Do I really need to buy?

[gobytron]

Originally Posted by reefwars

I would argue that , coraline algae if enough of it can drop a dKH a day or more it consumes as much as hard corals do , and alot of people run carbon or gfo in a softie tank while yes you can certainly be more sparse on it you still don't want nutrient problems , a fowlr should be treated the same as a reef it's needs are pretty much identical

Coraline will take a long time to form in great enough concentration for it to make any impact on your dkh. In fact, it's not common for coraline to become a problem in tank that don't already dose.

Regular water changes will alleviate any nutrient issues as well along with any toxins softies might secrete.

[reefwars]

Originally Posted by gobytron

Coraline will take a long time to form in great enough concentration for it to make any impact on your dkh. In fact, it's not common for coraline to become a problem in tank that don't already dose.

Regular water changes will alleviate any nutrient issues as well along with any toxins softies might secrete.

Well.......


Why wouldn't you think coraline wouldn't consume the alk that's already there , the same way had corals or some invertebrates do? Are you saying that coraline does not consume alkalinity and calcium cause I can link you to a hundred sources that prove it does and does so quite a bit . ....and that is fact my friend

Water changes are a poor excuse for nutrient export I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings saying this but it's true and again I can prove it if you like .....just so we can make sure what's fact and what's not

That's the problem with forums you just get plain wrong info that claim to be facts lol

[gobytron]

Originally Posted by reefwars

Well.......


Why wouldn't you think coraline wouldn't consume the alk that's already there , the same way had corals or some invertebrates do? Are you saying that coraline does not consume alkalinity and calcium cause I can link you to a hundred sources that prove it does and does so quite a bit . ....and that is fact my friend

Water changes are a poor excuse for nutrient export I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings saying this but it's true and again I can prove it if you like .....just so we can make sure what's fact and what's not

That's the problem with forums you just get plain wrong info that claim to be facts lol

Of course coraline consumes dkh.

What I'm saying is that you need a fair amount of coraline to affect your dkh...you also need alot of other calcium eating corals for it to even matter to the rest of the tank.

It takes time for coraline to grow..especially in a tank that isn't being dosed at all.

So worrying about it in a brand new tank is just overkill.

if you buy LR that is absolutely covered in coraline, you may need to worry about it...maybe.

Please do forward me any information you have that proves that water changes offer poor nutrient export.

I have ran skimmerless tanks for years using only WC as nutrient export.

Heres a blurb from wet web media for ya...
Water Changes

Another one of the most basic aspects of aquarium husbandry (and one of the best means of achieving nutrient control and export!) is the performance of regular, modest water changes in your system. In my opinion, smaller, more frequent water changes are preferred over larger, less frequent ones, and are much less labor-intensive. Try changing as little as 5% of tank volume on a twice-weekly basis, and you’ll be astounded at the difference this will make in your system! Fish will be livelier and more colorful, corals will open up like you’ve never seen them do before, and levels of dissolved organic substances, such as nitrate and phosphate, will decrease significantly. 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. This, in turn, will result in less potential for nuisance algae growth, and a more stable system.

Remember to use high-quality source water when mixing up your saltwater for water changes. Be consistent, methodical, and siphon out as much detritus as you can from the rockwork and other areas from the aquarium. Frequent water changes also give the hobbyist the added advantage of being “in touch” with the system on a very regular basis, resulting in a better understanding of just what’s going on within his or her aquarium. As the old hobby saying goes, “nothing good happens quickly in a marine system,” so the benefits of frequent water changes will begin to manifest themselves gradually-but they will become obvious after a brief period of time. Give more frequent water changes a try!

http://www.wetwebmedia.com/nutrientcontrol.htm

I do totally agree on your opinion on online forum information, however.

[reefwars]

Sorry my bad what I should have said is unless done in large amounts water changes are a poor nutrient export

[gobytron]

Can you forward me the articles where that is stated please?

If you read that article from wet web media, or the conscientious marine aquarist, which was written by Robert Fenner (who I can't help but trust) you will read that more frequent smaller water changes are actually preferable to larger water changes less often.

Very possible there has been some new research on this, maybe that is what you are referring to?

Can you please post some links to the articles you mentioned that state this as fact?

I would be very interested to read them.

[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.