qualified (I mean no offense here).

None taken. I'm no reefkeeping expert here... I'm more or less a novice
at it. I have some experience with the gathering of technical/scientific
information though. (Enough to know what value to apply to anonymous,
unevidenced assertions, as much as I'd like for your posts to be something
more... I mean no offense here, either.)

Add yours, and blackhole's contributions to the pile, and that is
three (3) data points.

Are you really convinced that there are not more than 3? You better
redo your poll.

It wasn't a poll, and I don't project outcomes ;-) 3 is the number of data
points I have (once you evidence , and the number of data points I have is
three. No more, no less. I'll certainly continue to seek out more
results. (This above really looks like an appeal for authority from the
anonymous masses, btw, you might want to re-think that angle to your
arguments.)

That's a start, and maybe even motivation to try some experiments
myself (I'd be pleased to try to mimic a setup like blackhole's) but
its hardly substantive enough to give your collective opinions any
level of authority in the matter.

No one has said it would. In fact, I'm not sure anyone cares if your
experiments lend authority to our opinions on this matter.

You're the one who asserts authority on the subject, not me. The sum total
of an experiment (success or failure) would amount to one more data point,
and I recognize that for exactly what it amounts to (a drop in the bucket,
with many more needed). I wouldn't leap from there to assertions that
every water change in every FOWLR and reef tank everywhere is without
merit, either. Nor would I denigrate those for whom water changes are a
successful means of keeping reef tanks.

Furthermore, my success with non-water changing is not an opinion. It
is fact.

Sorry, 'opinion' may be a poor choice of words. In your case, I should
probably call it "unevidenced assertion". I'd probably be willing to say
its a fact that blackhole's tank is doing great without water changes.
It'd be nice to have some hard figures on his water parameters first,
before saying that with confidence, though. I've seen pics/parameters on
Inabon's tank(s) in the past, as well. He keeps a good tank, IIRC.

DaveZ
Atom Weaver

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

First, you're the one who asserted that everyone else is doing things
"wrong" with their water changes.

OK, now you want to put words in my mouth. I NEVER said doing water changes
was wrong. Read this slowly: Water changes are NOT necessary. How many
times do I need to write this?

Second, you're the one who claims to
have some degree of scientific knowledge, and insight into the lack of
scientific knowledge of others. Science is founded on evidence, as I'm
sure you know. If you want to claim a superior scientific position, then
it should be no suprise when someone asks you to show your evidence.

You are really good at writing what I have never claimed!

I have no evidence to give other than my personal accounts (which have been
claimed by others as well). Take it or leave it! I don't care either way.
It's your money and your time invested.

You can take it or leave
it. This is a newsgroup, not a court room.


It doesn't need to be a "court room". I'm not looking for "beyond
reasonable doubt", or a "preponderance of the evidence". I'm merely
looking for anything you can offer to back up your claim of scientific
knowledge, other than your anonymous word (which, in itself, holds no
scientific value) and snarky comments against a proven method and its
proponents.

I say again, what evidence could I possible offer ??

I'll admit freely, your attitude towards the regulars on
this forum, (people whom I've had disagreements with myself, but whose
advice on reefkeeping has generally been sound), and your denigrating
attitude towards a commonly useed, evidenced practice, does put an extra
burden of expectation on you to prove your claims. *shrug* That's your
own fault, but its easy enough to correct.

Geesh! What makes you think I have the burden to prove anything? Read this
slowly :You can take what I have offered (and others) or leave it.

What makes you think not doing water changes is "not sound" when several
have made the same claim with great success?

and 2) specify further the conditions
under which he obtained his claimed success.

Here are my conditions: No water changes. I use a skimmer and
supplement with Kent Marine Essential Elements.

You've said that already, but that is hardly sufficient information to
characterize a tank, don't you agree?

No, I don't agree.


It seems to me like you're suggesting that, since booger's
experiences
correlate with your own, that should somehow validate his unevidenced
assertions scientifically for the rest of us.

No, what he is stating is that I am not alone. People do exist, other
than those that have responded in this thread, that do not do water
changes and still maintain a successful aquarium.


I've already recognized their presence (and success) as a minority. But
without more specific knowledge about their setups, the mere fact that
they
don't change water doesn't mean that I or anyone else will be able to
reproduce their results, does it?

It's not rocket science dude. Instead of doing water
changes...ummm....don't do water changes.


What I'd really like is for No Water
Change (NWC) tank proponents to get down to specifics, so we can all try
to
see what trends lead to success in those NWC tanks. Blackhole has been
very accomodating in that respect. You've chosen instead to support your
position by attacking the opposing (majority) view, the only thing that
ever does is damage your credibility when you _do_ have something relevant
to say...

Your opinion.

Really? In order to make this statement you have to make an
assumption. Your assumption is that we (those that have addressed this
thread in opposition) are alone.

No. My only assumption is that the sum total of *your* experience would
amount to one data point in support of not changing water (in FOWLR
tanks),

Sure. That's all 'I' can offer is one data point because 'I' only have one
aquarium. Sorry, I'm not setting up another tank just to convince you.

were you to substantiate it somehow (setup, water parameters, pictures).

Have you polled everyone that
maintains a marine aquarium? You are also making the assumption that
the practice of regular water changes is the only accepted practice
for maintaining a healthy aquarium.


Not at all, and since I started posting to this thread with a specific
acknoweldgement that you _can_ maintain FOWLR and, under specific
conditions, sometimes reef tanks without water changes, there is evidence
that your characterization of my position is false;

You never misrepresented my position? (see above)


Look atomweaver. You are correct, my experiences only represent one data
point and are purely anecdotal. I am not forcing my views on anyone, I am
merely stating that from my experience, water changes are not necessary. My
success with non-water changing has also been mirrored by others (more
anecdotal evidence). 'I' maintain a very healthy FOWLR aquarium sans water
changes. I was merely offering my experiences to the 'herd' as an
alternative to water changes. Maybe, just maybe a few people 'woke up' and
are now questioning their own aquarium maintaince practices. I offer no
guarantees for success. 'take it or leave it'

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

"bo0ger1" .@. wrote in :

First, you're the one who asserted that everyone else is doing things
"wrong" with their water changes.

OK, now you want to put words in my mouth. I NEVER said doing water
changes was wrong.

Thus the quotes... You don't say it directly, but nearly every post you
make on the topic alludes to water change proponents being knuckleheads, or
worse... How else should I read it when you characterize water changers in
this fashion?


http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...5ab41c03808c60
a?dmode=source&hl=en

booger:"I haven't done a water change over a year either. Most of these
*knuckle heads* in this NG are *brain washed* into thinking you have to do
water changes."

*Emphasis mine. Here, you attribute water changes to a herd mentality;

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...480267794f045c
6?dmode=source&hl=en

"Pat: I agree that anything is possible, but many many more people than
Pat: you and
Pat: your friend say that water changes are necessary with the current
Pat: technology.

booger: This is called FOLLOWING the HERD. Follow away!"


Read this slowly: Water changes are NOT
necessary. How many times do I need to write this?

For FOWLR tanks, you never needed to write it even once.

Second, you're the one who claims to
have some degree of scientific knowledge, and insight into the lack
of scientific knowledge of others. Science is founded on evidence,
as I'm sure you know. If you want to claim a superior scientific
position, then it should be no suprise when someone asks you to show
your evidence.

You are really good at writing what I have never claimed!


That's exactly what you claimed when you offered these insights:

"I think the real reason they do it is for a lack of understanding at the
chemical/biological level. It is easier for them to do a water change than
to grasp what is going on in their tank at a biological level."

source:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...5601568df1393c
6?dmode=source&hl=en

"Than don't change your habits. Old habits are hard to break. Continue to
do your water changes and leave the non-water changing to those that are
more qualified (I mean no offense here). "

source:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...48e9083de7c305
e?dmode=source&hl=en


Their lack of knowledge (and your corresponding excess) is the reason why
they do water changes, and you don't. You assert a greater level of
understanding, but you do not evidence your results.

Even if you do evidence your results, I don't understand why the need to
denigrate water-changers (aka the knuckleheads/knuckledraggers, aka the
brain washed, aka the herd). If their inability to maintain tanks without
water chnages is somehow based on their lack of understanding of chemistry,
or how "qualified" they are, why put them down for it?

You can take it or leave
it. This is a newsgroup, not a court room.


It doesn't need to be a "court room". I'm not looking for "beyond
reasonable doubt", or a "preponderance of the evidence". I'm merely
looking for anything you can offer to back up your claim of
scientific knowledge, other than your anonymous word (which, in
itself, holds no scientific value) and snarky comments against a
proven method and its proponents.

I say again, what evidence could I possible offer ??

The same things I've been repeatedly asking for, please.

Tank size?
Tank age?
sump?
sump size?
nutrient export?
fish species/size?
inverts species/size?
recent water test results?
Do you track water parameters regularly? Observe any fluctuations?
Equipment setup (skimmer, lights, powerheads, sterilizer, carbon, phos-
reactor, other filtration etc)?
Feeding schedule?

A pic would be nice, as many of us can gauge general tank health from the
appearance of the inhabitants, especially inverts, who tend to reflect
clearly the quality of the water in which they're raised.

Your word on these values is good enough, but my point here is that just
saying 'NWC!!!one!' is simply insufficient without the above context to go
with it.

and 2) specify further the conditions
under which he obtained his claimed success.

Here are my conditions: No water changes. I use a skimmer and
supplement with Kent Marine Essential Elements.

You've said that already, but that is hardly sufficient information
to characterize a tank, don't you agree?

No, I don't agree.

See, this is where I take issue with your assertions. By your
disagreement, its almost the same as saying that tank parameters other than
"skimmer and supplement" may be varied freely with the same final result;
success without water changes.

It seems to me like you're suggesting that, since booger's
experiences
correlate with your own, that should somehow validate his
unevidenced assertions scientifically for the rest of us.

No, what he is stating is that I am not alone. People do exist,
other than those that have responded in this thread, that do not do
water changes and still maintain a successful aquarium.


I've already recognized their presence (and success) as a minority.
But without more specific knowledge about their setups, the mere fact
that they
don't change water doesn't mean that I or anyone else will be able to
reproduce their results, does it?

It's not rocket science dude.

What happened to that special insight into tank chemistry/biology that I
needed?

Instead of doing water
changes...ummm....don't do water changes.


The above conflicts, more or less directly, with this;

"I think the real reason they do it is for a lack of understanding at the
chemical/biological level. It is easier for them to do a water change than
to grasp what is going on in their tank at a biological level."

Which is it?

No. My only assumption is that the sum total of *your* experience
would amount to one data point in support of not changing water (in
FOWLR tanks),

Sure. That's all 'I' can offer is one data point because 'I' only
have one aquarium. Sorry, I'm not setting up another tank just to
convince you.


Nor am I asking you to. All I'm asking is that you elaborate on your data
point a little bit... and maybe quit denigrating those who maintain their
tanks successfully via a different method?

Have you polled everyone that
maintains a marine aquarium? You are also making the assumption
that the practice of regular water changes is the only accepted
practice for maintaining a healthy aquarium.


Not at all, and since I started posting to this thread with a
specific acknoweldgement that you _can_ maintain FOWLR and, under
specific conditions, sometimes reef tanks without water changes,
there is evidence that your characterization of my position is false;

You never misrepresented my position? (see above)

If I did, it was inadvertent, and I apologize. I try to make it clear when
what I write is my interpretation of comments which are potentially
subjective. You'll see qualifiers like:"It seems to me like you're
suggesting that.." etc. to opinion/interpretations...

Look atomweaver. You are correct, my experiences only represent one
data point and are purely anecdotal. I am not forcing my views on
anyone, I am merely stating that from my experience, water changes are
not necessary. My success with non-water changing has also been
mirrored by others (more anecdotal evidence). 'I' maintain a very
healthy FOWLR aquarium sans water changes. I was merely offering my
experiences to the 'herd' as an alternative to water changes. Maybe,
just maybe a few people 'woke up' and are now questioning their own
aquarium maintaince practices. I offer no guarantees for success.
'take it or leave it'

This is the most concise, well thought-out, informed, and polite (only one
'herd' comment) segment I think you've ever posted in this forum. Had you
started with the above, intead of this;

"Most of these knuckle
heads in this NG are brain washed into thinking you have to do water
changes. The people who push it are LFS owners like Wayne. The more water
changes you do the more money he makes."

I'd say you would have had a very different past two weeks, here...

I think you are right about water changes, to a certain extent, but i'm a
bit more cautious about which setups I would consider NWC for, especially
reef type setups.

If you have the time to post the extra information about your tank and
parameters I asked for above, I'd appreciate it. See you all after the
holiday...

Regards,
DaveZ
Atom Weaver

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

Why do you even continue talking to this troll ?
You know you you cannot learn anything from him...
He is just full of b.s.

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

OK, now you want to put words in my mouth. I NEVER said doing water
changes was wrong.

Thus the quotes... You don't say it directly, but nearly every post you
make on the topic alludes to water change proponents being knuckleheads,
or
worse... How else should I read it when you characterize water changers
in
this fashion?




*Emphasis mine. Here, you attribute water changes to a herd mentality;

Do you know why I refer to it as the 'herd mentality' or 'herd behavior'?
Because most people in this forum (and most people that I have discussed the
topic with) perform water changes ONLY because everyone else is doing it.
They don't understand why they are doing it AND for this reason they don't
know that they don't have to do it.

Read more on the 'herd behavior' he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_mentality

You are really good at writing what I have never claimed!


That's exactly what you claimed when you offered these insights:

"I think the real reason they do it is for a lack of understanding at the
chemical/biological level. It is easier for them to do a water change
than
to grasp what is going on in their tank at a biological level."

Ok, so I guess I am superior in this regard. Oops!


Their lack of knowledge (and your corresponding excess) is the reason why
they do water changes, and you don't. You assert a greater level of
understanding, but you do not evidence your results.

Again. What evidence do you require?


Even if you do evidence your results, I don't understand why the need to
denigrate water-changers (aka the knuckleheads/knuckledraggers, aka the
brain washed, aka the herd). If their inability to maintain tanks without
water chnages is somehow based on their lack of understanding of
chemistry,
or how "qualified" they are, why put them down for it?

Good point.

I say again, what evidence could I possible offer ??

The same things I've been repeatedly asking for, please.


Tank size? 75 G (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)
Tank age? 2 years (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)
sump? Yes (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)
sump size? approx. 5G (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)
nutrient export? ???
fish species/size? (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)
inverts species/size? (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)
recent water test results?
Do you track water parameters regularly? I use to, but always same result.
0ppm Nitrate, nitrite, ammonia. pH normal range. Observe any fluctuations?
No
Equipment setup (skimmer, lights,powerheads, sterilizer, carbon, phos-
reactor, other filtration etc)? (I'm not sure how this qualifies as
evidence)
Feeding schedule? (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)

A pic would be nice, as many of us can gauge general tank health from the
appearance of the inhabitants, especially inverts, who tend to reflect
clearly the quality of the water in which they're raised.

My inhabitants appear healthy. I am certain that they would not appear
unhealthy to you.

Your word on these values is good enough, but my point here is that just
saying 'NWC!!!one!' is simply insufficient without the above context to go
with it.

OK. Take it or leave it.


You've said that already, but that is hardly sufficient information
to characterize a tank, don't you agree?

No, I don't agree.

See, this is where I take issue with your assertions. By your
disagreement, its almost the same as saying that tank parameters other
than
"skimmer and supplement" may be varied freely with the same final result;
success without water changes.

Maybe. That kind of goes along with your one data point spiel doesn't it?

It's not rocket science dude.

What happened to that special insight into tank chemistry/biology that I
needed?

That's what makes this thread so sad. If you understood why water changes
were not needed (at the biological level) you would understand how really
simple (not rocket science) this topic is.


Instead of doing water
changes...ummm....don't do water changes.


The above conflicts, more or less directly, with this;

"I think the real reason they do it is for a lack of understanding at the
chemical/biological level. It is easier for them to do a water change
than
to grasp what is going on in their tank at a biological level."

Which is it?

I fail to see the conflict. Reread this :
That's what makes this thread so sad. If you understood why water changes
were not needed (at the biological level) you would understand how really
simple (not rocket science) this topic is.

Nor am I asking you to. All I'm asking is that you elaborate on your data
point a little bit... and maybe quit denigrating those who maintain their
tanks successfully via a different method?

OK, good point.

snip

Look atomweaver. You are correct, my experiences only represent one
data point and are purely anecdotal. I am not forcing my views on
anyone, I am merely stating that from my experience, water changes are
not necessary. My success with non-water changing has also been
mirrored by others (more anecdotal evidence). 'I' maintain a very
healthy FOWLR aquarium sans water changes. I was merely offering my
experiences to the 'herd' as an alternative to water changes. Maybe,
just maybe a few people 'woke up' and are now questioning their own
aquarium maintaince practices. I offer no guarantees for success.
'take it or leave it'

This is the most concise, well thought-out, informed, and polite (only one
'herd' comment) segment I think you've ever posted in this forum. Had you
started with the above, intead of this;

"Most of these knuckle
heads in this NG are brain washed into thinking you have to do water
changes. The people who push it are LFS owners like Wayne. The more
water
changes you do the more money he makes."

I'd say you would have had a very different past two weeks, here...

Maybe. Maybe not.


I think you are right about water changes, to a certain extent, but i'm a
bit more cautious about which setups I would consider NWC for, especially
reef type setups.

My experience has directed me to the following conclusion (again, take it or
leave it): Water changes weaken your bioload. Bacteria exist in your
aquarium that take care of ammonia, nitrite AND nitrate. The end result is
N2(g) and H2O. I would suggest stopping your water changes gradually (gauge
by testing) to allow your bacteria to proliferate.


If you have the time to post the extra information about your tank and
parameters I asked for above, I'd appreciate it. See you all after the
holiday...

Regards,
DaveZ
Atom Weaver

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

Pszemol wrote:
Why do you even continue talking to this troll ?

Dave is doing newbies to this group a great service. If nobody debates trolls, a
newcomer might take the troll seriously. It's a lot of work, and I think Dave is
doing a marvelous job of it.

George Patterson
Forgive your enemies. But always remember who they are.

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

Dave is doing newbies to this group a great service. If nobody debates
trolls, a newcomer might take the troll seriously. It's a lot of work, and
I think Dave is doing a marvelous job of it.

The fact that you read this thread 12 levels deep and are still following
along demonstrates that you take me seriously AND/OR you want to learn.

Do you want to debate science with me or just throw mud (I've given up on
Pszemol)?

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

Tank size? 75 G (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)
Tank age? 2 years (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)
sump? Yes (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)
sump size? approx. 5G (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)
nutrient export? ???
fish species/size? (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)

How many fish do you have?

Equipment setup (skimmer, lights,powerheads, sterilizer, carbon, phos-
reactor, other filtration etc)? (I'm not sure how this qualifies as
evidence)

Do you only have a skimmer?

Feeding schedule? (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)

Do you feed everyday?

Thank you steve

See my web site
http://web.tampabay.rr.com/myreef/

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

bo0ger1 wrote:
OK, now you want to put words in my mouth. I NEVER said doing water
changes was wrong.

Thus the quotes... You don't say it directly, but nearly every post you
make on the topic alludes to water change proponents being knuckleheads,
or
worse... How else should I read it when you characterize water changers
in
this fashion?





*Emphasis mine. Here, you attribute water changes to a herd mentality;


Do you know why I refer to it as the 'herd mentality' or 'herd behavior'?
Because most people in this forum (and most people that I have discussed the
topic with) perform water changes ONLY because everyone else is doing it.
They don't understand why they are doing it AND for this reason they don't
know that they don't have to do it.

Read more on the 'herd behavior' he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_mentality


You are really good at writing what I have never claimed!


That's exactly what you claimed when you offered these insights:

"I think the real reason they do it is for a lack of understanding at the
chemical/biological level. It is easier for them to do a water change
than
to grasp what is going on in their tank at a biological level."


Ok, so I guess I am superior in this regard. Oops!



Their lack of knowledge (and your corresponding excess) is the reason why
they do water changes, and you don't. You assert a greater level of
understanding, but you do not evidence your results.


Again. What evidence do you require?


Even if you do evidence your results, I don't understand why the need to
denigrate water-changers (aka the knuckleheads/knuckledraggers, aka the
brain washed, aka the herd). If their inability to maintain tanks without
water chnages is somehow based on their lack of understanding of
chemistry,
or how "qualified" they are, why put them down for it?


Good point.


I say again, what evidence could I possible offer ??


The same things I've been repeatedly asking for, please.



Tank size? 75 G (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)
Tank age? 2 years (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)
sump? Yes (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)
sump size? approx. 5G (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)
nutrient export? ???
fish species/size? (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)
inverts species/size? (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)

recent water test results?

Do you track water parameters regularly? I use to, but always same result.
0ppm Nitrate, nitrite, ammonia. pH normal range. Observe any fluctuations?
No
Equipment setup (skimmer, lights,powerheads, sterilizer, carbon, phos-
reactor, other filtration etc)? (I'm not sure how this qualifies as
evidence)
Feeding schedule? (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)

A pic would be nice, as many of us can gauge general tank health from the
appearance of the inhabitants, especially inverts, who tend to reflect
clearly the quality of the water in which they're raised.


My inhabitants appear healthy. I am certain that they would not appear
unhealthy to you.

Apparently there is something to hide here, on several instances it's
been asked to provide a pic, if not a pic at least a species list. He
skirts the issue every single time. Also I remember him saying that he
has a "little" algae problem that he's dealing with right now. If you
have pristine water quality, how is it that you have an algae problem, I
thought bad water conditions were basically required for algae blooms.

It seems that your setup gets more and more complicated with every post,
at first it was nothing. Then it was proper live rock and skimming, now
it's proper live rock, skimming and a sump. I personally don't have a
sump, so my results will probably differ.



Your word on these values is good enough, but my point here is that just
saying 'NWC!!!one!' is simply insufficient without the above context to go
with it.


OK. Take it or leave it.



You've said that already, but that is hardly sufficient information
to characterize a tank, don't you agree?

No, I don't agree.


See, this is where I take issue with your assertions. By your
disagreement, its almost the same as saying that tank parameters other
than
"skimmer and supplement" may be varied freely with the same final result;
success without water changes.


Maybe. That kind of goes along with your one data point spiel doesn't it?


It's not rocket science dude.

What happened to that special insight into tank chemistry/biology that I
needed?


That's what makes this thread so sad. If you understood why water changes
were not needed (at the biological level) you would understand how really
simple (not rocket science) this topic is.


Instead of doing water
changes...ummm....don't do water changes.


The above conflicts, more or less directly, with this;

"I think the real reason they do it is for a lack of understanding at the
chemical/biological level. It is easier for them to do a water change
than
to grasp what is going on in their tank at a biological level."

Which is it?


I fail to see the conflict. Reread this :
That's what makes this thread so sad. If you understood why water changes
were not needed (at the biological level) you would understand how really
simple (not rocket science) this topic is.


Nor am I asking you to. All I'm asking is that you elaborate on your data
point a little bit... and maybe quit denigrating those who maintain their
tanks successfully via a different method?


OK, good point.

snip

Look atomweaver. You are correct, my experiences only represent one
data point and are purely anecdotal. I am not forcing my views on
anyone, I am merely stating that from my experience, water changes are
not necessary. My success with non-water changing has also been
mirrored by others (more anecdotal evidence). 'I' maintain a very
healthy FOWLR aquarium sans water changes. I was merely offering my
experiences to the 'herd' as an alternative to water changes. Maybe,
just maybe a few people 'woke up' and are now questioning their own
aquarium maintaince practices. I offer no guarantees for success.
'take it or leave it'

This is the most concise, well thought-out, informed, and polite (only one
'herd' comment) segment I think you've ever posted in this forum. Had you
started with the above, intead of this;


"Most of these knuckle
heads in this NG are brain washed into thinking you have to do water
changes. The people who push it are LFS owners like Wayne. The more
water
changes you do the more money he makes."

I'd say you would have had a very different past two weeks, here...


Maybe. Maybe not.



I think you are right about water changes, to a certain extent, but i'm a
bit more cautious about which setups I would consider NWC for, especially
reef type setups.


My experience has directed me to the following conclusion (again, take it or
leave it): Water changes weaken your bioload. Bacteria exist in your
aquarium that take care of ammonia, nitrite AND nitrate. The end result is
N2(g) and H2O. I would suggest stopping your water changes gradually (gauge
by testing) to allow your bacteria to proliferate.


If you have the time to post the extra information about your tank and
parameters I asked for above, I'd appreciate it. See you all after the
holiday...

Regards,
DaveZ
Atom Weaver

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

"Steven M" wrote in message .. .
Tank size? 75 G (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)
Tank age? 2 years (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)
sump? Yes (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)
sump size? approx. 5G (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)
nutrient export? ???
fish species/size? (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)

How many fish do you have?

How many, how big and what kind of fish...
Are they groupers or tangs or mooray eels or royal grammas ? :-)

Equipment setup (skimmer, lights,powerheads, sterilizer, carbon, phos-
reactor, other filtration etc)? (I'm not sure how this qualifies as
evidence)

Do you only have a skimmer?

Any other chemical filtration ?
Carbon or similar adsorbents ? Phosphate removers ? etc...

Feeding schedule? (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)

Do you feed everyday?

What do you feed with and how much...

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

"bo0ger1" .@. wrote in
:

*Emphasis mine. Here, you attribute water changes to a herd
mentality;

Do you know why I refer to it as the 'herd mentality' or 'herd
behavior'? Because most people in this forum (and most people that I
have discussed the topic with) perform water changes ONLY because
everyone else is doing it.

Really? What has convinced you of that? Thus far, the only thing I've
seen to that end is that you've cited errors at Wayne's site wrt valence
state and number of oxygens on nitrite, nitrate, and ammonia. Despite
those errors, did you also find the underlying theory of the nitrogen cycle
to be somehow un-sound?

They don't understand why they are doing it
AND for this reason they don't know that they don't have to do it.

Read more on the 'herd behavior' he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_mentality


Yeah, I don't see how this applies when

I say again, what evidence could I possible offer ??

The same things I've been repeatedly asking for, please.


Tank size? 75 G (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)

Not evidence, but context. Qualification for, and quantification of, the
information you offer.

Tank age? 2 years (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)
sump? Yes (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)
sump size? approx. 5G (I'm not sure how this qualifies as
evidence)
nutrient export? ???

Meaning, do you use your sump as a refugium, to grow algae(s) as a
supplemental means of nutrient export? If yes, what are you growing?

http://www.reefland.com/rho/0105/main2.php

1/2 way through that article, you'll find a pic and discussion about the
Chaetomorpha that blackhole is using to export nutrients.

fish species/size? (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)

It quantifies the fish mass (and the corresponding amount of waste) which
can be handled without the need for water changes as a means of nutrient
export.

inverts species/size? (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)

It identifies whether or not the species you are keeping are relatively
robust, or prone to problems related to less-than-perfect water quality
(as, ofr example, some SPS corals are famous for).

recent water test results?
Do you track water parameters regularly? I use to, but always same
result. 0ppm Nitrate, nitrite, ammonia. pH normal range. Observe any
fluctuations? No

You stopped after only 2 years? I'd slow down if things looked to be under
control with a tank, but I'd test aboutmonthly, since water parameters
usually change in advance of health issues with the occupants. Since
you've stopped, please consider a quick look at your current water
parameters, just to verify that, today, you have the same results you did
when you last tested.

Equipment setup (skimmer, lights,powerheads, sterilizer, carbon, phos-
reactor, other filtration etc)? (I'm not sure how this qualifies as
evidence)

I'm trying to establish/understand the conditions under which you've
obtained success with NWC. If there are other filtration factors/methods
at work in your system maintaining water quality, I'd like to know about
them, please.
Lights and powerheads go towards general suitability of comparing your
results to those of a reef system with inverts. If, for example, you only
maintain flourescent lights for observing your fish, then you might expect
that low light is also helping to control your rate of algae growth. With
some SPS reef systems running 4-6 Watts/gallon of broad spectrum Metal
Halide lighting, smaller changes in water quality become larger problems
with algae growth, as the algae has all the light it needs to grow
prolifically.

Feeding schedule? (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)

As with fish mass, it helps to understand how much of a nutrient load your
system is handling, without the need for water changes.


A pic would be nice, as many of us can gauge general tank health from
the appearance of the inhabitants, especially inverts, who tend to
reflect clearly the quality of the water in which they're raised.

My inhabitants appear healthy. I am certain that they would not
appear unhealthy to you.

NP. Forget the picture. I'll take your word that all of your occupants
are healthy and happy.

Oh, Man! Did I forget two BIG ones!

How much live rock (pounds), and/or live sand in your system(depth in
inches)? What kind of live rock (point of origin)?

What does your detrivore cleanup squad look like (hermits, snails,
sandsifters, etc)?

It's not rocket science dude.

What happened to that special insight into tank chemistry/biology
that I needed?

That's what makes this thread so sad. If you understood why water
changes were not needed (at the biological level) you would understand
how really simple (not rocket science) this topic is.

Please expand on this idea. I want to understand, at the biological level,
why water changes are not needed. Take me through it, step by step,
please. To give your discussion context, my understanding of chemistry is
good enough that I've built a successful career on it, but my understanding
of marine physiology/biology is vanishingly small.

Instead of doing water
changes...ummm....don't do water changes.


The above conflicts, more or less directly, with this;

"I think the real reason they do it is for a lack of understanding at
the chemical/biological level. It is easier for them to do a water
change than
to grasp what is going on in their tank at a biological level."

Which is it?

I fail to see the conflict.

The former implied to me that anyone anywhere (with a FOWLR or reef setup)
can quit their water changes, starting today, without deleterious results
on their system. The latter implies that the way in which you transition
from WC to NWC requires some education into chemistry/biology before doing
so, and thus NWC may _not_ be as simple as the first quote implies.

I think you are right about water changes, to a certain extent, but
i'm a bit more cautious about which setups I would consider NWC for,
especially reef type setups.

My experience has directed me to the following conclusion (again, take
it or leave it): Water changes weaken your bioload. Bacteria exist
in your aquarium that take care of ammonia, nitrite AND nitrate. The
end result is N2(g) and H2O. I would suggest stopping your water
changes gradually (gauge by testing) to allow your bacteria to
proliferate.


My experience tells me that there is an upper limit to the load you can
place upon the bacterial colony in a tank. I accept that NWC change
systems are reasonable and certainly possible, but I suspect that you need
to start (and possibly maintain) them on the low end of the total load to a
tank's bacterial colony. At this point in time, I'm trying to get a feel
for where your tank fits into the range of possible bio-loads.

BTW, I've usually seen the term "bio-load" as an expression of the amount
of vertebrates/invertebrates vs. tank/system size. A larger bio-load means
there are more fish in less space. You seem to use the term differently.
Could you post a quick comment on how you use the term?

Thanks!

DaveZ
Atom Weaver

Bo0ger1, show me your tank...
 

George Patterson wrote in
news:Dw79h.3302$JQ.2084@trnddc06:

Pszemol wrote:
Why do you even continue talking to this troll ?

Dave is doing newbies to this group a great service. If nobody debates
trolls, a newcomer might take the troll seriously. It's a lot of work,
and I think Dave is doing a marvelous job of it.


Thanks George,

For the record, I don't think that he is a genuine troll. Sure, he is
strongly opinionated (*shrug* thats not necessarily a bad thing, but it
does make it a bit harder to communicate), and is maybe the sort of
personality to get quickly pulled in to emotional posts and flamewars
(bo0ger and Pat seem to clash particularly hard), but that he probably has
some genuinely positive contributions to make here.
His original comments were a bit irresponsible and overstated, but when
pushed for details on the specifics of his comments, and treated with a bit
of respect, he's the same reasonable kind of human being that we all can
be.

I think that we can arrive at some understanding, if we can eventually
come to agree upon a few things;
1) NWC (No Water Changes) is reasonable for a FOWLR tank (depending upon
occupants), and *possible* for *some* reef tanks.
2) There is significant disagreement on how easy a NWC method would be for
reef tanks.
3) Not every system can be converted to NWC, without some further
understanding of the total system (mostly, this is a point to avoid die-off
from FOWLR newbies with too big a fish load going to NWC... not that I
think anyone would do so on the basis of an anonymous post on Usenet, but
stranger things have happened.)
4) There _might_ be some underlying scientific reason behind water changes
(and thus, a motivation other than 'herd mentality', or the Grand Water
Change Conspiracy by Fish Store Owners to Sell More Products). Some
reasons might be; to export dissolved nutrients, and/or to replenish trace
elements.
5) None of the above will become clear or detailed until after we _all_
quit with the ad-homs. ;-)

Regards,
DaveZ
Atom Weaver