Are Water Changes Actually Necessary?
- Thread starter kazvorpal
- Start date
- Status
Agreed. What ever works for you and your tank(s) is the right way. I have the mindset that less is more when it comes to tank maintenance on my particular setups, but I'm keeping some relatively hardy species.
As far as regular scheduled cleanings, ie weekly, monthly, whatever, I tend to think that's more to help the fishkeeper remember to do maintenance on a regular schedule. Whether such a schedule is beneficial to the tank inhabitants is entirely up for debate (as proven in this thread).
I'm somewhat hesitant to add to this discussion, since it seems like your mind is pretty much made up, Kazvorpal. That's fine. You do things your way, I'll do them mine.
One thing you haven't really mentioned, though, is that an aquarium is not a closed system. When you feed your fish, you're adding minerals, salts, organic compounds, etc. Without water changes, these will continue to accumulate in the tank. Just because the fish eat the food doesn't mean that the components of the food are gone.
High nitrate levels aren't the only reason to do water changes, they're just convenient measuring stick. Even if you have a deep sand bed that is perfectly capable of taking care of your nitrate levels, there are a whole host of other compounds that can build up in the water and must be removed with water changes.
One thing you haven't really mentioned, though, is that an aquarium is not a closed system. When you feed your fish, you're adding minerals, salts, organic compounds, etc. Without water changes, these will continue to accumulate in the tank. Just because the fish eat the food doesn't mean that the components of the food are gone.
High nitrate levels aren't the only reason to do water changes, they're just convenient measuring stick. Even if you have a deep sand bed that is perfectly capable of taking care of your nitrate levels, there are a whole host of other compounds that can build up in the water and must be removed with water changes.
Again, you are making an assertion not supported by your own arguments.
You are saying that sudden change is harmful.
You are assuming that one of the two extremes is bad, and the other good.
You are not saying anything that supports your assumption. It is just a presupposition.
You might as well assume that all tanks should have a low pH, and that "new tank syndrome" means that a tank has improperly clean water, as vice-versa.
If the fish are thriving in the "dirty" water AND in clean water, but they can't move back and forth, then you have a situation where change is the problem, not the water conditions.
I am not rejecting the idea of water changes as good...I'm simply pointing out that you are saying nothing that shows this, and in fact you're supporting the point that water changes, themselves, are stressful, because they change tank conditions.
You are, essentially, saying that YOU prefer a specific set of conditions, and want to subject fish to subtle stress (altering the water back to those conditions) in order to maintain those conditions.
opcorn:
The point is that over time there will be a build of a "things" (whether that be nutrients, or hormones, or whatever) that the filtration in a conventional tank cannot take care of. As many have mentioned, the point of doing water changes is to maintain a relatively balanced level of "water quality" (and I use that term loosely). By replacing portions of the tank water on a regular basis with water that is filtered beyond the capabilities of an aquarium filtration system, that balance is being maintained.
The fact that the fish are stressed after a water change is a sign that water changes are necessary. If, within the timespan of 1-2 weeks, the water conditions have changed so much from the "water of the tap" conditions that the fish are stressed by the addition of "clean" water, that says that there is the beginning of a buildup of harmful substances in the water. Now, simply because the fish are capable of adapting to these conditions does not mean that they are ideal or even suitable conditions for a fish to be living in. As others have mentioned, effects such as stunted growth or shortened lifespan may not be something you see within a week's, a month's, or even a year's time, but over the lifespan of the fish not doing water changes will more than likely have adverse effects.
Also, (and I apologize for the logical fallacy but I feel the point needs to be reiterated) if IACUC, the organization in the US that is charged with the responsibility of maintaining the health of laboratory animals, requires water changes in labs using fish, I have to believe that they are a "necessary evil," as you labeled them. If IACUC did not deem them necessary, they wouldn't require it, simple as that. IACUC makes the lives of researchers hard enough, and I can only imagine the time/expense that large fish labs must put into water changes (I work in a rodent lab so I see first hand how their rules affect our operating procedures). If it wasn't necessary for the safety of the animals they'd have a pile of angry scientists coming after them.
The fact that the fish are stressed after a water change is a sign that water changes are necessary. If, within the timespan of 1-2 weeks, the water conditions have changed so much from the "water of the tap" conditions that the fish are stressed by the addition of "clean" water, that says that there is the beginning of a buildup of harmful substances in the water. Now, simply because the fish are capable of adapting to these conditions does not mean that they are ideal or even suitable conditions for a fish to be living in. As others have mentioned, effects such as stunted growth or shortened lifespan may not be something you see within a week's, a month's, or even a year's time, but over the lifespan of the fish not doing water changes will more than likely have adverse effects.
Also, (and I apologize for the logical fallacy but I feel the point needs to be reiterated) if IACUC, the organization in the US that is charged with the responsibility of maintaining the health of laboratory animals, requires water changes in labs using fish, I have to believe that they are a "necessary evil," as you labeled them. If IACUC did not deem them necessary, they wouldn't require it, simple as that. IACUC makes the lives of researchers hard enough, and I can only imagine the time/expense that large fish labs must put into water changes (I work in a rodent lab so I see first hand how their rules affect our operating procedures). If it wasn't necessary for the safety of the animals they'd have a pile of angry scientists coming after them.
"Replenish chemicals?
What chemicals are in tap water?
Or do you mean because we add new, synthetic sea salt that contains trace elements in them?
Water changes, normally, are about REMOVING chemicals, not adding them. Except for the elements in Instant Ocean, reef crystals, et cetera.
And you can definitely add those trace elements without a water change, if you prefer"
actually for proper maintenance on marine tanks you use RO/DI so you can control the exact amounts of chemicals, salts etc. using tap will throw the levels off and result in blooms of brown algae and other undesirable algaes.
the water needs to be as pure as possible.
with marine tanks you do need to monitor the tanks closely especially if the tank is a reef tank.
for obvious reasons you should not add synthetic salt directly to the tank.
different levels of maintenance (adding /removing ) vary a bit oin marine systems depending on the tank and the inhabitants.
What chemicals are in tap water?
Or do you mean because we add new, synthetic sea salt that contains trace elements in them?
Water changes, normally, are about REMOVING chemicals, not adding them. Except for the elements in Instant Ocean, reef crystals, et cetera.
And you can definitely add those trace elements without a water change, if you prefer"
actually for proper maintenance on marine tanks you use RO/DI so you can control the exact amounts of chemicals, salts etc. using tap will throw the levels off and result in blooms of brown algae and other undesirable algaes.
the water needs to be as pure as possible.
with marine tanks you do need to monitor the tanks closely especially if the tank is a reef tank.
for obvious reasons you should not add synthetic salt directly to the tank.
different levels of maintenance (adding /removing ) vary a bit oin marine systems depending on the tank and the inhabitants.
Now this is a better argument, akin to the moderator who brought up total dissolved solids.
My issue with the replies isn't that I am closed-minded; it's that their arguments are flawed.
Surely, though, there is some way to measure some of those things you believe must be accumulating. TDS would be an example of that.
But it is still possible that you are mistaken, when you say that the stuff you put in MUST end up in the water. It can, instead, end up in the biomass in the gravel (of a typical freshwater tank), in the bodies of the fish (desirably), in plants, algae, et cetera.
Take phosphates...algae consumes it, therefore reducing the dissolved phosphates. Unless you keep killing off the algae. Then it can accumulate in the water, and force a change.
I think a water change should be done at least every 2 weeks. I do a 30% water change every week. You your self would not want to be swimming in your waste water or would you? My fish are no different than my dog.
They all have feelings. There part of the family. They all depend on us to take care of them. :mwave:
They all have feelings. There part of the family. They all depend on us to take care of them. :mwave:
- Status
