Help!

[Lilyann]

I am not trying to be argumentative here, but there is some misunderstanding. It is certainly true that live plants, stocking density, etc will impact or have consequences or be variable factors on the biological system, but none of these can replace water changes.

Fish in their natural habitat are in "fresh" water with every respiration of their gills. This is not even remotely possible in an aquarium unless you have flow-through water which I doubt anyone on this forum has.

Live plants benefit, no doubt of that. But I recall one assessment that if you had six black neon tetras in a 55 gallon well planted aquarium, you would have the ratio of plants/fish that would negate water changes. Plants cannot compensate for lack of water changes.

UV is actually not beneficial in a freshwater system. For one thing, unless every drop of water in the aquarium passes through the UV before it returns to the aquarium--i.e., you would need the UV between two tanks with water passing from one through the UV to another--it is not going to do much. And this still does not replenish the water as "fresh" but merely makes it less beneficial in a sense.

There are substances accumulating in the water from fish that cannot be removed except by a water change. Fish release pheromones that others in the species read, and allomones that are read by other species. These accumulate quite densely in an aquarium, and they cause stress to fish when they are negative. The only way to remove them is with substantial frequent partial water changes.

The other point to keep in mind is that the more water you change the healthier the fish will be, always. Jack Wattley in his monthly discus column in TFH frequently mentioned water changes, and noted that some discus breeders change 95% of the water in the fry tanks two and even three times every day. This allows them to have more fry per tank, and the fry develop faster and are healthier. The point of my mentioning this is not to suggest overstocking tanks, but to illustrate the incredible benefit of water changes. Imagine providing these benefits to all one's fish? Less stressed fish means healthier fish, since stress is the direct cause of 95% of fish disease in an aquarium.

Fish do not become sick from clean water, only when it is not changed. And a 70% change once a week is far more beneficial than 10% changed every day, even though in the end the same "volume" has been changed over seven days. Regular substantial water changes are the most important and frankly crucial maintenance an aquarist can do for his fish.

Yes, thanks for your assessments and anecdotes. I have heard all of these assessments and anecdotes before. Your speaking to a life-long fish-keeper here- a discus keeper to be more exact. But, they are worth repeating for the new folk so the "rules live on into perpetuity" .
Some of what you offer is just simply that- anecdotes. Rules that fish-keepers "live by" rather than scrutinize.
Water changes are indeed, important; but at the level ( volume you are suggesting across the board in all cases)? I have not seen any pertinent scientific studies done that establish that demonstrate in all cases and circumstances a 75% water change is best. This is more of a way for experienced fish-keepers to generalize "rules" to new fish-keepers. To an experienced fish-keeper- it sounds like nonsense.

Did I say Ive been raising discus for 18 years and none of what you suggested regarding water changes, hormones, etc is a surprise?
My UV filters are powerful and effective ---and my fish in the most densely populated tanks get the large, frequent water changes that you are suggesting all tanks need. So whats the worry? No stress needed here.

The worry seems to be the rainbow fish with their 30% water change. Lets take it down a notch; really, they are healthy juvenile fish that are getting adequately cared for by an experienced aquarist. If I start to see any detrimental after-effects from the volume of water changes Ill be certain to do an extra 20 gallons to reach the required forum quota.

 

[Metalhead88]

Im a cichlid guy and I always do 75% or more waterchanges.

With that being said, I don't think that every tank absolutely needs that big of a water change. I would say however that more is never worse here. And I do feel that you should just go for the whole 75 while your at it anyway.

If I was to tell a newbie how to do a water change, I'd tell them 75 for sure.


With 30 plus years experience, you have had a lot of time to figure out what works for you. Some things may work for some but not others.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

 

[Byron]

There is scientific data on larger water changes. I will just leave it at that; Colin has posted it more than once, likely will again. A two-part article in TFH a couple years ago went into the science and mathematics and proved it.

Lots of scientific discovery has sounded "like nonsense" throughout history, but it was true none the less. I too have been in this hobby longer than three decades, but most of my knowledge has been learned within the last decade.

There is an excellent explanation of how all of this, substantial water changes included, does reduce stress, the number one reason fish get sick, in the opening chapter of the book The Manual of Fish Health authored by some of the leading biologists in the hobby. Given the evidence that the more water changed (in volume, and regularity) does result in healthier fish, I fail to see why any of us would suggest anything less. I am keen to see new aquarists succeed, with healthy and happy fish.

 

[Mcfly1981]

Do you know the hardness of your water. You have some fish that need very hard water and others that need very soft. I'm afraid it will not be possible for these to thrive in the same water. We need to know the actual number as well as the unit.

Your fish also have very different requirements for current. Again you have species that require both extremes. I have not checked on temp requirements but you should check the species profile on seriouslyfish.com to establish what will work together in your tank.
If you post your hardness figures others can advise as a starting point

I will check the water levels on my next water change which will be Sunday now I guess as a maximum but I will try for Thursday. In relation to the ‘numbers as well as the unit’ i Don’t quite understand what you refer to....

 

[Colin_T]

Did I say Ive been raising discus for 18 years and none of what you suggested regarding water changes, hormones, etc is a surprise?

​

Whilst you might have kept discus for 18 years, I have kept rainbowfish since 1987 and have some experience with them. Regardless of the fact you got fish from Gary Lange, a dirty environment caused by lack of big water changes and gravel cleaning, does significantly increase the risk of rainbowfishes developing health issues, including but not limited to external protozoan infections like Costia, Chilodnella and Trichodina.

You have 6 small Melanotaenia praecox in a 30 gallon tank, they will grow a little bit and lack of water changes can be a detriment to rainbowfishes.

In my experience, rainbowfishes do much better when given big regular water changes. However, the choice is yours, I make recommendations and it is up to the individual to use that information however they choose.

 

[Lilyann]

There is scientific data on larger water changes. I will just leave it at that; Colin has posted it more than once, likely will again. A two-part article in TFH a couple years ago went into the science and mathematics and proved it.

Lots of scientific discovery has sounded "like nonsense" throughout history, but it was true none the less. I too have been in this hobby longer than three decades, but most of my knowledge has been learned within the last decade.

There is an excellent explanation of how all of this, substantial water changes included, does reduce stress, the number one reason fish get sick, in the opening chapter of the book The Manual of Fish Health authored by some of the leading biologists in the hobby. Given the evidence that the more water changed (in volume, and regularity) does result in healthier fish, I fail to see why any of us would suggest anything less. I am keen to see new aquarists succeed, with healthy and happy fish.

I have the Manual of Fish Health on my shelf. Good book.
My experience is also my guide for making decisions on what I do for my fish and aquariums.
This seems to be discounted by you.
There doesn't appear to be any consideration by you of my years in the hobby, the sensitive species I keep, and my long-term success with these fish.
It appears that, because I dont change as much water as you have determined as necessary in all cases, my experience and success is worth very little.
There is a bit of snobbery in this- dont you think?

 

[Mcfly1981]

Wow did not intend on causing such a stir or slightly heated debate........
Shall we all just agree to disagree and leave it at that.....?

 

[Byron]

I will check the water levels on my next water change which will be Sunday now I guess as a maximum but I will try for Thursday. In relation to the ‘numbers as well as the unit’ i Don’t quite understand what you refer to....

Water parameters and water conditions are two very different things, as I will explain. Parameters refers to the chemistry of the water, namely GH (general or total hardness, which here is the level of dissolved calcium and magnesium), KH (carbonate hardness or Alkalinity, we can leave that for the present), pH and temperature. The latter you can obviously adjust, but the GH, KH and pH will tend to be those of the source (tap) water. Selecting fish suited to these parameters is much easier all round. You might be able to ascertain the GH, KH and pH of your tap water by checking the website of the municipal water authority, or calling them. We need the number and (for GH and KH) their unit of measurement as there are several world-wide. For example, some measure GH in mg/l (milligrams per liter), some use degrees German, some degrees Clarke, and so forth. Once we know the unit and the number, it is easy to convert; the hobby uses dGH (degrees German or degrees Hardness) and ppm |(parts per million, which is the same as mg/l).

Water conditions are the ammonia, nitrite and nitrate levels, and any other substances that might be present.

 

[Lilyann]

Whilst you might have kept discus for 18 years, I have kept rainbowfish since 1987 and have some experience with them. Regardless of the fact you got fish from Gary Lange, a dirty environment caused by lack of big water changes and gravel cleaning, does significantly increase the risk of rainbowfishes developing health issues, including but not limited to external protozoan infections like Costia, Chilodnella and Trichodina.

You have 6 small Melanotaenia praecox in a 30 gallon tank, they will grow a little bit and lack of water changes can be a detriment to rainbowfishes.

In my experience, rainbowfishes do much better when given big regular water changes. However, the choice is yours, I make recommendations and it is up to the individual to use that information however they choose.

Oh, brother. More "my way or the highway. "
Seriously, we need to be a little more open to others experiences and not so pushy about the validity of our methods over others.
This is a forum on fish-keeping- its supposed to fun as well. Stop taking your role to educate the fish-keeping masses so seriously.
I have alot of experience too- but, I learn from others on a daily basis. Newcomers to the hobby included.

 

[Byron]

I have the Manual of Fish Health on my shelf. Good book.
My experience is also my guide for making decisions on what I do for my fish and aquariums.
This seems to be discounted by you.
There doesn't appear to be any consideration by you of my years in the hobby, the sensitive species I keep, and my long-term success with these fish.
It appears that, because I dont change as much water as you have determined as necessary in all cases, my experience and success is worth very little.
There is a bit of snobbery in this- dont you think?

No I do not, because none of this is my personal opinion. I am citing scientific evidence, which I tend to accept because the majority of those with the necessary level of knowledge and understanding know more than I do. My own experience is frankly irrelevant if it counters science, since in such cases my experience is what would be at fault.

 

[Byron]

Wow did not intend on causing such a stir or slightly heated debate........
Shall we all just agree to disagree and leave it at that.....?

Unfortunately that is not how it works. We cannot "agree to disagree and leave it at that" because that leaves many members in the dark or misled. This is a scientific hobby, because we are dealing with living creatures in an aquatic environment that is subject totally to nature. Understanding this is the key to success. Everything we do to the aquarium can impact the laws of nature that govern it, creating problems or not, depending. The personal opinions of any one of us are irrelevant when the science is contrary. If I did not understand at least the basics of the science behind what is going on in each of my fish tanks, my fish would not be as healthy as they are when I make the effort to understand and provide accordingly.

 

[Lilyann]

No I do not, because none of this is my personal opinion. I am citing scientific evidence, which I tend to accept because the majority of those with the necessary level of knowledge and understanding know more than I do. My own experience is frankly irrelevant if it counters science, since in such cases my experience is what would be at fault.

Yes, I like science myself.
Could you link the scientific journals (titles only are fine- I have access to databases at my affiliated University) you are referring to in your claims about 75% water changes being the required threshold for all aquariums, the ineffectiveness of UV in combating bacteria in the freshwater aquarium, and the ineffectiveness of plants as a supplemental method of dealing with organics in aquarium.

Like I said, always willing to learn.

 

[Byron]

Yes, I like science myself.
Could you link the scientific journals (titles only are fine- I have access to databases at my affiliated University) you are referring to in your claims about 75% water changes being the required threshold for all aquariums, the ineffectiveness of UV in combating bacteria in the freshwater aquarium, and the ineffectiveness of plants as a supplemental method of dealing with organics in aquarium.

Like I said, always willing to learn.

Fair question (asking for the references), but not one easily answered because it is accepted by the hobby majority and I do not know if I could pin point all the sources. The book I referenced in another post certainly advocates significant water changes to reduce stress. I never said there was an absolute 75% threshold; I did say that an article in TFH provided mathematical and scientific evidence that a 70% WC achieved significantly more benefit than doing 10% each day, over seven days. Dr. Neale Monks, a personal online friend of mine, has advised repeatedly to do substantial water changes (I don't think he gives numbers).

Same holds for UV. I have never come across any source advocating that UV has a benefit in a freshwater aquarium.

I didn't say plants were ineffective. I said plants alone cannot make up for a lack of water changes especially at the levels all of us stock our tanks. Diana Walstad's book and articles mention fewer water changes but she is quick to point out that her fish stocking is moderate at best, and the tanks are heavily planted. A few years ago I came across an article advocating that six tetras in a planted 55g could balance, but no more; I'd never be able to find that now.

And organics is not the only issue. Water enters fish continually, via osmosis through the cells, and the fish deal with it in the kidneys, expelling it regularly. Eventually the fish are swimming in totally unfresh water. This is not natural, and it is not healthy.

The bottom line is pretty clear. The more water changed, the healthier the fish.

 

[Lilyann]

This is the problem with "scientists" that claim to be of a "higher authority" than the everyday fish-keeper.
They diminish the importance of the fish-keepers experience and tout their own reading of scientific journals as sacrosanct material. The two ideas never meet.

Fair question (asking for the references), but not one easily answered because it is accepted by the hobby majority and I do not know if I could pin point all the sources. The book I referenced in another post certainly advocates significant water changes to reduce stress. I never said there was an absolute 75% threshold; I did say that an article in TFH provided mathematical and scientific evidence that a 70% WC achieved significantly more benefit than doing 10% each day, over seven days. Dr. Neale Monks, a personal online friend of mine, has advised repeatedly to do substantial water changes (I don't think he gives numbers).

Same holds for UV. I have never come across any source advocating that UV has a benefit in a freshwater aquarium.

I didn't say plants were ineffective. I said plants alone cannot make up for a lack of water changes especially at the levels all of us stock our tanks. Diana Walstad's book and articles mention fewer water changes but she is quick to point out that her fish stocking is moderate at best, and the tanks are heavily planted. A few years ago I came across an article advocating that six tetras in a planted 55g could balance, but no more; I'd never be able to find that now.

And organics is not the only issue. Water enters fish continually, via osmosis through the cells, and the fish deal with it in the kidneys, expelling it regularly. Eventually the fish are swimming in totally unfresh water. This is not natural, and it is not healthy.

The bottom line is pretty clear. The more water changed, the healthier the fish.

Yes, I kinda thought we would get here.
The references never materialize. Ive been in this conversation before. Its a kinda "fill in the blank" conversation that circles back to this conclusion.
The reason why-- because these are anecdotes cloaked in scientific claims.
The problem is-- there are very, very few scientific studies done on the freshwater aquarium and its inhabitants. So, to make their case they reach for data from aquatic food-culture and super-impose it onto the aquarium.



Yes, I am all for water changes. Do them weekly- religiously; but, the one size fits all rule that is getting passed to others as necessary in all cases is not scientific--- It is opinion.

.

 

[Byron]

I do have a scan of the TFH article which I will post below. I tend not to waste time doing this, as I once spent a couple hours tracking down references and then the individual said, "Ha, ha, I won't believe anything you say anyway, %%%%% (unprintable term)" so I can't be bothered. It is still common scientific fact, whether anyone believes it or not. If you asked me to prove the earth is not flat I couldn't, but it is still fact. Here's the article.