chimera Posted October 10, 2005 Report Share Posted October 10, 2005 interesting... good reference site, have added to sticky at top of forum! http://www.reefs.org/library/article/t_brightbill_wc.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chimera Posted October 10, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2005 and here's an article by bournman that potentially contradicts the evidence shown above. of course, we have to bear in mind that a natural reef is incredibly different to a closed system like our aquariums. anyways, interesting nonetheless... Dr. Ron Shimek (Shimek, WMC 1998) noted how it would take 250-350 ml of wet food per 100 gallon of water per day to approximate food availability on a coral reef. Using a similar analogy, based on nutrient and water dwell times, I would add that the coral reef gets a 100% water change 2-3 times per day! REF: http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-07/eb/index.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pies Posted October 10, 2005 Report Share Posted October 10, 2005 If you make the assumption that your 'make up' water is PERFECT. And you are happy to conciede that when water is put into your tank, it becomes imperfect (via depletion and polution) then the conclusion would have to be that the more frequent the water change, the better. Even if it was 100% per minute, that would be better than 100% per hr. However it would be a logrithmic decrease in benifit as % and frequency increases. Pie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chimera Posted October 10, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2005 but of course! i think the idea of the first article concluded that water changes can stress the corals because of the sudden change from bad water to suddenly good water. taking bournemans quote above, that in nature its like a 100% water change 3 times a day, the water is never bad in the first place. so, the theory outlined in the first post would only stand true if you were either cycling your tank or had not done a water change in a long period of time (thus your existing water was bad) then the makeup water you change it with may stress the corals. only the latter should be relevant because hopefully you wouldnt have any corals while cycling anyway so, i think the point being put across is more relevant if you have excessive nitrates/phosphates etc already in your water. moral of the story is regular and consistant water changes are the best as your existing water will always be close to perfect as you'll get plus this emulates nature as close as possible. thats why my goal at the moment is to make water changes as seamless and as easy as possible - coz i know everyone hates water changes!!! "some random dude" vs "eric bourneman" - i know who i'd rather believe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookie extreme Posted October 10, 2005 Report Share Posted October 10, 2005 the first article is very interesting. at the it say's 1998. is that the year the article was written? thats how i used to run my tank/s then. i never believed much in water changes just to lazy and / or in the believe that water changes were not neccessary (the lazy part hasn't changed). i just kept adding additives to the tank. everything seemed ok. but i didn't have any or almost no SPS then and if they didn't to to well either. when i did do a water change then i could see within a very short time a growth spurt on most corals. nowadays i don't believe in adding trace elements to the tank. not because they don't work but i can't see them being used up in the exact amounts as being added, so one must assume (not the best word) that over a longer period certain trace will reach very high amounts without a water change and even if a water change is done then those will only be dilluted in small amounts in the same ratio as explained in the article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chimera Posted October 10, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2005 the first article is very interesting. at the it say's 1998 oh dear, did i just do a layton? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookie extreme Posted October 10, 2005 Report Share Posted October 10, 2005 watch out for wasp then. 8) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.