Water changes

[Aquattro]

Originally Posted by ReefOcean

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"?

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?

[ReefOcean]

Originally Posted by Aquattro

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?

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?

[Aquattro]

Originally Posted by ReefOcean

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

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...

[ReefOcean]

Originally Posted by Aquattro

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)

[tim the toolman]

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.

[ReefOcean]

Originally Posted by tim the toolman

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 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