water changes my view

[florida joe]

Reef it may have not been the water change per say that made the different it may have been the constant influx of a particular trace element that stimulated your corals which opens up a completely new and exciting debate As to isolating certain additives and adding them to our tanks to stimulate growth a great thread for you to start. (I am getting tired go getting all the flak)

 

[wattsupdoc]

I also agree that you cant say that doing 1 gallon a day is sufficient for all systems. Each system needs to have an appropriate amount of water changed at appropriate intervals. However, adjusting the percentage is adequate. Say in Reefs situation, He is changing 125% a month. (Which is just a crazy amount, but his system needs it.) So if he has a volume of again 100 gallons, This would be 125 gallons a month. 125/30= 4.1667 gallons a day.THIS WOULD SUFFICE. He would in fact be doing almost the same exact thing. It's not very much different as each time he does 25% he's changing some of the new. Now, it's probably easier for Reef to do as his schedule is now, than doing 4.1667 gallons EVERY DAY.
You can not debunk Randy Holmes Farley... His entire purpose on the other board is to De-bunk myth. If you took the time to understand the pretty pictures and charts, you would agree. It's not the amount (percentage) of changes that is of question. It's the frequency of changes that amount the the volume your system needs. There really is no-one on this message board who has the credentials and taken the time to be able to prove him wrong. While the others are based on opinion and experience. Randy has actually done the math.
Sorry, but there is no "new ground" being broken here.

 

[florida joe]

You are assuming that no one has taken the time and had the mental ability to understand the pretty pictures and charts and still has an other opinion. You may be right in assuming that no one with the credentials has taken the time to prove him wrong but how are you privy to the credentials of members of the boards.

 

[socal57che]

Originally Posted by wattsupdoc
http:///forum/post/2872295
You can not debunk Randy Holmes Farley... His entire purpose on the other board is to De-bunk myth. If you took the time to understand the pretty pictures and charts, you would agree. It's not the amount (percentage) of changes that is of question. It's the frequency of changes that amount the the volume your system needs. There really is no-one on this message board who has the credentials and taken the time to be able to prove him wrong. While the others are based on opinion and experience. Randy has actually done the math.
Sorry, but there is no "new ground" being broken here.

It's not his result that I guestion, but his methodology. He used mathematics to try to prove a biological end. There was no data whatsoever from actual biological experience. I could not find a single referece to actual data from a study done on a closed marine environment that does create waste that will need export in one way or another. He may very well be right, but his method to prove it leaves a little to be desired, IMO.

 

[wattsupdoc]

Not trying to be rude here Joe, this is a good thread.

Not trying to knock anybody either.

Randy has credentials that would be awful tough to beat when you look at the fact that MOST reefers would consider him to be the UTMOST authority on reef chemistry. He has made soooo much contributions to the hobby it is unbelievable. There's not many who would repute him. Definitely he could be wrong, but it is highly unlikely. I bet if you asked Fenner today about Randy's article there, he would agree. Research the man, and you will find a reef calculator based on his findings, countless articles, reef recipes for calcium and alkalinity just sooo much stuff. You don't find anything like that here on this site. If there was an active member on here that had the time and skills, I think we would.
I'm not saying that larger less frequent water changes are any worse than daily more frequent water changes. I'm saying that the difference is very nominal between the two.

 

[socal57che]

The rate of decline in water quality will increase daily with small changes. In my opinion, which is probably of less value than Randy's, the rate of decline would surpass the ability of small water changes to negate the decline in water quality. I don't see where he worked that into his equation. Without a higher volume change, you never really get ahead. Again, I am no scientist, nor do I write articles for a living, but it just doesn't seem logical.

 

[socal57che]

Originally Posted by wattsupdoc
http:///forum/post/2872481
Not trying to be rude here Joe, this is a good thread.

Not trying to knock anybody either.

I totally see that. This thread is where we culminate what knowledge we have and learn from what others have done. I am honored to be a part of it. These are the types of conversation that led to the fall of the under-gavel filter. The more natural we can make this hobby the healthier our inhabitants will be. If, indeed, smaller daily changes will be as efficient a means of export and replenishment ( I already believe that daily changes would better replenish lost nutrients) I would be happy to change over as I don't have to mix salt anyway. If I weren't so lazy, I would start an experiment on my tank and start keeping a log. I am too lazy, so I'll wait for some other ground breaking reefer to open the gates.

 

[wattsupdoc]

Originally Posted by socal57che
http:///forum/post/2872473
It's not his result that I guestion, but his methodology. He used mathematics to try to prove a biological end.
Dont we use mathmatics to prove just about everything? How else would you prove that this is correct?
There was no data whatsoever from actual biological experience.
Did it not take into count of organic import ?
I could not find a single referece to actual data from a study done on a closed marine environment that does create waste that will need export in one way or another.
What kind of data would you like to see? I dont understand the relevance?
He may very well be right, but his method to prove it leaves a little to be desired, IMO
.
Look, there are two basic reasons for doing water changes, the export of DOC's and the import of trace elements. There may be other reasons. But those are the two reasons we generally do them. I just dont understand what other reasons there are that would not be affected the same exact way as he layed out. What other things could there be?

 

[wattsupdoc]

You are correct, you wont ever get ahead. If you are not getting ahead with your current regimen. The volume would need to be increased. Randy is not trying to determine the volume that needs to be replaced, just that there's not that much difference between doing daily ones and doing monthly, OF THE SAME VOLUME. It is basically irrelevant. There are many, many reefers who currently do daily water changes, including Randy who does them constantly, in very small amounts. you could in fact even do 1 cup at a time or even one drop. As long as the volume is the same and it equals what your DT needs are.

 

[wattsupdoc]

Let me put it this way, is there much difference for me to do monthly 25% water changes, or every 4 months doing a 100% water change? Which is better for my water quality? Assuming that my system will handle the 4 months duration.

 

[socal57che]

Originally Posted by wattsupdoc
http:///forum/post/2872517
Dont we use mathmatics to prove just about everything? How else would you prove that this is correct?
Use math to calculte the accelerated rate of decline by not removing more waste water at one time.
Did it not take into count of organic import ?
Who R U quoting?
What kind of data would you like to see? I dont understand the relevance?
Data reflecting actual test results from a tank with this service technique.
.
Look, there are two basic reasons for doing water changes, the export of DOC's and the import of trace elements. There may be other reasons. But those are the two reasons we generally do them. I just dont understand what other reasons there are that would not be affected the same exact way as he layed out. What other things could there be?
I agree. Import of lost nutrients and export of waste are why we do water changes. I completely agree that daily replenishing of lost nutrients would be more beneficial that starving our tank until water change day. I disagree that a 1% daily change would keep up with waste export. If he had test results from a functioning marine system I would jump right on his bandwagon.
According to mathematics, a helicopter cannot fly.

 

[wattsupdoc]

That's the whole point....It can be 1% or 2% or whatever... If it takes 60 gallons of water a month to keep up with the waste in your 100 gallon, then 2% a day would be in order...That would be 2 gallons... That's a pretty good volume of water to be pulling out EVERY DAY. Now You clearly agree that doing this would help keep up with trace minerals, that are being depleted EVERY DAY, as well by removing the water, we would be removing a small portion of minerals, but wont concede that it will do the same with waste.... I don't understand the logic there Socal....

In fact if you did 1% a day, in 100 days, you would have changed the entire 100 gallons, just like you would have had you done 30 gal. a month, 15 gallons every two weeks or 7.5 a week. Or even .05% 20 times a day. You get nearly the same result. When you do a 30% change, don't you remove part of the water you just changed prior?
I'll ask my niece about that, she's a helicopter mechanic in the Army, well just out of boot camp training on one... I think that mathematics tell us that it can...

Go look at the TOTM on the other reef board. It's a 375 gal. doing daily water changes...

 

[socal57che]

Originally Posted by wattsupdoc
http:///forum/post/2872620
Now You clearly agree that doing this would help keep up with trace minerals, that are being depleted EVERY DAY, as well by removing the water, we would be removing a small portion of minerals, but wont concede that it will do the same with waste.... I don't understand the logic there Socal....

In fact if you did 1% a day, in 100 days, you would have changed the entire 100 gallons, just like you would have had you done 30 gal. a month, 15 gallons every two weeks or 7.5 a week. Or even .05% 20 times a day. You get nearly the same result. When you do a 30% change, don't you remove part of the water you just changed prior?
Waste is produced at a greater rate than trace elements are utilized. Not a good analogy, IMO. We feed our tanks as well as add elements with a water change. This feeding is the reason for a greater need to export waste than import lost nutrients. If food was added as part of a water change and not in addition to it, then I would agree 100% in the small percentage daily theory. We are adding more than just water (and trace elements) to our tanks and that is what I think we need to compensate for.
Originally Posted by wattsupdoc
http:///forum/post/2872620
I'll ask my niece about that, she's a helicopter mechanic in the Army, well just out of boot camp training on one... I think that mathematics tell us that it can...
I concede that this was a poor analogy based on outdated info, such as the inability for bumble bees to fly.
The TOTM referenced, what size are his daily changes? Are they equal to or less than what a 10-15% weekly change would have been?
I'll go over and check the TOTM.
Again, not trying to be argumentative, just well informed. Water changes are a big part of my recent interest in old tank syndrome and the issue concerning water changes has come up in a lot of articles I have been reading on that subject, as has the practice of cooking our rock to "recharge" it, because it loses efficiency due to unavoidable buildup of waste and toxins. (even in tanks with religious husbandry procedures)

 

[socal57che]

On a more personal note, did you start doing small daily water changes as a result of Randy's article or do you do larger, less frequent changes?
What is your personal water change schedule like?

 

[ruaround]

hey socal... i am at 1109 now...

check this 6 year old thread out...
https://forums.saltwaterfish.com/t/33016/topic-water-changes-why

 

[wattsupdoc]

Originally Posted by socal57che
http:///forum/post/2872670
Waste is produced at a greater rate than trace elements are utilized.
This is not the case with every DT, Waste also is being exported via skimming, mechanical filtration, macro algae, detrivores. Each tank is individually unique. As well trace elements are being removed at various different rates. Some through precipitation, some through use by corals, inverts etc., some through chemical filtration like carbon. It varies with each system. This is the reason why these things weren't included in Randy's article. As far as the TOTM, I don't recall what percent he changes a day, that's NOT THE ISSUE, the issue is it doesn't matter as long as the end result gets the same amount of volume changed over the same period of time....You don't seem to get that I'm not saying change a gallon a day and your good. That's not correct at all. I'm saying whatever your changing that's working for you, you can split that up over the duration of the month...So if your changing 40 gallons, change 1.33 gallons. If Your changing 10 gallons and it's working for you, change .33 gallons a day.
Not a good analogy, IMO. We feed our tanks as well as add elements with a water change. This feeding is the reason for a greater need to export waste than import lost nutrients. If food was added as part of a water change and not in addition to it, then I would agree 100% in the small percentage daily theory.

How are we feeding our tanks when we do water changes? I don't feed it anything when I do a water change. There should be no food in my salt mix, other than phosphates possibly, or should be little to none in my RO water. Of course as stated, there are many things put into place to remove these DOC's.
The TOTM referenced, what size are his daily changes? Are they equal to or less than what a 10-15% weekly change would have been?
I have no idea, but the point is stated above.
I'll go over and check the TOTM.
Again, not trying to be argumentative, just well informed. Water changes are a big part of my recent interest in old tank syndrome and the issue concerning water changes has come up in a lot of articles I have been reading on that subject, as has the practice of cooking our rock to "recharge" it, because it loses efficiency due to unavoidable buildup of waste and toxins. (even in tanks with religious husbandry procedures
)

Me either, just trying to be clear.

I dont do daily yet, but will at some point in time. I jsut need to get a couple dosingf pumps, they're kinda pricey, and right now I got the SPS bug. I stated earlier that in June I did a series of changes that amounted to 100 gallons on my 135. I havent done any since. Making RO now to do another series of 30 gallon changes.

 

[socal57che]

Originally Posted by wattsupdoc
http:///forum/post/2872823
This is not the case with every DT, Waste also is being exported via skimming, mechanical filtration, macro algae, detrivores. Each tank is individually unique. As well trace elements are being removed at various different rates. Some through precipitation, some through use by corals, inverts etc., some through chemical filtration like carbon. It varies with each system. This is the reason why these things weren't included in Randy's article. As far as the TOTM, I don't recall what percent he changes a day, that's NOT THE ISSUE (it is if he is changing more water than he would under larger, less frequent changes), the issue is it doesn't matter as long as the end result gets the same amount of volume changed over the same period of time....You don't seem to get that I'm not saying change a gallon a day and your good. That's not correct at all. I'm saying whatever your changing that's working for you, you can split that up over the duration of the month...So if your changing 40 gallons, change 1.33 gallons. If Your changing 10 gallons and it's working for you, change .33 gallons a day.
And you don't feel that your need to export will outgrow your rate of removal? I would like to see actual daily test results of an established tank and compare them to a series of test results after switching to water changes with a daily equivalent to the former water change schedule. Again, on a low bioload system I can see this working fine.
We have both reiterated that aquarists need to know their tank and realize when it's time for a large WC and I hope people reading this thread will keep in mind that we both recommend water changes based on need.
How are we feeding our tanks when we do water changes? I don't feed it anything when I do a water change. There should be no food in my salt mix, other than phosphates possibly, or should be little to none in my RO water. Of course as stated, there are many things put into place to remove these DOC's.
It's not that we feed when we change water, it's that we feed all the time without adding or removing water. This is what increases the need to export over import. My fish eat far more (and produce more waste) than what my coral extracts from the salt water during the same period.

Me either, just trying to be clear.

Same here, It's hard to convey expressions over a keyboard. Sometimes constructive conversation can be taken the wrong way and I want to make sure that everyone knows that we are civil human beings engaged in meaningful debate.
Maybe my "show me" state mentality is rearing it's head.

 

[socal57che]

FYI
This thread is 2 days old and has nearly 600 views.

(580)
Wow, it just blasted past the 600 mark.

 

[wattsupdoc]

Originally Posted by socal57che
http:///forum/post/2872885
Maybe my "show me" state mentality is rearing it's head.

HAHA I HEAR YOU!
I don't feel that the need to export will increase. Well, not significantly, according to Randy, by somewhere around 3.5% I firmly believe that Randy's findings are accurate, and that if a certain volume of WC are working for you, it will also work in smaller more frequent changes. If the overall volume is the same. With a difference so nominal as 3.5 % one annual 5% water change catches that right up. So it's insignificant IMO.
It's also important to note that doing water changes to keep trace elements up should IMO be avoided. No two salt mixes are the same. As well many people dose the salt mix when doing WC to bump up the CACo2. It is far more important to remove DOC's than it is to worry about trace elements. That should be considered a bonus. Using a calcium reactor is probably the best way to add trace elements as well as dose CaCo2. Many people do water changes believing that doing them keeps these stable and will do water changes based on low alkalinity. There are much better more accurate ways of dosing/adding these. While the salt mix may contain acceptable levels of these, it may be unbalanced to some extent. Likely not greatly unbalanced, but unbalanced non the less. Not to say that it's not OK to do so, nor that it's not effective or beneficial. I believe it is effective. Just shouldn't be the reefers main concern when thinking about a change. Look for the appropriate products to correct these things.
It's not like with each time you are doing 3.5% less effective change. So the first one is 3.5%and the second 7%, the third 10.5% etc. It would be a consistent 3.5%or so...Because when you do 30% a month at one time you are also changing some of the water you just changed the prior month. in fact 30% of the water would be water that was added the prior month. 30% of 30 gals= 9 gallons. When you do a 1% daily, then only 1% of that removed is water from the prior days change. So 1% of 1 gallon on a 30 gal. a month routine. While this happens every day as opposed to once a month. It would still workout to around 9 gallons Well around 9.3 gallons or so.
I too would like to see some stats, but there are so many different scenarios involved that could make even two very similar tanks react differently that this would be near impossible. Remember, in order to do a proper study, you have to have a control. This would require at least two tanks with all parameters and scenarios exactly matched. Not likely we will see it. However there are many people who are doing this exact thing, and we can look at their tanks collectively and see if it is working for them. Ask Randy how much he changes and how often. I'm sure he'll be glad to tell. He's a great guy and has helped countless before.

Myself included.

 

[socal57che]

Originally Posted by ruaround http:///forum/post/2872726
hey socal... i am at 1109 now...

check this 6 year old thread out...
https://forums.saltwaterfish.com/t/33016/topic-water-changes-why

This was the best post there...
Originally Posted by broomer5 http:///forum/post/192117
What this whole thread shows me once again is that there is no right way to run a tank.
Successful beautiful healthy tanks with water changes each week.
Successful beautiful healthy tanks with water changes each month.
Successful beautiful healthy tanks with water changes once a year.
Successful beautiful healthy tanks with water changes never.
Go figure
Too bad most of those links are broken.