Too many water changes?

Caliloaner · #1 10/04/2007, 10:05 AM

Is there a such a thing as too many water changes?? What about in the beginning before the tank is fully cycled, does it slow the cycle down? Or what about an aged tank? I'm talking like a 25% water change every day or several times a week... A min of two a week all the way up to 5-7 a week...

an411 · #2 10/04/2007, 10:10 AM

I didnt do water changes during my cycle. I think 10 percent a week is good enough I would not really change the water during the cycle

Caliloaner · #3 10/04/2007, 10:12 AM

Why is that?

kuoka · #4 10/04/2007, 10:12 AM

Too many water changes in a cycling tank can slow the process down. I think changing the water too frequently can remove nutrients and other essential trace elements. But if this is for a FO tank then it you could probably get away with it. For my reef, I change about 20% every 1.5 to 2 weeks.

WaterKeeper · #5 10/04/2007, 10:13 AM

Well, even 25% a day is probably not too much but it tends to wear on the wallet. Once a week would probably be smarter. Few beneficial bacteria actually are free swimming in the water column so the few you remove have not impact on the water quality. That job is done by the fixed film bacteria growing in far greater numbers on the LR and LS. Even in a new tank it will be the LR that supplies the needed nitrifying bacteria, not the water.

Reefer07 · #6 10/04/2007, 10:13 AM

While cycling a tank I wouldn't recommend changing the water at all unless you are cycling with fish. Changing it during a cycle just prolongs the cycle.
As far as regular water changes...I think once a week is good enough unless you are having a problem with nitrates or something else....

yakfishin · #7 10/04/2007, 10:13 AM

I don't think anything is wrong with that. As far as slowing down the cycle, I don't think it slows it down significantly- if at all. The benifits of changing water while cycling far out weights and advantage you may have for it cycle a couple of days sooner. You will be able to keep more things alive by not letting the water get so foul. I like doing smaller, more frequent water changes than one large change everyonce in awhile.

RobNJ · #8 10/04/2007, 10:14 AM

I change 10% a month and have no problems...

25% a day? are you crazy, the cost of salt alone is insane...

WaterKeeper · #9 10/04/2007, 10:17 AM

I will add that water changes add beneficial nutrients not remove them from the tank. Salt mix manufactures try very hard to supply balanced mixes so the only thing a water change removes is waste materials that accumulate in the discarded water.

yakfishin · #10 10/04/2007, 10:24 AM

He! He! - every question when it comes to this hobby is almost always answered with totally different responses. Really, even if not changing the water does speed up the cycle, would you rather have a cycled tank that is devoid of such things as small brittle stars and other somewhat delicate life or take the time to insure that you have live rock with as much life saved as possible? I'm still of the opinion that changing the water while cycling doesn't slow down the cycle- there is plently of nutrients in the water to feed the microbes, and like waterkeeper mentioned, the microbes are within the rock itself, and your not changing the the rock.

Caliloaner · #11 10/04/2007, 10:24 AM

well my problem is that I live in the outskirts of the city and they use well water which is high in nitrates... my tank was using well water and when I tested it by itself I was kind of surprised... I just got some 5 gallon jugs for buying RO/distilled water and I'm trying to convert it all to ro/distilled drinking water and keep it that way...

RobNJ · #12 10/04/2007, 10:37 AM

Maybe a ro/di unit would be a good investment for you... ?

Caliloaner · #13 10/04/2007, 10:45 AM

I saw one on ebay called "pro water" it said it was a 6 stage filtration with 100gpd for only $61.99 brand new? Is this a piece of junk or just a good deal?

zyglow · #14 10/04/2007, 10:54 AM

I would certainly question the quality of the product.

yakfishin · #15 10/04/2007, 10:57 AM

I see your tank is 37G's. Really with a tank that size if you have a readily available source of filtered water you can purchase, it wouldn't be that hard to keep up on water changes and topoff just by buying the water. A RODI unit would perhaps be more convenient and cheaper in the long run, but I would maybe be tempted myself just to buy the water for the amount you will need. Sounds as though you definitely aren't going to use the unfiltered tap anymore, you would never have been happy with your aquarium had you continued to use that.

Caliloaner · #16 10/04/2007, 11:03 AM

That's for sure, I'm even sending to the lab to see if it is even safe to drink. As I found a low level of ammonia and nitrate off the chart... I'm glad that my live rock and sand was breaking it down though... Every time I tested the tank it came out 0 ammonia... Anyways, yeah, for now it is only $2.90 for 10 gallons of RO/distilled water at the nugget market so I think I will be doing that for now... We have a RO/distiller for our drinking water but it doesn't produce enough water fast enough to do water changes... Only enough for us do drink.

Piscator · #17 10/04/2007, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Caliloaner
Is there a such a thing as too many water changes?? What about in the beginning before the tank is fully cycled, does it slow the cycle down? Or what about an aged tank? I'm talking like a 25% water change every day or several times a week... A min of two a week all the way up to 5-7 a week...

I don't know that it has been proved, but it just seems intuitive that a water change during the cycle, which will reduce the NH4 concentration, will therefore slow down the production of the proper nitrifying bacteria. Might that same NH4 kill off some good life in the rocks? Sure, but they will probably reproduce like most other things.

As for after the cycle...in nature the reef is getting 100% water changes constantly...most of us just can't afford that....

ljosh · #18 10/04/2007, 11:35 AM

How is lowering the level of ammonia in the tank with a water change going to lengthen the cycle period? It seems to me that there would be less ammonia for the bacteria to process therefore it wouldnt take as long.

seapug · #19 10/04/2007, 11:44 AM

I don't think there is such a thing as too many water changes on an established tank if they are done consitently with properly mixed saltwater. There is no better way to remove the bad and replenish the good. If I could, I would have my tank set up to pump water directly from the ocean and overflow back to it.

When I set up a new tank, I usually don't do any water change for the few days, then slowly start stepping it up to 5% 2X/wk before I start stocking it. There is no shortage of ammonia and waste products to feed bacteria in a tank cycling with live rock. What cycling tanks are usually low on is the Alkaline reserve that creates conditions favorable to general stability and the growth of coralline algae. Doing frequent small water changes is a good way to keep the pH high and stable which can keep cyano and hair algae growth minimized.

dwd5813 · #20 10/04/2007, 11:47 AM

right, there would be less ammonia in the tank, so it wouldnt take as long to process. the other thing it wouldnt take is a very large colony of bacteria. the bacterial colony is only going to keep growing when the amount of food(ammonia) is more than the current population is able to consume. so if you cut the supply in half, you are going to end up with half the population, and a lower tolerance for additions to the tank later. sure, it will expand when the new source (fish) is added, but not without a spike first.

edit: this is the comment i was responding to as well, which makes me in total agreement with the next post.

Quote:

Originally posted by ljosh
How is lowering the level of ammonia in the tank with a water change going to lengthen the cycle period? It seems to me that there would be less ammonia for the bacteria to process therefore it wouldnt take as long.

Piscator · #21 10/04/2007, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ljosh
How is lowering the level of ammonia in the tank with a water change going to lengthen the cycle period? It seems to me that there would be less ammonia for the bacteria to process therefore it wouldnt take as long.

That's a fair question. I guess the assumption I am working on is that in a cycle, the goal is to establish sufficient nitrifying bacteria to handle the bioload you will be introducing into the tank. This will eventually grow to create a balance, but to start I would think you want the strongest biofilter you can accomplish, without adding live fish to the process. I would think that holding off on water changes until the process is done would do this better.

This is just the way I've always thought about a cycle...

But you are right...a water change would in theory "shorten" the cycle in that sense, but the result "may" be a smaller biofilter.

I'm open for correction...

Piscator · #22 10/04/2007, 11:49 AM

Toddrtrex · #23 10/04/2007, 12:09 PM

I am of the opinion of doing water changes during the cycle. I have never done or seen an experiment that shows that it does or does not slow down the cycle.

The reason that I do them is because I paid for "live" rock and want to preserve as much of the life on the rock as I can - and by keeping the anonima at lower levels there is a better chance the more life will make it through the cycle.

yakfishin · #24 10/04/2007, 12:11 PM

I guess my thought is, is that as long as there is ammonia available in the water as food, the bacteria are still going to be splitting and multiplying at a given rate. I don't think that rate of splitting increases with even more ammonia available than they can consume. Think of it as though they're mice reproducing. As long as there is food available for them to eat they are going to reproduce and as long as their offspring have food they are going to reproduce. I don't think the population of mice would grow any faster if you are raising them in a silo- they can only eat so much and reproduce so fast. I'm not a microbiologist however, so maybe things work differently on the cellular level. I think in the end the best thing to do is to monitor your water and if the nutrients available are reaching toxic levels, why not lower it? Wouldn't nutrients still be available after a water change? I have read post from people saying their house is stinking and they can't half see the rocks in the aquarium, I think at that point the bacteria have enough on their dinner plate!

dwd5813 · #25 10/04/2007, 12:26 PM

yakfishin, to continue your analogy, the rate at which the overall population of mice grows does increase as the size of the population grows, and the end population of mice is going to be twice as large if i let them eat and reproduce until the entire silo is empty than it would be if i came and emptied half the silo. you are right that the mice can only eat so much and reproduce so fast, but if the food supply is ample enough, this process can continue for longer, resulting in an overall increase in the number of mice.

basically, there is a limit to the size of a population that can grow on a given amount of food.
divide that amount of food, and you directly affect the maximum growth potential of the given population. since you want to have an extremely large colony of bacteria, it makes sense to allow them all the food available, rather than taking it away via waterchanges. no?