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