FishProfiles.com Message Forums

I never took this post as a slant towards me. I didn't even think it to be personal. I just simply disagree with you and believe that you are giving ill advise to people by recommending large water changes. I agree that consistant changes are best and there is nothing wrong with small daily changes. Everything I have ever heard, read, seen and/or experienced suggests that changing more than 25% of your water at one time causes undue stress on fish. Some sites even suggest that by doing a large water change you actually increase the amount of ammonia ppm. Water changes do decrease nitrite, nitrate and other toxins. However in an established tank your bacteria keep the ammonia at zero. In tap water the average ammonia content is not zero it is actually .01 to .10 ppm at the tap therefor if you do a 50% water change you have actually increased the amount of ammonia toxins in your tank. What causes the mini-cycle is the fact that the induction of this new ammonia causes an increased work load on the nitrifying bacteria. The bacteria has to then 'catch up' with the new work load. Yes fish do thrive in clean water. Tap water is 'clean' to humans not fish. Tap water contains many toxins to fish. 'Clean' water to fish is water that has been filtered mechanically, chemically, and biologically. Clean water for fish includes bacteria and activated carbon. Water from the tap is 'Dirty' water to fish. The only reason you do water changes is to decrease the amounts of nitrites and nirates and to restore trace elements. You want to do this slowly ie. small changes at a time. Just like you adjust the ph level slowly. The idea is to maintain quality water (for the fish not for humans) and reduce the amount of stress placed on fish. Stress is the number one cause of disease and fish fatalities.

I do big water changes frequently, seeing as I'm a cichlid fanatic. No problems here. I havent had a sick fish since I've started doing big frequent changes. By big, I mean 35% to 50% a week. On my smaller tanks(10g), I do that twice a week. Plants thrive (even if I know nitrates, etc are good for them), fish thrive. Fish breed prolifically, eat well, color up beautifully, active, healthy, and grow fast and full of personality.

And now, to join the trend of useless drama and over-exaggerations, so I don't feel left out: OMG U GUYS, UR EVIL CUZ U CHANGE YOUR WATER IN BIG AMOUNTS OR LITTLE AMOUTNS OMG WUT IS RONG WITH YOU IM CRYING RITE NOW CUZ YOURE SUCH BAD FISH KEEPERS OMG WUT IS DA WORLD COMING 2

Sham, IME peat is crap.

It does work, but the look of the tank and the work involved is not worth the effort.

Low PH is really only needed with certain types of fish, and that is even changing with modern breeding programs.

It is much easier to lower PH and keep it stable by using filters like RO and deionizers, than using peat. Peat will lower your PH, but it is very difficult to treat your water with it every time you do a water change, and if your KH is high peat is of little use.

Last edited by Shannen at 10-Feb-2005 16:31

This is a controversial issue.

I have done the daily water changes without stressing my fish at all.

I do more water changes for raising young fish and getting fish to spawn.

I age my water for 24 hours and add nothing to it, I have to heat it as I have no hot water near my fish.

One thing no one has touched on is the "myth" that fish produce a hormone that will limit thier growth.....

Example: Fish in a pond and or lake tend to get stunted if it is not fished some because the fish population becomes to large and there for more hormone.
Fish in a river tend to be larger because the water is always changing.

If you don't believe me set up 2 tanks and test it....


Just my 2 cents, Herman63

I would have to agree with all the myths bob pointed out. I was messing with peat filtration in my 55g back when I thought I needed to lower my ph. I managed to drop it .6 and had black water as a result. So I did big 30-40% water changes to add peat filtered water and then I did big 30-40% changes to get it out so I could see my fish again. Everytime I did big water changes that night or the next day my otocinclus laid eggs. So I repeated 40% twice a week and had a total of 6 spawns. Now after trying big water changes and small 2-5g daily ones I change 15g twice a week. My otos haven't spawned since I stopped doing the big changes but congos have quite frequently. If my water changes stressed my fish I highly doubt they'd be laying eggs right after. I just dipped in my tube, suck out some water, the filter splashes more(rain?), then dip the tube again to create suction for getting it into the tank. The fish take cover in the plants for a few mins and then are back to their usual activity. Also I want to say that almost all tapwater in Iowa is from rivers containing fish. It is filtered to clean it and make it of higher quality for humans. So technically the water from my tap is even better for my fish than if I went out and dipped my bucket in a river where they live.

I too perform rather large water changes on a regular basis in my tanks directly from the tap using a python for the larger tanks.

I guess with time you become more comfortable with "bending the rules slightly". In other words, I would never advise a new fishkeeper to do the things the way *I* do them but I have enough experience with the types of fish that I have that I know and can immediately recognize what will stress them and what won't. The fish and I have an understanding. They let me do my job and if they behave, they get special treats.



Last edited by Tammy at 09-Feb-2005 03:42

Sorry to rain on some people's parade, but I do more than 25% water changes per week, on almost every FW tank I have. 25% being the minimum, and 50% being the average, and sometimes as much as 75%. Now, you can say what you want, but my fish grow faster than most peoples', are extremely healthy and free of disease, and are breeding constantly in these large water change environments.

Now, yes the main reason for doing water changes is to remove the nitrAtes, and this is the main reason only. Many people have tanks set up that self remove the nitrAtes, and only need to top the water off, and add some trace elements. I can attest to one of my planted tanks, that I only do any water changes as all on, about once every 3-6 months. And I have a SW tank, that has not had any water changes on it for 2 years now, and did have one that went 5 years with no more than water top off. There are ways to do anything you want, if you just go out there and learn them.


NOW FOR MY MODERATOR POINTS ABOUT THIS THREAD

This is not aimed at any one individual, but at everyone that posts on this and any other thread.

As for stating facts of how things are done by different individuals on this site, well that is what this site is here for. This site is not just aimed at the new beginners, but at the advanced, and as well, at the experts. There should be no argueing about how someone with experience does something that is different from another person, only questions and maybe some good debating. And, just to be complete, flaming and name calling and/or changing, is considered argueing and not debating. Everyone should respect others ways and meanings of what they do. This does not mean they have to accept it, but the respect is not only the right way to do things, but will be upheld by the mods.

It is my job to check threads, edit any that need editing, close or delete any that need it as well. Though I do ask everyone with a problem with another member to let us (moderators) know about it immediately, and not respond back to them. As we will take the appropriate action. When there is a problem, I have to do my mod work instead of being able to help others with their fish related problems. And, if anyone replies back with just as much wrong in their post, well, it makes my job work twice as much to edit or delete more posts, ect. I much more prefer to discuss fish related topics with others, than to have to work on deleting and editing threads and posts.

So please, show some respect to others, and let us do our jobs instead of you taking problems into your own hands. And, if you can't answer with a civil and non-demining post, then don't answer at all.

Thank you.


Last edited by ACIDRAIN at 08-Feb-2005 20:21

_____________________________________________________________

There is always a bigger fish...

OK after a thread reaches 2 pages you can not edit it...site glitch..Adam?

In after thoughts..

*kills the argument*

Any one of you may try to argue with me, but in the end you know I am really right.

So please now keep to his original post and stop all the confrontation.

In the end your fish will tell you I am right..

Remember a steady PH "is" more important than the proper PH.

Discus included obviosly...Thanks Bob!

Interesting thread... I personally go with the tailored approached based on each individual tank. All my tanks have individual water changing regiments with different amounts being changed out. I do lean to the more frequent, large water changes side, though.

I do not agree with one statement in particular though (just a disagreement, not an attack ).

The only reason you do water changes is to decrease the amounts of nitrites and nitrates and to restore trace elements."

First of all (and what I think someone already caught), a maintained, cycled tank should have no nitrites present. The only time I have seen nitrites in an established tank (with the exception of during a mini cycle) has been in tanks that have been poorly maintained. In a nutshell, there is so much waste build up that it causes the bacteria responsible for nitrite breakdown to be less efficient. I could get into the 'why' but it requires quite a bit of microbial ecology, lets just say it has a lot to do with concentration gradients between the energy source and the waste.

Secondly, nitrate is not the only thing you are trying to reduce with water changes. There are a number of things that can't be measured (unless you have a lab with fancy, expensive equipment in your basement) building up in an aquarium that can be detrimental to fish and plant health. Among these are fish hormones, organic acids, and in planted tanks, allelochemicals (just to name a few).

OK...enough people. Too much freaking drama!

First off, when I made my short post I was actually thinking that Bob was referring to his discus. As daily water changes for them will help to keep them happy. Can they be kept happy with weekly water changes with water that has been filtered to reduce PH and then had electro lights added? Sure.

Will daily water changed stress fish out..Yup if done wrong.

The fact that you change the water every day doesn't mean you have to go shoving a tube around the tank and stressing the crap out of your fish.

It can be done with very little stress, as long as the water chemistries you are using is still very close to what is in the tank.

Bottom line. (I really only skimmed this thread) but it seems that all parties are right. But none other than the author, who I might add spent a lot of time on typing his first post, and may have left a few details out or specifics to please the majority. Made it to clear up some myths. Have actually done more than argue, rather than actually think about Bob's first post. It was a post about changing water, not stressing your fish out. This can be done, and Bob does it every day.

You have all actually taken this way too seriously, and I for one am glad there is a member here who has tested this.

If "Discus" can withstand daily water changes done in the proper maner..Then ANY fish can, and Molly I know you are a fan of them with your bettas.

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO SCARE YOUR FISH TO DO WATER CHANGES.
You are after all only trying to change the water...

And Military Snake, Not an attack! But yo man please learn how to use the edit button. If you remember something else you wanted to say after you posted then please go to your last post and hit the edit button. You will find it under your post.

Nowherman,

Assuming that you are using tap water for your water changes, you may be a great illustration for more frequent water changes.

You currently do a weekly water change of 20% during those 7 days, your pH declines from 7.5 to 6.8 or about 0.1 per day. Shifting to a twice per week water change would reduce the pH "gap" between your source water and your tap water from 0.7 to 0.3! Less stress!

Also assume that you add 1 piece of something (POS)to your water each day. Doing weekly water changes, you will have a saturation value of 35 POS in your water before your water change with 28 pos in your water after the water change. Essentially you will have a stable environment of 28 to 35 POS in your tank. Now, a 10% water change every three days reducing your POS to a range of 27 to 30! Doing 20% water changes every 3 days reduce the POS factor to 12 - 15.

The numbers above relate directly to Mousling's comments. A more frequent water change regimen is less stressful to fish tbecause their environment is cleaner and the delta or change between their source water and aquarium water is significantly reduced.

__________
"To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research."
researched from Steven Wright

Sin in style: that second one is the idea behind automatic water changes, which few people would argue are a bad thing. In fact, I don't know anyone who wouldn't love to have one!


What about in tanks with a significantly different water chemistry in the tank than that which comes from the tap?

Well, yup, those'll cause problems. But then, heavily planted tanks are cases unto themselves in almost any situation.
With other adjustments, it's arguably just an argument for either keeping fish that adore your natural water (I've moved in that direction personally), or keeping fish that adjust quite well to your natural water.

And with CO2, there's, potentially, using other forms of carob ie Excel et al, although that's not really an argument, just a minor point.

I'd say your change is correct: smaller water changes, and let the uptick in plant health from the CO2 pick up the tab.

And as for the benefits of WCs themselves... well, I'll go home and ask my betta if she likes her water better now, or when she lived in a plastic bag filled with equal parts stale water and her own waste then I'll get back to ya'll

Exactly!

-Molly
Visit shelldwellers.com!

I realize I'm jumping in with the experts, but here goes a question anyway:

What about in tanks with a significantly different water chemistry in the tank than that which comes from the tap? After adding a pressurized CO2 set-up I altered my water changing regimen slightly. The ph of the water that comes from my tap is roughly 7.4-7.5, but to get good growth out of my plants I have the CO2 pumping so that it drops to around 6.7-6.8. Before the CO2 I was a fan of doing fairly large water changes, 40% or maybe even over per week. After upping the CO2 levels I stopped doing large water changes like that, dropping off to 20% per week, reasoning that the larger pH difference means more stress on the fish when chemically different water is introduced in large quantities, and then more stress when it drops again with the CO2 cranking. Am I correct in changing my regimen, or is that just unnecessary nit-picking on my part? I mean, I know a pH shift up is less stressful than a pH shift down, but it would really be going both ways in this case.

And as for the benefits of WCs themselves... well, I'll go home and ask my betta if she likes her water better now, or when she lived in a plastic bag filled with equal parts stale water and her own waste then I'll get back to ya'll

---

Back in the saddle!

"Water changes do decrease nitrite, nitrate and other toxins. However in an established tank your bacteria keep the ammonia at zero. In tap water the average ammonia content is not zero it is actually .01 to .10 ppm at the tap therefor if you do a 50% water change you have actually increased the amount of ammonia toxins in your tank."

Are you trying to imply that all tap water across the board contains ammonia? Because that's absolutely untrue. Certainly there are a small number of areas that have
ammonia in their tapwater, and in certain cases of excessive chloramine use there may be some, but I've never lived in an area with ammonia in the tap water and I honestly have never talked to a fishkeeper who did. To say that across the board, water changes *add* ammonia is just silly.

"Tap water is 'clean' to humans not fish. Tap water contains many toxins to fish. 'Clean' water to fish is water that has been filtered mechanically, chemically, and biologically. Clean water for fish includes bacteria and activated carbon."

This is a bit OT, but many people don't use activated carbon in their filters; it's not necessary. Moreover, after a fairly short period of use it ceases to be at all useful.
What makes you think tap water hasn't been filtered in every way known to fishkeepers and plenty of other ways besides? It sounds so far like you have terrible tap water problems. I can't speak for everyone, but my water facility uses carbon, nitrifying bacteria, all grades and types of mechanical filtration, and chemicals I couldn't even imagine to keep my water clean. If you think your fish are being endangered by your tap water I suggest you take that up with the local water company; it's not a typical problem by any means.

"The only reason you do water changes is to decrease the amounts of nitrites and nirates and to restore trace elements."

First off, water changes won't reduce nitrite in cycled tanks; they don't need to, nitrites will be zero in any cycled tank.
Secondly, that's not the only reason by any means. There are a number of lovely charts on the web showing how smaller, less-frequent water changes mean the fish are living in old, dirty water for much, much longer than you'd imagine; after all, you may be changing 20% of the original water the first time, but the seond time that 20% is composed of 20% water change water, so you're taking out a smaller portion, and so on and so forth. 50% changes, on the other hand, remove essentially all of the old water within a quite short period of time and keep replacing it again and again.
Reducing isn't something, ideally, that you do once a month and then let build up; that causes pH drops, buildup of nasties, and so on - then that's capped off by a sudden, potentially massive, osmotic shift when the water is finally changed. Much more stressful! The stress to the cells and the kidneys can be very significant, dropping from the much higher TDS of old water to the lower TDS of the new. Think of it with a betta in a gallon container: if you change his water once a week, completely, he's unlikely to be living at any point in a deadly concentration of ammonia. But, he's likely to be living in ammonia six days out of seven, even if it's not enough to kill him. Then, you fling him into ammonia-free water and let it all start again. If you performed daily water changes, the ammonia would never build up and endanger him, and the stress of the change would be much less. Now, a cycled tank will of course have no ammonia, but nonetheless the ideal situation focuses on keeping anything potentially harmful from building up, so the fish don't have to live in it, and so there isn't the massive stress of an osmotic change.

"You want to do this slowly ie. small changes at a time. Just like you adjust the ph level slowly. The idea is to maintain quality water (for the fish not for humans) and reduce the amount of stress placed on fish. Stress is the number one cause of disease and fish fatalities."

Well, that's what Bob and I are arguing as well: minimise stress. The more frequent the changes, the less likely it is that the fish will ever have to suddenly undergo a massive change of osmoregulatory function, and the less likely they'll be sitting in waste products, deadly or not, and the less likely any given change will be a sudden shock and stress factor.

After all, which is the greater stress: going to the gym every other day and working out for an hour, slowly increasing weights? Or going to the gym once a month for a three-hour workout and trying to get all of your exercise and body-building in at once?

-Molly
Visit shelldwellers.com!

im kinda confused how this is an argument at all so i thought i would come and drop in my theorys.

on one side you are saying large water changes less frequent is better then frequent small water changes. this is due to the frequent stress from dail water changes or every other day.

on the other side you say the more the better. its not harmfull and might actually make the fish happier.

well i think the best way to really show how silly EITHER of these are im gona take them to the extremes. im gona blow them far and beyond perportion to make a point.

theory one: 100g tank with 2 full grown oscars in it and a common pleco. let the water sit for 2 months then do a 100% water change. this will limit the stress of water changes and give them nice clean water.

theory two: same tank same fish as above. sit there with a dixie cup and constently take water out and put water in one cup at a time. perfect water in every sense, temp-ph-ect.

MY THEORY: meet somewhere half way where is conveinent for you and sufficent for the fish. if you can give the time for daily water changes go for it. if you got the time for weekly or every other week go ahead. plan the tank stock accordingly, what i mean is dont put 2 oscars and a pleco in the tank...put 1 oscar in it if you can only do every other week.

my point is simple and i think most forget it. you care for a fish and cater to its needs along with your own. stock accordingly to what YOU can do as a owner and what the fish needs as a pet. if you got a guppy in a 100g tank you obviously dont need to give it daily water changes even if you have the time.

militarysnake asked:

How much do you change out each week DoctorJ?

I have a 75 gallon aquarium, so I end up changing between 20 and 25 gallons each week. It's worked out well for me. No ich outbreaks and no signs of stress from the fish. Even the actual act of gravel vacuuming seems routine to the fish: the rummynoses swim around to the point that I have to be careful not to suck them up. I'm very careful to match up the temperature, though.

Other people may have had different experiences, but my fish seem to be thriving with 1/3 water changes, even though most of them would prefer water with a lower pH. A couple of times I've done it more frequently, with no ill effects. In my case, I don't think daily changes are necessary, but I don't think they'd be harmful.

Interesting debate, though!

As a discus keeper, I have burdened myself with the task of large (40%) daily water changes. To simplify my life, I use tap water for the water changes that is tempered to match the temperature of my 125G planted discus tank. The result has been excellent. The fish are healthy with no mortalities in the past two years. The water is not "ideal" for a SA softwater fish but it is clean and consistent.

The following is an excerpt from an article at www.otocinclus.com:

Myths

No matter where we go in the world we run into myths. Some of them are grounded in a little truth, but taken way too far and canonized into some ultimate truth in the hobby. Others are propagated through ignorance and bad advice. Well don't worry; we'll dispel them all right now!

Myth #1: The value of "lived in" water.

Earlier in the 20th century the majority of fish keepers believed there to be something special in "lived in" water. You know, water that fish have been swimming in for a long time. They believed there was some sort of quality that made it undesirable to change it with fresh water from the tap. I'm not sure how this got started, perhaps it was back when people didn't have dechlorinator chemicals, so they needed to put their tapwater in buckets and aerate overnight in order to drive away the chlorine. Or maybe someone stuck their $50 discus in a goldfish bowl full of cold tapwater and didn't like the results.

This couldn't be farther from the truth. Fish enjoy and thrive in clean fresh (dechlorinated) water from the tap. In nature the water is continuously being replaced, so most fish aren't used to high levels of wastes in their water. So then why would they want to live in dirty water? The cleaner the water, the better.

Myth #2: Large water changes are bad and stress your fish.

There is a little truth to this statement. If you leave your tank alone and don't do any water changes for weeks and weeks, the water chemistry changes over time. Fish wastes builds up and the pH of your water becomes more acidic. Making a large water change all of a sudden changes the chemistry rapidly and that can be stressful to fish. Another problem is if you make a large water change with water which is at a different temperature, as any rapid change in temperature could put the fish in shock.

So here's the whole truth: Large water changes are fine for fish if the chemistry of the fresh water is close to the chemistry of the replaced water. How do you guarantee that the fresh water you're adding is close to the old water? By maintaining a good weekly or daily water-changing regimen, there should be no worries about changing a larger amount than usual.

Myth #3: Doing a large water change once in a while is better than frequent smaller changes

This runs counter to Myth #3 but it is still prevalent in the hobby. I think this comes from people just being lazy. Instead of doing smaller chores once a week, why not do a big chore once a month?

Please see the answers above for Myth #3 on why this is a bad idea. Large water changes are good, but only as part of a regular schedule. That's like saying it's better to let a bathroom go uncleaned for a year then scrub it all down with bleach detergent. That's fun for about a week after it’s done, then after that ... eww.

Myth #4: The water should only be changed when it's cloudy.

This is just ignorance, and maybe that's bliss for some people because they only have to change the water when it turns green, brown, or even yellow. Anyone who keeps fish needs to see the "unseen" in water through test kits and common sense. Looks can be deceiving. Besides, it must be obvious at some point (fish deaths) that something is wrong with this lack of maintenance.

There are fish wastes which buildup that the filter can't completely take care of. These need to be removed manually through water changes. Except through some fancy expensive filtration methods that are beyond the usual hobbyist, these wastes cannot be removed any other way. And they are not visible at all except through the use of test kits. A glass of ammonia and a glass of water look the same... which would you like to drink?


http://www.otocinclus.com/articles/wchange.html

Last edited by Bob Wesolowski at 08-Feb-2005 07:41

__________
"To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research."
researched from Steven Wright

Snake,

I do agree with you. Most fish do not require massive daily water changes. What is required is a regimen of water changes that provide fish with the highest quality environment at the least possible cost. In most cases, that means a water change wth tap water.

Frequent, large water changes minimizes the stress of water changes on fish. I know that this statement seems contradictory but by limiting the variable change within the water in the aquarium and the replacement water, stress is relieved. By eliminating waste products in the aquarium, stress is relieved.

The F & S article, that you provided a link for, is excellent. I think that water changes directly alleviate six of the fifteen causes of stress highlighted in the article. Missed or delayed water changes can severely impact pH fluctuations.

The point of the post was not a dig at you or any other poster. I regret that you feel that it was slanted toward you.

__________
"To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research."
researched from Steven Wright

You got it Rasco!
Can you do me a favor? I'm not a premium member and cannot start a poll. However I'd like to see one done on this subject. I'd also like to hear what the Moderators think. Maybe post a link to the poll in this thread or something. Just a thought!


A. Large water changes aren't usually needed and cause excess stress on most fish

B. Large water changes are needed and don't cause any stress on fish


I'm not trying to win an arguement. It is my believe that large water changes cause undue stress on most fish and therefore should not be recommended (by BOB) openly on this site

Last edited by militarysnake at 08-Feb-2005 11:43

Dechlor's cheap if you buy the right stuff, or make it yourself (yup, really - there are a few articles on DIY dechlor around, although these days it's so cheap if you choose well that it's rarely worth it).

Another note... everyone is talking about how they get continuous water changes. What about the fish downstream? They are getting all the waste water from the upstream fish. What about slow moving waterways? What about ponds and lakes not connected to rivers and streams? They don't get continuous water changes.

The fish downstream are also getting continuous water changes, because the water continues past them. And as for lakes/the ocean/etc, they're so significantly understocked that there's little waste, and for what there is there are "fixes" we have trouble replicating in the aquarium: anaerobic bacteria that reduce/eradicate nitrates, for instance. Not to mention aquatic and bog plants that pull out trace elements, pollutants (Cattails are particularly adept at that), and excess nitrogen and phosphorus.

The cyanobacteria's a good point but it pops up all the time in tanks with few water changes, too (there are other causes than low/zero nitrates) so I'm not sure I'd use it as a reason against.

-Molly
Visit shelldwellers.com!