A no water change theoretical discussion thread

[100LL]

Question: If you have the following system tuned to its ideal settings does a calcium reactor make a no water change system possible?

First consideration: Filtration

1. Filter Socks (removal of particulate and organic matter negating detritus buildup in the sump... yeah right!)
2. Protein skimmer (removal on organic material)
3. GFO (phosphate reduction)
4. Bio-pellets (nitrate reduction)

Second consideration: mineral and element replacement

5. Calcium reactor (calcium, alkalinity and trace elements)

Just after conversation and curious what you all think.

Brian

 

[1fishjones]

Check out my thread on bio denitrification


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[#theMatrix]

I know a guy who has around 1000gals. Never does a water change. All barebottoms. Maybe has around 12 tanks plumbed together.

He sells colonies from tanks he takes down.

 

[ultimatemj]

I think the missing variables are volume and bio-load.

It would be interesting to know how marine biologist that are involved in major aquariums (i.e. Shedd, Sea World, etc) determine the tipping point between "complexity and cost of systems" vs "change water as needed".

I suspect:
> The only tanks that are managed by "only water changes" are small volume...20g or less.
> The majority from 20g to ~1000g have high bio-loads and use a combination of "becoming complex systems" and "regular water changes of size" (25% or more volume changed over 8wks or less).
> Then above 1000g or so it becomes important to get to "complex systems" that minimize/eliminate water changes.

If you are between 50g and 500g there is probably a bio-load that can be kept healthy with rare water changes and the system you outlined.

Oh, and then there's feeding

 

[CienFuegos]

Hummmm.. I think [MENTION=1185]William Lutman[/MENTION] is running a tank with no water changes.. Maybe he has input.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Joe5688]

[MENTION=171]DJE[/MENTION] did it for like a year too. I do minimal water changes. Every month or so when I remember and I do about 15 gallons out of 100.

 

[anarchy]

Question: If you have the following system tuned to its ideal settings does a calcium reactor make a no water change system possible?

First consideration: Filtration

1. Filter Socks (removal of particulate and organic matter negating detritus buildup in the sump... yeah right!)
2. Protein skimmer (removal on organic material)
3. GFO (phosphate reduction)
4. Bio-pellets (nitrate reduction)

Second consideration: mineral and element replacement

5. Calcium reactor (calcium, alkalinity and trace elements)

Just after conversation and curious what you all think.

Brian

If the tank was also barebottom then everything should be fine. Good conversation to start. I've been going with minimal waterchanges. I've only done 4 this year. First was after the crash to help get the ammonia from stuff dying out. Second was at 6 months to replace trace elements. Third to get chemiclean out of the system and fourth was to syphon out bubble algae

 

[MMreef]

Check out the Triton method, many tank are run this way, especially in Europe , makes water changes unnecessary

 

[William Lutman]

Hummmm.. I think [MENTION=1185]William Lutman[/MENTION] is running a tank with no water changes.. Maybe he has input.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

my tank was only a 40 + sump but I ran over 2 years
1 really clean RO water
2 Change filter sock often
3 dose dose dose test test test
4 Fuel additive
5 big skimmer
6 GFO and no carbon

Lots of articles out there on this

 

[madjoe]

If the tank was also barebottom then everything should be fine. Good conversation to start. I've been going with minimal waterchanges. I've only done 4 this year. First was after the crash to help get the ammonia from stuff dying out. Second was at 6 months to replace trace elements. Third to get chemiclean out of the system and fourth was to syphon out bubble algae

Hmm words crash bubble algae and chemiclean maybe u should add waterchanges to the to do list buddy

 

[anarchy]

Hmm words crash bubble algae and chemiclean maybe u should add waterchanges to the to do list buddy

Lol the crash was aefw, bubble algae from using tap water, chemiclean was from not cleaning powerheads so flow was trashed

 

[troublemaker]

I honestly believe it has a lot to do with what's in the tank. Certain animals are very tolerant of depletions of certain elements/nutrients and excess of others. When I started with a softie tank, I could do no wrong with whatever I did. My SPS system was finicky and always needed some sort of attention. I think with a well set up system and superior knowledge of the husbandry needed to keep whatever you have, it is possible to go without water changes. My skill set isn't that high and water changes allow my skill set to improve without killing things as I make mistakes.

 

[DJE]

[MENTION=171]DJE[/MENTION] did it for like a year too. I do minimal water changes. Every month or so when I remember and I do about 15 gallons out of 100.

Yes I don't do water changes in my SPS tank. I do have a big skimmer, run GFO and Carbon. I also dose two part which eventually will change to CalRx. My feeding is done via the Apex AFS 3 times a day (1 rotation) with the Crossover Diet pellets and all my fish are fat. Keep in mind what might work for me might not work for everyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[100LL]

I think the missing variables are volume and bio-load.

It would be interesting to know how marine biologist that are involved in major aquariums (i.e. Shedd, Sea World, etc) determine the tipping point between "complexity and cost of systems" vs "change water as needed".

I suspect:
> The only tanks that are managed by "only water changes" are small volume...20g or less.
> The majority from 20g to ~1000g have high bio-loads and use a combination of "becoming complex systems" and "regular water changes of size" (25% or more volume changed over 8wks or less).
> Then above 1000g or so it becomes important to get to "complex systems" that minimize/eliminate water changes.

If you are between 50g and 500g there is probably a bio-load that can be kept healthy with rare water changes and the system you outlined.

Oh, and then there's feeding

Great response and let me offer a little clarification on my end as I agree that the bio load and water volume variables are extremely important. I also agree with your assertion guidelines regarding tank volume.

What I'd like to understand is if we were already controlling the water parameters with the referenced filtration, which many members can and do, what are the obstacles to a fully sustainable and thriving reef.

Further on this topic I often hear people say they can keep their water nearly ideal but that they perform water changes for trace element replacement.

Enter the need for the calcium reactor...

The calcium reactor, as I understand it, replaces many of the compounds and elements that are consumed by coral.

 

[bryman]

It's possible, but I think water changes are a good safety net that helps keep everything in the proper balance, especially when you use a good salt with all the natural elements. I do 10g changes on my 120g system weekly, but could probably get away with 1x per month.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

[100LL]

It's possible, but I think water changes are a good safety net that helps keep everything in the proper balance, especially when you use a good salt with all the natural elements. I do 10g changes on my 120g system weekly, but could probably get away with 1x per month.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

I agree with your comments, and I agree with a water change schedule, but I also want to question the "because it's the right thing to do" logic. If we are testing for the known parameters that keep our tanks/coral thriving with calcium reactors with seem to have the ideal balance of compounds and elements to grow coral are we actually gaining anything tangible besides peace of mind with water changes?

To counter my point, I understand that water changes allow us to vacuum out detritus and other undesirables. Additionally, not all systems have the ability/harmony to keep water parameters in desirable range.

Great responses so far. Thanks for joining the discussion. ?

 

[bryman]

Theoretically, you could replenish all the trace elements. Also, some may not be necessary for our tanks to do well, but I don't think this is completely known. Do coral skeletons commonly used in Ca reactors contain all necessary trace elements and do they break down into usable forms for live corals? I am not sure if this is known either. I think it's possible to do no water changes, but my opinion would be that you would eventually have one or more important element deficiencies if you are only counting on a Ca reactor to replace the elements.

This is why I like Red Sea Salt, because it is made from actual natural seawater. I am sure there are things in there that other salts don't have, and I've always had better results with Red Sea Salts.

 

[jeffy]

Going on 9 months strong. No water change. I run a skimmer an ATS. I feed very heavy as well.