Holy crappy grizzly lol another reason I don't want a large tank haha

It's very dry here this year. The house is really bad I need to install a furnace humidifier.

Yep really that much.

Lol grizzly lol hate autocorrect on phones sometimes

i go through 5 g every 3 days on both tanks you mh may have helped with that evap hopefully the led's will help slow that down for you.. or you have a slow leak

No leak but with the LED's is should slow down, I hope.

i would guess alot of it has to do with being a 8ft tank and a fair amount of flow. thats alot of water to have to add daily i would def look into hrv for the house:):)

300g a month in evaporation

Omg he said the L word how dare he

Is that relevant? Your alternative is arbitrarily adding them in through water/ salt mix that has an indeterminable amount.

HRV's remove moisture from the air, I need to infuse moist into the house so the tank doesn't evap so much.

Yes, I tested mag and cal after making a fresh batch when setting up my new tank. Not accurate in the least. When dosing, you can gauge the exact amount to dose or very close to it because it goes in separately...not mixed in with salt.

oh ok i got ya makes sense:):) crazy that your house is so dry with that much moisture

a lot :sad:

Delphinus, don't get me wrong, I completely agree. I am not against water changes in fact I see some tanks that have a bioload which screams weekly water changes. In a system where bio-waste is kept at a low, water changes can become substantially less frequent to a a point where...cough...months are acceptable. Now people here can cling to minute trace elements all they want (most of whom don't even have a clue on what any of them do) and argue semantics but I think I made my case, even with the trolls coming in here to derail the thread.

Keep bioload low, run excessive mechanical filtration, dose and monitor. Simple.

And sorry Sphelps if I was being a douche, I felt douchery coming from you so I countered. No hard feelings.

for those still arguing thier sides to this debate here is my 2 cents and you can quote me on this ...who cares.... lol. the best way to solve this dilema of who is right and who is wrong is a duel to the death.. first person with a major tank crash loses. you have al said your opinion everyone has seen both sides and will still do what teh heck they want so there is no point. it may nothappen today it may not happen for 5 years. but whom ever is wrong will suffer huge losses. and will have no one to blame but themselves. there is no point in having a my tank is bigger than your tank conversation. when in essence no matter how long we are doing this hobby we all make mistakes with our ideas and ideals. noone is getting hurt here other that the OP whom asked a simple question and gets drama over tank envy or plain stubborness... that is all happy reeefing :)

and grizz i think ppl needmore cute puppy pics to calmthier nerves lol

Unfortunately the first tank crash would come from my side since my position requires a low bioload and everybody overfills their tank with pretty fishies. It also requires monitoring. It is like the anti-zeovit but with with all the -paying attention- still there.

I already said u can search what's in your choice of salt (and its not just calc alk) so im not just "arbitrarily adding a indeterminable amount"

make a batch and test it. And I am not talking about that 50 dollar a bag Louis Vuitton or whatever designer salt. I am talking Kent or instant ocean, the garden variety stuff. The ingredients are not accurate. If they can't even get the cal or mag correct, how is those miniscual trace elements going to be at all correct.

But wait, you can't even test those miniscule trace elements accurately unless you are a hydro electric damn or a reservoir. So it is moot. Cal, mag, and the biggies you can, but aquarium unobtanium which helps in hypothetical this and that, good luck.... to put it as bluntly as possible. Your salt mix dosing is not better then my bottle dosing. End of story.

Hmmmm after re-reading on non-conservative elements I can see why you are confused, i have used the term 'non-conservative' incorrectly . Thinking about it a bit more, I should have said that I dose everything you would expect to be replaced when doing a water change with a high quality salt, or at least I think I am :). I test for Ca, dKh and Phosphates monthly but have my dosers/GFO dialed in pretty closely so find my levels don't drift too much (I also periodically test for nitrate, Mg and just got an Fe tester more because I am curious than concerned). I also watch for color changes in some of my corals as indicators for some of my supplement requirements (specifically B, Fe and K). For elements I dose K, Fe, I, dKh, Ca, Mg, Boron, Sr and trace. I have also been tinkering with BA Elemental (I think it is the same as Purple Up under a different brand) to see about increased seeding rates for LR with coralline as well. On a side note, to my surprise my recent addition of boron supplementation has actually made a difference (IMO), although I am on a DIY dKh recipe which is boron free, so that may explain why. Thanks for pointing that out :).


FragIt Dan

That's weird cuz I use io reef crystals and the few times iv tested my water it was fairly accurate give or take a little and i don't have to dose trace elements because there in the salt and my w/c helps reduce what buildups there may be from the elements that don't get used up as fast which is all we've been saying "end of story"

How come I knew you would say that. :lol: Good thing I can also bottle dose when my wonky salt mix screws me around..when i do water changes that is

I really don't get this circular argument you are presenting.

Whatever comes out of that salt bag, can come out of a bottle... Is it really that bad that it is possible to get away with suspended water changes? What exactly is your motivation here? You have ahve pretty much established that that dosing is dosing, if the salt mixture is correct.

btw, It wont build up, but it can be depleted. by doing a water change and adding the static 10 more units of element A when 20 are now needed doesn't really help. Next time you need 30, then 40.

It would only make sense that the amount of the secondary trace elements required, is very flexible.

copper can build up because there can be some amount in fish food and that can build up with time.

that's what would worry me the most if I was to go without water change for a long time. Also if one dose daily, there might be some residual from dosing that could build up.

I went 2 months without a water change and started to notice the corals were stunted. Not growing anymore. Nitrates and ammonia was zero. But you really do need to add more essential elements.

Now I do a 5% water change per week.

You know Mr. Ocean I figured by this time you would have had enough time to think about the subject a little more but you still actually haven't figured out what a water change does despite being told numerous times. It's not the same as dosing....

Once again I will explain, do not let your ADD kick in before you've understood this post.

For arguments sake lets say you just setup a tank consisting of 100 parts of water and within that it contains 10% of E (Same as fresh batch of mixed salt). Now this E can be anything but lets assume it's something you don't test for and nothing in your tank is using it at a noticeable rate.

-----

Method 1 - The Water Change (10%):
Start -> 100 parts - 10 parts E
After 10% water removal -> 90 parts - 9 parts E
After 10% Replenish -> 100 parts - 10 parts E

This will go on forever and despite that E is not being used the concentration never grows.

Method 2 - Dosing
Start -> 100 parts - 10 parts E
Dose mixture contains 1 part E
After Dosing 100 parts - 11 parts E (after evaporation equilibrium)

This pattern will continue and E will grow in concentration each time you dose.

----

So the difference:

Dosing does one thing - Add
Water change does two - Add and Subtracts

Water changes maintain a balance of elements by adding what's needed and reducing any excess amounts or contamination.

This same example can apply to many things such as containment which you add to your tank whether you realize it or not. People just don't add things like copper, sulfur, chloride, silica, phosphorus, ect willingly they added through foods, additives and even our hands. Even that bottle of elements you swear by will contain many impurities. Without water changes these contaminants will grow.

----

Do I think water changes are needed? No I don't, if you actually read any of my actual posts on the subject you would have noticed I clearly stated you can have success without water changes but it's not for the inexperienced because there are more factors at play than many seem to realize. There are many people that have posted success with limited water change, and when I say success I don't mean those with new tanks, a few corals and some half eaten clams. Talk to these people, they are not inexperienced, they can look actually look at there corals and know what to add and when in order for their corals to thrive. They have also chosen there methods based on more than just laziness.

If I came off as a douche it's because I've repeated myself numerous times to someone who has failed understand such a simple concept. The concept isn't an argument to favor either side of the discussion, it's purely the difference between water change and no water change.

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-10/rhf/index.php

This is a great article that proves sphelps point for doing water changes.
I agree to doing them if you need nitrate reduction, add in "extra" elements to your tank through dosing, or need to replenish mag/calc/alk.

I run biopellets/large refugium that keeps my nitrates at 0, I don't dose(Calcium Reactor), so the only "extras" I'm adding to my tank are through the food I feed my fish, or trace elements that make it past my RODI(should be 0). So in an ideal world, there's no reason for me to do them weekly/bi weekly. I've been doing them recently since my tank's been recovering from the epidemic "Kent Carbon '12", just because of the excess die off that's been happening my ecosystem cannot keep up, so I've had to intervene. But generally, I've had best results letting everything stay balanced, whatever my coral takes up in elements, my calcium reactor adds. Whatever waste is produced, my bacteria/refugium/skimmer take up. Every time I did a 10% water change, my coral would lose color for a week. Now that my tank's back to going better I'll be changing from 10% weekly back down to 10% monthly over the next while, so that I can try to get the color back into my coral's since they're back to growing again.

I already posted that article but apparently most peoples attention spans are not long enough to read such a novel. It's easier to blatantly ignore everything and post the same dribble over and over again.

I'm also not sure where people got the idea that 10% weekly is the norm or what's apparently recommended as a rule of thumb. I don't believe this to be true, as far as I know 10% monthly is what's recommended as a rule of thumb to simplify things for beginners. From there each hobbyist determines what works best for them, whether it be more or less depends on their tank demands and experience. Systems like Zeovit call for a 10% change weekly but there are specific reasons for this.

This is not a new concept, it's how it's always been so if people are debating whether to change X amount weekly or Y amount monthly or even Z amount quarterly you're really all doing the same thing. Changing water, the amount and frequency is only thing different.

Eliminating water changes all together is different story but it's also nothing new and been going on for decades. It's not new technology that people haven't adapted yet, it's simply a different method that few people use long term for what I believe is the simple concept of excess organic and inorganic impurities that will build up over time as well as imbalance of elements.

On more post regarding cost of dosing vs water change as that came up.

System size: 25 gallon
Demand: Low

Water change:
Decent salt brand - $70 / 150 gallons
Min requirement - 10% change per month
Cost: $ 1.17 per month

Dosing (rates are based on bottle instructions):
Trace Element - $20/500ml (5ml/week)
Mag - $10/500ml (5ml/week)
Potassium - $12/500ml (2.5ml/week)
Alk - $8/500ml (10ml/week)
Ca - $10/500ml (10ml/week)
Cost: $2.88 per month

So dosing will cost you more than twice as much and do less but it is easier.

That article also conclusively explains what Sphelps is discussing about removing unwanted build-up of contaminants.

Water Changes to Deplete Something: Sulfate from a Homemade Two-Part Additive

I have suggested that reef aquarists who cannot find high quality magnesium chloride could manage using inexpensive Epsom salts (magnesium sulfate heptahydrate). The unfortunate drawback of using Epsom salts is the accumulation of sulfate. The article goes on to show how water changes reduce the concentration of sulfate that is built up as a byproduct of splitting the magnesium sulfate heptahydrate.
Now I know that many aquarists are not using Epsom salts to dose their magnesium, but what other by-products are you unknowingly creating in your tank?

I use FCC grade anhydrous Calcium Chloride which is claimed to be 99.8% pure. Can you be completely sure that the other .2% of whatever you're dosing isn't building up contaminants? Food grade products are fine for human consumption, but in our digestive systems we don't typically build up toxic elements, they are excreted through wastes. In aquaria, these elements are built up in the water column, and without a means of removal, will continue to build up over a period of time. Although not immediately noticeable, even the tiniest amount of pollutants consistently added over a long enough period will eventually build up to toxic levels.

I have to agree with sphelps 100% very we'll said:)