My aquarist rant

Breeders and some larger setups DO daily water changes They have flow through systems.

Another option, one used in many SW setups, is to top off with RO water, which has had the minerals and other dissolved solids removed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wesleydnunder
As for topping off with RO water, would that still not remove the TDS and hormones that are introduced by the fish or even simply by feeding? I know SW is a little different, how does this translate to FW?

I think the Idea is to make maintenance simple and not a daily chore. Depending on the load, weekly would by fine. One thing to point out, if you do keep the tank water as close to source water as possible, it makes huge water changes possible in the event they are needed. (eg. kid dumps a whole jar of food into the tank, moving a large tank, etc.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: wesleydnunder
Weekly 30-50% water changes are more effective than 10% daily changes. So keep that in mind. I think most people with normal aquarium setups definitely would prefer not to do large daily water changes. That's for certain.
 
I don't doubt that weekly is sufficient. I can understand more convenient, but how is it more effective?
In my many cockamamie ideas that are too expensive and complex to be worth it, I always thought it would be nice to have a system that constantly drained and replaced just enough so as to maintain stasis.
 
Correct, topping off with RO does nothing to mitigate the build-up of dissolved wastes. In SW, one of the functions of a protein skimmer is to remove those wastes without having to remove all of the water as well. Unfortunately, skimmers aren't as effective in freshwater. With freshwater, topping off with RO means that you aren't adding the 'base' TDS to your tank. For example, if you have 2 ppm zinc in your tap water, with each top off you add more zinc, but nothing is removing it. Eventually, your tank will have substantially more than the 2 ppm zinc coming from your tap. Using RO means the TDS build up will be limited to what comes from the biological processes in your tank.

You can get a TDS meter for under $15, well worth it.

Shane Fender of Planet Catfish does nearly 95% water changes regularly. Drains, then very slowly refills. It's a matter of preference...or, the convergence of convenience and fish survival. I like doing weekly water changes because it means that I spend the time looking at the tanks, tidying plants up, observing fish, etc. Do the fish benefit from that? Probably. Would they benefit MORE from daily water changes? Probably, but not without a lot of work to set-up a system that was more automated to control temperature and keep the water level consistent (bubble nesters do NOT like it when you suddenly drop the water level so their eggs are sitting on top of a plant). Big water changes ARE more effective than multiple small water changes, and you can prove this quite easily. You need 2 gallon jars. Fill both with water and the same amount of dye, enough to be darkly colored. In jar #1, remove half, replace with clean water. In jar #2, remove one cup, replace with one cup of clean water. Repeat for a total of 8 cups. Compare the results. Jar # 1 will be lighter colored because you removed half of the waste all at once. Removing it one cup at a time removes less with each cup because each clean cup put in mixes, meaning the next cup removed has more dilute waste. You replace half of the water, but don't remove half of the waste. If you spread the 10% water changes out over several days, the net is even lower because the fish continue to create more waste each day. (You can mimic this in the experiment above by adding another drop of dye to the jar after removing each cup).

If I have time, I'll run through this and test the water with the TDS at each stage. Might use something other than food coloring, like salt or sugar.
 
I am too far out of math classes and didn't quite have a handle on calculus anyway, but there are ways to mathematically compare water change regimes. I wish I knew math and coding well enough to produce something that would calculate the limit that nitrate levels approach given: source water nitrate level, increase of nitrate per week (figured so that the current level can be calculated at any point during the week for the water changes to act on), water change % and frequency.

I had the tools at one point, but don't have the program that made it so easy anymore. That still wouldn't help someone else to play with the variables themselves.
 
Frederick, even with this information would the rate at which nitrates rise change per tank? stocking levels plant load and filtration would all play a vital part in this equation so there would never be a proper way to calculate it?

Example:
Tank A is 100 gallons, it has 14 LARGE fish in it, the tap has 2 ppm nitrates, water changes are done once every week and they are always 10% we can then theorise that after 2 weeks given the bio load the nitrates will be X

Tank B is exactly the same as tank B same tap water everything so with this information we would theorise that the nitrates are going to be the same.

There was however some missing information, tank A isnt planted at all and has a stock filter rated for 100 litre cycling water at a rate of 10 litres where as tank b Is very heavily planted and uses A filter rated for a 200 litre tank getting 50 litres per hour. This little bit of information has now changed everything and would simply make an equation untrustworthy and unbalanced, unfortunately, judging this comes down to one thing, experience.

Dan
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jade.Crusader
Duckie Duckie Yeah that's the ticket

Frederick, even with this information would the rate at which nitrates rise change per tank? stocking levels plant load and filtration would all play a vital part in this equation so there would never be a proper way to calculate it?

Example:
Tank A is 100 gallons, it has 14 LARGE fish in it, the tap has 2 ppm nitrates, water changes are done once every week and they are always 10% we can then theorise that after 2 weeks given the bio load the nitrates will be X

Tank B is exactly the same as tank B same tap water everything so with this information we would theorise that the nitrates are going to be the same.

There was however some missing information, tank A isnt planted at all and has a stock filter rated for 100 litre cycling water at a rate of 10 litres where as tank b Is very heavily planted and uses A filter rated for a 200 litre tank getting 50 litres per hour. This little bit of information has now changed everything and would simply make an equation untrustworthy and unbalanced, unfortunately, judging this comes down to one thing, experience.

Dan

Making the scenarios more complicated doesn't change the need for water changes. Period. Nitrate is only useful because it is easily tested for, but just because it is low does not mean what we are using it to monitor is also low. So making the scenarios complicated does not help anyone understand a simple thing, which is: A level of bio load (plants do add to that, so your second tank actually needs them for more reasons) needs a rate of water change.

Filter rating means little unless your tank is so messy it blocks the flow off, the bacteria is on surfaces anywhere you have water and flow in the tank so is not restricted to the filter itself. The tank either is cycled or isn't, and that is a separate issue from the rate that nitrogenous waste is produced, and by proxy everything else.

Nitrate is "for example". Nitrate is just one "tree" in the forest of possible tds increasers. So a simple mathematical example with nitrate as the stand in variable works just fine to help get a grasp on tank maintenance needs.

Water changes also add things back into the tank as well as remove wastes. And just because the planted tank shows less wastes doesn't mean it won't use the minerals up faster than the fish only tank.
 
Last edited:
AquariaCentral.com