Beaslbob . . . .
- Thread starter 007
- Start date
beaslbob
Well-Known Member
1) Anytime you change everything in the tank I consider that detrimental.
2) you delay not correct trends
3) because of 2 you mask the real problems.
4) Another thing to screw up.
5) interrupts establishment of nitrogen cycle.
6) I generally just about as useful as the doctor telling the husband to go boil water when wife is delivering at home. Boiling water is really not needed but getting the husband out of the room is.
2) you delay not correct trends
3) because of 2 you mask the real problems.
4) Another thing to screw up.
5) interrupts establishment of nitrogen cycle.
6) I generally just about as useful as the doctor telling the husband to go boil water when wife is delivering at home. Boiling water is really not needed but getting the husband out of the room is.
T
thomas712
Guest
Bob would you go boil some water
beaslbob
Well-Known Member
Yea I know I know. But then I am not the only one reporting not doing water changes.
A very good example if my 55g you'all love to make fun of. Lets see calcium down to 250-300ppm. :notsure: what to do. O lets do water changes. replacement water is 450ppm start at 300 change 10%
But what did I do? Well the system needs more calcium hopefully calcium carbonate. Hmmmmmm kinda like CC. but Crushed oyster shells are cheaper and probably have other trace elements like mag also. hmmmmmm just use those as the filter media. so add that to the filter box. calcium rises to 300-350 or so. Hmmmm replace the powerhead with a mag 5 pump. calcium raised to 400ppm and stays there for three weeks. Sounds like a lot better solution. And a good example of how water changes would have masked the real problem of not having sufficient calcium buffering in the system.
Water changes in our tanks are recommended for one and only one reason. they are easy. They are not the solution. Large saltwater aquariums miles from the ocean do not have that luxury. Yet they are highly successful. I simply can not believe that they with say a 3 million gallon tank dumps 300,000g of saltwater into the local creak. And according to a post here a denver aquarium uses tap water for all their saltwater tanks including their reefs. But the same aquarium uses ro/di water for delicate south american fish from pristine streams.
the solution is allowing the system to stabilize and insuring that the stability is at the correct level. the only way to do that is to not change the water, then fix anything not entirely correct.
So from my experience, I use tap water, get the plant life established as the first thing, setup some buffering for trace elements, and keep the plants thriving. And the only water maintenance I have to do is replace the water that evaporates.
007
Active Member
Okay . . .
Anytime you change everything in the tank I consider that detrimental.
Doing a partial waterchange is no where near changing everything. A 5%, 10% or even 25% change out, done correctly, is not going to have any significant effect on the composition of the body of water.
you delay not correct trends
a.) What trends?
b.) (dependingon answer to a.) What do you think plant life does?
because of 2 you mask the real problems
What do you think plant life does? And how does doing water changes "mask" the problem at hand? A water change alleviates inevitable processes in an aquarium . . . unless of course you have magical fish that don't take a dump now and then, and your corals and other invertebrate animals don't consume trace elements.
Another thing to screw up
Screw up what? Changing water? Take out 1 part old, add 1 part new . . . whats there to screw up?
interrupts establishment of nitrogen cycle.
In a properly set up, established marine tank with LR, you could change 100% of the water and not have an ammonia spike. While there are levels of nitrifying bacteria in the water column, the majory are present in and on LR and LS.
So the original questions still stands, how are water changes detrimental?
And a new, slightly related question . . .
Do you feel that the point of this hobby is to try and re-create natural environments found in and around the coral reefs of the ocean?
Anytime you change everything in the tank I consider that detrimental.
Doing a partial waterchange is no where near changing everything. A 5%, 10% or even 25% change out, done correctly, is not going to have any significant effect on the composition of the body of water.
you delay not correct trends
a.) What trends?
b.) (dependingon answer to a.) What do you think plant life does?
because of 2 you mask the real problems
What do you think plant life does? And how does doing water changes "mask" the problem at hand? A water change alleviates inevitable processes in an aquarium . . . unless of course you have magical fish that don't take a dump now and then, and your corals and other invertebrate animals don't consume trace elements.
Another thing to screw up
Screw up what? Changing water? Take out 1 part old, add 1 part new . . . whats there to screw up?
interrupts establishment of nitrogen cycle.
In a properly set up, established marine tank with LR, you could change 100% of the water and not have an ammonia spike. While there are levels of nitrifying bacteria in the water column, the majory are present in and on LR and LS.
So the original questions still stands, how are water changes detrimental?
And a new, slightly related question . . .
Do you feel that the point of this hobby is to try and re-create natural environments found in and around the coral reefs of the ocean?
jedininja
Member
Originally posted by beaslbob
Water changes in our tanks are recommended for one and only one reason. they are easy. They are not the solution.
the solution is allowing the system to stabilize and insuring that the stability is at the correct level. the only way to do that is to not change the water, then fix anything not entirely correct.
.
Man, you should not be talking about "easy" Not doing water changes is much easier than doing them. The reason you use plants is that it is easy, not the other way around.
With the oyster shells, for a system that claims to be so healthy with such great calcium, you dont seem to have a tiny bit of coralline algae growth. Hmm.. Strange..:notsure: :notsure:
Water changes are only detrimental to the ignorant and the lazy. If you dont learn to do it the right way, or if you do it the lazty way, you will have a problem. But done right, it is probably the best and quickest way to clean up your water.
And as for the ocean not doing water changesm, that is for many reason. First off, there are billion and billions of gallons of water that have almost no life in it other than bacteria, so everything is much more diluted. The other thing is the the ocean uses the biggest DSB in the world.
So really, you dont have any reason to say that water changes are detriemtal unless you mean detriemntal to your precious time.
007
Active Member
Bob . . . couple things.
1. You contradict yourself by saying that water changes help. So which is it? Do they help or hurt?
2. I promise you that crushed oyster shells are NOT buffering your system at all . . . not one iota, unless you have a pH of less than 7.0. If it were this easy to buffer a tank, then why on earth would anyone spend hundreds of dollars on a Ca reactor?
1. You contradict yourself by saying that water changes help. So which is it? Do they help or hurt?
2. I promise you that crushed oyster shells are NOT buffering your system at all . . . not one iota, unless you have a pH of less than 7.0. If it were this easy to buffer a tank, then why on earth would anyone spend hundreds of dollars on a Ca reactor?
beaslbob
Well-Known Member
Well will try to hit the high points and summerize at the end
Originally posted by 007
Okay . . .
Doing a partial waterchange is no where near changing everything. A 5%, 10% or even 25% change out, done correctly, is not going to have any significant effect on the composition of the body of water.
If the replacement water exactly matches the tank water then there is no change. And there is no reason to do the change to begin with.
a.) What trends?
b.) (depending on answer to a.) What do you think plant life does?
decreasing calcium as in my posted example. increasing nitrates or phosphates or carbon dioxide. which the plant life consumes.
What do you think plant life does? And how does doing water changes "mask" the problem at hand? A water change alleviates inevitable processes in an aquarium . . . unless of course you have magical fish that don't take a dump now and then, and your corals and other invertebrate animals don't consume trace elements.
Answered in previous post. By relying on water changes you don't change to reason for the change to begin with.
Screw up what? Changing water? Take out 1 part old, add 1 part new . . . whats there to screw up?
Nothing. When you use tap water and only replace the water that evaporates
In a properly set up, established marine tank with LR, you could change 100% of the water and not have an ammonia spike. While there are levels of nitrifying bacteria in the water column, the majory are present in and on LR and LS.
Even with no ammonia spike, all other parameters have changed. even if only 10%.
So the original questions still stands, how are water changes detrimental?
And the original answer remains
And a new, slightly related question . . .
Do you feel that the point of this hobby is to try and re-create natural environments found in and around the coral reefs of the ocean?
of course the point of this hobby is to try and re-create natural environments. Including the algae covered coral reefs of the world. But even more importantly, it is foremost for the enjoyment of us humans. Most of what we do with any aquaria is create what we think looks neet. That may or may not reflect what is actually in the world. It more than likely is what we wish the world looked like or our perceptions as to what the world should be.
summarizing: Obviously we will continue to disagree. Water changes correcting things is just as much a myth as no water changes solves everything. But both do allow a system to run for years and years. And that is all that is required. I am sorry you simply do not understand how a balanced, complete ecosystem can possibly work.
Originally posted by 007
Okay . . .
Doing a partial waterchange is no where near changing everything. A 5%, 10% or even 25% change out, done correctly, is not going to have any significant effect on the composition of the body of water.
If the replacement water exactly matches the tank water then there is no change. And there is no reason to do the change to begin with.
a.) What trends?
b.) (depending on answer to a.) What do you think plant life does?
decreasing calcium as in my posted example. increasing nitrates or phosphates or carbon dioxide. which the plant life consumes.
What do you think plant life does? And how does doing water changes "mask" the problem at hand? A water change alleviates inevitable processes in an aquarium . . . unless of course you have magical fish that don't take a dump now and then, and your corals and other invertebrate animals don't consume trace elements.
Answered in previous post. By relying on water changes you don't change to reason for the change to begin with.
Screw up what? Changing water? Take out 1 part old, add 1 part new . . . whats there to screw up?
Nothing. When you use tap water and only replace the water that evaporates
In a properly set up, established marine tank with LR, you could change 100% of the water and not have an ammonia spike. While there are levels of nitrifying bacteria in the water column, the majory are present in and on LR and LS.
Even with no ammonia spike, all other parameters have changed. even if only 10%.
So the original questions still stands, how are water changes detrimental?
And the original answer remains
And a new, slightly related question . . .
Do you feel that the point of this hobby is to try and re-create natural environments found in and around the coral reefs of the ocean?
of course the point of this hobby is to try and re-create natural environments. Including the algae covered coral reefs of the world. But even more importantly, it is foremost for the enjoyment of us humans. Most of what we do with any aquaria is create what we think looks neet. That may or may not reflect what is actually in the world. It more than likely is what we wish the world looked like or our perceptions as to what the world should be.
summarizing: Obviously we will continue to disagree. Water changes correcting things is just as much a myth as no water changes solves everything. But both do allow a system to run for years and years. And that is all that is required. I am sorry you simply do not understand how a balanced, complete ecosystem can possibly work.
bang guy
Moderator
Originally posted by 007
I promise you that crushed oyster shells are NOT buffering your system at all . .
I've been wondering if this is worthy of an experiment. Perhaps by some bacterial action Calcium carbonate is dissolved.
or
Perhaps the bottom of the container becomes anoxic and PH is lowered.
hmmm...
Theoretically, Shells should dissolve so slowly in a saltwater aquarium as to be nearly unmeasureable but perhaps under the right conditions it could happen.
Anyone have any ideas on an experiment?
jedininja
Member
Originally posted by beaslbob
If the replacement water exactly matches the tank water then there is no change. And there is no reason to do the change to begin with.
[/B]
Hmm.. now thats an absurd answer if i ever heard one. Even Bob should realize that when the water cmatches exactly, it is meant the SG, the pH, and other things of that sort and that it takes out the bad stuff and replenishes the good stuff.
I think I'm probably on Bob's ignore list since I am always pointing out his discrepencies. Never seems to respond to anything I say anymore.
beaslbob
Well-Known Member
woops missed a couple of posts LOL
Originally posted by 007
Bob . . . couple things.
1. You contradict yourself by saying that water changes help. So which is it? Do they help or hurt?
I think i said they are unnecessary and probably detrimental. the main thing they help is the operator feel he has done something.
2. I promise you that crushed oyster shells are NOT buffering your system at all . . . not one iota, unless you have a pH of less than 7.0. If it were this easy to buffer a tank, then why on earth would anyone spend hundreds of dollars on a Ca reactor?
I give up why? So why has my calcium risen? Sure ph of 7 increases the reaction. But that reaction is totally turned off at a ph a 7.0000000000001? Again so why has my calcium risen? Perhaps a slower constant reaction. Perhaps lower ph in the filter media. Perhaps increased carbon dioxide in the filter medis. perhaps the ph drops at night just like in the ocean. Perhaps it is the calcium carbonate in the tap water replacment. That was increased because of increased evaproation. But really really cares? the calcium went up.
Originally posted by 007
Bob . . . couple things.
1. You contradict yourself by saying that water changes help. So which is it? Do they help or hurt?
I think i said they are unnecessary and probably detrimental. the main thing they help is the operator feel he has done something.
2. I promise you that crushed oyster shells are NOT buffering your system at all . . . not one iota, unless you have a pH of less than 7.0. If it were this easy to buffer a tank, then why on earth would anyone spend hundreds of dollars on a Ca reactor?
I give up why? So why has my calcium risen? Sure ph of 7 increases the reaction. But that reaction is totally turned off at a ph a 7.0000000000001? Again so why has my calcium risen? Perhaps a slower constant reaction. Perhaps lower ph in the filter media. Perhaps increased carbon dioxide in the filter medis. perhaps the ph drops at night just like in the ocean. Perhaps it is the calcium carbonate in the tap water replacment. That was increased because of increased evaproation. But really really cares? the calcium went up.
beaslbob
Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Bang Guy
I've been wondering if this is worthy of an experiment. Perhaps by some bacterial action Calcium carbonate is dissolved.
or
Perhaps the bottom of the container becomes anoxic and PH is lowered.
hmmm...
Theoretically, Shells should dissolve so slowly in a saltwater aquarium as to be nearly unmeasureable but perhaps under the right conditions it could happen.
Anyone have any ideas on an experiment?
yea. put them in a filter box and pump water through it. LOL
beaslbob
Well-Known Member
Originally posted by jedininja
Hmm.. now thats an absurd answer if i ever heard one. Even Bob should realize that when the water cmatches exactly, it is meant the SG, the pH, and other things of that sort and that it takes out the bad stuff and replenishes the good stuff.
I think I'm probably on Bob's ignore list since I am always pointing out his discrepencies. Never seems to respond to anything I say anymore.
I am sorry you feel that way. My answer was responsive to your question. As I stated before say something "bad" should be 0 and is currently some non zero value. All a 10% water change can possible do is make it only 90% bad. And that assumes 0 "bad" in the replacement water. If that is actually the case the "bad" must have come from something in the tank. And that "bad" will never get to 0. And if it comes from the tank and you have been doing water changes, it will rise up to 100% before the next water change. And in the process you have changed every "good" in the water. therefore you wind up with 90% of a bad thing bouncing back up to 100%, and all good things being changed at each water change by some amount.
The best solution is to totally remove the bad. Most all ionic "bads" are filtered out by plant life.
the even better solution is to find out where the bad came from. Such as buffering the calcium in the above post.
to me this not only agrees with my experience since the late 70's but just plain makes sense.
beaslbob
Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Bang Guy
Do you really believe you can create a complete ecosystem in a 55 gallon aquarium?
Now that would be an interesting experiment.
Sure I overstated. but a 55g can be more complete than most realize. let's see completely seal the system. have lots and lotsa plants and a single clown gobie. He might find enough pods as stuff to survive. But not too realistic.
any normal bioload will require air exchange and feeding. but that bioload does not need water changes to last for many years. A system that does not need water changes is just more complete than one that does.
beaslbob
Well-Known Member
Originally posted by jedininja
....
With the oyster shells, for a system that claims to be so healthy with such great calcium, you dont seem to have a tiny bit of coralline algae growth. Hmm.. Strange..:notsure: :notsure:
...
Gee is that what those new hard crusty, purple,pink,red and green spots on my rocks, glass, and in tank refug are? After all It has only gotten up to 400ppm. in the last few weeks.
cindyski
Active Member
hmmm, first off i did not read this entire thread, to much arguing going on.
i would like to say that i do not agree on EVERYTHING said on this board at all. there is however, TONS of good advise here. personally i think, if what bob is doing is working for him, then let him go with it. its his own choice, your choice and my choice how we all care for our tanks. some of us might fail and some succeed.
i dont know, i have just been seeing a ton of bob-bashing latley and i dont really think its fair. i take his advise along with the rest of everyones here into consideration before i make a final decision.
i guess what i am saying is i dont think anyone here is right or wrong. we are re-creating nature, the only one that can do that with no fail is the one that created it in the first place.
JMO :happyfish
i would like to say that i do not agree on EVERYTHING said on this board at all. there is however, TONS of good advise here. personally i think, if what bob is doing is working for him, then let him go with it. its his own choice, your choice and my choice how we all care for our tanks. some of us might fail and some succeed.
i dont know, i have just been seeing a ton of bob-bashing latley and i dont really think its fair. i take his advise along with the rest of everyones here into consideration before i make a final decision.
i guess what i am saying is i dont think anyone here is right or wrong. we are re-creating nature, the only one that can do that with no fail is the one that created it in the first place.
JMO :happyfish
beaslbob
Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Bang Guy
You believe that will adequately test for the dissolution of the Oyster Shells?
Don't know and am sure you have more experience. And my calcium load is low as you stated. But is does agree with all the theories I have seen about why even UGFs did the same thing.
There was an immediate bump up when I first added the shells. And a bump up when when I clean the filter media every couple of weeks. With slower rises inbetween. so I specualte that was due to oyster shell dust.
Now it just seems to sit at around 400.
It did take a lot of area and the water did have to flow through the media. Smaller amounts in the ph prefilter in my macro algae tank did not affect the calcium level there.
replacement water:
I do replace bout 1-2g per week in that 20g tank. 55g is about 1/2-1 gal per day or about 3-7 g per week. So both are about ~10% evaporative water. But the 55g has risen where as the macro algae tank has remained at ~270 or so.
The ph prefilter does not insure all the water goes through the oyster shells.
Further the rise in my 55g slowed when the filter box was unglued so not all the water when through the media. And the rise increased when I fixed that the next week so all the water went through the shells.