Water Quality Question

ricbea

Fish Fanatic
Joined
Aug 28, 2015
Messages
78
Reaction score
16
Location
CZ
Hi All,
 
Just a quick question, which i will state my actions before i post the actual question. Answer: I still carry out regular 30-50% changes on a weekly basis.
 
Now the question: Should we carry out weekly water changes even if the quality shows as very high?
 
I know this may be contentious but i would like to open a discussion about it and find out opinions from both sides.
 
Richard.
 
I guess that it matters on a lot of things: The amount of inhabitants, the species of inhabitants, Whether you feed too much or not, How strong you filter is compared to the tank, Whether you have live plants or not, water temperature, quality of the water you add to the tank and I could probably continue a long time with this.
 
I have to confess that I do sometimes skip a week due to lack of time, gouramis with a nest or just forget to do it. In my experience this doesn't give an immediate problem.
Furthermore do I change mostly only 10-20% of my water weekly and my fish look still healthy. I don't have a very high amount of fish losses and most fish live as long as could be expected from aquarium fish. I've had no disease in my tank for years so I guess it is not a very big problem.
However, once in a while I do a large water change of 50% or more.
 
However, in case of a tank with fry it is different. They need very clean water. Otherwise will their growth be affected and most of them won't survive. Even when the quality of water is fine in the way we measure it, it doesn't mean that it is clean. There are a lot of other particles in the water that affect the health of fish that we can't measure. For instance the amount of organic molecules coming from fish and food waste. When you do remove these from the tank, some of these can build up over time and become a serious threat.
 
I used to do a water change every week religiously. Then I discovered I have high doses of phosphate in my tap water, which in turn meant a phosphate level in my tank that was off the scale and making my fish sick. I had two choices - run a phosphate remover or switch to RO water. The latter wasn't an option as I live in a first floor flat and so I had to choose the former. Since finding that out I switched to once fortnightly water changes. It does mean my Nitrates tend to get higher than I'd like though. 
In terms of how much water changed - it's around 60-70 litres on a 240 litre tank. I run two large external filters and I'm heavily planted. I've not noticed any problems from swtiching from weekly to fortnightly. My fish are healthy and spawning regularly.  
 
ricbea said:
Hi All,
 
Just a quick question, which i will state my actions before i post the actual question. Answer: I still carry out regular 30-50% changes on a weekly basis.
 
Now the question: Should we carry out weekly water changes even if the quality shows as very high?
 
I know this may be contentious but i would like to open a discussion about it and find out opinions from both sides.
 
Richard.
 
 
That's a fair question, Richard.  And it deserves a fair answer.
 
Here is my way of looking at it:  When you say that the water quality shows as 'very high', what exactly does that mean?  Does that mean low nitrates, does it mean no ammonia, does it mean low TDS, does it mean high TDS?  What is 'high quality' water?
 
 
For me the answer is simple:  Yes.  Here's why, the water needs to be changed BEFORE the quality starts to drop significantly.  We don't want to change the water only when there is a problem, but to keep the water as close as possible to our tap water conditions, so that IF a big problem comes along, we can do massive water changes without a concern about the water chemistry being dramatically different, which would only compound the problem we would need to deal with.
 
 
If we do not do water changes, because let's say the water  maintains low nitrates (very possible in a well planted tank), does that mean that ALL the other elements of the water are also ok, or are we just blissfully ignorant of those potential issues?    The water will be evaporating away, certainly, which means that we will need to 'top off' the tank at the very least.  And in so doing we'd be adding some minerals to the tank, and these minerals would never be leaving the tank - only water evaporates away and the minerals would always be left behind.  So, slowly our TDS will just continue to rise and rise and rise.  That is a potential problem for many of our fish.  Conversely, doing water changes lowers the TDS by removing the minerals with the water before refilling with tap water.  This keeps the levels more stable.  Doing an occasional large water change (bigger than 50%) will also help to keep the levels closer to the tap levels.  
 
JD (eaglesaquarium) has hit the nail right on the head.  The more water that is changed, and the more often, the better.  The discus expert Jack Wattley has frequently written in his monthly column in TFH about discus fry growing faster and being healthier with massive water changes.  He mentions some breeders who change 90% of the water several times every day.  Most will agree that we don't need to go this far, but it shows there are definite benefits to water changes.
 
The object behind regular and substantial water changes is to maintain a more stable water chemistry and biological system.  There is detrimental stuff in the water than cannot be removed, or be removed effectively, by any filtration and even live plants.  I cannot remember where I read this, but a couple of years back while researching something I came across the comment that a 55 gallon planted aquarium could sustain a maximum of six or seven tetras (I believe black neons were the species) without any water changes, because the plants could handle things.  As soon as you add to the fish load--and most will agree no one wants only seven 1-inch fish in a 4-foot tank--you are exceeding the natural biological system's capacity.  If this sounds extreme, think of the natural habitat of our fish.  Each fish does not remain in the exact same water for more than a second throughout its entire life.  The ratio of fish to water volume cannot be duplicated in the home aquarium.  Water changes allow us to improve things, but never equal the habitat.
 
Fish release chemicals called pheromones (read by other fish in the species) and allomones (read by other species).  Any and all substances added to the tank water add TDS (total dissolved solids).  Solid organic waste is broken down but the compounds basically remain in liquid form.  Filtration cannot remove any of these, completely if at all.  Freshwater fish urinate copiously; a small tetra expels more than a third of its body weight in urine every day, sometimes more depending upon the water chemistry.  Now, this urine is not like that of terrestrial animals; but it is "dead water" so to speak, and the fresh water in the aquarium is continually entering the fish via osmosis through every cell, and it passes through the kidneys where salts are removed, and the waste water expelled.  You can see how quickly this is going to affect the water quality.  And none of our basic test kits measure any of these things.
 
Waiting for nitrates to rise, or the pH to drop, is too late, and these will already have affected the fish somehow.  Better late than never, I suppose...but isn't it better to maintain a healthier environment and prevent rather than react to issues?  The effect on fish of these things is immense, far greater than what terrestrial animals experience.  This is because of the fish's extremely close connection to the water in which they live, far beyond that of air to land animals.
 
"Regular" for most of us is best thought of as every week.  But the volume has to be significant to achieve the best benefits.  I do 50 or closer to 60% of my tanks every week.  An article in TFH a couple of years back did the math and recommended 70% every week to maintain an even keel.  As someone mentioned already, fish load, feeding (both the amount and the types of food matter), live plants, and the water parameters all factor into the equation, and the more any of these factors are out of balance, the more water needs changing to help compensate.
 
Byron.
 
Thank you for the responses.
 
I was simply trying to provoke some discussion which results in a deeper understanding for people which have fish tanks. Recently I visited a friends house who has a few fish tanks and he claims he rarely needs to carry out water changes. This got me to thinking about the quality of my water and the regime that I go through on a Fri, Sat and Sun (my regular water change days) and whether it is truly necessary or not. To put a comparison on it, I know that i can go a week without showering but truth is wont feel my best or look my best by the end of it (by the way I cant go a day without showering just so you know) so why would i do that to the fish that I have in my care?
 
Anyone else who has some thought  to add this please feel free to jump in, the water is fine! I promise.
 
Richard.
 
I think you've answered your own question with your showering analogy .... you wouldn't go without being clean and the same goes for our tanks. Too much 'stuff' builds up in the tank water and to lower that we change out some water. It's all simples to me
 
Hi Akasha, 
 
My question (based upon your first post) to you is, if the phosphates in your water were lower would you carry out water changes on a weekly basis or not and why? I know with hindsight that you are doing them every 2 weeks or perhaps if there is a problem more frequently.
 
>Bubbelzzz, If I may drag you in as well, why do you once in a while feel the need to do a large 50% water change.
 
Please everyone, understand I am not trying to be argumentative I am only curious as to peoples habits and perhaps more importantly what drives their habits.
 
Richard.
 
ricbea said:
Please everyone, understand I am not trying to be argumentative I am only curious as to peoples habits and perhaps more importantly what drives their habits.
 
Richard.
Not to worry. This is a discussion board, and everyone doesn't need to agree all the time. The goal is on being respectful when disagreeing.

As for your specific question and stated goal for this thread. It is a good idea to question convention from time to time. Just because something has always been done a certain way, does not mean that it is the best or only way to do it. And this is a discussion board, if we can't discuss any topic in the fishy realm than what are we doing here? :lol:


As for your friend's lack of water changes... Remember this little phrase: surviving isn't thriving. As fishkeepers it should always be our goal to help our fish thrive in any way that we can. It is just as important, if not more important, to change the fish's water than it is to ensure that our dogs have fresh water in their water bowls. The dog can find water sources in other places, theoretically, whereas the fish have no choice but to live within the box we have provided for them.
 
ricbea said:
>Bubbelzzz, If I may drag you in as well, why do you once in a while feel the need to do a large 50% water change.
 
Please everyone, understand I am not trying to be argumentative I am only curious as to peoples habits and perhaps more importantly what drives their habits.
 
Richard.
 
This is actually because of the reasons Byron mentioned before. My regular water changes are relatively small compared to others. In order to make this up I do once in a while a large water change to fix this. Furthermore, large water changes with slow refilling with slightly colder water can help your fish to get in a spawning mood. 
 
ricbea said:
Hi Akasha, 
 
My question (based upon your first post) to you is, if the phosphates in your water were lower would you carry out water changes on a weekly basis or not and why? I know with hindsight that you are doing them every 2 weeks or perhaps if there is a problem more frequently.
 
>Bubbelzzz, If I may drag you in as well, why do you once in a while feel the need to do a large 50% water change.
 
Please everyone, understand I am not trying to be argumentative I am only curious as to peoples habits and perhaps more importantly what drives their habits.
 
Richard.
 
Yes, if I didn't have the phosphate problem I would change weekly. by changing fortnightly I make the phosphate remover last a little longer as it is expensive
 
Akasha72 said:
 
Hi Akasha, 
 
My question (based upon your first post) to you is, if the phosphates in your water were lower would you carry out water changes on a weekly basis or not and why? I know with hindsight that you are doing them every 2 weeks or perhaps if there is a problem more frequently.
 
>Bubbelzzz, If I may drag you in as well, why do you once in a while feel the need to do a large 50% water change.
 
Please everyone, understand I am not trying to be argumentative I am only curious as to peoples habits and perhaps more importantly what drives their habits.
 
Richard.
 
Yes, if I didn't have the phosphate problem I would change weekly. by changing fortnightly I make the phosphate remover last a little longer as it is expensive
 
Instead of using the expensive remover, wouldn't it be cheaper to put Fe fertilization in the tap water? This binds with the phosphate and this will result in FePO4 which doesn't dissolve in water.
 
sounds complicated Bubbelzzz. The remover costs £15 and lasts about 3 months when I water change once a fortnight. It's due for changing again soon 
 
Akasha72, on 01 Dec 2015 - 01:20 AM, said:
Akasha72 said:
 
ricbea, on 30 Nov 2015 - 12:56 PM, said:


Hi Akasha, 
 
My question (based upon your first post) to you is, if the phosphates in your water were lower would you carry out water changes on a weekly basis or not and why? I know with hindsight that you are doing them every 2 weeks or perhaps if there is a problem more frequently.
 
>Bubbelzzz, If I may drag you in as well, why do you once in a while feel the need to do a large 50% water change.
 
Please everyone, understand I am not trying to be argumentative I am only curious as to peoples habits and perhaps more importantly what drives their habits.
 
Richard.
 
Yes, if I didn't have the phosphate problem I would change weekly. by changing fortnightly I make the phosphate remover last a little longer as it is expensive
 
Instead of using the expensive remover, wouldn't it be cheaper to put Fe fertilization in the tap water? This binds with the phosphate and this will result in FePO4 which doesn't dissolve in water.
 

 
 
The phosphate remover she is using is Fe.  It is going to cost the same if it is added to the tank or added to the tap water.
 
 I had two choices - run a phosphate remover or switch to RO water. The latter wasn't an option as I live in a first floor flat and so I had to choose the former.
 
I don't understand why living in a flat would make RO impractical.  Most RO systems fit under the sink.  The tank is usually 5 gallon but lager tanks are available   A 60 to 70 liter tank may be a little difficult to fit under the sink but it could easily be placed in an adjacent kitchen cabinet.  I did that when I installed my RO system.  The tank went in an adjacent cabinet and the rest of the RO system went in under the kitchen sink.   Even if you are renting you can still do it provided it is OK with the property owner.
 
my flat is very small and there isn't room anywhere for a RO unit and because I have joint hypermobility and fibromyalgia I'm unable to manage getting large tubs from my lfs to my car and from my car into my flat all by myself. There's no-one here to help me .... unless you count the dog and she's no stronger than me!
 

Most reactions

trending

Staff online

Back
Top