Anthem,
Please dont take THIS as a bash either nothing i say is every personally derogative.. but i would like to question a few points made - that is how we all learn right?
First.. I notice that every occurance as a reason "NOT" to do water changes is negative.
"don't want to, can't afford to, not enough time to, too lazy to, whatever"
In addition it is said they can't "HURT" which is a 100% valid point.
HOWEVER - i think the focus of the question is - is it NECESSARY AND BENEFICIAL.
It has been said "dilution is the solution to polution." WELL SAID. HOWEVER, isn't another SOLUTION the REDUCTION OF POLUTION thus not "NEEDING" the DILUTION?
Can't the arguement be made, that if you carbon a few days each month you REMOVE a lot of toxins (tested for and NOT tested for). Further if you add the trace elements back "AND" monitor tested elements "AND" observe the tank - doesn't that give you most all the evidence necessary as to whether a water change is needed or not?
OBVIOUSLY if a problem arises unexplainable (that carbon didn't get, etc) a dilution helps the situation. YES, constant water changes are a dilution of any pollution in the tank - but I guess i'm asking/questioning is it NECESSARY if someone does as stated? (ie, carbon, trace replacements, test elements, observe for good life in the tank).
You mentioned magnesium earlier - "magnesium is one of the CRITICAL elements in stable pH" THUS LOGICALL if you have a stable acceptable PH - then magnesium must be fine right? And if he is additing magnesium as a trace element that's likely WHY his PH is stable.
I guess I question everything for understand - I find that's how I learn. But faced with "evidence" of long term success without a water change and a formula that seems to work "WITHOUT" negating anything we have learned - doesn't that merit some credit?
When everyone used bio balls and the Germans threw em out and began using Berlin method - after repeated studies of success many around the world followed suit. We did this based on evidence of success NOT "that's not how it's done."
I'm not even stating my opinion on water changes or how often I do or do not - as i said this isn't personal. I just want to learn, as many of us do. And i KNOW i do not have a diluted 5% knowledge of marine keeping that others may have here. But I know that learning means questioning everything and that long term success shouldn't be dismissed simply because it's not the current "norm."
I think his setup and situaion SHOULD be tested, studied, scrutinized for failure somewhere - because if it's truly successful it will withstand the scrutiny
You mentioned magnesium leading to unstable PH - he has verified his PH is fine. I havn't read one thing yet to question or test for that disputes this as a successful, thriving reef system/setup yet. Any other thoughts?
PS: DISCLAIMER - you are correct that "most" ppl that don't do water changes ARE because of the various "negative" reasons - it's human nature. But there is a stark DIFFERENCE between someone who doesn't do them out of laziness and someone who doesn't do them that is disciplined to run the carbon; replace the trace elements; and monitor everything. That isn't laziness
I just hate to see someone successful with a different method be compared to that which he is not
I do not think there is ANY "flaming" or personal attacks going on on this thread, or on the board that i've seen. Seems like a GREAT bunch of people of VASTLY different backgrounds and experience all with 1 thing in common - a love of the hobby. Isn't that why we are all here??
