Incorrect Advice? A little confused...

[StarStruck8]

I posted on a different forum asking for help with my sick betta, and the person responded that it is pointless to do water changes when you have a filter, and that my weekly water changes were wrecking havoc on the water chemistry and destroying any cycle my tank may have. They said that you either do 100% water changes or have a filter and do none.

I responded and asked why they would say this, since I believe the bacteria are on the filter media (one of the reasons I have one) and not in the water column.

They said doing large water changes makes your tank go into mini-cycle mode every time. They told me to read some articles on it and that the filter media is only a very small part of the cycling process.

I just want to make sure I'm not missing something, because they seem to be very sure of what they are saying, while it seems wrong to me? Doing 50% water changes once a week on a 5.5 gallon might be a bit much, but its mainly to vacuum out the snail poop. Really I just want someone to assure me that everything I thought about cycling and such isn't wrong. :uhoh:

[calivivarium1]

You are absolutely right, do water changes! You are also correct in remembering that the bacteria are on the filter media, not the water column(and to a minor extent, substrate). Perhaps they are thinking of adding untreated water (water with chlorine/chloramines) to a filter, that CAN destroy the beneficial bacteria.

[THE V]

The other guy was wrong. Filters are optimal places for bacteria to grow. The provide lots of food and oxygenate the water by moving it around. There is of course a large amount of bacteria in the gravel and less in the water column. In doing a water change you do lose some bacteria. However remember you can remove up to 50% of the bacteria in the tank and have the numbers back up to where they were in 24 hours.

Think of your fishtank as a mini-pond. In all freshwater bodies of water flows in and water flows out. Either on the surface (streams, rivers) or beneath the ground. If water get's trapped and can't flow out and evaporates you end up with the the Great Salt Lake or the Dead Sea. So basically you either change the water in your tank or everything eventually dies.

[petluvr]

I wouldn't be taking advice from them anymore:)

[amosf]

the bacteria in the water is old thought... we know better now... water changes are good. I only change monthly, but nothing wrong with weekly, that's for sure.

Bacteria breed fast, so even if you did manage to remove 75% of them, they back in a couple days...

[excuzzzeme]

As the previous posters have said somehow the previous advice given wasn't all that correct. Bacteria form on hard surfaces. This means filter media, glass, rocks, etc. In this case hard surface refers to non-soluble items. It is correct that bacteria itself does not reside in the water column but the converted DOC's do, such as Nitrite and Nitrate which act as a fertilizer from ammonia degradation to develop beneficial bacteria. These can become too high as well and be just as unhealthy for the fish. To keep them in check and "balanced" means having to do a partial water change. This is why testing of the water is important. It is a guide to help you to know what your water is doing.

It would be a good idea to test daily in the beginning and to chart your results. This will show how long it takes your water to change. It should be done at the same time each time and under the same circumstances. You will then understand your bio-load better and how your water changes.

Think about your lawn - ammonia will kill the grass (the fish) and so will too much fertilizer. The right amount will give you a superb, healthy lawn. I grant you it is more complex than that but that is the Reader's Digest version.

Maybe you will understand better why some people have to do weekly changes and some have to do a partial change more often. It should also help you to understand that 100% may not be a good idea.

[StarStruck8]

Ahhh thanks everyone! I thought it didn't sound right, but a combination of getting home from work late at night, being tired and cold, and finding my sick betta (the one I was trying to get help for) dead made me doubt what I had known and feel like I had killed him. I still don't know what happened to him, but that will be a post for another thread.

And I like the idea of graphing the water changes over time...I will have to try that. :)

[kidbookrev]

You are using a tap water conditioner like Prime or Stress Coat, right? This will remove the chlorine and chloramines from the tap water, which in addition to killing the bacteria, will be very hard on and maybe fatal to you fish

[AfroCichlid]

I'd be doing water changes every couple of days in a 5.5 gal, totaling 100% weekly. Not that it's needed, but I find the more water I change, the less trouble I have keeping my fish and the system itself stable. Water changes are absolutely necessary IMO, if for no other reason than to remove/ dilute the build up of nitrates.

[Eupterus]

I saw that post.
I questioned that advice, though I thought I'd see what more experienced people would say.

[StarStruck8]

Yes I use Prime. I always thought that more water changes were for the better (was going to use discus as an example).

I thought it didn't sound right either, so I figured I'd come here where I trust the people the most. :)

[bushwhacker]

this is exactly why i dont have little tanks any change in ammonia or other water params will be amplified since you dont have the volume to dilute it. whoever told you not to do water changes simply doesnt know what hes talking about, i do 50% changes on my 55 and 75 gallon tanks every week and my fish are healthy and happy only thing i have diff is clean tap water i have no clorine so i dont use any type of conditioner just straight water out of the tap

[Cory Keeper]

Agreed, very bad advice. I do lots of WCs on my 5g, mainly to help manage tannins, but it only has some shrimp, a brigg and some ramshorn snails. Although they don't make too much of a mess, good water conditions help greatly.

[StarStruck8]

Ok..can someone please read through this and if what they are saying is true, explain it to me? I'm just confused why doing 100% water changes is supposed to be less stressful than 50%. And if you have any responses to the sick betta question, I would appreciate the help.

Help me please. (http://www.ultimatebettas.com/index.php?showtopic=32527)

[gmh]

I read the response and that person is clueless. And a Moderator no less!
100% percent water changes are not less stressfull than 50%.
Just go with the good advice others posted on this thread.

[excuzzzeme]

. . .
100% percent water changes are not less stressfull than 50%. . . . .

Agreed.

Personally I don't feel 100% is a great idea as you tend to lose too much of your established Nitrates.and you risk the possibility of creating algae bloom or an ammonia spike. That does not mean it will happen, only that the chances of it happening are significantly greater. It all goes back to how fast your water changes and that should dictate the frequency and amount required to maintain a healthy tank.

We have expressed our opinions based on general guidelines that have proven to work in "most" cases. This is why I suggested charting you water so you will know how much is needed and how often for your particular set-up,

[Slappy*McFish]

Well, a 100% water change would involve removing the fish every time a water change is done (not a good thing). Also, if you were to wait an entire month and then change the water completely, the potential chemistry differences between the old water and the new could also be stressful to the fish. There's a chance the filter bacteria would suffer, as well. It's just common sense to me that weekly 50% water changes would keep pollutants down and maintain a consistently uniform water chemistry than that of monthly 100% water changes.

[OldMan47]

You are reading advice on a betta forum. Betta breeders, in general, do not cycle their tanks because they can't afford to have 500 filters running on 500 one gallon tanks that house all of their fry for grow out. What they do is 100% water changes to reset the tank to tap water parameters and remove the buildup of ammonia. For growout on females, they really don't need a water change in the short time they keep their females so again they think in terms that match what they are doing. They set up a tank that is big enough to hold the females once they are at sale size and let them get to that size. Because they set up fresh each time, they don't really need to change water to keep the quality good. A brand new 100% fill every couple of months works. If you had 500 bottles or goldfish bowls sitting around, you would also do that rather than fiddle with all the tiny filters.
The point is that a betta breeder is not trying to keep any fish in a single tank for a long time and probably has never needed to worry about water changes for long term health. Significant pollutant buildups in the breeders situation may happen but only start to be a problem about the time the fish are shipped out.
For people like us that will keep the same fish in the same tank full of water for years on end, there is no way that a filter is a substitute for water changes and I'm sorry a betta breeder doesn't recognize that.

[StarStruck8]

Thanks everyone! Since the person giving the advice is a moderator I thought I was completely missing something that would make what they are saying make sense. Especially when another post agreed. I'll stick with my current water change schedule for now.

I know how my 28 gallon's water changes on a weekly basis, and I will have to chart my little 5 gallon tanks as well as mentioned by excuzzzeme.


Well, a 100% water change would involve removing the fish every time a water change is done (not a good thing). Also, if you were to wait an entire month and then change the water completely, the potential chemistry differences between the old water and the new could also be stressful to the fish. There's a chance the filter bacteria would suffer, as well. It's just common sense to me that weekly 50% water changes would keep pollutants down and maintain a consistently uniform water chemistry than that of monthly 100% water changes.

This is exactly my point! I thought I was going crazy when they didn't understand why I was questioning it and said it would kill my fish to keep my current routine.

Everything OldMan47 says makes sense too.

Thanks for easing my stress levels about this situation everyone! I really appreciate it. :)

[foolishfish]

The best advice that I've gotten yet was to visit this site.

I've got 14 tanks now and still growing. Had to resort to spread sheet. This has been invaluable in managing multiple tanks since, if and when things are added and something goes awry, I've got an easy way to "go back" and "uninstall", sorta like working with computer hardware when you don't KYAFAHITW.

Now I'm trying to include all sorts of esoteric info. to compare filtration 'cuz the tanks all have similar plantings and substrates but my filter collection is a complete mishmosh. The other problem I have now is just running out of electricity to power everything and I'd like to try to pare down to just the most efficient systems.

Wet / Dry, Emperor 400's/280's, HOT Magnum, Penguin 350's/170's/125's, Aqua Clear 30/70/110, Tetra Whisper 30/40/60, Tetra 30-60's & 5/15's, a Topfin 30, ATI sponge filters (Pond/doubles/pre-filters) a couple of under gravels, carbon and ammo reactors and a bunch of power heads (most w/ ATI or Aquaclear pre-filters).

Our fish are mainly koi, gold fish, plecos, loaches, algae eaters and corys. Just startin' to add snails.

As you can see, we've pretty much cornered the market on pooh generators, (I'm tryin' to figure out how to collect it for use in the spring on my veggie garden) so like it or not water changes are a way of life here. I do two 20% changes each week on each tank 40 gal. and up, three a week on anything smaller.

Don't know how much less I could get away with, but I don't want to risk it. Mind you I also run uber filtration on each tank and only clean / change media on one at a time in any given tank.

I've been able to "seed" numerous tanks with the bacteria from the established tanks. I liken it to collecting yeast when brewing beer.

Now if I can just engineer a way to pipe the CO2 from my fermentors into my aquariums, my plants will go nuts, I have an excuse to brew more beer, and ...where does this madness end? :eek3::)

[Mindcrime121]

The ONLY Time I have EVER done regular 100% water changes was on a betta bowl that had no filter, and I did them every 2-3 days to prevent any amonia from building up in the first place. This is less stressful than subjecting the fish to amonia and or nitrite for the 2nd half of the week. IMO any longer than that can raise amonia/nitrate to dangerous levels.

WITH a filter, I always cycle the tank through the spikes, amonia, then nitrite, and only when the nitrite spike has dropped to 0ppm do I swap out any feeder fish used in the process for the fish I plan to stock for show. Usually takes 4-6 weeks, and if not overfed the goldfish usually survive if they were healthy to start with. I use goldfish because I've heard that they have a large amount of baceria in their feces to jumpstart the tank, but if you have an established tank it's better to use a handful of substrate to seed the new one instead.

After the initial cycle water changes up to 50% at most, prefferably 20%-30% are a regular thing to remove nitrates as you said on the other forum, and for the purpose of removing ditritus/waste/fallen foliage, etc, from the tank by gravel vac to prevent these from causing a sudden spike in anomia from having so much stuff biodegrading all of a sudden (especially in planted tanks!) and releasing it, which the current amount of bacteria might not be able to handle immidiately. Such a spike may be small, and the bacteria will quickly catch up to it, but it's needless stress on the tank inhabitants. Being that the ppl on that forum VERY LIKELY do not have live plants in their tanks, they are not going to take this into account in most cases. The less water removal required to remove the nitrates the better, but 50% is NOT going to kill your fish. Agreeing to disagree on this point is NOT going to kill your fish. That claim was made simply to enforce a "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude that was childish and missplaced, and frankly, VERY annoying. If you are taking a long period of time between removal of old water and replenishing the volume of the tank the glass may dry out sufficiently to kill off the bacteria on it, but that is NOT sufficient to cause a notable minicycle and will not happen at all if you refiull the tank in a reasonable amount of time. The WORST you will do in this case is remove more nitrates and microscopic debre from the water column than planned, which hurts NOTHING.

Your process is fine and they are wrong.

[Mudfrog]

Haha.. that guy must work at my LFS :D

[Mindcrime121]

Hey now, Mud, lets not insult LFS employees like that.

Actually I spent 4 years working in a couple LFSs and learned most of what I know while doing so. Most of my fellow employees there knew a LOT more about what they were talking about than this guy seems to on that other forum, too. I guess that's the diff between LFS employees and most CHAIN STORE employees though, LOL! At least the ones working in the LFSs are usually there because it's their hobby, not cuz it's the only place that was taking apps the day they went job hunting. :)