Water Changes and replaceing minor and trace elements
I asked this question in another persons post and there didn't seem to be a conclusive answer.
so i ask this question, Not taking into account the major elements, (alkalinity, calcium, magnesium, potassium) what frequency of water changes, % size and times per cycle (week month) are needed to replce the trace and minor elements (responsible for colour etc) are needed to replace these elements.
the reason i ask this question is:
every time someone asks about using a trace/minor element supplement, its the same answer, "frequent water changes should be all you should need to replace trace elements", AGAIN i am not referring to the major elements, we all know regular water changes replenish these to a certain extenet.
Now, im not saying that water changes dont replenish ALL elements, includeing trace elements to some extent, nor am i trying to induce an argument.
All im asking is, where is the research showing that regular waster changes are ALL thast is needed for supplementation in a mriane aquarium, in particular trace elements, and where in that research is there a correlation between, tank size, stocking density, frequency of water changes and the size of said water changes in order to replace these trace elements?
Indeed, water changes do lesson the amount of supplements needed to be supplemented, and in some tanks, may be all that is needed, however, such a broad statement that i hear all the time, such as regular water changes are all that is needed to replace "trace elements (again forgetting about major elements) is in my opinion preposterous.
trace elements oxidize and are used up every quickly, especially in heavily stocked aquariums, so supplementation of trace elements is not only, i think beneficial, but nessecary, in heavily stocked aquarium, even moderately stocked aquariums, as is supplementation of major elements.
BUT, if someone can show me the research or documented evidence to back up the hypothesis that regular water changes are enough to replace minor and trace elements, then ill take it on board.
Another thing i am interested to hear is WHY people will not add soemthing they cannot test for, is this some stigma that comes from consumers being sick of manufacturers trying to jam another "snake oil" product down their throat, or is there a reason behind this?
As i see it, trace elements, especially in heavily stocked marine aquariums need to be supplemented,, hell, you cant test for ALL the minor and trace elements in Artificial salt mixes, BUT, a lot of people use artificial salt mixes, if trace elements were not needed, why would they include them in artifical salt mixes? otherwise im sure everyone would just be using Sodium chloride, calcium chloride, sodium bicarbonate, magnesium sulphate and potassium chloride and supplementing nothing else.
but, again, show me some hard evidence and research showing the information stating that water changes are all that is needed to replace trace elements and ill take it on board.
lets start a constructive conversation so we can all learn something.
so i ask this question, Not taking into account the major elements, (alkalinity, calcium, magnesium, potassium) what frequency of water changes, % size and times per cycle (week month) are needed to replce the trace and minor elements (responsible for colour etc) are needed to replace these elements.
the reason i ask this question is:
every time someone asks about using a trace/minor element supplement, its the same answer, "frequent water changes should be all you should need to replace trace elements", AGAIN i am not referring to the major elements, we all know regular water changes replenish these to a certain extenet.
Now, im not saying that water changes dont replenish ALL elements, includeing trace elements to some extent, nor am i trying to induce an argument.
All im asking is, where is the research showing that regular waster changes are ALL thast is needed for supplementation in a mriane aquarium, in particular trace elements, and where in that research is there a correlation between, tank size, stocking density, frequency of water changes and the size of said water changes in order to replace these trace elements?
Indeed, water changes do lesson the amount of supplements needed to be supplemented, and in some tanks, may be all that is needed, however, such a broad statement that i hear all the time, such as regular water changes are all that is needed to replace "trace elements (again forgetting about major elements) is in my opinion preposterous.
trace elements oxidize and are used up every quickly, especially in heavily stocked aquariums, so supplementation of trace elements is not only, i think beneficial, but nessecary, in heavily stocked aquarium, even moderately stocked aquariums, as is supplementation of major elements.
BUT, if someone can show me the research or documented evidence to back up the hypothesis that regular water changes are enough to replace minor and trace elements, then ill take it on board.
Another thing i am interested to hear is WHY people will not add soemthing they cannot test for, is this some stigma that comes from consumers being sick of manufacturers trying to jam another "snake oil" product down their throat, or is there a reason behind this?
As i see it, trace elements, especially in heavily stocked marine aquariums need to be supplemented,, hell, you cant test for ALL the minor and trace elements in Artificial salt mixes, BUT, a lot of people use artificial salt mixes, if trace elements were not needed, why would they include them in artifical salt mixes? otherwise im sure everyone would just be using Sodium chloride, calcium chloride, sodium bicarbonate, magnesium sulphate and potassium chloride and supplementing nothing else.
but, again, show me some hard evidence and research showing the information stating that water changes are all that is needed to replace trace elements and ill take it on board.
lets start a constructive conversation so we can all learn something.