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

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.

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

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.

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)?

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 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

"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" .@. 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

George Patterson wrote in
newsw79h.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