Why are some people anti-waterchanges?

[MnFish1]

Only when you see the tank is unhealthy/needs it. Don't bother the ecosystem it's creating.

This IMHO is a mistake. If the tank is 'unhealthy' - I am not sure there is any indication that that means a water change is needed? Or? Instead - There are multiple reasons for an unhealthy appearing tank. But - you didn't give the definition of 'unhealthy/needs it'. Most people change water at whatever ratio, to avoid an unhealthy appearance

 

[MnFish1]

Discus are a whole different thing than the East African species that I'm keeping. You can actually have plants in a Discus setup, and not have to overstock while maintaining a GH and KH akin to liquid rock, lol. I know some Malawis can handle Nitrates up to 270 ppm, but I really don't want to push it.

Correct - However - I don't see anything in this thread that would prevent water changes - in your tanks - which are probably stocked like most African cichlids? And - there are many sites that say discus need daily huge water changes.

 

[MnFish1]

Discus are a whole different thing than the East African species that I'm keeping. You can actually have plants in a Discus setup, and not have to overstock while maintaining a GH and KH akin to liquid rock, lol. I know some Malawis can handle Nitrates up to 270 ppm, but I really don't want to push it.

PS - I've had multiple African cichlid tanks as well - so I feel your pain

 

[ISpeakForTheSeas]

I would like to see some tanks that haven't had a water change in 5+ years. To actually see them for comparison, not trying to make a point.

This is the only one I know at the moment is the tank below (it was ~4.5 years w/o water changes when this was posted; the reefer hasn't been on R2R since about a week after the article was posted, but the tank would be pushing 6 years if it's still running and they still haven't changed the water):

REEF OF THE MONTH - June 2022: Reefer_punk's Beautiful DSR Reef! No Water Changes in 4+ Years!

R2R Username: @Reefer_punk Build Thread: Reefer_punk's new build thread Introduction: Hi to all of you, Reef2Reefers! First of all, I am unbelievably honored to have my tank picked as Reef of the Month! It is humbling to be selected and...

www.reef2reef.com

 

[MnFish1]

This is the only one I know at the moment is the tank below (it was ~4.5 years w/o water changes when this was posted; the reefer hasn't been on R2R since about a week after the article was posted, but the tank would be pushing 6 years if it's still running and they still haven't changed the water):

REEF OF THE MONTH - June 2022: Reefer_punk's Beautiful DSR Reef! No Water Changes in 4+ Years!

R2R Username: @Reefer_punk Build Thread: Reefer_punk's new build thread Introduction: Hi to all of you, Reef2Reefers! First of all, I am unbelievably honored to have my tank picked as Reef of the Month! It is humbling to be selected and...

www.reef2reef.com

I would ask that person - did they not have a skimmer working (a small water change) etc.

 

[Reefer Matt]

This is the only one I know at the moment is the tank below (it was ~4.5 years w/o water changes when this was posted; the reefer hasn't been on R2R since about a week after the article was posted, but the tank would be pushing 6 years if it's still running and they still haven't changed the water):

REEF OF THE MONTH - June 2022: Reefer_punk's Beautiful DSR Reef! No Water Changes in 4+ Years!

R2R Username: @Reefer_punk Build Thread: Reefer_punk's new build thread Introduction: Hi to all of you, Reef2Reefers! First of all, I am unbelievably honored to have my tank picked as Reef of the Month! It is humbling to be selected and...

www.reef2reef.com

That's a very nice tank! Looks like a lot of work to dose everything. She is on instagram, but I don't have an account so can't see anything current. Thanks!

 

[ISpeakForTheSeas]

I would ask that person - did they not have a skimmer working (a small water change) etc.

They did have a skimmer (they mention using a large enough skimmer as a critical part of their export strategy).

 

[Garf]

They did have a skimmer (they mention using a large enough skimmer as a critical part of their export strategy).

And 2 part. So not zero water change, just a little. I had the same broom for 10 years, replaced the handle 6 times and the head 4 times.

 

[Spare time]

How do you know that? Do you know if and how ANY organic toxins are rmeoved from your tank?

Since no reefer has the technology at home to measure ANY organic material, I think your statement lacks supporting evidence.

You have to fall back on:

"well, the tank looks great",

which is countered by

"Yes, but you do not know how it might look with water changes"

Wouldn't carbon and (also maybe) skimming remove those?

 

[Garf]

Wouldn't carbon and skimming remove those?

Wet skimming? lol

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Wouldn't carbon and (also maybe) skimming remove those?

Some likely are and some likely aren’t. Neither process removes all types of organic molecules, especially those that are very hydrophilic.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Wet skimming? lol

Now we are talking. Stealth water change!

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

And 2 part. So not zero water change, just a little. I had the same broom for 10 years, replaced the handle 6 times and the head 4 times.

Wow, you are quite the cheapskate. lol

 

[ReeferMadness01]

How do you dose trace elements?

KZ color system.

 

[GARRIGA]

Late in life I've decided it was best to downsize my house and that means less space for items such as holding water yet still want a large display tank. Not performing frequent water changes the only option available plus I'm often not home due to work, family or fishing plus I'd like to start traveling and make up lost time due to longer than usual hours at work.

Replicating an aquifer style fed refugium similar to nature that will be treated at some point along that path with ozone and if needed then larger than normal water changes will be executed to remove that which has accumulated yet not resolved by the Fuge and ozone. Nature cleanses itself with plants. Going to find out if certain macroalgae can perform the same in a closed loop system. Trace will be added based on ICP testing as best possible but ultimately the plan is to minimize water changes to an absolute necessity. Everyone has their approach and best understand the biology and nature of that they do vs just repeating what others have is my approach. Been at this long enough to know there are no certainties and knowledge is constantly changing and advancing.

 

[GARRIGA]

Stability, first and foremost.
Secondly, If you have everything balanced, water changes are unnecessary.
Freshwater keepers are stuck with water changing because they can’t utilise Carbon dosing to consume NO3 & PO4 as it requires a protein skimmer to remove the bacterial flocculation…

I carbon dose without a skimmer. However, have a very large biological filter and perhaps why I don't experience issues yet easily solved by FW hobbyist. I also overdose and have seen issues only when overdosing was extreme. I've identified what that is and just don't go there and problem solved.

 

[GARRIGA]

Kudoes to this post.

After 50 years of Reefing, I also don’t change water in the 500G of marine tanks in my home. I am not against water changes, I just don’t see the need for scheduled water changes.

Could it be all the algae you keep helps neutralize those contaminants that would otherwise build up. My assumption as it mimics nature.

 

[jda]

I still don't see a long term tank on here that never did a water change. I do see some no-regular-water-change tanks, but not never. DSR folks do change water if they need or have to, have to vacuum the sump or sand, etc... they just don't schedule them or do them regularly. Why can't people represent this correctly? Say limited or no-scheduled, or something?

I quit sugared soda except for Friday and Saturday nights and also during concerts and football games...

 

[GARRIGA]

Scientific studies on the composition of waste/byproducts/exudates of photosynthetic corals are mostly lipids & proteins while the exudates of algae photosynthesis is mostly glucose. The “sponge loop” and in particular, cryptic sponges consume both coral & algae DOC at 5 fold more than granulated activated carbon resins 10 fold more efficiency than protein skimmers coupled with carbon dosing.

This makes sense. Perhaps I need to add a cryptic zone although an area I know little of but that's what google is for. Awesome reply.

Would you say that this cryptic sponge zone would negate the need for ozone to combat the unknown or run both? Still adding a Fuge but I can make room easily for a Fuge without lights, too.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

This makes sense. Perhaps I need to add a cryptic zone although an area I know little of but that's what google is for. Awesome reply.

Would you say that this cryptic sponge zone would negate the need for ozone to combat the unknown or run both? Still adding a Fuge but I can make room easily for a Fuge without lights, too.

I think the cryptic zones are a fun and interesting thing to employ, and my systems had them. I also dosed silicate which boosted their growth. But I caution against taking subseas's comment below too expansively for the reasons I outline below it:

"Scientific studies on the composition of waste/byproducts/exudates of photosynthetic corals are mostly lipids & proteins while the exudates of algae photosynthesis is mostly glucose. The “sponge loop” and in particular, cryptic sponges consume both coral & algae DOC at 5 fold more than granulated activated carbon resins 10 fold more efficiency than protein skimmers coupled with carbon dosing."

1. First, it isn't sensible to claim something (sponges) consumes 5 fold more DOC than something else (GAC or skimming) does without quantifying how much of each (sponges and GAC) was used. Obviously that ratio can be jiggered from a million fold more to a million fold less by adjusting the relative amounts of each.

2. If the actual comparator in the study was not amount consumed, but reduced to a lower concentration, then that limits the utility even more. If some random DOC is reduced from 100 to 1 ppb by GAC and 100 to 0.2 ppb by sponges, one might correctly claim the sponge was 5 times more efficient. But functionally, is that an important difference?

3. The types of DOC subsea quotes are readily metabolized and "wanted" by sponges and other organisms. But if you alternatively looked at toxins (natural from tank creatures or man made from foods and other additives) such as caulerpacin from caulerpa or organotin compounds from tubing, , would organisms that may not want to be exposed to these at all be just as effective or more so than GAC, which only cares about chemical functionality, as opposed to biological toxicity?