I GIVE UP!

I'm inviting flames for saying this:

Water changes don't need to be performed as often as people think. And nor does tank size determine the necessity of their frequency.

It really comes down to stocking, filtration types, whether planted or not, what sort of plants, etc etc etc etc so forth and so on, ad nauseum.

Now while I confess to being the laziest fish keeper ever, who would rather not be so lazy and wishes he really did those wonderfully effective weekly water changes, this laziness has also reaped the benefit of learning. Certain tanks of mine I have learned can go as much as months without water changes, whereas others need weekly ones or they start showing ill effects.

Anyway, back on topic I wish you the best with your tank and now you know to be gentle with it. Basically the idea is that there is some "dirt" that is necessary and good.

Try working some live plants into the mix. Botanical filtration is the most underrated of all beneficial additions to an aquarium. In fact I almost find it offensive that they always talk about the "three" forms of filtration - mechanical, chemical and biological without having even introduced the wonders of that fourth kind...
 
I would agree that individual tanks require different levels of care, with the larger tanks and those with plants needing less work and vice- versa. However, over time water atrophies; the pH drops and can destroy beneficial bacteria. The fish won't notice until a water change is finally performed... raising the pH and converting ammonium into ammonia... toxic. In nature water changes are constant for most aquatic life and far beyond anything we can currently replicate. For these reasons I change water weekly on every tank and more often in QT and grow out tanks. Fry in clean water grow more quickly than those in tanks with once-a -week changes IME. I think regular weekly water changes of 25% + are a necessary evil.
 
No disrespect intended Strawberri001 but in addition to asking for advice which is great, crack a book once in a while about keeping fish and their various problems or do your own research. Not knowing something doesn't mean you cant find the official answer as an additional reference source to this and any forum. Then you can bring that reference info here to share with everyone else.
 
I might be inclined to moderately disagree with the book thing - books are usually written by one person and thus present a singular opinion - not to mention they aren't as up to date as the info on a dynamic media source like the internet and the forums on it.

I'd rather see someone coming on here to learn everything about fishkeeping than getting it from a book. There are some super smarties on this thing who not only really know their stuff, but know it from actual real life experience. And each one of us has experience and expertise in various areas so for what one of us might not be able to answer, someone else can. And then sometimes there are overlapping opinions and sometimes very different ones on the same topic, which lends a certain richness that no singular print source could ever dream of providing.

I doubt I would have even the slightest hint of the level of knowledge and interest in the hobby that I currently have if books were my source of inspiration. No disrespect to those who write worthwhile publications, nor to your good advice at all, just that I feel the person is doing better for themselves by coming here and/or researching online than they would if they were reading books.
 
It can... if it drops below 6.4. At a pH under 6.4 bacteria cannot do it's job. What happens is ammonia builds up, but in such acidic water it ionizes into ammonium ( much less toxic ). Fish will adapt and may seem fine. When a partial water change is performed ( and that is what is usually recommended for tanks that haven't been regularly changed ), the pH rises converting the ammonium back into ammonia and Bam, fish loss.
 
And if that were true, a heavily planted tank would benefit from it. Plants compete with bacteria for ammonia and nitrite (they prefer these over nitrate for nitrogen) and would be very happy to see the death of a biofilter!
 
DON'T GIVE UP!

Dear Strawberri,

Being a newbie myself, I can't give you any expert advice. But I do believe that the smaller the tank, the lesser the room for error.

If you have a larger tank, whatever errors that are made get 'diluted' in the large volume of water. You also get more time to take action e.g. an ammonia spike will occur more slowly causing stress in your fish over a longer period of time, but in the process, allowing you adequate time to notice these signs and the necessary steps.
An ammonia spike will take place in your 5g tank in probably just minutes to hours and kill your fish before you even realize it!
Newbies often lulled into the myth that a smaller tank is easier to maintain, (I too was a victim once :p:). But nothing could be further from the truth.

So the first thing I can suggest to you is to go and get the largest tank you can afford.

I also believe a 5g tank would really limit your stocking potential. I have read that even a quarantine tank should be at least 10g in size.

But whatever you do, don't give up. We learn from mistakes and improve in life. Read and research all you can and once you 'get the hang of it' you will find an aquarium one of the most satisfying hobbies you ever had! :)
 
What about we non-newbies who have found smaller tanks easier to maintain than larger ones? Less water volume is often easier to work with. Costs for fully stocking smaller tanks are fractions what they are in larger ones.

This is not to say that the dilution factor isn't true - but emergency 100% water changes on a five or ten gallon system are far less bother than on a 55g.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
AquariaCentral.com
Top Bottom