Do I really need to buy?

[Wheelman76]

I can see smaller more frequent water changes being better as far as replenishing elements and keeping the tank a little more stable. When it comes to reducing nitrates though larger water changes are obviously better as you are removing more at once , as opposed to smaller more frequent water changes where you keep replacing some of the new water that was just changed. Simple math and I'm pretty sure this topic has been beaten to death on here many times lol.

[gobytron]

Originally Posted by Wheelman76

I can see smaller more frequent water changes being better as far as replenishing elements and keeping the tank a little more stable. When it comes to reducing nitrates though larger water changes are obviously better as you are removing more at once , as opposed to smaller more frequent water changes where you keep replacing some of the new water that was just changed. Simple math and I'm pretty sure this topic has been beaten to death on here many times lol.

I dunno.

All due respect, as I've seen your tanks.

I think I'll stick with Fenner on this one.

I've never seen this topic being discussed before, I'll do a search and see what has been said.

Again from wet web media...

"Frequent water changes allow the aquarist to help dilute and reduce the concentration of waste products from the system before they begin to accumulate as nutrients."

So it's not just simple math...

Hoping to see some of the articles Reefwars was talking about...maybe you can reference a few?

Here is an awesome read on water changes and Nitrate reduction...

In this study, they actually find that there is virtually no difference from smaller regular changes to larger monthly changes, so long as the total changed volume is the same...

Water changes are a good way to help control certain processes that serve to drive reef aquarium water away from its starting purity. Some things build up in certain situations (organics, certain metals, sodium, chloride, nitrate, phosphate, sulfate, etc.), and some things become depleted (calcium, magnesium, alkalinity, strontium, silica, etc.). Water changes can serve to help correct these imbalances, and in some cases may be the best way to deal with them. Water changes of 15-30% per month (whether carried out once a month, daily or continuously) have been shown in the graphs above to be useful in moderating the drift of these different seawater components from starting levels. For most reef aquaria, I recommend such changes as good aquarium husbandry. In general, the more the better, if carried out appropriately, and if the new salt water is of appropriate quality.

Calcium and alkalinity, being rapidly depleted in most reef aquaria, are not well controlled, or even significantly impacted by such small water changes. In order to maintain them with no other supplements, changes on the order of 30-50% PER DAY would be required. Nevertheless, that option may still be a good choice for very small aquaria, especially if the changes are slow and automatic.

Happy Reefing!

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-10/rhf/#5

[Aquattro]

Mixing and changing 5% twice a week sounds like work. I've seen the math sequences showing frequent small does not out dilute less frequent large. It is simple math.
But regardless of math (who can trust that stuff anyway), doing twice weekly water changes sounds like work. Worth mentioning that twice. And 3 years down the road, is it something that you can maintain, each and every week? Maybe, maybe not. I do 50g change twice a month, works well, everything is happy and it takes 40 minutes of my time in a month.

Yes, I've seen that article, and others, I believe Randy even wrote something about it. Still think it's dumb, and a lot of work. I'll stick with big. Hate work

[IanWR]

Here is an article by RHF on water changes: http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-10/rhf/

I think the summary is that the difference between doing 1 30% water change vs 30 1% water changes is about 5% (it's been a while since I read it, don't recall the exact number) in terms of nutrient export. He argues that frequent small changes are easier to do, remove the need to heat the new water, and help keep parameters more stable than less frequent large changes.

[Aquattro]

Originally Posted by IanWR

Here is an article by RHF on water changes: http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-10/rhf/

I think the summary is that the difference between doing 1 30% water change vs 30 1% water changes is about 5% (it's been a while since I read it, don't recall the exact number) in terms of nutrient export. He argues that frequent small changes are easier to do, remove the need to heat the new water, and help keep parameters more stable than less frequent large changes.

So assuming this is true, let's say the difference is negligible, then doing 30 times more work results in negligible change. Right?
Heating water is nothing, parameters should be stable already or you have other issues, and proper design and planning make any size change easy. My 50g water change takes about 3 minutes of actual hands on time, and another 10 to set up and add salt. Let's call it 15 min twice a month. Versus how much effort to do 8 or more water changes a month? For no difference.

[reefwars]

Anyone remember the apples and oranges math lol add an orange take away 90% of an apple etc etc. This isn't a new topic at all, so the question isn't does water changes need to happen i think we can all agree it does but not for the sole purpose of removing nutrients that's just expensive and unnessary

[reefwars]

So back to the coraline lol if it doesn't use up much dkh then why am I dosing over 100mls a day in a zoanthid only sysyem system ? I use h2ocean salt and do on average 25% water changes and that salt has a high dkh in bucket of around 10. No sand no rock no hard corals just egg crate and tons of zoanthids ....and coraline of course

I have to dose to keep coraline alive or my alk drops fast , it's sad but it's fact.

Even if I scrape and make the tanks new which I just did it doesn't stop it for long coraline for me grows fast in weeks I have a tank covered again but if I stop the dosing then my alk and cal levels won't stay up

[gobytron]

Originally Posted by Aquattro

So assuming this is true, let's say the difference is negligible, then doing 30 times more work results in negligible change. Right?
Heating water is nothing, parameters should be stable already or you have other issues, and proper design and planning make any size change easy. My 50g water change takes about 3 minutes of actual hands on time, and another 10 to set up and add salt. Let's call it 15 min twice a month. Versus how much effort to do 8 or more water changes a month? For no difference.

It's not 30 times more work.

You keep a large bucket of mixed salt and a pitcher.

Every couple days, scoop a pitcher out of your tank, then replace it with a pitcher from your mixed barrel...

Easy peezy...

You should also the consider the cost, space taken and time taken to build your 3 minute 50 gallon system.

It's not for everyone...even if it's a superior option.

[gobytron]

Reefwars, unless you can show me some documentation where all of a sudden water changes have gone from being great for nutrient export to poor to somehow poor, I'll have to chalk it up to your opinion.

Maybe one that's based on lfs info more so than anything else?

Good theory to sell more equipment.

I have posted a couple that indicate they are excellent means for removing them....with the added benefit of replacing consumed elements and trace metals.

For goodness sakes, just google water change nutrient export and enjoy the wonders of the Internet..you don't have to take it from me. You can see the same said by multiple, respected reef enthusiasts.

Has there been some new research on this?

Please post the articles, as I hAve, that as you say, state your claim as scientific fact.

I'll also reiterate

Of course coralline will consume dkh (yes, obviously calcium too).

No one is refuting this well known fact.

It won't be an issue until you have lots of coralline with alk and calcium in perfect balance which promotes both their consumption.

If you're just starting a tank, as is the op, it is a non issue unless your rocks are extremely coralline covered.

Regular water changes would and are more than enough to subsist your coralline growth and then some in a newly established system.

Especially a smaller one.

Buying a doser on a new tank because you're worried about your corallines consumption is silly.

Sorry.

[reefwars]

Originally Posted by gobytron

Reefwars, unless you can show me some documentation where all of a sudden water changes have gone from being great for nutrient export to poor to somehow poor, I'll have to chalk it up to your opinion.

Maybe one that's based on lfs info more so than anything else?

Good theory to sell more equipment.

I have posted a couple that indicate they are excellent means for removing them....with the added benefit of replacing consumed elements and trace metals.

For goodness sakes, just google water change nutrient export and enjoy the wonders of the Internet..you don't have to take it from me. You can see the same said by multiple, respected reef enthusiasts.

Has there been some new research on this?

Please post the articles, as I hAve, that as you say, state your claim as scientific fact.

I'll also reiterate

Of course coralline will consume dkh (yes, obviously calcium too).

No one is refuting this well known fact.

It won't be an issue until you have lots of coralline with alk and calcium in perfect balance which promotes both their consumption.

If you're just starting a tank, as is the op, it is a non issue unless your rocks are extremely coralline covered.

Regular water changes would and are more than enough to subsist your coralline growth and then some in a newly established system.

Especially a smaller one.

Buying a doser on a new tank because you're worried about your corallines consumption is silly.

Sorry.

It's actually common simple math I'm surprised I have to explain it yet again , what do you remove with %10 water change? Lets say for giggles
You were able to leave the calcium , salt and all other things behind what have you removed ? Nothing more than %10 that's it ....so if you had 20 ppm nitrates you'll now have 18ppm how is that a good way to export nutrients ? Do you think the nutrients are finite? As long as there are animals and organic life there will always be an addition of nutrients so why on earth unless you have an infinite supply of salt or money would you use water changes for the sole purpose of nutrient export ? Get it now?

You used the quote about how using water changes to replenish calcium and alk to eventually become not enough hence the reason to add them your selves whys that? Because the size of the changes and cost would be a waste and considered not the ideal route to go.

Your not removing just nutrients your wasting things that are still good lol

So far I've seen you post an article which you obviously either dont understand or am missing the point of and you talk about trying to be a scam like a lfs well my friend I don't work for a lfs and I also don't take alot of my advice from guys who picked up reefing when myths were the norm lol spend a little time on the Chemistry form ask this exact question I'll gladly cone back for a chat or I'll meet you there I'm on it all the time

So I ask this and maybe you can actually answer it on your own words what does a routine hobby change of 1% a day remove in the way of nitrates and phosphates .....do the math on an easy number like a 100g tank with 100ppm of nitrates and 1ppm of phosphates ....post you math here and let's go over it then tell me how long it would take to get zeros without the fact that these nutrients are created 24/7 and added all the time....no nitrogen no life after all .

I'll be curious to see what you come up with lol

PS. To go back to your article if actually read it you'll see the goal isn't nutrient export it's exactly as I said to replace elements and remove the build up of trace metals of course removing g water will remove the nutrients but if you wanted to keep zeros you'd have to remove %100 everyone so that's why people carbon dose , skim run gfo etc. Not because these things are fun to do or too much money on hand because these things are simply better and way more efficient at doing so .

Cheers