Doing super frequent water changes.. what can go wrong?

[Delphinus]

Sorry Steve, I missed that you were only talking of nutrients. Somewhere on the first page Kien mentioned in passing that (to paraphrase a bit because I'm too lazy to go find it and quote it) that it would be nice if this could also eliminate the need for additives. Which I took to mean the big 3 (Ca/Alk/Mg). I wasn't sure if you were addressing that, or the nutrient thing. So I guess I'm in total agreement with ya, you were just better with the graphs and math and stuff.

[kien]

Thanks for all the input everyone. Some great information here!

To clarify, when I said I wanted to eliminate the use of additives I meant additive designed to reduce unwanted nutrients like Zeo,Fauna,Vodka,Gfo, carbon etc.. There is a lot of stuff out there And I was just wondering if there was a way to simplify nutrient export to achieve a near ULNS. That's when the frequent water change came to mind.

It sounds like some have tried this without it making much of a difference though. Yes, cost would be higher but then people with larger systems need to spend this type of coin on their "regular" water changes.

Aside from possibly nuking my beneficial bacteria it sounds like there isn't much that can go wrong here. As mentioned, I think stability is the key. Lots of small-medium water changes. I may try this out for a few months and see how it goes. I suspect in the end I will get sick and tired of all the water changes but I'm still curious to see the results.

[Delphinus]

I honestly don't see how the bacterial cultures would be adversely affected (at least in a significant sense). The amount of free floating bacteria is minimal compared to the amount bound to the substrate and rock. I've known people to do 100% water changes (and done some myself) without there being a cycle afterwards. I'm thinking in Kevin's example, the 3 60% water changes in quick succession maybe somehow shocked the system and there was a bacterial dieoff as a result. I'm not sure what happened there though so I guess I shouldn't speculate. But theoretically, smaller water changes more often should really in fact impact the bacterial cultures even less than the typical weekly/monthly changes.

So I think you're good to go.

[sphelps]

If you're going to give this a shot I would recomend daily changes rather than every few days. It would be easy to automate as all you need a pump on a timer that pumps water to a drain (be careful to avoid a siphon) and an auto top off system which allows you to top off with salt water with a lower salinity that maintains constant salinity in the display. A very simple system requiring very little time to maintain.

I agree with Tony about the bacteria, this is actually part of a myth similar to how UV sterilizers can harm your bacteria population. The fact is all you need is already attached within rock and substrate.
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2009-04/newbie/index.php

[mseepman]

Kien,

If you look at this thread (and wow, what a thread!) you will see that he is doing continual water changes. Go to about mid-way down the page and start reading.

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showth...0#post14332010

Hope that gives you food for thought.

[Myka]

Originally Posted by sphelps

One could cut the source even further back and decrease the amount of fish but with this logic why not remove the tank all together and eliminate the problem completely? While this may seem harsh I think if someone is willing to spend more on water changes to keep a couple more fish or feed a little more, that's his or her option.

Keeping a lower fish load is the easiest way to achieve lower nutrients. That's pretty simple logic, although people really don't seem to link the two for some reason.

Personally, I despise battling nutrients so I keep a small fish load. I am not using any artificial filtration at all; no carbon, GFO, filter socks, skimmer - not even a sump. The only mechanical things in my tank are the Tunze Wavebox, a MaxiJet 1200, and a heater. You will find very little algae in my tank, and my phosphate and nitrate are undetectable using both Salifert and Elos kits. Oh, and I'm one lazy SOB...I have done two 15% water changes since I set the tank up in June.

I have been using Zeo lately (my phos and nitrate were already undetectable before starting Zeo), but really only for the last 6 weeks or so for most of it. I'm not using any of the Zeo biological additives (yet), and I'm not dosing a carbon source. This isn't the first low fish load tank I've had either! I figure there is a simple way and a not so simple way. I would rather my tank is simple than have a large aesthetically pleasing fish load.

So a person shouldn't trivialize lowering the fish load like that!

[steve fedyk]

I do a daily water change at about 1% a day in less then 5 mins. I have a barrel down stairs that has new water in it and a drain on my sump. Its been running for 5 weeks and my Kh is up and the tank is starting to look good.
NH4 has dropped and I used to run Zeo, which worked great, but to much time for now. I might start usiing both together.
I don't think I would do a larger water change consistenly. It would probility take out the good to.

[sphelps]

Originally Posted by Myka

Keeping a lower fish load is the easiest way to achieve lower nutrients. That's pretty simple logic, although people really don't seem to link the two for some reason.

Personally, I despise battling nutrients so I keep a small fish load. I am not using any artificial filtration at all; no carbon, GFO, filter socks, skimmer - not even a sump. The only mechanical things in my tank are the Tunze Wavebox, a MaxiJet 1200, and a heater. You will find very little algae in my tank, and my phosphate and nitrate are undetectable using both Salifert and Elos kits. Oh, and I'm one lazy SOB...I have done two 15% water changes since I set the tank up in June.

I have been using Zeo lately (my phos and nitrate were already undetectable before starting Zeo), but really only for the last 6 weeks or so for most of it. I'm not using any of the Zeo biological additives (yet), and I'm not dosing a carbon source. This isn't the first low fish load tank I've had either! I figure there is a simple way and a not so simple way. I would rather my tank is simple than have a large aesthetically pleasing fish load.

So a person shouldn't trivialize lowering the fish load like that!

While one person may be happy with less or no fish another may not, that was the only point to the previous quote. There are other options besides feeding less and removing fish.

On another note a tank setup in June with low stock won't require much to keep nutrients down but over time they will build up following the "lazy SOB" approach.

[Myka]

Originally Posted by sphelps

On another note a tank setup in June with low stock won't require much to keep nutrients down but over time they will build up following the "lazy SOB" approach.

Like I said, it's not the first low nutrient low fish load tank I've had Steve. You can make yourself a low maintenance tank...depends what you want more. The "lazy SOB" approach WILL work, you just have to plan around it - it's all about balance.

A freshly set up tank may actually have quite high nutrients...depends what approach you take.

[kien]

I think that's what this hobby boils down to.. picking your battles. Everyone has their own unique goals and with them challenges to overcome or to achieve in reaching those goals. As suggested, some people are perfectly happy with a salt water tank with a few fish and low maintenance, while some people NEED to have to have that cool fish, and that cool fish, and oh, that one too! Need to have those LPS corals too, and SPS' that are thriving as well! Somewhere in between having just an empty tank with saltwater in it and a tank full (possibly overstocked) with fish and corals, the hobbyist has had to decide where the line is drawn and which battles to fight. Do I keep all those cool fish and risk them fighting one another, eating my corals, nuking my tank, do I deal with the high nutrients, dose to keep nutrients low? stock less? more live rock, less live rock, deeper sand bed, skimmer, no skimmer, bigger tank, smaller tank, more flow less flow?

For me personally I am trying to find a balance where I can keep all my cool fish and corals, while at a cost (time and monetary) in maintenance. The battle I have chosen to fight (today at least) is how to achieve this with all the various methods of nutrient exporting. Frequent water changes just happens to be one that I was curious about.