There are always bio-products to such reactions.

If the smell didn't kill you, sure :razz:

And if urine and feces were invisibly merged with this oxygen, then that's good too, right? Water changes are the easiest and simplest form of keeping water quality up. Why would you be that lazy?

Well, i was just adressing the "air" aspect of his analogy. As for bioload, that can be neutralized by other biological/chemical reations. I am not advocating not doing water changes but I beg the question, when waste is negligible and bological processes in the aquarium or efficient, is it acceptable to be lazy on the water changes? Is this a old -he said she said- "requirement" that has been passed around aquarists and ingrained into their heads as "rules"?

Sure, I think the less load you have, the longer you can walk that line. But why? Changing water is simple. It's good for the fish. It's good for the corals. It's good all round. So why do we not want to change water?
I maintain it's lazy/cheap. And if so, then this is the wrong hobby.

How is bio-load neutralized? There are always bio-products and elements needed for every reaction. For example and in simple terms raw organics eventually turn to nitrates and phosphates, how are these removed? Chemical filtration removes many trace elements and refugiums will also use up elements such as iron and iodine. These have to be replaced but for the average hobbyist they are virtually impossible to test for accurately. You also have to think long term, perhaps a tank will do fine for a long period of time as the elements slowly deplete as livestock adapts and it can handle a certain amount of stress unfazed but then levels fall below critical and things start to go wrong. Clueless on what exactly is issue is you begin bringing up levels but doing so too quickly results in even more stress perhaps even enough for some livestock to call it quits and dramatic changes in chemistry can cause all sorts of problems like algae outbreaks.

Can it be done, sure but I think it takes more experience than most of us have in order to avoid screwing yourself in the long run. There's no doubt I could stop water changes for months without issue but eventually things will probably go bad and then going back could make things worse. Dosing would help but if you can't test for it knowing exactly what's needed is next to impossible. Constant water changes insures stability overall and IMO is key to long term success.

If all of my perameters are good, how is it more benifical to do frequent water changes. I know it is 'good', but how is it benificial? I am talking about diminished returns here.

Cheapness/laziness might just mean "to do what is required and only required"?

What parameters, how you read the ingredients in synthetic salt mix before?

Well put. I might add however, that we can know EXACLTY what our water is putting into the aquarium so logically, we can adjust for it.

Chemical/biological/mechanical filtration.

Water changes replenish all the elements used by the system. The salt has dozens of components, and you only replace Ca and CaO3, maybe Mg. What about the rest? It's there for a reason. Reefs need strontium, potassium, etc. you don't replace those. While minimal, they're essential (they wouldn't just add it for fun). It also dilutes the DOCs (dissolved organic compounds) that affect the life in the tank.

Again, my question is why not do a water change?

I can't say i have ever read it, no

Fair enough but you can dose them. People dose Calcium right? Almost everybody with SPS...

I didn't do water changes just to see what would happen to my parameters. Just like I used a crappy Chinese LED unit to see if I could grow SPS. To see for myself.

My hypothesis being, that the stringent water change practices people promote are circumstatial and hearsay. I do agree that water changes do have merrit and in most cases required at least once and a while.

You call me lazy, but stocking a system that can't support itself would be considered what?

You should

I don't understand your question...

The best I can guess is you'd call it a closed system. Which requires keeper intervention. Fish don't feed themselves in the tank, you add food. The tank doesn't heat itself, you add heat. The tank doesn't clean itself, that's your job...

Keepign a system that can't sustain itself (at least substatially)and requires constant water changes due to bioload would be considered irresponsible, at least by me. I guess the different being is what you are going for, a pretty display tank with way to much livestock to show off to guests, or a more realistic enclosed bio-system ( to a degree)

why

Water changes are basically fish keeping 101. And as long as you are going to be considered a responsible fish keeper you should be doing water changes. I'm certain that if we drastically reduced the essentials in your day to day life (food, oxygen) you would not die but your quality of life would definitely decrease. Just because the fish in a system are not dying does not mean they are living happily.

I should also add (without trying to force this thread in multiple directions) is that you can achieve some of those things you have described to a degree. Stocking fish that eat stuff that grows in your aquariam, living in a hot climate, having a clean up crew... are all things that can help wirth the enclosed system. Obviously, and it is a big obviously, there are still many things you need to do to maintain the tank like clean equipments, suppliment feeding here and there....

I find that most opinions that come out of this hobby, turn to facts very quickly. When you have 1 expert for every 5 million novices, it tends to happen virally

dont even bother. some of these people are old and stubborn and cant accept alternative methods of doing things. they believe in weekly or biweekly water changes and you cant change their mind. just give up

Logically yes, practically no. It's not as easy as you might think, IMO water changes will be easier and cheaper.

Like I said after the rhetorical question biological makes bio-products and chemical removes more than you might think.

If you're lazy you can make an auto water changing system pretty easy, completely automated if you have a conductivity controller. My formula is simple lazy+$=success not lazy=success.

oh and dont bother with analogies. people here take them literally

Shouldn't you be off saving some clams??

He solved that problem, back to trolling :lol:.

the clams are not dying as you suggested. and im going to hold off on the freshwater dip and see what happens in the next couple of hours

just because i disagree with the popular opinion im trolling?

Where did I put that box of snakes......

you still havent explained why snakes would attack only me in a room of people.

No but not adding anything relevant to a discussion in hopes of stirring something up does

Lol......this sure did take a turn for the hateful. It seems to be that people are happy to take the lazy route and have success, while others don't mind putting in the effort and also have success. So I guess everyone is right in their own mind. And as long as people are happy with their own systems what's the harm. I would just say to people who are going to remain closed minded that asking for help is a little foolish if it is only to spit in the faces of the helpful.

If you ware using a calcium reactor how is it any different than natural seawater replacing minerals? The trace elements are in the media, since it is dead coral. If i was dosing i would be doing lots of water changes to reduce the "extra" elements you are adding with the 2 part mixes.

The way i see it is if you have a big enough balanced system(well cycled, 0 nitrates/phosphates) then all you're doing in a water change is taking out "live" water full of beneficial bacteria, and replacing it with "dead" water. Why don't we change live rock over time? In theory it should have the same degradation as the water and buildup of unwanted elements.

I'm not wanting to full out say they're bad, lots of people do them, lots don't. Just putting forward something smarter lazy/cheap reefing. I've tried both ways, found that my tank stayed more balanced when i didn't do them.

Question:
Answer:
I can keep going, thats like page 1 of your 62 page post summary.

The whole "LED's will never work craze of '07" and the "watts per gallon" thing that still goes on are fine examples of people just parroting second hand information and living by it in a very partisan fashion.

the matter of fact is that every tank is different. and there are a million factors that contribute to the outcome.

i agree that without a way of nutrient export, waterchanges are really the only way to go. but if someone is having success using an algae scrubber, refugium, prodibio, zeo, or whatever else, why is that the bad or lazy way of doing it?

How is dumping a capful of dose into the tank once a month less practical than mixing and lugging around buckets of water?

Liek I said, it started off as a matter of being lazy (or very busy) but now it is a matter of "why?" Why do it if I don't have to.

You forgot turnover rate, sump size, return size and many other reefing "guidelines" we live by :P

Well said. Yes, a tank can be kept without doing water changes. For how long, I'm not sure. Most people don't keep their tank long enough to prove either way. I compare it to feeding my dog. I can feed Purina crap, or a real meat diet. It's well documented that dogs fed real food (or people for that matter) live longer more vigorous lives. I believe the same applies to my reef. If I want an amazing reef, I need to be an amazing reefkeeper, which to me holds certain standards (like changing water). I believe my reef will be amazing for many years because of it.
In all honesty, I don't care who changes water or who doesn't. Someone asked, seeking validation to not do something, I offered my thoughts to hopefully help them make decision. I believe they will have a better reef, for longer, by doing partial and frequent water changes. They can choose to do it or not. If not, no skin off my butt.
But....be honest about why you don't want to change it. Don't make up stuff to validate or hide the fact that you just don't want to expend the effort, or the money for salt. Other than that, I cannot think of any reason why one would not do water changes.

i troll because i refuse to be talked down to by someone with more posts and more "experience". i dont care if i have to be the bad guy. that chitons topic for POTM was stupid, and i have no problem say it

Not saying lazy is the best word I was just using the go to wording that was being kicked around this thread. I was just merely saying that some go one way others try something different and both are proving to be successful. I just wouldn't fight that fight yet until you know what's killing your clams.

For one, it's cost prohibitive. Two, you have to dismantle your tank. but yes, you probably should change rock every 5 years or so, should you actully keep a tank going that long.

I still don't see how it is lazy. Because you label it as such?

And true, I have asked for help. Aquattro has giving me advice many times on this forum that i have used and i appreciate it. But that doesn't mean there arent alternatives to look at. It doesn't make you guys my superiors.