Are Water Changes Actually Necessary?

[12 Volt Man]

Since water changes place stress on fish and ecosystem, by altering the tank's self-imposed balance of micro-organism density, reducing the amount of nutrients, et cetera, water changes were never anything better than a necessary evil.

see, this statement from the OP shows their lack of knowledge. seriously.

water changes do not alter the "self imposed balance of micro organism density".

doing a water change removes very little beneficial bacterial. hardly any. its neglegable.

secondly, doing a water change can correct the problem of excess wastes in the tank, and can restore a tank to healthy water conditions by creating removing and diluting wates (such as ammonia and nitrite) such that the existing bacterial population can handle the post water change levels, but could not process the pre-water change levels.

when you do a water change on a tank with high ammonia, you have a situation where you have bacteria in the tank but not enough to oxidize the current ammonia levels. post water change, the same population can then handle the ammonia (and reduce the previously high ammonia reading to zero)

we are debating with someone who does not understand what they are trying to debate about.

its that simple.

 

[chefjamesscott]

Back on topic or I'll have you all flogged! I'm sure there's still some good discussion to be had here. The OP is asking for readings and whatnot as proof, so maybe someone that is really adamant about their water changes has some sort of a log with all the standard readings? This may be something no one really does at home but I know plenty of people here work with fish for a living so maybe they have readings like that from their work?

Here's the OP' opening statement for review of what he wanted:

Actually he is simply looking for a chance to air arrogance and his self imposed superstar understanding of fish keeping that breaks and goes against what is both scientifically and practically accepted as the way to do things. So that he can pop off and express how his superlative understanding surely shows how very uneducated all of the other people are on AC who are proponents of regular w/c.

Must be real hard to be the James Dean of AC! :woot:

 

[platytudes]

To refer to the last post does the water go though a cleaning plant first? I hope so and my poor fish! They were getting water from the SCUKILL? Holy crap i feel so sorry for them. I thought it was from some underground river or something not that polluted dump of a river. I once saw a TRASH DUMPSTER in it. Im surprized i dont have any 3 eyed fish lol.

Fishfriend, I couldn't find an EPA drinking water quality report for your county (Montgomery, right?) but I found it for Philadelphia. Have a read if you like, it's from 2008:
http://www.phila.gov/water/pdfs/WQR2008.pdf

 

[12 Volt Man]

The OP is asking for readings and whatnot as proof,

but what the OP is asking for does not exist.

hobbyists know that their fish grow and thrive in good water conditions.

we know that from years of experience.

what the OP is asking for is some sort of quantified study that shows water changes do not help fish to thrive or are not required.

you won't find that anywhere.

and he/she knows it.

hence it forms the basis of their argument:

In order for me to believe that I am wrong, I want quantified results
but what I am arguing cannot be quantified
so you cannot prove me wrong
therefore I must be right



its a fallacy.

 

[jpappy789]

Exactly. A lot of us have seen drastic differences in fish health over the course of our experience...from our first tanks to the ones we have now...I honestly could care less if my water changes are unnecessary or overbearing, my fish are healthy.

 

[chefjamesscott]

see, this statement from the OP shows their lack of knowledge. seriously.

water changes do not alter the "self imposed balance of micro organism density".

doing a water change removes very little beneficial bacterial. hardly any. its neglegable.

secondly, doing a water change can correct the problem of excess wastes in the tank, and can restore a tank to healthy water conditions by creating removing and diluting wates (such as ammonia and nitrite) such that the existing bacterial population can handle the post water change levels, but could not process the pre-water change levels.

when you do a water change on a tank with high ammonia, you have a situation where you have bacteria in the tank but not enough to oxidize the current ammonia levels. post water change, the same population can then handle the ammonia (and reduce the previously high ammonia reading to zero)

we are debating with someone who does not understand what they are trying to debate about.

its that simple.

No No No I came not to debate, rather, I came to pull out my 10lb sledge and spikes and nail the coffin shut! :grinyes:

Now if I could only find my spade need to dig the hole.:grinyes:

 

[jm1212]

it would be like you not flushing the toilet, taking a shower, or taking rotten food out of your fridge for three months. you'll survive, but you'll be gross and sickly.

 

[xsdbs]

7th largest thread in General Fresh Water of Aquaria Central

Thanks for the explanation, I'm not very good at the txt shorthand yet.

 

[Fishfriend1]

well if u take out water he obviously thinks that bacteria will go with it. In any case he was asking WHY not dissing all u people who have now dissed him for asking for REAL info not "it is generally accepted so it must be right". If everyone here told u to jump off a bridge would u say "well my friends said so, so it must be right". I dought it. But i digress. I was saying the op wanted real info and no one gave him any. Between all the people who have looked at this thread not a single person has given actual reasons except for nitrites and phosphates, unless i missed something. I think you may have driven the op off with your insults.

 

[Lab_Rat]

This is why the burden of proof is on us for our actions. The OP asks a question we must answer with specific reasons why it is done and on the schedule we do it. So all the arguments about his view are in err because he did not post a view he asked a question. From what I can tell the replies I have seen from the op was to point out that no measured documented proof was given in that instance for the reason the W/C was needed at that time. Just my .02 aboout what I see.

TDS and hormones were given as examples. OP chose to ignore them as they proved him wrong. OP has a computer, he can go pull scientific articles himself. It's not my job to do research for him.