Why are some people anti-waterchanges?

[GARRIGA]

I want to say that they recommended diatom filters to get toxins bound to organics at a super high rate.

Recommended because that worked or just recommended because in theory that should work. Never considered the option of a binding agent to create a larger particulate to remove these toxins such as done with classifiers to make water look clearer but now it has me

 

[00W]

So when this thread started a million years ago I stated I was going to try and skip a week changing water.
Well I did and I felt guilty so I'm still going at it every Monday.
And one other thing.
I've been doing this for almost 40 years.
I've tried almost every salt there is.
Almost.
I never used instant ocean.
Two years ago I was tired of paying for red sea so I decided to go with IO.
I've been using it since then.
It has been the most consistent and given me the best results in all these years.
Don't know why I never used it before. I got 7 buckets for $28 each through petco online.
I also strongly believe that changing water in our systems is the best thing for our tanks and I'll see ya every Monday.

 

[jda]

Recommended because that worked or just recommended because in theory that should work. Never considered the option of a binding agent to create a larger particulate to remove these toxins such as done with classifiers to make water look clearer but now it has me

Diatom filters can be less than a micron - there are different diatomaceous earth compound sizes. They really polish the water in a way that many have never seen before. As such, they trap a lot of organics... and thus the things bound to them.

 

[GARRIGA]

Diatom filters can be less than a micron - there are different diatomaceous earth compound sizes. They really polish the water in a way that many have never seen before. As such, they trap a lot of organics... and thus the things bound to them.

Therefore Ultrafiltration which filters down to 0.025 microns would by the same mechanism effectively help reduce toxins that would otherwise require a water change? Ran periodically wouldn't that potentially alleviate some of the water changes for the purpose of removing or diluting toxins. They aren't removing calcium therefore that doesn't need to be replaced. The latter one of the reasons I'm against water changes because we effectively remove that we need to dose later. Seeking a method that reduces or eliminates that waste.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Therefore Ultrafiltration which filters down to 0.025 microns would by the same mechanism effectively help reduce toxins that would otherwise require a water change? Ran periodically wouldn't that potentially alleviate some of the water changes for the purpose of removing or diluting toxins. They aren't removing calcium therefore that doesn't need to be replaced. The latter one of the reasons I'm against water changes because we effectively remove that we need to dose later. Seeking a method that reduces or eliminates that waste.

I think an ultrafilter will clog before you get any significant amount of tank water through it. Even bacteria will clog it.

 

[jda]

The "therefore" in this case only works if you are going backwards. There is no therefore if you are forward-thinking this. First, diatoms and other filters are not the same - the structure of the diatoms filters differently. Secondly, the likely only hope is for organically bound toxins and not elemental or other types which cannot be filtered at all. Third, if you ever decided to use a diatom filter, you would be quite happy to change water again - very effective, but also very much a pain. Perhaps the most important thing if you are working forward is that nobody that I know of has been able to effectively use a micro filter in a reef for long - I mean nobody, but perhaps I missed one.

It is also backwards to worry about removing things that need to be added - this is just the game if you want to remove things that also need to be removed. You cannot separate these things no matter how hard you try.

I have heard all of these arguments for decades. Those who are in the hobby still change some water. They have lived what many on this thread are saying and their assumptions, working backwards, etc. did not work out. I think that if most folks put as much effort into reading about these experiences as they did trying to find some novel way to approach this, it might end up better for their tanks, wallets and minds.

 

[Raul-7]

I have heard all of these arguments for decades. Those who are in the hobby still change some water. They have lived what many on this thread are saying and their assumptions, working backwards, etc. did not work out. I think that if most folks put as much effort into reading about these experiences as they did trying to find some novel way to approach this, it might end up better for their tanks, wallets and minds.

Absolutely! There's so many ways to automate a WC like an Apex DOS, Stenner dual headed pumps, etc. that will make the chore almost non-existent.

But the payoff is huge for the inhabitants both short and long-term.

 

[GARRIGA]

I think an ultrafilter will clog before you get any significant amount of tank water through it. Even bacteria will clog it.

My thought process is having a series of filters reducing particulates each step. Say 100 to 40 to 20 to 5 to 1 to 0.025 microns. Big Blue 20x4 inch whole home filters on a portable trolley. Seen this application for campers although there they start with 20 micron. Where I first got the idea for using this in QT in place of TTM. Also implies that anything larger than 100 micron being captured and decomposed prior. Seeing how canister filters accumulate mulm and those don't filter down to 100 micron then plausible the bulk of detritus is captured and retained outside that 100 micron plus run it until it clogs then change the filters. DE filters ran that way back in the day. Ran long enough to clarify the water and those didn't have any prefilter yet a pain to recharge with new powder. Granted all theory but until it clogs it should remove something and for myself where swapping water isn't an option then swapping replacement filters might solve it.

Plus could run two or more banks of filters increasing the time before it clogs. Just searching alternatives to a solution the obvious for me won't fix. Part of my design includes having these in place and either have a valve directing water or just leave the housings empty when not trying to polish to this degree. Tank will be standing height therefore have plenty of room underneath to have a stand high enough to house these filters and make maintenance somewhat of a breeze. Considering a slide out rack to service the housings. Including a PVC bottom for the eventual water mess changing filters will create to some extent. Seriously put some thought into this but again all theory. Just waiting on my next test tank build to test it out on a smaller scale with shorter housings.

One modification being the use of a flocculant to capture larger particulars and not have the need to go below perhaps 40 microns. Now instead of say two banks going to 0.025 then perhaps the same space can run four banks and polish twice the volume of water. Manifold can split pre-filtered water four ways then have it all return to the same filter for a second sweep vs emptying into the display . Sounds convoluted but easier for me than swapping salted spit.

This was all before considering the fact toxins would bind and was just thinking of going down to an effective size to remove mulm since I've concluded that won't decompose fast enough in my setup. Along with potentially dealing with a disease outbreak and trying to polish down to 10 micron. Seen where some have used the old Ocean Clear 25 micron filters which as they clogged got down to 18 or lower micron and they reported as being effective at reducing the population of Ich. Those 25 micron filters I recall ran for weeks or months depending on the bio load and only recall them being used in fish only systems. If flocculant can clump to what's visually seen by the human eye then we're talking larger than 40 micron therefore with some fine tuning this might work. Don't really know, however. All speculation based on gathering what I know and putting it together.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

My thought process is having a series of filters reducing particulates each step. Say 100 to 40 to 20 to 5 to 1 to 0.025 microns. Big Blue 20x4 inch whole home filters on a portable trolley. Seen this application for campers although there they start with 20 micron. Where I first got the idea for using this in QT in place of TTM. Also implies that anything larger than 100 micron being captured and decomposed prior. Seeing how canister filters accumulate mulm and those don't filter down to 100 micron then plausible the bulk of detritus is captured and retained outside that 100 micron plus run it until it clogs then change the filters. DE filters ran that way back in the day. Ran long enough to clarify the water and those didn't have any prefilter yet a pain to recharge with new powder. Granted all theory but until it clogs it should remove something and for myself where swapping water isn't an option then swapping replacement filters might solve it.

Plus could run two or more banks of filters increasing the time before it clogs. Just searching alternatives to a solution the obvious for me won't fix. Part of my design includes having these in place and either have a valve directing water or just leave the housings empty when not trying to polish to this degree. Tank will be standing height therefore have plenty of room underneath to have a stand high enough to house these filters and make maintenance somewhat of a breeze. Considering a slide out rack to service the housings. Including a PVC bottom for the eventual water mess changing filters will create to some extent. Seriously put some thought into this but again all theory. Just waiting on my next test tank build to test it out on a smaller scale with shorter housings.

One modification being the use of a flocculant to capture larger particulars and not have the need to go below perhaps 40 microns. Now instead of say two banks going to 0.025 then perhaps the same space can run four banks and polish twice the volume of water. Manifold can split pre-filtered water four ways then have it all return to the same filter for a second sweep vs emptying into the display . Sounds convoluted but easier for me than swapping salted spit.

This was all before considering the fact toxins would bind and was just thinking of going down to an effective size to remove mulm since I've concluded that won't decompose fast enough in my setup. Along with potentially dealing with a disease outbreak and trying to polish down to 10 micron. Seen where some have used the old Ocean Clear 25 micron filters which as they clogged got down to 18 or lower micron and they reported as being effective at reducing the population of Ich. Those 25 micron filters I recall ran for weeks or months depending on the bio load and only recall them being used in fish only systems. If flocculant can clump to what's visually seen by the human eye then we're talking larger than 40 micron therefore with some fine tuning this might work. Don't really know, however. All speculation based on gathering what I know and putting it together.

I think running water through this apparatus would be easier:

What Is a Rube Goldberg Machine?

Machines are meant to make our lives simpler, right? Not always! Wonderopolis takes a closer look at some interesting and complex contraptions today!

wonderopolis.org

 

[GARRIGA]

The "therefore" in this case only works if you are going backwards. There is no therefore if you are forward-thinking this. First, diatoms and other filters are not the same - the structure of the diatoms filters differently. Secondly, the likely only hope is for organically bound toxins and not elemental or other types which cannot be filtered at all. Third, if you ever decided to use a diatom filter, you would be quite happy to change water again - very effective, but also very much a pain. Perhaps the most important thing if you are working forward is that nobody that I know of has been able to effectively use a micro filter in a reef for long - I mean nobody, but perhaps I missed one.

It is also backwards to worry about removing things that need to be added - this is just the game if you want to remove things that also need to be removed. You cannot separate these things no matter how hard you try.

I have heard all of these arguments for decades. Those who are in the hobby still change some water. They have lived what many on this thread are saying and their assumptions, working backwards, etc. did not work out. I think that if most folks put as much effort into reading about these experiences as they did trying to find some novel way to approach this, it might end up better for their tanks, wallets and minds.

I get that but in my unique instance frequent water changes won't work therefore either I keep something small, nothing at all, run YouTube video of aquariums on a large screen TV or keep trying old techniques with new twists and finally get that I've coveted since the 80s. Not getting younger. At a point failure from trying beats regrets later I didn't at least give it a chance. I already regret not having had my tank because of not fitting my busy work schedule. I said enough is enough and now I'm going to make it work. There is no going backwards. Why I'm seeking knowledge.

Why is a DE effectively different than a sediment filter targeting the same micron? Aren't they both capturing particulates and as both clog they capture smaller and smaller until flow restricted or stopped?

Familiar with running a DE filter yet focus purely on using cartridges or lower grain beads/gravel or other inert object to capture particulates. Koi pond keepers have glass beads with nominal 40 micron yet can filter down to 20 micron before a backwash is needed. If the poop produced by Koi can be captured down to 20 micron then I'm not doubting for one second it won't work if executed correctly within a reef aquarium. There's noting unique about reef tanks that would makes this more of a hindrance then a body of water with three foot long fish and poop the size of most of the fish we we keep. Plus everything decomposes and I plan to capture that down to the size of mulm before having to worry about it.

I understand this hobby is about adding but no sense in my mind removing it first if it can be avoided. That's all. Not reinventing the wheel. Just not wanting to change it if run flat an option.

My answer always to never having been done before is that perhaps it wasn't executed correctly and I'm not looking to run a micron at 0.025 longer than needed to polish water infrequently in place of a WC. BTW, Ocean Clear filters had 25 micron cartridges and knew of those in the 80 or 90s. So long ago I don't exactly recall but was looking for a canister system better suited for larger tanks and this was then the only option. Came with a pressure gauge so one new when to switch cartridges. Although one knew based on flow it was time to replace it.

I appreciate the help and just seeking knowledge so I can best avoid any further regrets. At my age. That burden gets heavy and might run out of time before having fixed it.

 

[GARRIGA]

I think running water through this apparatus would be easier:

What Is a Rube Goldberg Machine?

Machines are meant to make our lives simpler, right? Not always! Wonderopolis takes a closer look at some interesting and complex contraptions today!

wonderopolis.org

Probably but don't think I'd appreciate the lab coat. I like being fashionable

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Probably but don't think I'd appreciate the lab coat. I like being fashionable

I like the lack of conservation of mass. The guy on the right is adding drops, and the woman on the left is collecting bottles worth. lol

 

[MnFish1]

My thought process is having a series of filters reducing particulates each step. Say 100 to 40 to 20 to 5 to 1 to 0.025 microns. Big Blue 20x4 inch whole home filters on a portable trolley. Seen this application for campers although there they start with 20 micron. Where I first got the idea for using this in QT in place of TTM. Also implies that anything larger than 100 micron being captured and decomposed prior. Seeing how canister filters accumulate mulm and those don't filter down to 100 micron then plausible the bulk of detritus is captured and retained outside that 100 micron plus run it until it clogs then change the filters. DE filters ran that way back in the day. Ran long enough to clarify the water and those didn't have any prefilter yet a pain to recharge with new powder. Granted all theory but until it clogs it should remove something and for myself where swapping water isn't an option then swapping replacement filters might solve it.

Plus could run two or more banks of filters increasing the time before it clogs. Just searching alternatives to a solution the obvious for me won't fix. Part of my design includes having these in place and either have a valve directing water or just leave the housings empty when not trying to polish to this degree. Tank will be standing height therefore have plenty of room underneath to have a stand high enough to house these filters and make maintenance somewhat of a breeze. Considering a slide out rack to service the housings. Including a PVC bottom for the eventual water mess changing filters will create to some extent. Seriously put some thought into this but again all theory. Just waiting on my next test tank build to test it out on a smaller scale with shorter housings.

One modification being the use of a flocculant to capture larger particulars and not have the need to go below perhaps 40 microns. Now instead of say two banks going to 0.025 then perhaps the same space can run four banks and polish twice the volume of water. Manifold can split pre-filtered water four ways then have it all return to the same filter for a second sweep vs emptying into the display . Sounds convoluted but easier for me than swapping salted spit.

This was all before considering the fact toxins would bind and was just thinking of going down to an effective size to remove mulm since I've concluded that won't decompose fast enough in my setup. Along with potentially dealing with a disease outbreak and trying to polish down to 10 micron. Seen where some have used the old Ocean Clear 25 micron filters which as they clogged got down to 18 or lower micron and they reported as being effective at reducing the population of Ich. Those 25 micron filters I recall ran for weeks or months depending on the bio load and only recall them being used in fish only systems. If flocculant can clump to what's visually seen by the human eye then we're talking larger than 40 micron therefore with some fine tuning this might work. Don't really know, however. All speculation based on gathering what I know and putting it together.

FYI - my only comment on ultrafiltration related to the ultrafiltration done with dialysis which someone else mentioned. The 'problem' if it can be called a problem - with your filter system is that eventually the small things like bacteria, etc - will get to the smallest filter - and it will clog as Randy suggested.

 

[buruskeee]

Here’s a coral farmer that doesn’t do WC - auto dose traces and constant ICP (moonshiners). Only does WC for corrective measures, for example had a slight overdose and needed to lower levels. Had 1.5 years between WC and wouldn’t have done one if dosing didn’t mess up.

 

[jda]

Here’s a coral farmer that doesn’t do WC - auto dose traces and constant ICP. Only does WC for corrective measures, for example had a slight overdose and needed to lower levels. Had 1.5 years between WC and wouldn’t have done one if dosing didn’t mess up.

Hasn't this video already been posted? If not, similar ones. Every bag that they put a coral in and ship out is a water change. Every one. Vendors often change more water than anybody because of this.

Besides, corrective water changes are water changes.

This is a coral farmer that changes water and wants clicks from saying that they don't.

 

[GARRIGA]

I like the lack of conservation of mass. The guy on the right is adding drops, and the woman on the left is collecting bottles worth. lol

Sounds like a typical water change. Remove calcium. Add calcium. Although neither dragging 5 gallon buckets so there's that

 

[jda]

Sounds like a typical water change. Remove calcium. Add calcium. Although neither dragging 5 gallon buckets so there's that

How is a calcium swap such an issue yet you are OK with potentially removing many beneficial things that you cannot replace with your micro filter? You know that anything with a slime coat likely gets a good amount of their building blocks and energy (carbon) from the bacteria that you will filter, right?

 

[GARRIGA]

FYI - my only comment on ultrafiltration related to the ultrafiltration done with dialysis which someone else mentioned. The 'problem' if it can be called a problem - with your filter system is that eventually the small things like bacteria, etc - will get to the smallest filter - and it will clog as Randy suggested.

Understood and already considered but that's unavoidable and why I ask if a flocculant would help solve some of those concerns since it would be considerably larger allowing a coarser final filter and clogging prolonged. Still don't know how toxins could be induced to bind vs it seem to be mostly pot luck in that some will and some won't. How I understand it which is rudimentary at best. Would think there's something that might make toxins want to cling but clueless as to what or if that's an option. Plus would ozone help? Don't know.

 

[GARRIGA]

How is a calcium swap such an issue yet you are OK with potentially removing many beneficial things that you cannot replace with your micro filter? You know that anything with a slime coat likely gets a good amount of their building blocks and energy (carbon) from the bacteria that you will filter, right?

My understanding of pelagic bacteria being they are mostly heterotrophic which are fast multiplying and if this was an issue then so would running UV. Yet I'm proposing a short duration long enough to get an effective tank turnover. I recall ten times water volume per hour but I could be wrong and this can be adjusted. Ultrafiltration can run at very high volumes. Plus aren't those same bacteria thrown out with the bath water. WC doesn't discriminate.

Let's not forget I'm asking if a flocculant can help by not requiring such fine filtration. Kind of like a bacteria safe tuna net.

 

[buruskeee]

Hasn't this video already been posted? If not, similar ones. Every bag that they put a coral in and ship out is a water change. Every one. Vendors often change more water than anybody because of this.

Besides, corrective water changes are water changes.

This is a coral farmer that changes water and wants clicks from saying that they don't.

This video is 3 days old. Guess you didn’t watch it. Your comments imply you didn’t.

You’re being way too picky with what “water changes” entail. Those little bags are really doing the lords work with keeping the tank flourishing for sure!

If it’s to be nit picked what is “technically” not a water changed tank, then there’s zero point of this thread as there will always be something found that 100ml was changed and therefore the tank doesn’t quality.

Don’t understand the anti-noWC crowd. I’m neither and welcome new methods. Get off my lawn is growing tiresome.