I think you should reread the thread then...plenty of arguments have been presented and chosen to be ignored.
Are Water Changes Actually Necessary?
- Thread starter kazvorpal
- Start date
- Status
I think you should reread the thread then...plenty of arguments have been presented and chosen to be ignored.
I actually read this whole thing, what a good waste of time! From my own experience, I need to do wc often. Otherwise my rainbows get "threading" on their lips, which is a mild form of columnaris they are prone to.
I prefer to be proactive and do scheduled water changes, rather than reactive to problematic parameters.
I don't know of any research that measures the cortisol levels of fish during water changes, how else would we know if they are being harmfully stressed? Behavior is what we have to go on. Anyone who does do regualr water changes knows that over a period of time fish become accustomed to them and no longer appear stressed. My danios swim up to the incoming tap water, if they were stressed then they would likely be hiding instead.
I prefer to be proactive and do scheduled water changes, rather than reactive to problematic parameters.
I don't know of any research that measures the cortisol levels of fish during water changes, how else would we know if they are being harmfully stressed? Behavior is what we have to go on. Anyone who does do regualr water changes knows that over a period of time fish become accustomed to them and no longer appear stressed. My danios swim up to the incoming tap water, if they were stressed then they would likely be hiding instead.
I do water changes because of the need to remove TDS which i do not have a way to measure. This is just from a quick wiki search:
Total Dissolved solids
High TDS levels generally indicate hard water, which can cause scale buildup in pipes, valves, and filters, reducing performance and adding to system maintenance costs. These effects can be seen in aquariums, spas, swimming pools, and reverse osmosis water treatment systems. Typically, in these applications, total dissolved solids are tested frequently, and filtration membranes are checked in order to prevent adverse effects.
In the case of hydroponics and aquaculture, TDS is often monitored in order to create a water quality environment favorable for organism productivity. For freshwater oysters, trouts, and other high value seafood, highest productivity and economic returns are achieved by mimicking the TDS and pH levels of each species' native environment. For hydroponic uses, total dissolved solids is considered one of the best indices of nutrient availability for the aquatic plants being grown.
Because the threshold of acceptable aesthetic criteria for human drinking water is 100 mg/l, there is no general concern for odor, taste, and color at a level much lower than is required for harm. A number of studies have been conducted and indicate various species' reactions range from intolerance to outright toxicity due to elevated TDS. The numerical results must be interpreted cautiously, as true toxicity outcomes will relate to specific chemical constituents. Nevertheless, some numerical information is a useful guide to the nature of risks in exposing aquatic organisms or terrestrial animals to high TDS levels. Most aquatic ecosystems involving mixed fish fauna can tolerate TDS levels of 1000 mg/l.[4]
Daphnia magna with eggs
The Flathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), for example, realizes an LD50 concentration of 5600 ppm based upon a 96 hour exposure. LD50 is the concentration required to produce a lethal effect on 50 percent of the exposed population. Daphnia magna, a good example of a primary member of the food chain, is a small planktonic crustacean, about five millimeters in length, having an LD50 of about 10,000 ppm TDS for a 96 hour exposure.[5]
Spawning fishes and juveniles appear to be more sensitive to high TDS levels. For example, it was found that concentrations of 350 mg/l TDS reduced spawning of Striped bass (Morone saxatilis) in the San Francisco Bay-Delta region, and that concentrations below 200 mg/l promoted even healthier spawning conditions.[6] In the Truckee River, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that juvenile Lahontan cutthroat trout were subject to higher mortality when exposed to thermal pollution stress combined with high total dissolved solids concentrations
And I suppose the post given by one of the moderators did not deal with real info. I think perhaps it did.
By the time I came upon this thread it was very plainly clear and evident that the op did not really want to hear anything that proved contrary to that which he so strongly pushed. Regardless of what people have shared with him, obstinance was his flavour.
Can you blame a tight fish keeping community that is strongly motivated to be proponents of responsible fishkeeping for stepping up to the plate and putting the rubber to the road as it were?
I for one see no fault in anyones attempts to show the op why frequent w/c are not only recommended but necessary.
I respectfully disagree.
the many first hand experiences of experienced hobbyists is very real info.
it wasn't just made up.
but those experiences have been brushed aside and ignored. in my case, my examples from experience were simply called "presuppositions"..:headshake2:
as I said, the OP is looking for quantified data to prove themselves wrong because they know that none exists. so they cannot be proven wrong and they know it. hence, why they are trolling.
no one is going to spend a lot of money doing research and designing experiments to try and prove an already proven fact (that water changes are a good thing).
And the OP can't even make a post here...
http://www.aquariacentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=215174
http://www.aquariacentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=215174
OP carries the burden of proof in his argument. We (the majority who feel that WC are important) have the benefit of assumption. Therefor, we need not try to back up our own claim, which is generally accepted. Rather, the OP, and those who agree with him, need to provide evidence that WCs are in fact, unimportant.
From Wikipedia...
"The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation to shift the accepted conclusion away from an oppositional opinion to one's own position. "
"burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, and especially a positive claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven."
"As a general rule, the less coherent and less embedded within conventional knowledge a claim appears, the heavier the burden of proof lies on the person asserting the claim."
From Wikipedia...
"The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation to shift the accepted conclusion away from an oppositional opinion to one's own position. "
"burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, and especially a positive claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven."
"As a general rule, the less coherent and less embedded within conventional knowledge a claim appears, the heavier the burden of proof lies on the person asserting the claim."
Agree...took me almost two weeks to convince everyone I am an angel...:grinyes:
The Op asked us if WC is necessary and why. Why is it thier job to carry the burden of proof for our answers?
As for the benefit of assumption all you are saying is that we the majority have the benefit of one of the worst ways to make a decision known to man.
As for the benefit of assumption all you are saying is that we the majority have the benefit of one of the worst ways to make a decision known to man.
- Status
