Are Water Changes Actually Necessary?

Do you change your water?

  • No

    Votes: 3 0.7%

  • Not unless conditions require it (like high nitrates)

    Votes: 60 13.8%

  • Yes, I do it on a specific timeline (daily, weekly, whatever)

    Votes: 358 82.3%

  • Undecided / Other

    Votes: 14 3.2%
  • Total voters
    435
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok, obviously I was way off about UGFs - I guess the 50s-80s is more like it, but not sure when using activated carbon became popular. The 80s were when the wet dry filter was invented too, I believe. Oh, and plastic shipping bags were invented in the 50s :) What would life be without plastic?!
 
kazvorpal said:
Any biologist working in fresh water can tell you that, because it is comprised mainly of runoff, most "fresh" water bodies do, indeed, contain a noteworthy amount of salt. Rivers less than ponds, where evaporation concentrates the salts that are UNIVERSAL to runoff, but everywhere to some extent.

There are certainly a few fish in the world that evolved where the concentration hasn't built up much, and so they're sensitive to very salty water. The rest are more at home with some salt, than with none.
Click to expand...

Our tapwater comes from those same rivers and lakes. It already contains quite enough Na+ and Cl- ions; indeed, more than the natural waters of many common freshwater fish.

And "aquarium salt" is pure con. If it's evaporated marine salt, then why raise GH and KH as well as adding salt? If it's pure NaCl, it's about 100 times cheaper as table salt, myths about iodine and anticaking agents being harmful notwithstanding.
 
Reefscape said:
Well, i am on page 19, and i have STILL YET TO SEE YOUR ( directed specifically at the post OP ) documented evidence which backs up why your arguing your point in this thread...Its been asked for many times now for you to produce this, yet these posts are being disregarded by you. If your not going to post your documented evidence, then i suggest you start listening, rather than arguing / disregarding what members have stated in this thread..
Click to expand...

:iagree::clap::y220e::bowing:

somebody said it... :thud: yes, bluntly and in terms that could be understood by the op. :hi:

what i cannot believe nobody has noticed was the reference to voc's several pages back. the first word in volatile organic compound is... wait for it... VOLATILE! this happens to mean unstable and the term is commonly used in context such as pertaining to safety and or health.

and once again the op judges what he does not understand. :footinmouth:
henceforth my prior comment on another thread not to be mentioned.

don't you worry kaz... your comments and replies back to my post will stand strong. i will not be back to track the progress because there has been none thus far on this thread. from what i see there's plenty of evidence at this point to assume that efforts will be constantly made to dispute, ignore or wave to the side any point that is valid or backed by evidence without valid refutal backed by proof, evidence or even poor scientific anecdotal evidence.

banter, banter, banter... :hypnotized::hypnotized::hypnotized::hypnotized:

a good read for you kaz... ecology of the planted tank by diane walstad... study up. it's as close as you're going to get to what you're looking for. in the end though it still proves your thinking is vastly flawed. :p: :duh:
 
Well, I've read this interesting debate carefully from the start as an impartial observer. Kav, as somebody who participates in skeptic forums and discussions quite often, I'll say that your argument needs to be a little more precisely defined. You're saying that are conditions when a tank's water should be changed more often. Is that correct? You're also putting forth the idea that a scheduled weekly water change of say- 25% isn't necessary in a healthy tank. Is that correct?

I'm just asking because the discussion itself seems to be all over the place. Not unusual in a forum- style debate.

Also, your OP makes no claim in and of itself, it just asks questions. So, you're correct that the burden of proof lays with the proponents of the 25% weekly water change.

There is seriously nothing wrong with a spirited discussion that challenges conventional wisdom. But things really do "flow" better when people are aware of the principles behind a good argument. Otherwise, it goes downhill quickly.
 
Maybe my thinking is too layman, but I was just sitting here thinking about the lake that I live near which is crystal clear (you can see bottom) as well as a large swamp that is not too far away. My aquariums, unfortunately, do not have rivers going into them like that lake has. Nor do they have rivers leaving them like that lake has. They also do not have the levels of rock, sand, carbon, etc. that those rivers have or that large water treatment facilities have. So therefore, I have to imitate that with filters and water changes (just think of the river leaving the lake as me removing water and the river going into the lake me putting in fresh water). Now that swamp, I was talking about has a small stream going into it, but it has no outlet that I am aware of except evaporation. That swamp stinks, and is stagnant. I imagine that there are fish in that swamp as it is on our state's do not eat the fish from there registry as they carry pathogens and are diseased.

I am not a theoretical kind of person. I live in the real world where you have to prove to me through proof not theory that your idea works. Prove to me that even the earth's method of cleaning water is wrong. Show me a body of freshwater that has no inlet and outlet of water that is not stagnant and nasty.
 
snoopy65 said:
I am not a theoretical kind of person. I live in the real world where you have to prove to me through proof not theory that your idea works. Prove to me that even the earth's method of cleaning water is wrong. Show me a body of freshwater that has no inlet and outlet of water that is not stagnant and nasty.
Click to expand...

Amen!
 
Kaz, unless you are going to provide some proof other than your tank (which we have no proof that you are telling the truth), I'm afraid you should quiet down and stop rambling, like you often accuse others of doing.

To say it plainly, put up or shut up.
 
I have one more thing to say on this matter. You say only do water changes when conditions say I need to, (parameters ect). The way I see it, why should I wait for things to be wrong when I can prevent them in the first place?

My nitrate never goes about 20 and I have an overstocked non planted tank (I keep mbuna). I do large water changes weekly. My fish are growing, healthy and are happy. Why change what I'm doing? It seems to work.

You have given no proof the suggests what I am doing is wrong. You have only given an example of your tank with giving any evidence of parameters, stocking or tank size. You just say they are healthy since they didn't die.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
AquariaCentral.com
Top Bottom