How often do you do water changes?

[Mitch619]

I'm restarting my tank, and I'm thinking about not changing the water the first month, and doing a 20% water change the following month. and then not doing any the month after. Finally I will monitor the 4th month and do a 10% water change bi-weekly. I have friends that don't do ANY water changes and still keep a successful reef.

 

They have a sort of "super" bio-filter. Of course, they don't have a crazy bio-load. But one of them does have 2 clowns in a fluval edge. Keep in mind he does freshwater topoffs every other day. But he has not done any water changes in 8 months.

 

I'm starting to think that by doing 10% and 15% water changes during the first four months, you're crippling your bio-filter. Less water changes—at least at first—makes for more stable water.

 

What do you guys think?

[reeftankguy]

A1/3 WC a week

[Mitch619]

A1/3 WC a week

 

 

Do you have any stability issues?

[sirbiggstixx]

ill do a gallon or so every couple days..i mix up about 8 gallon at a time and whenever i got time ill do a quick one..takes about 10 minutes..

[reeftankguy]

Do you have any stability issues?

 

Never and this tank is over a year old...

[GokesReef]

With a low bioload, good LR and whatever additional water quality control measures you have in place, WCs only serve to replenish nutrients for SPS and LPS corals.

 

If you just have fish and softies, you can get away with no WC just fine. If you have hard corals, you will need to dose trace elements.

 

No biggie.

 

Edit: Should also be noted that bio-filter bacteria live on surfaces in the tank, not in the water column.

[MikeTR]

With a low bioload, good LR and whatever additional water quality control measures you have in place, WCs only serve to replenish nutrients for SPS and LPS corals.

 

If you just have fish and softies, you can get away with no WC just fine. If you have hard corals, you will need to dose trace elements.

 

No biggie.

 

Edit: Should also be noted that bio-filter bacteria live on surfaces in the tank, not in the water column.

 

bad advice all around..

[MikeTR]

water changes do a lot more than just replenish trace elements for coral (which you don't need to dose for) ie. removing DOCs. No amount of skimming, filtering, etc is going to make up for the good ole fashion exchange.

 

nitrifiying bacteria live on all surfaces in the tank, so change as much water as you like. Have to be more careful matching params when changing larger volumes of water.

[uwwmatt]

I aim for weekly 20% water changes.

[MikeTR]

I change 4 gallons a week on my 14 gallon biocube, and it's probably not enough.

[spanko]

Here is a good take on water changes by Mr. Wilson on another site.

 

"In my opinion water changes are good for the following purposes, in order of importance/effectiveness.

 

- removing detritus

- reducing/diluting secondary metabolites (algae & coral toxins)

- reducing/diluting heavy metals, or what we call trace elements in the aquarium hobby

- reducing/diluting vitamins

- reducing/diluting nitrogen (ammonia, nitrite, nitrate)

- reducing/diluting phosphate

- reducing/diluting bacteria

- reducing/diluting TOC

 

Water changes are limited by the percentage you exchange. A 10% water change removes 10% of the "bad stuff". The exception to this is detritus removal, if you are vacuuming the substrate, blasting out rock work and vacuuming the sump. Water changes do not effectively replenish water chemistry, as it is limited by the same percentage issue. In other words, a 10% water change only assures that 10% of the total water volume has the right proportions of calcium, carbonates, magnesium, and all the other "good stuff". While it is nice to remove some of the bad stuff, filtration devices are more efficient and calcium reactors and chemical dosing assures that 100% of the water has the proper water chemistry (good stuff).

 

Water changes can cause harm if they aren't carried out diligently. Some of the negative aspects of water changes are...

 

- reduction of pro-biotics (bacteria & plankton)

- introduction of impurities via source water, salt mix, mixing tools or hose

- introduction of excess trace elements and vitamins from salt mix

- temperature fluctuation

- salinity fluctuation

- PH, KH, calcium, magnesium etc. shock from bad salt mix

- classified/non-homogenous salt mix due to partial bucket or bag use

- old, clumped/compromised salt mix

- exposure of corals to atmospheric air

- partially dissolved salt mix

- poorly aerated salt mix

- accidental overfilling system

- accidentally over-draining system

- sand bed disturbance releasing hydrogen sulphide or depleting DSB infauna (beneficial organisms)

 

The main issue with water changes is they need to be calibrated to the demand. If you have "x" amount of nutrients building up in your system, then you need to do water changes according to that demand. A 10% water change will reduce your 20ppm nitrate down to 18ppm, but your residual nitrate accumulation may be at a faster rate than your weekly or monthly water changes. We aren't talking about a static amount that you can slowly chip away at, unless you have filtration devices and nutrient export of other sorts to make up the difference. If that is the case, water changes may not be necessary, and they are clearly the most expensive and least effective method of nutrient export.

 

We know that zero nitrates and phosphates can be maintained without water changes through carbon dosing, DSB, GFO and refugia to name a few. We also know that water chemistry can be maintained without water changes, and that there is an excess not a deficit of trace elements. Why add trace elements (heavy metals) when we statistically have too many? Most reef tanks don't require physical removal of detritus, including many of the tanks that receive major and frequent water changes. This only leaves secondary metabolites as an agent that we need to export. It is possible that this is enough justification for water changes, but it is equally possible that they are removed more efficiently through UV, ozone, protein skimming, mechanical filtration, mangrove trees, macro algae, carbon, bacterial assimilation, biological assimilation by micro organisms and coral, or simply time.

 

In evaluating any procedure you must first establish what you are trying to accomplish and why you are doing so. If water changes offer something that you are not getting with your current regimen, and you feel there is a demand in the first place, then by all means do so. On the other hand, if you feel that your application has all of these criteria covered and see no need for adding trace elements & vitamins, then water changes may no be a cost effective method of maintaing your reef.

 

The bigger the tank, the less you rely on water changes, and vice versa. A reef tank of 50 gallon or less, can be maintained with major weekly water changes at a lower cost than purchasing UV, ozone, calcium reactor, dosing systems, a refugium and mechanical filter. You can reinvest the capital and operational costs into a good source water filter, salt, and a water changing system. Once you get over 200 gallons, water changes are less appealing.

 

This doesn't mean you can stop doing water changes without consequence. Many people claim that their tanks look better after water changes. If you have a good system and are confident that it can be somewhat self sustaining, then slowly reduce water change frequency or volume. If you see negative repercussions, then resume water changes as before."

[jojoe972]

I do a 20% water change every week.

[GokesReef]

bad advice all around..

 

Way to back it up with any contradicting info

[d9hp]

- reduction of pro-biotics (bacteria & plankton)

- introduction of impurities via source water, salt mix, mixing tools or hose

- introduction of excess trace elements and vitamins from salt mix

- temperature fluctuation

- salinity fluctuation

- PH, KH, calcium, magnesium etc. shock from bad salt mix

- classified/non-homogenous salt mix due to partial bucket or bag use

- old, clumped/compromised salt mix

- exposure of corals to atmospheric air

- partially dissolved salt mix

- poorly aerated salt mix

- accidental overfilling system

- accidentally over-draining system

- sand bed disturbance releasing hydrogen sulphide or depleting DSB infauna (beneficial organisms)

 

Fantastic post Spanko.

 

I do want to comment on these negatives though just so my take is available to people afraid of changing water (they do exist)

 

If you are consistently using the same salt and same method for mixing and changing the water you shouldn't have most of these issues. Use 0TDS water and stick with a good salt brand and let it mix for 24 hours (at least) in a clean container with a strong powerhead creating good surface agitation. The pH will naturally go to 8.2-8.3 and you can use a buffer to make sure it's exactly what it is in your tank. If you have a sump it's even easier. Just dump that #### in. Otherwise using a pitcher to pour water onto a saucer that's about an inch below the water line you won't disturb the sandbed at all. A reduction of planktons etc is the only real obvious problem I see but if you dose phyto or rotifers AFTER a change it's no biggie anyways.

 

For the record I do at least two 1.5-2 gallon changes per week now on a system with roughly 17ish gallons total. I have done one everyday for 5 days in a row before and seen fantastic results. If you have the time and resources do them as often as possible. I personally think 5 10% changes every day is better than one 30% change because you're causing less stress on the inhabitants.

 

Way to back it up with any contradicting info

 

You said you don't need to do any water changes. What evidence does he need to say that's a bad idea overall? Even if it's just fish a small system needs to have small percentages of water replenished regularly to keep things in balance. There's a thread in the water chem forum about this very topic. The same guy that preached about daily water changes tried doing NO water changes on a simple system (designed for NO water changes) and only made it a month and change before giving in. Daily water changes are the bees knees.

[ignatz]

Here is a good take on water changes by Mr. Wilson on another site.

 

"In my opinion water changes are good for the following purposes, in order of importance/effectiveness.

 

- removing detritus

- reducing/diluting secondary metabolites (algae & coral toxins)

- reducing/diluting heavy metals, or what we call trace elements in the aquarium hobby

- reducing/diluting vitamins

- reducing/diluting nitrogen (ammonia, nitrite, nitrate)

- reducing/diluting phosphate

- reducing/diluting bacteria

- reducing/diluting TOC

 

Water changes are limited by the percentage you exchange. A 10% water change removes 10% of the "bad stuff". The exception to this is detritus removal, if you are vacuuming the substrate, blasting out rock work and vacuuming the sump. Water changes do not effectively replenish water chemistry, as it is limited by the same percentage issue. In other words, a 10% water change only assures that 10% of the total water volume has the right proportions of calcium, carbonates, magnesium, and all the other "good stuff". While it is nice to remove some of the bad stuff, filtration devices are more efficient and calcium reactors and chemical dosing assures that 100% of the water has the proper water chemistry (good stuff).

 

Water changes can cause harm if they aren't carried out diligently. Some of the negative aspects of water changes are...

 

- reduction of pro-biotics (bacteria & plankton)

- introduction of impurities via source water, salt mix, mixing tools or hose

- introduction of excess trace elements and vitamins from salt mix

- temperature fluctuation

- salinity fluctuation

- PH, KH, calcium, magnesium etc. shock from bad salt mix

- classified/non-homogenous salt mix due to partial bucket or bag use

- old, clumped/compromised salt mix

- exposure of corals to atmospheric air

- partially dissolved salt mix

- poorly aerated salt mix

- accidental overfilling system

- accidentally over-draining system

- sand bed disturbance releasing hydrogen sulphide or depleting DSB infauna (beneficial organisms)

 

The main issue with water changes is they need to be calibrated to the demand. If you have "x" amount of nutrients building up in your system, then you need to do water changes according to that demand. A 10% water change will reduce your 20ppm nitrate down to 18ppm, but your residual nitrate accumulation may be at a faster rate than your weekly or monthly water changes. We aren't talking about a static amount that you can slowly chip away at, unless you have filtration devices and nutrient export of other sorts to make up the difference. If that is the case, water changes may not be necessary, and they are clearly the most expensive and least effective method of nutrient export.

 

We know that zero nitrates and phosphates can be maintained without water changes through carbon dosing, DSB, GFO and refugia to name a few. We also know that water chemistry can be maintained without water changes, and that there is an excess not a deficit of trace elements. Why add trace elements (heavy metals) when we statistically have too many? Most reef tanks don't require physical removal of detritus, including many of the tanks that receive major and frequent water changes. This only leaves secondary metabolites as an agent that we need to export. It is possible that this is enough justification for water changes, but it is equally possible that they are removed more efficiently through UV, ozone, protein skimming, mechanical filtration, mangrove trees, macro algae, carbon, bacterial assimilation, biological assimilation by micro organisms and coral, or simply time.

 

In evaluating any procedure you must first establish what you are trying to accomplish and why you are doing so. If water changes offer something that you are not getting with your current regimen, and you feel there is a demand in the first place, then by all means do so. On the other hand, if you feel that your application has all of these criteria covered and see no need for adding trace elements & vitamins, then water changes may no be a cost effective method of maintaing your reef.

 

The bigger the tank, the less you rely on water changes, and vice versa. A reef tank of 50 gallon or less, can be maintained with major weekly water changes at a lower cost than purchasing UV, ozone, calcium reactor, dosing systems, a refugium and mechanical filter. You can reinvest the capital and operational costs into a good source water filter, salt, and a water changing system. Once you get over 200 gallons, water changes are less appealing.

 

This doesn't mean you can stop doing water changes without consequence. Many people claim that their tanks look better after water changes. If you have a good system and are confident that it can be somewhat self sustaining, then slowly reduce water change frequency or volume. If you see negative repercussions, then resume water changes as before."

 

Well said. Will you please add a link to the original thread where this was posted? Thank you in advance.

[spanko]

Was just a post answering a question in a long build thread.

 

Go to the first link that says "Coral Tank from Canada (1350gal Display Tank)" here,

 

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chro...l+Display+Tank)

 

Post #6085

[24karat]

Water changes done regularly will help corals stay more healthy. I do 15% water changes on all my system weekly. I notice that when i stop this my corals are not as nice in color or looks as happy.

[mrbigshot]

i do 5 gallons a week, will do more as more tanks go online but with less than 30 gallon total 5 gallons does ok. waterchanges remove nitrates's. the only other way is with a deep sand bed with cryptic areas that never get disturbed. even that is up for debate now.

[Bluntokian]

Honestly im going to skip the debate entirely and just say this: Its all about husbandry. I dont care what anyone says you can maintain a system without a WC. Just like you can grow a plant without adding nutrients to the dirt. The 2 can be matched to the other simply by looking at it for what it is: The volume of material available to the specimen whether that be water or dirt (theres the interchange) Honestly if you ask me I think unless you have an RO unit you shouldnt even waste your time with a WC (From experience here) because you almost always end up with contaminants. My old house the best water I could get was at 1.5ppm of ammonia and about 30 nitrate. This place the well water is fine in that perspective but I bet when I get my tester its got a very high amount of phosphate.

 

That being said I also do see the benefits of a WC and I do want to also add that I think its benefits and losses could just as easily be attributed to the speed you add the new water and what contaminants you may be adding microbial or otherwise. If you could guarantee a 100% sterile environment (impossible) then certainly water changes as frequent as possible without shocking anything would be beneficial in more ways than it currently is.

 

Basically I think we can all debate over this as long as man kind exists but I doubt well ever get anywhere doing it. IMO it comes down to husbandry, stocking, and equipment. Nothing more.

[OClownsandNanos]

Well Mitch, if you decide to do it, I think it would be an interesting experiment, specifically utilizing the idea that you start with as few water changes as possible. I have found that with the way my system is running right now, it is best if I stick to 13% or so weekly water changes, skimming, and carbon/gfo reactor. But I didn't start my system the way you intend to start yours and my reef is pretty mixed - I've got cabbage coral in there I don't want to let go of and it seems that running carbon/doing water changes is best if I'm to keep SPS in there (or even less hardy LPS) too - so I'm thinking it's very possible that your tank could achieve a different type of equilibrium, depending on your stocking and equipment. I'd be interested in following your thread if you go that route. Have you noticed whether your friends whose reefs are successful w/o water changes stock specific types of corals or all they all mixed reefs? I'd be curious to know that. I'm guessing if they are mixed that they've got equipment running to substitute for the lack of water changes.

 

I really liked Spanko's link also. Thanks for that.

[Mitch619]

To clear up a few things, All of my friends have mixed reefs.

 

And I truly believe that by messing with the water so much in the beginning phases (3-5 months) you're equilibrium will be truly dependent on you. By "messing with the water" I mean excessive water changes. I keep seeing people telling noobs on here that more water changes equal better quality water. This is true in the hands of an experienced aquarist with a mature tank. But for Noobs, this can actually be counter-productive. Many different things can go wrong when doing excessive water changes. And by that I mean 20% and up a week.

 

I will also venture out and say that if you have a 5 gallon and below, you will have to do excessive water changes if you plan on keeping more than one fish. But for the majority that is at 20-40 gallons, I see nothing wrong with strengthening your bio-filter. I keep seeing people (including myself at first) adding corals to a 2 month-old tank! Some people can get away with it, but the truth is, you will be a slave to carbon, GFO, and skimmers. And once you add these luxuries, they will out-compete your bio-filter.

 

I'm not saying to do away with water changes. I'm saying cut down to little or no water changes until the tank has matured.

[Mitch619]

Well Mitch, if you decide to do it, I think it would be an interesting experiment, specifically utilizing the idea that you start with as few water changes as possible. I have found that with the way my system is running right now, it is best if I stick to 13% or so weekly water changes, skimming, and carbon/gfo reactor. But I didn't start my system the way you intend to start yours and my reef is pretty mixed - I've got cabbage coral in there I don't want to let go of and it seems that running carbon/doing water changes is best if I'm to keep SPS in there (or even less hardy LPS) too - so I'm thinking it's very possible that your tank could achieve a different type of equilibrium, depending on your stocking and equipment. I'd be interested in following your thread if you go that route. Have you noticed whether your friends whose reefs are successful w/o water changes stock specific types of corals or all they all mixed reefs? I'd be curious to know that. I'm guessing if they are mixed that they've got equipment running to substitute for the lack of water changes.

 

I really liked Spanko's link also. Thanks for that.

 

 

Most of them have softies, but one in particular has a mixed reef. He runs GFO and that's it. Every other contaminant gets naturally depleted. He could not get rid of phosphates though. Hence the GFO.

[senoufo]

tank started oct 15 2010, so about 3 months so far.

 

20% weekly water change, no corals or fish ( will never add a fish to such a small tank ) added as i'm going the way of chucks addiction and will wait at least 6 months so as to give the tank the time required to balance itself out.

[ChrisCT]

5g every sunday morning like clockwork. mixed reef with 4 small fish in a bc29. everything is happy and thriving.

[AdrianBryce]

three times a year.