Are Water Changes Actually Necessary?

[chefjamesscott]

I don't want to get too involved in this thread but I will say this.

Lakes are constantly losing/regaining water. But lakes do not just lose water through evaporation. Most of the time lakes lose water through ways that also allows various minerals and other things to be lost as well such as through a small stream or by water seeping into ground water taking minerals and other things with it.

I know of only two instances (other than the oceans) where water is only lost by evaporation. And those are the Great Salt Lake and also the Dead Sea (not exactly a lake but same Idea) neither of the bodies of water are capable of supporting aquatic life.

now that I am reading this thread I have found a post that clearly illustrates one other point I was hoping to find brought out.

all who have seen salt creep on their tanks, or lime and calcium build up please put up their hands.:thm:

Those 3 substances can not be removed without waterchanges and if you wish your fish to truly live to their full potential you will do water changes. By this I mean not 1-5 years rather 10-30 years. If you think to laugh at this think again for there is a person in britain who had a 35+ year old goldfish. As well my west african lungfish will live a lot longer than that.

I will not abdicate MY RESPONSIBILITY AND OBLIGATION to make sure I provide the utmost in quality living space for the fish I have chosen to care for as well as enjoy!!! :werd:

 

[chefjamesscott]

No, ammonia does not build up.



insert museum thread here
http://www.aquariacentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187087

Friend you are so wrong take a look at this thread and tell me what good topping up the water did for this display tank in the museum


In fact, most tanks will NEVER see an accumulation of ammonia, once the normal biological cycle has been established.

the museum tank had been up for over 8 years time enough for normal biological cycle according to your thoughts

It is "inhumane" to leave fish swimming in what you imagine to be their own waste, only insofar as you are errantly anthropomorphizing the fish. Many of them live, more or less specifically, in almost nothing but waste, in the wild. That is largely what the muck at the bottom of a pond or river is comprised of.



That is hardly an argument for it. Some children think it makes sense to eat only candy, or to pee in the cat box. A betta is a prime example of a fish that should NOT have dramatic, or frequent, water changes. In the wild, it lives in stagnant swamps and mud puddles.

had to insert some into your post as the museum tank is a clear example of how stuff does indeed build up to lethality

 

[aj2494]

Maybe, if we ignore him, he'll be quiet.

 

[msjinkzd]

I am glad to see all the citations in support of water changes. I am still curious as to where his "proof" is beyond his opionions to the contrary. Though this thread is pretty one sided, I still think some really interesting discussions have come up and alot of reasons presented to hlep people understand how very important water changes are.

 

[chefjamesscott]

Maybe, if we ignore him, he'll be quiet.

Ah but au' contraire, the silence would breed a death far to painful for those who can not speak for themselves. In a case such as this it must be not ignored, for though ignorance may breed bliss, feigned ignorance is but one step criminal. :dance2:

And the poetic nature was that I was in the midst of doing my bi-weekly 30-50% w/c on my tanks here.

I would be most interested to find what fish and how much active aquaria the op has. For of a certainty, (forgive me molly/platty etc... keepers) a molly is of much easier dispose than shall we say a malawi eye biter etc.... Non? Yet, surely I jest !

 

[aj2494]

Chef, you confuse me sometimes:screwy:. All I know is he won't listen to what anyone is saying, so why should we even bother?

 

[chefjamesscott]

Ah, yet I prefer to keep the simple uncomplicated.

That which I speak of in my above post is this.

Whilst SILENCE MAY BE GOLDEN -silence in this case would surely be fools gold!!!!!!

There is a 2 fold nature to why I as a keeper of my aquatic friends worlds must not keep silent. The first would be that such absolute nonsensical foolishness as was proposed and put forth but the very suggestion that waterchanges were not needed must be met with the barrage from everyone from every angle for is not a howitzer the best way to kill a gnat? The more gunpowder added to the shell the more taken down the shell of such arguement is!!!! I would think that there is more than enough evidence from enough angles to show the falsehood of waterchanges not needed.

Secondarily, I can not in good conscience sit idle by and not be heard on this matter.
I have seen first hand in the old tank I was contracted to remake at The Royal Saskatchewan Museum what the implications are of simply topping up a tank in the false belief that all that is needed is to replenish. Further the massive damage done to the fish that used to live in that tank due to very shallow maximum 10% waterchanges every 6-8 weeks. The evidence is plainly evident in the thread I put forth on the remake of the museum's tank.

Lastly, who said that I am posting here for their benefit? I know full well from reading the entire thread that the recorded rebuttal that comes from the op will surface again to justify their radical depature from what is absolutely proven scientific fact WATER CHANGES ARE NOT OPTIONAL. Rather I wished to make sure that the clarion call was much louder for my having been, seen and inputed on the subject of this thread.

 

[kazvorpal]

You're got to be kidding me kazvorpal. :help:


Most fish are brackish? Corys like salt? Catfish live in muddy water? What are you smokin? (and can I have some?)

Ah...yes.

Catfish are bottom-feeders. What do you think the bottom of a pond or river looks like? Have you, like, never left the inner city or something? You imagine that all water is nice and clean, and that "runoff" is an invention of them thar crazy ivory tower geologists?

 

[kazvorpal]

There is a 2 fold nature to why I as a keeper of my aquatic friends worlds must not keep silent. The first would be that such absolute nonsensical foolishness as was proposed and put forth but the very suggestion that waterchanges were not needed must be met with the barrage from everyone from every angle for is not a howitzer the best way to kill a gnat?

What is keeping you silent? Some kind of medication?

You appear to be the opposite of silent; rambling.

And nobody said water changes are not needed. I said they are ONLY needed when there are actually conditions requiring them. To do a change every day, or week, just because an amount of time has passed, is silly...and needless stress for the tank. Some tanks will meet the conditions necessary for a change ten times as fast as others. "Tanks should have a water change every X days" is like "everyone should get a flu shot". It's way too generic. Only people at risk for being killed by the flu, or with some other special situation, should get a flu shot, of course...you go by the circumstance, not some meaningless universal application.

Secondarily, I can not in good conscience sit idle by and not be heard on this matter.

Aw, OK, we'll stop stopping you.

I have seen first hand in the old tank I was contracted to remake at The Royal Saskatchewan Museum what the implications are of simply topping up a tank in the false belief that all that is needed is to replenish. Further the massive damage done to the fish that used to live in that tank due to very shallow maximum 10% waterchanges every 6-8 weeks. The evidence is plainly evident in the thread I put forth on the remake of the museum's tank.

Yes, sounds like they needed to do regular water TESTING. Then they would have known to treat whatever problem was occurring, either with a water change, or some other solution.

 

[kazvorpal]

I am glad to see all the citations in support of water changes. I am still curious as to where his "proof" is beyond his opionions to the contrary. Though this thread is pretty one sided, I still think some really interesting discussions have come up and alot of reasons presented to hlep people understand how very important water changes are.

Not a single bit of evidence has been given, even circumstantially, that actually supports generic water changes at a specific interval.

What we have is people arguing that conditions can exist that MIGHT call for water changes. Nobody ever denied that. But there's no reason to think that doing one every day or week, just because an amount of time has passed, is necessary.

The best anyone has proposed is that it's easier, for those who cannot be bothered with anything more complicated. And that's fine, but such people shouldn't go around telling other people that you MUST change ANY tank's water every N interval.

This is a case where you who claim otherwise must offer the proof. You are making the positive claim. Skeptics need not prove anything but that you have not given that solid proof.

If you were saying that a banana must be floated in any tank containing charicins, it would not be up to your opponents to prove that it is not necessary, but you to prove that it is. That is also the case, here.