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 !

wrote:

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!.

My water tests out 0 for NO3 but 0.5 for phosphates. Agricultural areas (or
areas downstream from them) are much more likely to have NO3 in the water.

Tap water quality varies from place to place, so it really isn't possible to say
that a particular individual either should or shouldn't use it. It also is
likely to change in quality. Case in point - back in the 70s, the city of
Atlanta drew its water from the Chattahoochee river. I've seen perch swimming
near the intakes. It was rated the best water available in the U.S., including
bottled water. Manhattan tap water ranked second. Perrier was #10.

Since then, the entire area upstream of Atlanta has been heavily developed, and
the quality of the water has gone way down. Septic tanks and lawn fertilizer
will do that.

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.

"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...

wrote:

Skipping down to the references I note
that some of them are 25-30-35 years old!

That's the bibliography and further reading section; not exactly references. The
latest item in there is 1996, so this particular article must be less than 10
years old.

Most important is the fact that Mr. Fenner is a highly respected marine
scientist in his own right, so this isn't a case of someone reading a bunch of
books and writing up an opinion based on that.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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" .@. 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

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'