Can dosing replace water changes?

[shamoo]

Hello Reefers :celeb3:

I'm 5 months into my aquarium and loving it. Had some strange things happen which i have learnt from. I test my water every 7 - 10 days and have never had any issues. i have performed a couple of water changes even when the water levels are fine just because its common practise.

My issue is, and I do have a RO/DI unit, but the whole process of changing 20% of 150g then mixing the salt and transfering it to the DT every 4 weeks etc is a massive pain in the back side :headwally:. So why i am going through this pain staking procedure when my water levels were fine?
Lately my Nitrates rose 0-5, then perfromed a 20% water change, Nitrates now at 10. So after some more research i decided to change my sump around to allow for a refugium which should handle the nitrates rise. which got me thinking about dosing (not looked too much into doising but now i'm curious) i don't have any corals yet but i'm looking at getting SPS in the future.

Firstly: With 110lb live rock and a refugium, if my water levels are fine do i need to perform water changes? I know its good practise but i don't see the point of changing for the sake of changing unless water levels start to rise.

Secondly: When i get SPS, i know they absorb nutrients from the salt. Would it work, (if the water levels remain fine) to dose when the nutrients start to fall instead of doing water changes?

so really my point is, can dosing replace or minimise water changes?

i did read ReefPharmers post but i didn't want to hijack the post

thanks reefers :beer:

[mcgyvr]

Water changes are about removing stuff thats in excess (nitrates/phosphates/metals/DOC,etc...) and replacing stuff thats been depleted (alk/cal/mag/trace elements).. Its performing 2 functions...
Based on that you can hopefully answer your own questions. ;)

There are however ways that much if not all of that can be done without water changes..
As I said in a similar post.. Many have tried.. Few have succeeded (GlennF, Farmer Ty,etc..).. Far more have failed..

I think I also said "If you have to ask.. you aren't ready to stop doing water changes" :)

[Sk8r]

It's the way we USED to do it, back in the days when we thought we were hot stuff with limited lights keeping a very limited range of super-hardy species like green star polyp. It is a way you CAN do it if you, for instance, break an arm and find yourself in a cast for 6 weeks, unable to tend things, or have to leave the tank in the care of a neighbor for a number of weeks, but it is not optimum, and water changes are the way to go. They are the go-to even for a well-tended tank that is having mysterious problems. And if you have had to skip them, just get back to the routine. A 30% followed by a 20% weekly will catch you up pretty well.

The industry used to be there, and the companies that make these potions still advertise them, but if you CAN do the changes, yes, do them.

[mcgyvr]

I'd disagree with Sk8r..
The industry is there and people are capable of going without water changes now more than ever..
Due to availability of ICP testing,etc... Even new cal/alk//mag autosampling products as well as others..
There is nothing "potion" about the elements available for sale now either they are real chemicals like potassium, iron, and various other trace/minor/major/macro elements..

[cincyjim]

I know water changes are about replacing what has been spent but I really believe in using water changes to rid the impurities that are accumulating in the tank. I can't imagine what is accumulating in a tank that has not had a water change in over a year. To me, it's a ticking time bomb... pay me now or pay me later but you're going to pay kind of thing. I guess we'll know soon enough as some of the Triton method tanks are getting some age on them now.

[theshaman]

I think water change will never go away. I know it’s not fun doing water changes but it’s something we have to accept as a very important role in this hobby.
I am not hopping onto this no water change bandwagon any time soon or ever.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Uncle99]

Regular Water changes with RODI, 0 TDS, and a good salt like RED SEA PRO, is way cheaper and faster then dosing and testing what you would need to maintain NSW parameters, which in the end, would fail,anyways...

[bertoni]

Personally, I'd keep up a water change schedule of 10% once a month or so. This article has more information:

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-10/rhf/index.php

I don't trust the ICP results available at hobbyist prices very much. There is some data to show that the accuracy is very limited for trace elements, but it'd be very pricey to get a complete analysis done, and then the testing companies might change their procedure.

[FaithKlim]

I installed an AquaSmart auto water changer with ATO. It changes 1 gal / day for me. Im done breaking my back with large manual water changes...
https://www.bulkreefsupply.com/auto-water-changer-autoaqua.html?gclid=CjwKCAjwoKDXBRAAEiwA4xnqv_aYib6lQbVe57P8ehvydbFkRi4VcF0uUx12XP0oNYGUlxIOeLEu4BoC 2-IQAvD_BwE

[tmz]

I agree that the testing available to hobbyists for the myriad of costly minor and trace elements involved is suspect ; I'm not confident in many of the elements sold as commercial hobby products either.

Water changes in my view are mostly for adding back depleted levels and maintaining ionic balances; ie maintaining the the baseline for the water in the system by adding and subtracting via the removal of some and the addition of fresh salt mix. I prefer small frequent changes to insure constancy in the system( 1% per day in my case).

I don't think water changes unless they are very large or involve detritus removal do much to maintain low nutrients since these are boosted by food and waste in systems on an ogoing basis.

[laverda]

It is in fact very possible to run a reef tank very successfully without water changes. It is actually less time consuming and less expensive in my experience so far. At first it seamed like a lot to do but it really isn’t. I can easily control my nutrient levels without expensive GFO and other things. I defiantly recommend giving it a try. Look into the DSR method.

[tmz]

I don't think anyone said it's not possible.Doubt it's less expensive or time consuming. Small water changes are really simple and inexpensive vs a myriad of unreliable tests and supplements. BTW it' very possible to control nutrients without GFO. I haven't used it in many years.

[bertoni]

The "no water changes" idea comes and goes on a regular basis. It's been around for decades.

The DSR web page seems to be another company selling supplements. What they don't say is that we have no useful way of measuring trace elements accurately at a reasonable cost, so the basis concept of the system has problems. ICP analysis has been around a long time, and it has a lot of limitations, especially in the form used by low-cost aquarium testing.

Furthermore, trace elements can accumulate, rather than become depleted, and only a water change or its equivalent can fix that at this point in time. Dosing is irrelevant for this problem, even if testing were available.

I'm sure some people will be successful with a zero-water-change program. That's to be expected. How many will fail, I don't know, but I don't understand the obsession with the concept.

[laverda]

The "no water changes" idea comes and goes on a regular basis. It's been around for decades.

The DSR web page seems to be another company selling supplements. What they don't say is that we have no useful way of measuring trace elements accurately at a reasonable cost, so the basis concept of the system has problems. ICP analysis has been around a long time, and it has a lot of limitations, especially in the form used by low-cost aquarium testing.

Furthermore, trace elements can accumulate, rather than become depleted, and only a water change or its equivalent can fix that at this point in time. Dosing is irrelevant for this problem, even if testing were available.
All the chemicals are already readily available from a variety of sources.

I'm sure some people will be successful with a zero-water-change program. That's to be expected. How many will fail, I don't know, but I don't understand the obsession with the concept.
No obsession with the concept. For me I find it more enjoyable spending a few min testing and dosing than the work of water changes. The real plus is my corals are doing better than when I was doing water changes.
All the chemicals are available from a variety of sources.

[tmz]

Good luck with it.
It still doesn't account for ionic imbalances due to buildup since it offers no means to export them and relies on tests of questionable accuracy to require the purchase and addition of a myriad of supplements to address questionable deficiencies.
Personally, I like testing and do more than most but don't mind small water changes which are quite easy. For example drawing out 1 or two gallons per day from a 200 gallon tank and replacing them with premixed salt water is pretty easy. Easy to automate too if one is so inclined.Many tests for minor and trace elements are tedious and time consuming and difficult in terms of accurate and relevant readings.

[laverda]

Tom
It is great if it works for you. The fact is water changes were not working for me as well as I wanted.

[bertoni]

For me I find it more enjoyable spending a few min testing and dosing than the work of water changes.
Dosing isn't enough. Dosing only deals with drops in trace element levels, and I don't know of a credible source for accurate measurements of them at reasonable prices.

[saf1]

How many will fail, I don't know, but I don't understand the obsession with the concept.

Time and cost. Environmentally friendlier. Probably not much different than the obsession with other technology like lighting (LED) and automatic testing. By no means am I saying right or wrong - I just see the other side. 10% water change a week or bi weekly or monthly on a small tank is one thing but that same 10% on a larger tank starts to add up in cost and equipment for mixing. Is even 10% enough and are you actually removing and replacing at that volume?

To me it is just another step in the hobbies evolution. Like you said - some will succeed others fail. No different than those succeeding with LEDS or running a skimmerless system.

[bertoni]

Water changes schedules have been debated for decades, as far as I can tell. I remember articles in the 70s and 80s about people going without them. I'm not convinced that this is evolution as much as just another idea cycling back into the debate. I suspect that the cost of water changes is a small part of the cost of most systems, but I haven't run the numbers lately.

[kevin_e]

Time and cost. Environmentally friendlier. Probably not much different than the obsession with other technology like lighting (LED) and automatic testing. By no means am I saying right or wrong - I just see the other side. 10% water change a week or bi weekly or monthly on a small tank is one thing but that same 10% on a larger tank starts to add up in cost and equipment for mixing. Is even 10% enough and are you actually removing and replacing at that volume?

To me it is just another step in the hobbies evolution. Like you said - some will succeed others fail. No different than those succeeding with LEDS or running a skimmerless system.

Yeah, I'm not sure that's a progression or evolution. Seems more like a fad. The first thing any reefer does, or is recommended to do, when there are issues with a tank, is a water change. I don't see that ever becoming obsolete. Doesn't matter what is dosed or what kind of filtration is used. First step is a water change.

Not sure the savings on water changes are even tangible. A 10% water change on a 200 gallon system, which I am guessing is well above the average tank volume, will cost ~$5 per water change. Consider bi weekly and monthly water changes, your cost is $130-230 annually. My 50 gallon system costs me less than $2 per water change. That's a drop in the bucket (pun intended) compared to other expenses in this hobby. Seems inconvenience is the main driver.

[saf1]

Valid point. Like I said - I don't know. I would question does the 20 gallon change do anything? And if it does, could that be accomplished by dosing 5ml to 20ml of x, y, and z? Cost is also tied to cost of water, RI/RO, salt mix, and waste water. Probably around what you said, maybe more. I've honestly never looked into it really and it probably doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. Additives cost anyway unless you buy in bulk or DIY. It isn't a cheap hobby which we all know.

I guess I'm biased because I do see it has a viable option - or at least intrigued by it. The kicker for me is how is the waste and buildup on the sand bed or bare bottom removed (typically done by siphon during water change).

Anyway - just my thought and more than likely incorrect anyway :D

[bertoni]

And if it does, could that be accomplished by dosing 5ml to 20ml of x, y, and z?
Again, dosing is only part of the equation. There's no cost-effective way for most hobbyists to find out what needs to be dosed. If you have a very large tank, then maybe $400-500 or so in testing and some supplements might be cheaper than water changes, if depletion is the only issue. You can look at enclabs.com for some idea of the cost of reliable analysis.

On the other hand, dosing is not a solution for accumulation. The current "no water change" comments that I've read all ignore that.

As far as what a water change schedule does, that can be modeled mathematically, but we don't have useful information to quantify how much buildup or depletion there might be, so we fall back on guesses. The cost of doing anything like a reasonable study would come to many thousands of dollars, and might well show that tanks vary so much in their ionic shifts that individual testing is a requirement.