Do I really need to buy?

[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

[reefwars]

Here's some great ways to lower nutrients and practises used , funny enough I don't see water changes as a primary route to go in fact rhf (pretty sure his words are good no?) Even says in the opening paragraphs that decades ago it was the primary way to remove nutrients but is not the case anymore , we have much better ways of doing so now as the article explains in great detail lol

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2003/8/chemistry

[Myka]

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.

I think you guys are both right. I have to kind of agree with Denny, and I kind of agree with you. It's not that water changes are a poor nutrient export, it's just that water changes aren't usually the most effective choice. Water changes for nutrient export in tanks that have a small bioload and are regularly maintained certainly may be the best option. For most reef tanks though, there are often better options - especially if you're using a premium salt brand. This is particularly the case when nutrients have gotten out of hand and you're looking for nutrient export for the purpose of nutrient reduction.

For example, I started doing maintenance on a reef tank with about 750 ppm nitrate and 2.5 ppm phosphate. I'm doing 10% water changes and added a biopellet reactor. We're down to about 500 ppm nitrate now. To further make this point, I recently added some dried out live rock to a tub with RO water. The tub had 100 ppm nitrate and almost 0.5 ppm phosphate. Two 100% water changes later and I have noted ZERO difference in those nutrient numbers. Thankfully I can use RO for this instead of saltwater. If you translate that to the above mentioned tank with 750 ppm nitrate, I could have used 3 buckets of salt to do two 100% water changes and I'd still be at square one. I spend what is equal to 6 buckets of salt on a biopellet reactor and biopellets and I'm leaps and bounds ahead.

On the other hand, my own 50-gallon frag tank at home has a skimmer on it, but no other means of nutrient reduction (no carbon, no GFO, no resins) other than weekly 20% water changes. The tank isn't overstocked, but it's definitely full. The tank is maintained at 2-3 ppm nitrate and 0.08 ppm phosphate which is exactly where I want it.

SO my point is, every situation is different, and a nutrient export program needs to be chosen to fit the needs of that particular tank and also that tank's caretaker.

And here's a 12 year old RHF article to prove you ALL wrong because we knew this shizz a decade ago before we even had voodoo biopellets!
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2003/8/chemistry

[reefwars]

Well said Myka and I agree on smaller tanks especially Nanos I prefer the very large water changes and often do not go much further than that but your right there are a lot of variables from tank sizes to animals and the old answer of just do lots of water changes isn't always the best answer anymore and doesn't always apply universal to each situation

I hope people reading this don't think I'm against water changes I'm actually all for them just not for the sole purpose of exporting nutrients , the benefits of water changes are certainly much more than that

[Aquattro]

Originally Posted by gobytron

It's not 30 times more work.

You've been practicing that math stuff. Good

Wonderful thing about this hobby, we all get to do things differently. You make small changes, I'll make big. Easy peasy.