Water changes

[jpappy789]

For any future posters and readers, let me summarize.

This is not a debate. There is no argument that water changes are an effective treatment for poor water quality. Everybody agrees that poor water quality can not support life.

This discussion is not to determine If a water change needs to be done, but rather WHEN a water change needs to be done.

What makes this discussion difficult is that WHEN is dangerously entangled with WHY. We understand WHY to be the senseless killing of livestock. It is time we put WHY under a microscope and determined its mechanisms.

How will this benefit EVERYBODY? Some people will benefit from doing water changes only when necessary, be that once a week, month or year. Everybody else will benefit when frequent and/or large water changes no longer seem to working, and they start to wonder WHY?

I need to stop that thought right here. Nature is calling, a water change is required. LOL

Piece out my friends

I don't understand this statement. I've never come across a case where water changes were too frequent/large...more often than not any correlation between water changes and fish deaths are circumstantial at best, so what exactly is the issue then? I agree there are cases where water changes may not be the only solution, but that's hardly a reason to start debating the need to do frequent changes.

The fact that others can do even more than I do is reason enough for me to believe that I'd have no problems if I wanted to do more extensive maintenance...but again, I want to enjoy my tanks too and I'm not going to change when I'm not having problems to begin with, and I feel that I'm probably already doing more than what I would absolutely need to do...

I think the saying "if it aint broke, don't fix it" is a simple suggestion to pretty much any "debate" here...if you are having problems with your tank, maybe take a look at your maintenance routine and see if there's room for improvement. If not, then why worry so much about it?

 

[dhvService]

Say pappy, are you saying that I am not aloud to even discuss the topic of withholding water changes because it is not a popular opinion, or because you have anecdotal evidence suggesting otherwise? I am confused, I thought this was an open forum?

 

[Star_Rider]

dhvService,This discussion related to water changes is beneficial and it is an open forum.
it sounds to me you are just trying to quantify when to do water changes(based on your last statement.


IMO , there are just too many variables to make a judgement for water changes as the need will vary from set up to set up.

there are many variables like planted tanks, how heavily planted , species of plants, species of fish, how heavily populated the tank is with both, size of the tank, type soil/substrate etc.etc..etc

I have too many delicate species of fish to risk not doing at a bare minimum a 50% water change per week.

but I do enjoy following this thread.

I say continue with a constructive discussion .

 

[huapala]

Say pappy, are you saying that I am not aloud to even discuss the topic of withholding water changes because it is not a popular opinion, or because you have anecdotal evidence suggesting otherwise? I am confused, I thought this was an open forum?

I do not think anyone here is trying to limit constructive discourse on this subject, but your commentary and responses seem defensive and dismissive towards others' opinions on tank maintenance regiments. For example, I posted an article about WC and the science behind why large (50% or more) WC are beneficial to tank upkeep. You quoted it and told me to start my own thread somewhere else. That does not seem very "open" to me, but I forgave you. I think that this "Self sustained tank" concept is a passion for you and you are letting your emotions dictate the filtering process of incoming facts/information being provided to you via this open forum. I know that you believe that achieving a self sustained tank system is the future of this hobby and that you are proceeding with this for the benefit of the animals that we keep, but you must remember that people cannot be beaten (with words or weapons) into enlightenment (or simply thinking the way that you do). With all do respect, I think that you can post your ideas so long as you do not refute and attack others. Aloha no me ke aloha nui pau ole.

 

[Rbishop]

For any future posters and readers, let me summarize.

This is not a debate. There is no argument that water changes are an effective treatment for poor water quality. Everybody agrees that poor water quality can not support life.

This discussion is not to determine If a water change needs to be done, but rather WHEN a water change needs to be done.

What makes this discussion difficult is that WHEN is dangerously entangled with WHY. We understand WHY to be the senseless killing of livestock. It is time we put WHY under a microscope and determined its mechanisms.

How will this benefit EVERYBODY? Some people will benefit from doing water changes only when necessary, be that once a week, month or year. Everybody else will benefit when frequent and/or large water changes no longer seem to working, and they start to wonder WHY?

I need to stop that thought right here. Nature is calling, a water change is required. LOL

Piece out my friends

So, we are discussing WHEN a water change needs to be done, as an effective treatment for poor water quality, correct? And, per your statement " Everybody else will benefit when frequent and/or large water changes no longer seem to working,", Can you give us an example when the frequent and/or large water changes would lead to poor water quality?

 

[dhvService]

So, we are discussing WHEN a water change needs to be done, as an effective treatment for poor water quality, correct? And, per your statement " Everybody else will benefit when frequent and/or large water changes no longer seem to working,", Can you give us an example when the frequent and/or large water changes would lead to poor water quality?

Ooh, so very close. I am not implying that water changes lead to poor quality, but rather that bad things happen in spite of water changes. For instance somebody who is performing regular changes and is suddenly inundated with algae, cyanobacteria, fish loss, whatever is of concern.

You are all very nice and very interesting people. I enjoy reading about your triumphs and trials. I enjoy understanding your points of view and feel that they are very much in line with my own. I have very little to offer this community that you don't already have. All I am trying to do is offer a unique perspective into community. So if you dont mind I would like to see this thread move toward the discussion of the indicators of poor water quality through chemical analysis as the OP has requested, rather than a philosophical debate on weather we should be dabbling in such time wasting and non productive black arts.

 

[Rbishop]

It could develop that way, but you seem intent on slamming anyone who doesn't agree with your standpoint that large water changes are not the way to maintain a tank. Kind of like a one sided diversity is okay, until that diversity disagrees with you. I am sure if the OP has a problem with how the thread is progressing, they can PM me about if they want it closed...we should let the OP decide if the thread is off track.

 

[ktrom13]

I like this thread alot. I maintain my tank as many others do with the regular maintainance routine. But with all the new knowledge and technology and understanding of ecosystems continues to grow i do believe that one day our fish tanks could/will be selfsustaining. I would love to have an aquarium one day where i have to do nothing to maintain it because its selfsustaining. Ive looked into and continue to do so but unfortunately a selfsustaining tank is just out of arms reach still. I believe WCs are neccesary because they help maintain a more stable water chemistry( via the removal of nitrates, TDS, etc etc.). But on the other hand i dont believe huge 75% weekly WCs are neccesary unless something is seriously wrong in the tank. Hopefully everyone reading this thread can see eye to eye and agree to disagree on said subject.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using MonsterAquariaNetwork App

 

[FishFanMan]

Kyle, I agree that this is good thread and have enjoyed reading all the posts too. I think we, the members here, are the most advanced group of hobbyists around and are exploring the outer boundaries by asking questions for discussion that may not have answers yet. But that's the only way to learn and make new discoveries, or have a professional look deeper into the science of aquarium so that we make incremental advances to a self sustaining aquarium. That would be wonderful thing to achieve. In the meantime, I agree that WCs are fine to make sure water quality is in tip top condition if one doesn't want to or have the equipment to measure params. I have no problem with anyone with a set schedule for a WC to make sure their fish stay healthy. I'm just asking myself why/when I need to do one.

The #1 reason I posted this thread is because I'm setting up my new Spec V and have bought one of those instant cycle products. It claims I won't need to do any WCs for a year. How can they claim that? I'm skeptical too. But I know that it does keep the 3 main params low, but I know that's not enough. I do a lot more for my main tank to keep water quality in good condition beyond the 3 main params (over filter, carbon, purigen, algae scrubber, not overfeeding, UV, lots of plants). So now do I really not need to do a WC for year? I rely on the 3 params, pH, GH, KH, and TDS to measure my water quality. If those are within the bounds that I set, then I'm ready to NOT do a WC and see where is tank goes. Perhaps I'll learn something. I may start losing fish, then I'll know WCs at this level is still required because there is something I'm not taking monitoring correctly. I'm a tinkerer. I'm a former advanced engineer so I like to experiment and try things, see what happens and learn from the successes and failures. Plus, H20 is a precious thing. I'd rather use less of it if I can.

I'd like this thread to be discussion on what one believes or have heard/read that indicates a WC is needed. It would be nice for a professional in the trade or a contractor that maintains aquariums to let us know that they look at or measure that indicates water quality is degrading (besides what I've listed already) and that a WC is needed.

I like gadgets. I think of my tank as like the space station up there. They have gadgets to make the environment livable for the astronauts. Well I'd like to assemble gadgets to make my tank livable for my fish for years and years using the same water.

 

[jpappy789]

Say pappy, are you saying that I am not aloud to even discuss the topic of withholding water changes because it is not a popular opinion, or because you have anecdotal evidence suggesting otherwise? I am confused, I thought this was an open forum?

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I think you aren't allowed to discuss this topic...the fact that I am asking questions about your previous statements pretty much implies that I would like to hear your thoughts, no? :huh:

Ooh, so very close. I am not implying that water changes lead to poor quality, but rather that bad things happen in spite of water changes. For instance somebody who is performing regular changes and is suddenly inundated with algae, cyanobacteria, fish loss, whatever is of concern.

You are all very nice and very interesting people. I enjoy reading about your triumphs and trials. I enjoy understanding your points of view and feel that they are very much in line with my own. I have very little to offer this community that you don't already have. All I am trying to do is offer a unique perspective into community. So if you dont mind I would like to see this thread move toward the discussion of the indicators of poor water quality through chemical analysis as the OP has requested, rather than a philosophical debate on weather we should be dabbling in such time wasting and non productive black arts.

No one is arguing that water changes are going to take care of all of your problems indefinitely, but I'd say there's a large body of evidence supporting the opposite trend, ie. the lack of water changes can increase the chances of causing the same issues. If regular water changes we the only things we needed to do without any other methods of intervention then AC probably wouldn't have much foot traffic...

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with your method either, but it's hardly universal, and not within the means of most in the hobby...