# For the Non-water changers in the crowd.



## JDM (Dec 9, 2012)

I have a question, well, two.

What is the smallest tank that you think can successfully be set up to run with no water changes?

What is the smallest you have run that way, and for how long?

I may have others along the way but let's start with these.

When I first looked at an aquarium, just before Christmas, I asked the LFS guy about running such a setup as you guys do. He gave me that look that you give, unintentionally, to the extremely uninformed. So I am curious. 

Jeff.


----------



## Mikaila31 (Dec 18, 2008)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but humanity has never managed recreating any self-sustaining closed system. Thus trying to maintain a tank with no water changes is going to end poorly for you and the fish. Not even lakes or ponds are entirely closed systems and your trying to recreate something 1/2000 or smaller in scale. The smaller the tank the sooner it is going to crash, that much I can tell you. Freshwater biology is actually MUCH MUCH more complicated then we make it out to be. Really all we ever talk about is the nitrogen cycle, which lets be honest in a aquarium, its not even a complete cycle. Either we do water changes and remove it or some ppl like to insist its complete with the aide of plants, but again lets be honest if you trim back the plants and remove some of the plant matter from the tank again its not complete or self sufficient. There are many many many cycles in a self maintaining system that we completely ignore in a tank. Pretty much one for every element, tho some are more important then others. Nitrogen, phosphate, carbon, sulfate, and ect are a few of the important ones. 

The issues with not changing water are this TDS, or total dissolved solids will increase regardless. There is no way to remove TDS apart from water changes or some sort of membrane filter. You can get a TDS meter for $10 off ebay and watch said tank climb and climb and climb. Without water changes certain nutrients like phosphate and sulfates are likely to increase. Carbonates, which buffer your pH are likely to decrease given enough time. Eventually to a point where a pH crash is possible. Most cycles are impossible to complete without some anaerobic step and sufficient anaerobic filtration is pretty much impossible in a aquarium. I've done filterless tanks just fine that consumed all nitrate, but regardless they still got weekly water changes to keep it stable otherwise it would not be long before the plants hit a nutrient deficiency. Some lacking nutrients will simply slow a plant down, some others, like magnesium are vital trace elements for chlorophyll production and photosynthesis. 

Fish in such an environment will be fine initially, but after a period of time high TDS or improper water requirements will tax their systems. High enough TDS can chronically harm fish, especially soft water fish which are not built for dealing with it. The signs are slow to appear and irreversible. Lastly the longer between water changes the more the tank water will shift from the tap water which in turn means more or a sudden change for fish when you do change their water. I find it odd some ppl are confused by 50% or more weekly water changes and suggest against it. In reality the tank water in such a tank is more similar to the tap water because so much is changed so often hence when you do change it the fish don't see it as such a huge change since parameters are more similar.


----------



## Kuddos 2 U (Jan 4, 2013)

My 15g guppy tank is doing fine without them. It is overstocked but doesn't really affect them(50+ guppies). For some reason the water is balanced and so far I haven't done water changes except for refilling the tank with water because of evaporation. I've had it for over a year.


----------



## fish monger (Dec 29, 2011)

Back in the day, my crowd never did water changes. Just topped off for evaporation. It was a matter of not messing with things. Leave the plants alone or you'll mess up their growth. Leave the fish / water alone or you'll mess up a good environment. Needless to say, we didn't do any testing. Plenty of plants and fat fish equaled a healthy tank. I honestly cannot offer any comparison between those tanks and my current regularly changed tanks. To get back to your original question, the minimum size tank that I can remember being truly healthy at that time was a 15 gallon. I don't even know if they still make those. It was basically a shorter version of the current 20 gallon high.


----------



## ao (Feb 29, 2012)

The smallest I've done was a 1.5 for 1/2 year. then I moved it's inhabitants to a larger tank and tore it down for an emmersed set up. I usually dont do water changes in my tanks for a month or two... only top ups.

the last time I measured my TDS it was around 140 in my 2.5 gallon, the only inhabitant was a betta and five or 6 cherry shrimps

stocking for the 1.5 was a hoarde of least killifish that kept multiplying (and hence the inevitable tank change)


----------



## Byron (Mar 7, 2009)

Mikaila has said it, and said it very well indeed.:welldone:

If those new members who may not be familiar with our database here would like to follow up, I have two articles in the Freshwater Articles sections that are relevant.

http://www.tropicalfishkeeping.com/freshwater-articles/regular-partial-water-changes-117205/

http://www.tropicalfishkeeping.com/...al-solids-tss-tds-freshwater-aquarium-122027/

And the article on stress sets out some of the issues that occur from inadequate management.
http://www.tropicalfishkeeping.com/freshwater-articles/stress-freshwater-aquarium-fish-98852/

I'll just make a quick comment on the matter of things being fine without...you can't possibly substantiate this with fact. What may seem fine now, is not fine. And while some fish do seem capable of existing under such conditions, others cannot and will not.

Byron.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Mar 28, 2011)

I agree in the benefit of routine partial water changes to dilute pollution and maintain a healthy water chemistry. This is how nature renews fresh water with rain. I also wish to point out to any newcomers to the hobby that not doing partial water changes weekly may be the short path to failure and fish loss.
*However, at least in part, I feel I need to take the middle of the road here. 
*
I'm remembering my youth in the 60's and my mothers tank. She had a 5 gallon, tar sealed, slate bottom Metaframe tank. It had an incandescent tube light in the hood, a bubble up filter with carbon and floss, just enough gravel to cover the bottom. She always had floating plants (Anacharis I think) and there was always a layer of mulm on the bottom. She had a catfish (emerald cory), an anglefish, a pair of red velvet swordtails, some other fish I forget and a (mystery like) snail.
She topped off the tank for evaporation, but never did water changes. The fish in this tank seemed crowded, but were big and healthy and thrived for years.

Not all tanks are created equally. First lets consider or rule out the newer tank not yet cycled and the tanks newer than 6 months not yet established. Weekly water changes in these tanks is even more crucial. Now lets consider smaller tank, the unplanted tank, the over stocked tank, the overfed and/or the poorly maintained tank...
Compare these to the larger, well filtered, heavily planted tanks with a modest stock level.
Or just compare alone the very small tank to the very large tank.
There are so very many variables that affect water quality.
Consider for a moment the commercial aquariums with thousands or millions of gallons of water. Surely they do not do 50% weekly water changes...but they have very sophisticated ($$$) filtration and additive systems that purify and regenerate the water (ensuring sufficient minerals and trace elements).

At the end of the day, the volume and/or frequency of REQUIRED routine partial water changes must be relative to any untreated pollution in the water. In addition, we must replace used nutrients and trace elements lost to fish osmosis and plant usage. 
In a larger, well filtered, well planted, established tank, with a modest stock level, this may only be a few gallons a week. In a small, unplanted, overstocked and/or overfed tank, this may mean up to 50% twice a week!

I find myself in a somewhat unique and poor situation with very high nitrates (60-80ppm) in my (country) home well water system. This is most likely the result of a 95 acre farmers field across the road that gets ample amounts of organic (manure) and chemical fertilizer. Larger water changes are simply counter productive for me.
I've experimented with many things to deal with high nitrates and better purify water and plan to write these experiments and experiences in a separate article. However, boiled all down, my greatest success has been tweaking filtration for greater water purity, adding more plants, using additives modestly *and reducing weekly water changes to 5g in my 60g tank or about 8.3%.* This has been working for me, with crystal clear water for many, many months now and I believe it will continue to be even more successful into the future.

Finally, some have suggested that the aquarium is a closed system that can't be managed as well as nature. Although I agree that we may be missing some key life forms that would [even] better purify water, we also don't have torrential rains that that muddy the water or runoff from agriculture, landfills and chemical plants, etc. Instead, we have a lab experiment where we can control the inputs and strive for very pure, healthy water chemistry.

Disclaimer: For the average aquarium, in addition to sound tank/filter maintenance and proper feeding, I simply must recommend a 25% to 50% weekly water change as the best way to ensure a healthy, consistent water chemistry for your fish. 
If you don't manage the litter box, the cat is gonna pee on the sofa! :tease:


----------



## Nilet699 (Dec 1, 2012)

wheres bealsbob on this thread?
_I'm calling you out...._
AS you are the one man i see saying ''dont change the water'' all the time..... you'd think you had an opinion here surely?


----------



## JDM (Dec 9, 2012)

AbbeysDad said:


> For the average aquarium, in addition to sound tank/filter maintenance and proper feeding, I simply must recommend a 25% to 50% weekly water change as the best way to ensure a healthy, consistent water chemistry for your fish.


This is the crux of the whole thing, the average aquarium is probably better than 95% of aquariums out there which makes the need for partial water change the norm. Any of us who are actually doing no changes or are even looking at the idea, however remote the actual implementation of the idea is (I probably won't try it), are going to be in the 5% or less of fish keepers. 

I'm one of the curious ones and like to see and learn what others are doing that is not the norm. Whether I condone, agree, or disagree with it has no bearing on my level of curiosity.

Jeff.


----------



## Chesh (Feb 17, 2012)

Dunno, Jeff. . . I suppose it all depends on how you look at things, really. The average aquarium HERE, on THIS forum, and among fish heads like US. . . does tend to get it's weekly water change. We understand the effects, more or less, on the inhabitants and the system as a whole if we fail to take proper care of our fish, and we LIKE our fish, and do our best to give them proper care.

That said, I know entirely too many people here in the 'real' world that have fish tanks. And it seems to me, at least in my area, that fish aren't so much regarded as animals or pets, so much as a decoration - like a picture in a frame or a vase of flowers. MOST of the people I know that have aquariums DO NOT change the water, EVER. And when/if they do, they almost always do it in such a way as to cause a full-tank cycle - and they never even seem to notice.

So in my PERSONAL experience, I'd say that the majority of people who keep fish do NOT do regular water changes. And while I don't think it is in any way the proper way of taking care of the wetpets, somehow. . . somehow they all manage to continue to have living fish! I don't understand it, but there it is. And no matter how much I talk to them and try to convince them - it doesn't work, because their fish are 'just fine' after all of these years. *shrugs* Fish can adapt to anything given time. And they might not live as long as they could have, but they manage somehow. . . 

MY fish, on the other hand, are used to clean, fresh water. And if I were to stop doing water changes, I'm quite sure they'd die. . . I remember when I first started keeping fish - I didn't do research, and I did things wrong entirely. ALL of these people told me the same thing. "When you bring home fish, some of them die - it's just the way it is. The ones that live will be fine, though..." I refused to believe that people would buy a pet with the knowledge that it'd probably die, and that's how I found this site. If I wanted to buy 3 kittens, and was told that 2 wouldn't make it. . . I don't think I'd keep cats. Same goes for fish...

*sorry, random...*


----------



## pop (Aug 29, 2012)

Hello;
I guess that iam in the short end of things because I don’t change aquarium water on a regular basis nor am I concerned with water chemistry. In fact I only change the water occasionally due to the doom and gloom preaching.

Back in 96 or so I had a 55 gal aquarium with two Oscars and about 3 green severms. I changed the water once or maybe twice by the time I tore down the tank in 2001. What is that five years. I never cycled this tank nor did I ever check water chemistry or use any water conditioners. This 55 gal aquarium had under-gravel filter, plastic plants. I am not bating you Bryon or any other person but I added salt to the above defined aquarium and never observed the negative effects described in salt in freshwater aquarium. I add salt to the aquarium because scientific fact that chloride ion will prevent the up-take of nitrate through osmoregulation. 
If I remember rightly in the salt article the ratio of salt to water was one table spoon per 16 gallons of water, which is about a teaspoon of salt for every 5 gallons of water; whereas I used a ratio of 1 tea spoon per 55 gallons of water.

Do not fret I have learned a lot from the posts and articles presented and have a lot of respect for everyone’s knowledge about fish keeping. Just because I question ideas doesn’t mean I doubt or disregard the concepts.

pop


----------



## JDM (Dec 9, 2012)

Chesherca said:


> Dunno, Jeff. . . I suppose it all depends on how you look at things, really. The average aquarium HERE, on THIS forum, and among fish heads like US. . . does tend to get it's weekly water change. We understand the effects, more or less, on the inhabitants and the system as a whole if we fail to take proper care of our fish, and we LIKE our fish, and do our best to give them proper care.
> 
> That said, I know entirely too many people here in the 'real' world that have fish tanks. And it seems to me, at least in my area, that fish aren't so much regarded as animals or pets, so much as a decoration - like a picture in a frame or a vase of flowers. MOST of the people I know that have aquariums DO NOT change the water, EVER. And when/if they do, they almost always do it in such a way as to cause a full-tank cycle - and they never even seem to notice.
> 
> ...


Hmmm.... very good points. I know I read that 60% of fish bought don't survive initially and 60% of fish keepers quit before the year is out. I've never paid any attention to any aquariums that I might have seen in homes.... I've seen very few in fact.

Perhaps I should change how I put the 95% out there, perhaps 95% SHOULD be changing the water regularly. Or that 95% don't consider the water quality in their tanks at all. Perhaps it is the 5% that are concerned and take the time to educate themselves on tank maintenance and fish care properly.

All in all I don't expect to become a non-changer and the stats don't really matter much to me as they don't apply to me. I think that I have jumped in with both feet, as might be apparent by my posting here I suppose, and, like all my hobby endeavours, Gung-Ho is the word.

Jeff.


----------



## Byron (Mar 7, 2009)

In this post I am only going to offer some comments on this assumption that fish adapt to this or that.

Fish never adapt to inappropriate water parameters or inappropriate water conditions. They "manage," but they do not adapt, ever. In nature, fish, like other animals, adapt to changes by what we term selective evolution. Evolution is on-going; it is not something that happened in the past, but it is continuing today. Existing species are evolving as their environment changes. But this evolution is very slow, over thousands of years in the case of fish.

Fish _managing_ is very different from fish_ living_. A Betta can exist for years in a glass of water on the shelf. But none of us [I hope] would suggest this is "OK" for the fish. A mature Oscar at 12 inches can exist for years in a 10g tank. But this is not living.

I get quite annoyed every time I read that someone doesn't do this or that and their fish are fine and healthy. Unless you are the fish, you are unlikely to have any idea as to the state it is in. There are clues along the way that some of us can read, but most if not all of these "fine" fish will never come close to their normal lifespan, and that in itself is significant. If a fish will not live to or past the normal lifespan, or will not spawn, or does not behave normally in your aquarium, then there is almost certainly something wrong with the water or the environment. And this does affect the fish, to some degree, whether or not you see anything.

This is what Dr. Neale Monks, a biologist with 20 years of experience keeping fish aquaria, says:

In the early days of the hobby, aquarists believed that ‘old water’ was somehow better for fish. Because old water contained a lot of nitrate and organic chemicals, it tended to become rather acidic. If you did a big water change and added water with a basic pH, you ran the risk of exposing the fish to a sudden and extreme pH change - something that could kill them.

It made sense to do small water changes instead, so that the fish could adjust to any slight changes in pH.
Modern day aquarists now understand that the more the water is changed, the better. Indeed, many fish simply won’t put up with old nitrate-rich water at all - cichlids, mollies and marine fish for example.

Weekly water changes of at least 25% will dilute the nitrate and organic chemicals that cause acidification in the aquarium, preventing that particular problem.

Big, regular water changes keep the aquarium much fresher than would otherwise be the case, meaning that your fish will be happier and healthier.​


----------



## Mikaila31 (Dec 18, 2008)

Simply saying a fish was 'fine' for years does not mean anything. An animal caged outside may appear fine for years as well, that has no bearing on if its environment is suitable or healthy for it. Animals and fish avoid showing stress as much as they can, its a sign of weakness and likely predation. Fish are also very tolerant of dealing with unsuitable water tho that does not mean it has no long term chronic effect on them. Also many fish are built to deal with short term poor conditions, especially fish that live with drastic dry and wet seasons like in the amazon. Sure tons still die during the dry season but some manage to make it. 

*Water changes are done for much more then nitrate.* Its as simple as that. Nitrate is actually one of the easiest compounds to control without water changes, its the others that we rarely or never test that will gradually become a problem. Phosphate, kH, GH, TDS, and alkalinity to name a few. Example many nutrient cycles produce acidic compounds which will gradually consume carbonates to the point where you loose all buffering( and thus stable control of pH). In a normal aquatic system carbonates are always consumed, but they leach in from run off and bedrock so are normally not exhausted. Changing water replenishes carbonates and removes the bound up/neutralized carbonates which only add the TDS. Its pretty much impossible to compare or try to replicate a fish tank to a stable lake or pond. The lake is as complex as a city and your tank in comparison is a house in that city. Lakes, rivers, and ponds are truly amazing when you get down to just how greatly complex they are. Freshwater ecology by Walter Dodds was a really good textbook I used in college that covered the simple things to the really indepth things. And is a very very informative for anyone interested in how aquatic ecosystems function from the chemical levels up to the trophic levels.


----------



## jeaninel (Aug 24, 2007)

Hey, I'm in the top 5%!! Haha...just kidding. :lol: But, seriously, this is an interesting thread. There are really 2 different schools of thinking, those who believe in the benefits of regular partial water changes and those who believe it's better to just leave the aquarium alone. OK, maybe a third category....those people who, as mentioned, just have aquariums for ornaments and don't want to or don't realize that they should be doing regular maintenance/PWC's. 

I, for one, am a firm believer in regular water changes. I have seen the benefits. My sister in law never does water changes on her tank. She is always buying new fish to replace ones which have mysteriously died. I think the longest living fish for her has been maybe a year or so. She is always commenting on how colorful and healthy my fish are. Recently she and I took a trip to a LFS and we both bought some Dennison Barbs. A couple weeks later she was over at my house and commented on how much bigger and more colorful mine had become compared to hers. 

My nephew also never does water changes and has had his tank crash on him and lost all his fish. He asked me to come over and help him with his tank. I tested his nitrates and they were off the charts!! His Ph had dropped to 5. Our tap water is 7.8 with Gh and Kh of 5 dH and this is what my tank Ph reads also and what his should have been since we are in the same town. I explained to him about nitrates and how I equate them to air pollutiion for us. It's like living in a smoggy, polluted city compared to the fresh air of the mountains. Sure fish can survive for awhile with no water changes but their lifespan is shortened and eventually they get sick and die. An average fish should live 8-10 years (just a generalization), not 1 or 2. 

I realize everyone's experiences may be different and am not trying to preach to those who don't do water changes. Ultimately, it is your tank and if it has worked for you then kudos. But I can't imagine not maintaining my tanks without regular fresh water.


----------



## willow (Sep 9, 2006)

i'm a regular water changer,as i think that my fish swimming around
in the same water isn't very nice,and a breath of fresh air can't be a bad thing ?


----------



## beaslbob (Oct 17, 2012)

JDM said:


> I have a question, well, two.
> 
> What is the smallest tank that you think can successfully be set up to run with no water changes?
> 
> ...


 
1 guart (or less) betta bowl. 3 years.


----------



## Chesh (Feb 17, 2012)

Just to clarify. . . in no way was I implying that water changes aren't necessary, or that the fish who live in these conditions are healthy, or thriving. I personally feel strongly that it is nothing short animal cruelty to keep fish in these conditions, and I've been very vocal to fish owners that I come in contact with regarding my thoughts on the matter. I'm actually known for bringing my test kit over and showing some of these people exactly what is happening in their tank (in every case nitrates, phosphates are off-the-charts high), and explaining to the best of my ability the SCIENCE behind why this is not 'okay.' Through my involvement with the Kindergarten tank, I've come in contact with more than my fair share of fish-keepers - the little ones often 'tattle' on their parents, and insist that they talk to me, as the children have now been taught how to properly care for a tank, and have taken steps to 'bully' their parents into water changes and such. There have been quite a few cases in which I've managed to bring understanding to these people, and was able to help them turn things around, little by little, and they now have a healthy tank. But in the majority of cases, these owners insist that their fish are 'just fine,' and leave it at that. It's heartbreaking, but it really seems to be the 'norm,' at least in my area, for fish-keepers_ NOT_ to do water changes. And, to be fair, for the most part they never even realized that it's a necessary thing until I pointed it out to them! Granted this is no excuse, as many of us on this forum (myself included) started off with no knowledge or prior research, and have gone well out of our way to set things right and learn what is necessary for our fishy friends to thrive. . . It boggles my mind that a basic fact sheet on the care of fish isn't given out with their purchase, as tends to be the case with other animals. . . what really boggles my mind are those who continue to refuse to do maintenance, even after they've been presented with the facts. Depending on the size and setup of the tank, it would truly take most of them no more than 15 minutes a week to keep their tanks healthy. I don't understand why this is so difficult. . .


----------



## beaslbob (Oct 17, 2012)

Nilet699 said:


> wheres bealsbob on this thread?
> _I'm calling you out...._
> AS you are the one man i see saying ''dont change the water'' all the time..... you'd think you had an opinion here surely?


 :lol::lol::lol:

I finally posted just above this one.


:lol::lol::lol:


BTW water changes will limit but not prevent the build up in tds and everything else.


So there is that more like it. 


:lol:


----------



## Sanguinefox (Nov 29, 2011)

I am with you Jeaninel that I could not imagine not doing water changes with my tanks. 

That said there are a lot of people in this world that keep animals. They all have different reasons. For me I keep animals as companions. As such it is very important to me no matter what kind of animal it is that they are given the absolute best that I can give, and given what is necessary for good health.

There are many people out there that think their animals are "Happy" because the animals are alive. Alive is not the same as happy. Alive is not the same as healthy. Animals put up with what situations we give them because they have no choice in the matter. Cows can't leave their pen for better pasture no easier than fish can leave their tanks to seek better waters.

A caged dog can only whimper and cry. What can a boxed in fish do when presented with less than ideal conditions because their owners have fooled themselves into thinking they are fine? The only answer is cope. So those of you who think that your animals are fine even though you don't do water changes...just remember. Animals cope with what we give them. Coping =/= healthy.


----------



## beaslbob (Oct 17, 2012)

Sanguinefox said:


> I am with you Jeaninel that I could not imagine not doing water changes with my tanks.
> 
> That said there are a lot of people in this world that keep animals. They all have different reasons. For me I keep animals as companions. As such it is very important to me no matter what kind of animal it is that they are given the absolute best that I can give, and given what is necessary for good health.
> 
> ...


I agree with you 100% .

The only thing we disagree on is whether or not constantly doing water changes provides a better enviroment then a balance and stabilized environment where the fish wastes are constantly being recycled into fish food and oxygen.


----------



## Freshcatch (Aug 8, 2012)

OK, I guess that I will weigh in with my experience. I have always changed water in my tanks. In the 80's, I was changing water weekly in my tanks, (yeah, I'm old as dirt) and I will continue to do that until I give up fish keeping. It was the "right" thing to do then, and it will always be the right thing to do for the fish, and they will give me years of enjoyment. If I say more, I will just be repeating others points about chemical changes in tank water.


----------



## beaslbob (Oct 17, 2012)

Freshcatch said:


> OK, I guess that I will weigh in with my experience. I have always changed water in my tanks. In the 80's, I was changing water weekly in my tanks, (*yeah, I'm old as dirt*) and I will continue to do that until I give up fish keeping. It was the "right" thing to do then, and it will always be the right thing to do for the fish, and they will give me years of enjoyment. If I say more, I will just be repeating others points about chemical changes in tank water.


Gee my first tank was in the late '70's.

Does that make older than rocks? (I think they came before dirt.)


----------



## Freshcatch (Aug 8, 2012)

beaslbob said:


> Gee my first tank was in the late '70's.
> 
> Does that make older than rocks? (I think they came before dirt.)


Just a bit of Magma.....:shock:


----------



## pop (Aug 29, 2012)

Hello all;
Your point is well taken but I have to say Bryon and others that your argument falls short.
The argument that is made is so anthropomorphic that it loses all aspects of validity. No greater mistake can be made than applying human attributes to non human life form. 

An example is pain does pain exist before it is experienced? No it does not, pain only exist when there is a cognitive construct in other words you have to experience pain, before it exist for the individual. Do fish have cognitive constructs for pain or when they react to a negative stimulus is it just an unconditioned response? 
What on earth is a happy fish does this mean fish can enjoy pleasures like a fine glass of wine? As stated in previous post “unless you are a fish, you are unlikely to have any idea as to the state it is in” if this concept is correct then how can we humans know if a fish is happy, unhappy, in pain or just having a glass of wine and a smoke for the pleasure of it. It is alluded that there are clues that only some can read. This sounds more like a self-fore filling prophesy than a sound and logical scientific approach. As for a normal life span I am wondering what is the normal life span for a fine fish in nature.

Mollies were mentioned and I fined it interesting that neil monks version of molly fry is somewhat opposed to the view expressed in the fish profiles. According to monks all molly fry are male and as a single fish gains dominance in the group it changes sex to female. Interesting concept but not unheard of in nature.

As for “regular water changes keep the aquarium much fresher than would otherwise be the case, meaning that your fish will be happier and healthier”.
How can we possibly know if a fish is happier and healthier since you have to be a fish to know if you are happy or healthy an we are humans that ‘are unlikely to have any idea as to the state it is in’ of course there maybe clues not just any clue but the right clue that supports the individual’s predetermined conclusion.

I understand that when anthropomorphic argument is used because we all have a sense of responsibility to provide the good life to our critters but the way we experience life is very different from the way fish in nature or in an aquarium experience life.

pop


----------



## Chesh (Feb 17, 2012)

Odd on the Mollies, from my personal experience regarding gender (and everything else I've read on the subject) - the reverse is true! Regardless. . .

It WOULD be interesting to set up two tanks, as identical as possible (though, obviously they would differ in some respects), and divide a 'fresh' batch of home-grown fry between the two. One with water changes, one without - and track it throughout the years. . . I couldn't do it, I'd feel to bad for the non-water change crew, lol! But it WOULD be an interesting study.


----------



## ao (Feb 29, 2012)

beaslbob said:


> 1 guart (or less) betta bowl. 3 years.


dude, dont ever post this in the betta side of this forum... you will be verbally butchered.
Not that it isnt possible since bettas breathe atmospheric air, theoretically as long as you keep the nitrogen down you can keep a betta alive. But I'm curious whether that water is liquid rock by now...get a TDS meter and test


----------



## Olympia (Aug 25, 2011)

Not going to argue over water changing... people all have different ways of being successful in the hobby.
We as people THINK we are doing the right thing naturally, and so we try to influence others to do what we are doing. Sometimes this leaves us not open to entertaining both sides of an argument. The thing about knowledge, is that the things we know are constantly being disproved, so that is why it's important to be willing to accept new information, or if not analyze it thoroughly. 
As Jes suggested, I would be much more inclined to listen to a person who has done both side by side (water change/no water change) than someone who says "this is what I do and it's right and you have to do this too." I do think it's good we have some of you non water changers on the forum, lets newbies listen to both sides and decide what's right themselves. . Nevertheless, the forum has "norms" and it can seem we're all against you at times.

Anthropomorphizing is a huge issue at times, but I would not keep fish without it. It is fun to set up little scenarios and make up personalities for the fish but you must remember that those two goldfish are not really in love, your betta isn't really a total narcissist, and the pygmy gourami are not really hiding something from you in the back of the tank (ohhhh kay... maybe that's just me.)

Do fish feel pain? Honestly, from a scientific standpoint, we don't know.
Even though they are vertebrates, they are a much lower form of vertebrate (because it took less evolution to get them to where they are), with a less developed nervous system than ourselves.
Here is an article published by Dr. Rose on fish pain. Not the most recent one, no, but last month he published a new one that basically came to the same conclusion (these are reviews, so he is basically going over a lot of other people's research and trying to put it all together).. What's the answer? Well, he wants to say "no," but he knows that'd be incredibly foolish to do, so he's stuck at "maybe." We have just as many great scientists that have good arguments that fish do feel pain.
Okay, so let's assume fish don't feel pain. This leaves us free to abuse them to our will. A very attractive thought, no?
Hundreds of years ago, it was "PROVEN" that higher animals like dogs and chimps do not feel pain. That's right, proven. Abuse levels were unbelievable, just for the fun of it in cases. Dogs were just robotically responding to stimuli, after all. Fast forward, and we prove that dogs do feel pain (though it can still be debated). "Oops."
So, if it's all fine and dandy, and we "prove" that fish don't feel pain, I don't believe this opens up a window for abuse. Fairly recently we thought people that were completely paralyzed also had no conscious mind or thoughts and were unaware of the outside world. Long story short, that was proven wrong as well, but the damage was done.
Personally, I don't think fish feel much if any pain, but I will be open to accept the fact that they do if the time comes that we are able to prove this. I'm just going to keep doing what I _think _is best for them. Right now, it's just a little extra comfort when you see a sick fish to believe there isn't much going on in there.

This is one of those posts that I normally type out but never send, but what the heck I'll let you guys have at it this time..


----------



## Sanguinefox (Nov 29, 2011)

pop said:


> Hello all;
> Your point is well taken but I have to say Bryon and others that your argument falls short.
> The argument that is made is so anthropomorphic that it loses all aspects of validity. No greater mistake can be made than applying human attributes to non human life form.
> 
> ...


A happy fish is a healthy one in my opinion. However if you want to remove the entire aspect of "Anthropomorphism" you cling to to try to debunk what others say we can pay sole attention to the very real condition called "health".

Health is what determines to some degree the behavior of your animals. Healthy fish live longer lives. Unhealthy fish do not. Same applies to people really. If we are going to take animals from their natural habitat, or domesticate them to keep them as pets don't we at least have a moral/and or ethical obligation to keep them healthy?

Even if you throw out the idea of morals and ethics, it's a huge waste of your money to set up a tank and then improperly keep it. You end up throwing money down the drain with each fish that dies/and or fails to live it full potential live span.

So for what ever reason that floats your boat I would imagine everyone here can agree that it is to the best interest of us all to keep "Healthy" animals in our tanks. Things like "water changes" fall into a category of health. If you don't do them the long term health of your fish can and will suffer.

As for "Pain" don't mix pain up as being purely an idea. Pain is a sensation that the brain picks up on as a response to harm/injury. The ability to feel pain is evolutionary advantageous. So is the ability to feel "Fear". I remember a while back there was a study on lab rats where they removed the ability to feel "fear" by removing part of the brain associated with it. The rats were unable to react to predators, and that handicap very well could have been their demise in a real predator/pray situation.

The ability to "feel pain" is very similar because if you cannot identify when something is hurting you than you are unable to react for the sake of self survival. It necessary to point this out. Pain, fear, stress are not purely ideological concepts, and neither are they purely anthropomorphic. Even concepts like depression are beginning to come out with emerging research as something even insects are capable of feeling. People often do not give animals credit where credit is due when it comes to their capabilities.

That said the arguments of those who are against water changes have shown me little in this thread or any others to back up their claims, or debunk the reality of how necessary water changes are. Our aquariums are not open systems. They are closed systems. Humans at this current time are unable to create an open system within a closed system artificially.

EDIT: Totally aware we may be on different pages when it comes to use of the term "Feeling pain". I 'm taking it at most basic reaction to a physical injury.


----------



## Olympia (Aug 25, 2011)

Sanguinefox said:


> Even if you throw out the idea of morals and ethics, it's a huge waste of your money to set up a tank and then improperly keep it. You end up throwing money down the drain with each fish that dies/and or fails to live it full potential live span.
> 
> So for what ever reason that floats your boat I would imagine everyone here can agree that it is to the best interest of us all to keep "Healthy" animals in our tanks. Things like "water changes" fall into a category of health. If you don't do them the long term health of your fish can and will suffer.


But, don't you think beaslebob would not have successfully kept generation upon generation of fish if he wasn't following what you take to be necessary? He is taking "bad care" of it, according to you, but his fish seem very long lived and none the worse for wear.


----------



## Sanguinefox (Nov 29, 2011)

Olympia said:


> But, don't you think beaslebob would not have successfully kept generation upon generation of fish if he wasn't following what you take to be necessary? He is taking "bad care" of it, according to you, but his fish seem very long lived and none the worse for wear.


So he says his fish lived "Long". Fish can cope. They can sometimes become used to really bad conditions such as what has been discussed when you look into "Old tank syndrome".

It's amazing what some animals are able to put up with. Such as poor crocodiles forced to live in tiny concrete boxes their entire lives (and end up with terrible tempers because of it), or upwards of 20 + poor bichirs stuck into a tank and expected to use each other for hide spacing because they were unlucky enough to fall into the hands of a "Collector".

Fish put up with a lot of abuse before they succumb, some more than others. So they live long, or so he claims. That doesn't debunk a wealth of knowledge and research and world wide experience on the benefits of water changes.


----------



## Olympia (Aug 25, 2011)

As far as we can tell his fish are fine though. As well as the other's who don't do much water changing. They look healthy, I saw pictures and they look just like any other fish. You say healthy fish live longer, but then when it comes up that his fish are living longer you say they are merely coping. Well, if they are living longer isn't that all that matters, according to you? I'm sure he will clear this up a little more when he returns. ;-)


----------



## Sanguinefox (Nov 29, 2011)

Olympia said:


> As far as we can tell his fish are fine though. As well as the other's who don't do much water changing. They look healthy, I saw pictures and they look just like any other fish. You say healthy fish live longer, but then when it comes up that his fish are living longer you say they are merely coping. Well, if they are living longer isn't that all that matters, according to you? I'm sure he will clear this up a little more when he returns. ;-)


To put it one way, I could take my 10 gallon low tech betta tank. I could stop doing water changes as of today. Top it off when necessary and my Betta may appear to live in health for 2-3 years. Considering that seems to be the average set not by their potential live span but instead by the fact most people who keep bettas don't take care of them properly...considering that one could say that the entire situation was okay and or successful.

Bettas live longer than 2-3 years(or have that potential). It is an unfortunate thing that seeing them live that longer is unusual in captivity due to the excess of bad keepers. If I had taken the time to water change at least once every two weeks that betta could have easily lived 2-3 times the live-span it did. (this is again talking in the realm of hypothetically).

There are other fish out that are very tough, well capable of coping with bad conditions...but would favor better ones if given the chance. Those fish can give such an illusion that an improper tank is problem free. Again I am not inclined to take everything I have learned and everything all the experts have learned and throw it away for some random group of people online claiming they had healthy fish with no water changes and no substantial research to back it up. It doesn't make logical sense as is. Aquariums are not open systems. They need water changes. Study the water cycle and apply it to fish, and tie in with fish keeping. The logic there is none in what the water changeless crowd is saying.


----------



## JDM (Dec 9, 2012)

Sanguinefox said:


> ... I am not inclined to take everything I have learned and everything all the experts have learned and throw it away for some random group of people online claiming they had healthy fish with no water changes an no substantial research to back it up....


Well, this thread certainly didn't go anywhere near where I thought it might.... at least I remembered that I started it and what I asked initially.:roll: I have a rather over developed curiosity and I do enjoy the debate. It reminds me of my old kid's babysitter and an argument that we had once over child seats and bolts. I insisted that if she were to take my daughter with her in her car that she had to have a restraining bolt to tether the seat to.

She insisted that she has never had an accident and is a safe driver and it was good enough for her kids. It was one of those times that debate was totally useless as her record was proof to her that her method works perfectly. I just insisted and steam rolled the situation as every precaution was worth a small hassle or expense to keep my kids safe... she didn't end up ever take my daughter anywhere which was fine by me.

I don't think that anyone is really trying to get everyone to stop changing water... although BBob is a little insistent at times... and nobody is going to have someone else's fish in their tank, keeping them in a manner that they would not approve.

Jeff.


----------



## Sanguinefox (Nov 29, 2011)

JDM said:


> Well, this thread certainly didn't go anywhere near where I thought it might.... at least I remembered that I started it and what I asked initially.:roll: I have a rather over developed curiosity and I do enjoy the debate. It reminds me of my old kid's babysitter and an argument that we had once over child seats and bolts. I insisted that if she were to take my daughter with her in her car that she had to have a restraining bolt to tether the seat to.
> 
> She insisted that she has never had an accident and is a safe driver and it was good enough for her kids. It was one of those times that debate was totally useless as her record was proof to her that her method works perfectly. I just insisted and steam rolled the situation as every precaution was worth a small hassle or expense to keep my kids safe... she didn't end up ever take my daughter anywhere which was fine by me.
> 
> ...


It is completely within my understanding that there is no attempt to force any of us to change into the habit of not doing water changes. However there are questionable methods being brought up and they need to be questioned every time.

This forum and others like it exist as a source of advice and information for all fish keepers. New people who are brand new to the hobby come to these places all the time. To me it is necessary to see this kind of debate when these kinds of ideas come up. This ensures that all people watching are aware of both sides. Then it's up to them to make their own choices.


----------



## Timjwilson (Dec 13, 2012)

The things I do not understand with the frequent water changes is that most people live in a municipality which treats the water with harsh chemicals so other chemicals are used to supposedly remove these chemicals. How can one even remotely argue this is good for fish? On top of this most or many adjust the temperature of their water to be used with water from a hot water tank, where chemicals, toxins and minerals are even more concentrated.

I also find it amusing that the number one most important measurement one can make for fish is for dissolved oxygen, yet hardly anyone mentions this and likely most do not have a meter. How do you tell that your fish are in an oxygen sufficient environment? By their happy behavior, or are they just coping with the environment you are subjecting them to?

BTW, presently I am doing 8% avg daily water changes and checking all parameters [including O2], as I have a young tank with young discus but I am working towards very minimal water changes, once I acheive a measurable balance. My municipality uses no chemicals and I heat the water in a tub.


----------



## Sanguinefox (Nov 29, 2011)

Timjwilson said:


> The things I do not understand with the frequent water changes is that most people live in a municipality which treats the water with harsh chemicals so other chemicals are used to supposedly remove these chemicals. How can one even remotely argue this is good for fish? On top of this most or many adjust the temperature of their water to be used with water from a hot water tank, where chemicals, toxins and minerals are even more concentrated.
> 
> I also find it amusing that the number one most important measurement one can make for fish is for dissolved oxygen, yet hardly anyone mentions this and likely most do not have a meter. How do you tell that your fish are in an oxygen sufficient environment? By their happy behavior, or are they just coping with the environment you are subjecting them to?
> 
> BTW, presently I am doing 8% avg daily water changes and checking all parameters [including O2], as I have a young tank with young discus but I am working towards very minimal water changes, once I acheive a measurable balance. My municipality uses no chemicals and I heat the water in a tub.


One of the things you are supposed to do is look up the water quality report of your area. You can see what kinds of things are coming through your tap and prepare for that. Really those "harsh chemicals" are not something that is going to be present much in your water. You drink it after all right?

However some people do have major issues with their local water and end up using RO water. There are some people who go so far as to buy equipment to make their own RO.

Personally I have loaches in one of my tanks and while they are not as sensitive as Discus they are still very sensitive fish. I premix new water and temp match it before putting it in and they thrive in the conditions they are in. However when I skip a water change or go too long (and have in the past) they become reclusive, refuse to come out and eat and well...you can tell that they are stressed. It's very clear in their situation they benefit from the water changes. They live in a heavily planted tank too.

As for Oxygen, if you have a planted tank you don't really have to worry too much about oxygen. In fact if you have a water fall type filter (like an HOB) and it creates a splash that will oxygenate your tank. That said there is a big reason why people who have non-planted tanks run those bubble walls. It is to take care of the issue with oxygen. Lack of oxygen very quickly kills fish in a tank environment. It's not something to my knowledge that they cope as well with unless they are by nature air breathers.


----------



## RSully (Nov 22, 2012)

Well, that was a long read to see that people will never agree on anything.


----------



## Nilet699 (Dec 1, 2012)

RSully said:


> Well, that was a long read to see that people will never agree on anything.


true that.

Only thing i want to know........is there scientific backing for BOTH sides? Or just DOING pwcs?


----------



## madyotto (Mar 24, 2012)

JDM said:


> This is the crux of the whole thing, the average aquarium is probably better than 95% of aquariums out there which makes the need for partial water change the norm. Any of us who are actually doing no changes or are even looking at the idea, however remote the actual implementation of the idea is (I probably won't try it), are going to be in the 5% or less of fish keepers.
> 
> I'm one of the curious ones and like to see and learn what others are doing that is not the norm. Whether I condone, agree, or disagree with it has no bearing on my level of curiosity.
> 
> Jeff.


i disagree there are many plus's and minuses to both way's but a reasonably large tank can be run very sucessfully with no changes the bigger the tank the more chance you have you can only do this with planted tanks and with a wide veriaity of plants some plants do diffrent jobs 

any switched on enthusiast will know that water changes are better but here is the thing 

it can be done 
it can be done to have not just healthy fish and plants but fish and plants that thrive 

JDM 

titled this topic for none water changers because he has heard and understands what is the PRO'S and CON'S are

i think he is after tip's for doing it this way so like me with some of my friends that just wont do them unless i go and do it myself so i dont i just recreate an enviroment where they and not need it, of corse they would be benificial to some extent but not needed which is what he asked for 

other wise he would of put the title as can i run a tank without changes 

but anyhow 

the smallest tank i have run like this is a 100 litre i would not do this again with anything smaller than 150litre as the 100 kept fish healthy and never had a problem but you could just and i do mean just tell the difference in the fish i had to look for minute signs of stress the avrg aquaticst would never notice 

i now only run my 350 litre like this well i change abouts 20 litre every month so its as good as none and wont stress the fish 

but what i was a kid my dad had a huge 800-1000 litre tanks which had no changes for 10 years + never had problems with ammonia nitrite nitrate ph kh or gh the emviroment was stable something far too many can not recreate 

any other questions JDM just ask 

the only thing i will say is if you or anyone else runs a tank this way do no use ammonit nitrite or nitrate up or down if you do need to just change water the enviroment is not stable enough


----------



## madyotto (Mar 24, 2012)

Olympia said:


> But, don't you think beaslebob would not have successfully kept generation upon generation of fish if he wasn't following what you take to be necessary? He is taking "bad care" of it, according to you, but his fish seem very long lived and none the worse for wear.


this is just the point tho isnt it the entire thread has turned into an aurgument over water changes being impotant yet JDM never said otherwise he has asked for how people have run tank without and yet again everyone has jumped on the band waggon 


IMO none of us can sit and aurgue about water change being needed weekly 

truth of it is we all know that we are better not using tap water but 90% of even us do 

now tap water is recycled human waste recycled using chemicals and sat in copper pipes for half of it life we then add a water conditioner (more chemicals) this may remove cholrine used to bleech water and remove many metaly from it but is this kind of water still healthy for fish 

because i bet in ways that we can not mesure it just simply isnt so should we all now go and distill water to recreate rain water hell no!!!!!

its as simple as some are willing to go much further than others but the thing is who is wrong 

simple answer is all of us are the only wrong ones because we can't afford/haven't recreated tropical streams that run for miles and recreate every aspect of the nateral enviroment 


we have plants in our house and always breath recycled air fish always breath recycled water/air even in the wild as the only time it is not recycled is after evaporation while it is falling


----------



## beaslbob (Oct 17, 2012)

Olympia said:


> But, don't you think beaslebob would not have successfully kept generation upon generation of fish if he wasn't following what you take to be necessary? He is taking "bad care" of it, according to you, but his fish seem very long lived and none the worse for wear.


 
thanks.

FWIW we always have all what I call the emotional appeals when discussing water changes. Fortunately watere change effectiveness can be analyzed with math.

What happens assuming that something is changing at a constant rate is the tank builds up to where the build up is removed by the water change. (plus whatever is in the replacement water.)

or:

final amount=amount in replacement water +(buildup between changes)/(fraction of water change)

So if you replace 1/10 of the water the tank's final amount before a water change is 10 times, 1/5 5 times and so on.

now consider that the tank is increasing say (nitrates) at 1ppm/day. And the water changes are "tied" to the frequency. Say 1% water change per days of the change. For instance 10% every 10 days, 20% every 20 days and so on.

In case anyone wants to do the math and assuming 0ppm in the replacement water what is the amount in the tank before any of the schedules?

Ans: 100ppm.

So as I stated early in this thread water changes will limit but not correct build ups especially at change schedules convienent to hobbiest.

By contrast plants maintain nitrates at 0 regardlss of the water changes being used.

To me the key is balanceing out and stabilizing the tank so what the hobbiest does wtill results in a healty environment for the fish.

Still it's just my .02


----------



## AbbeysDad (Mar 28, 2011)

WOW...tap water is recycled human waste?!?!? WRONG, but thanks for playing our game! _Municipal tap water typically comes from lakes, reservoirs and/or deep wells, so indirectly, it comes from RAIN. Chlorine/Chloramine is used to kill harmful bacteria and pathogens and is quite necessary to prevent disease._ 

Something being missed here is that many tropical fish evolved in very pure water. The Amazon river is nearly pure rain water and flows into the ocean at such a rate that fresh water can be dipped 12 miles out at sea!

So our tap water in the northern hemisphere is already much harder with minerals which would only get concentrated by topping off with more tap water.

If you do a google on "aquarium water quality" every single hit will recommend some percentage of a weekly water change as one of three basic rules:
1. Don't overstock.
2. Don't overfeed.
3. Do weekly water changes.
Nowhere will you find anyone recommending not doing weekly partial water changes...not one.

Along with good filtration, plants are recommended for water quality, but do not eliminate the need for partial water changes.

So then the question becomes how much water should be changed. Experts differ on this from 10-25% weekly. Some recommend 10% weekly and 25% monthly. Some suggest that with large, messy fish, 50% weekly may be required.

So the clear answer here is that hands down, experts all agree that routine partial water changes are extremely important in providing good stable water quality. 
For a truly balanced aquarium, we need to replace some water periodically to simulate rain in nature.

"and that's all I have to say about that." -Forrest Gump


----------



## Olympia (Aug 25, 2011)

Mhmmm. I do 20-40ish% on my small tanks and 80% with the goldfish. Because goldfish are ridiculously filthy animals and they can easily do over 40ppm a week it seems.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Byron (Mar 7, 2009)

Olympia said:


> As far as we can tell his fish are fine though. As well as the other's who don't do much water changing. They look healthy, I saw pictures and they look just like any other fish. You say healthy fish live longer, but then when it comes up that his fish are living longer you say they are merely coping. Well, if they are living longer isn't that all that matters, according to you? I'm sure he will clear this up a little more when he returns. ;-)


Subsequent posts responded to this, but I must also. The point is that his fish are *not* fine. The internal issues that do develop from lack of water changes are there, unseen externally. There is sufficient scientific evidence to substantiate this.

"Living longer" is not the point either. It is living a full normal lifespan as opposed to existing for a time.

There are many factors that play into all this. It is thus difficult to pin down numbers, as some seem to want to do in order to "prove" this or that. But what_* is*_ factual is that regular partial water changes do improve the health and lifespan of fish. Anyone may argue against doing water changes, but no one can argue against this fact.

Byron.


----------



## fish monger (Dec 29, 2011)

I am in the partial water change camp; however, I believe that we all are trying to do our best for our wards. Until "science" gets to the point where the same data doesn't support opposing views, we need to agree to disagree.


----------



## Chesh (Feb 17, 2012)

It's been interesting, and eye-opening, to see everyone's POV here. But I don't think we're actually getting anywhere except that - we all have our own thoughts on the matter, and won't be swayed. :|

One last comment, and then I'm going to unsubscribe from this thread, as I don't think there's anything left for me to learn here. . .

Granted that all water is recycled from the beginning of time. Dinosaur pee, people poo - it's all inside, lol. But most of my fish are wild-caught, and come from areas where the water is far cleaner than anything I can ever hope to offer them in a tank - well planted though it may be. I brought these fish here, and I consider it my obligation to them do my very best to keep their environment as pristine as I possibly can.

Because it is so important to me to keep them in the cleanest water possible, I've done a lot of reading and research into water - as it seems we all have - and gone as far as to take a tours of our local water treatment facilities. While it isn't perfection, I left those buildings with a greater peace of mind than when I went in, and with many of the questions I had answered. Not answered with a route 'this is what we're supposed to tell you' answer, but in many cases, with replies that I had to come home and look into, as the science was a bit beyond my personal understanding. I was happy to come to the conclusion that these people knew what they're talking about, and our tap water is as pure as they are able to make it with the technology available to them.

My tap water comes from three different reservoirs/dams, and to my tap with no detectable traces of ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, or phosphates, except that during certain times of the year when the rain is particularly heavy, or in the spring when every one is planting and spreading fertilizer all over their yards, there will be an occasional low nitrate level. 

I've tested the rainwater several times in my area, along with the water in all of the nearby natural streams and waterways that were close enough for me to entertain the idea of hauling buckets from every week (I considered using 'fresh' water and not tap for a time for water changes. Gave up on that idea). Here, the rainwater brings traces of ammonia with it - and the 'natural' water is harder, and depending on how much rain we've gotten, can be . . . not so fresh (oddly enough) as the processed tap water . I guess that's what I get for living in a big city, but I'll take it! Point being that around _HERE, _anyway, the dinosaur piss in the rainwater is somewhat obvious - though not so much in the processed tap water!

That said, I'm not a very scientific-minded person. I try, but I'm an artist and a writer, and my brain goes all funny when I try to process some of the papers and research that I've read. So I have to rely on what I've seen and experienced in my own tanks to really gain the understanding that I seek. And what I can tell you, first hand, is that on the few occasions where I've been late for a water change, or missed a week entirely, the behavior of my fish is different. Nothing obvious like gasping at the surface, or huddling in the corner. . . and I've never let it go long enough for there to be any differences in my API tests, either - the levels read the same - even for nitrates and phosphates. But the rams start start to lose their color - just a tad, and those lower on the chain begin to show slight traces of their 'stress stripes', and the loaches tend to be less active. . . the tetra seem . . . restless, and not as vibrant as they generally are. It's all very slight, and really nothing that most people would ever pick up on. My husband thinks I'm crazy, because he can't see it - but it's noticeable to me, because I watch my tanks so much. It's slight, but they all just seem not *quite* as happy as what I'm used to seeing from them.

From reading this thread, I guess NOT doing water changes works for some people - at least to some extent, and for some time. And as long as your fish aren't obviously suffering. . . that's your way. Hats off to you. Maybe it all comes down to what the fish are used to - I don't know! But based on what I've seen with my own eyes, I'll stick to my 30-50% weekly water changes, as my lil' buddies seem happy with things the way they are - and when they're happy, I'm happy. :-D


----------



## beaslbob (Oct 17, 2012)

Olympia said:


> Mhmmm. I do 20-40ish% on my small tanks and 80% with the goldfish. Because goldfish are ridiculously filthy animals and they can easily do over 40ppm a week it seems.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


 
Using my equation above if the tank is increasing at 1ppm/day and you're doing a 10% weekly water change is 0ppm water it will increase to 70ppm before the water change.


----------



## Olympia (Aug 25, 2011)

That's why I do 80% for them.
And all my water test kits read under 10ppm for the other tanks constantly anyways so obviously no, not true. My fish would start dying before we even hit 40ppm since they are fragile species.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mikey1973 (Jan 4, 2012)

Timjwilson said:


> The things I do not understand with the frequent water changes is that most people live in a municipality which treats the water with harsh chemicals so other chemicals are used to supposedly remove these chemicals. How can one even remotely argue this is good for fish? On top of this most or many adjust the temperature of their water to be used with water from a hot water tank, where chemicals, toxins and minerals are even more concentrated.
> 
> I also find it amusing that the number one most important measurement one can make for fish is for dissolved oxygen, yet hardly anyone mentions this and likely most do not have a meter. How do you tell that your fish are in an oxygen sufficient environment? By their happy behavior, or are they just coping with the environment you are subjecting them to?
> 
> BTW, presently I am doing 8% avg daily water changes and checking all parameters [including O2], as I have a young tank with young discus but I am working towards very minimal water changes, once I acheive a measurable balance. My municipality uses no chemicals and I heat the water in a tub.


Can you have to much Oxygen in a tank? Could that do damage as well? I am running a HOB filter, Air Curtin and a huge plant. Too much maybe?


----------



## funkman262 (Jan 12, 2013)

Mikey1973 said:


> Can you have to much Oxygen in a tank? Could that do damage as well? I am running a HOB filter, Air Curtin and a huge plant. Too much maybe?


Who said anything about too much oxygen being harmful? Tim clearly said how it's important to make sure there is "*sufficient*" oxygen in the tank; he didn't say anything about making sure there isn't too much. And by the way, having a HOB filter, air curtain and plant isn't going to saturate your tank with oxygen; all it's going to do is keep the dissolved oxygen in the tank in equilibrium with the air around it.


----------



## JDM (Dec 9, 2012)

it will remove a lot of CO2 which could be detrimental a large plant load. 

Jeff.


----------



## Mikey1973 (Jan 4, 2012)

funkman262 said:


> Who said anything about too much oxygen being harmful? Tim clearly said how it's important to make sure there is "*sufficient*" oxygen in the tank; he didn't say anything about making sure there isn't too much. And by the way, having a HOB filter, air curtain and plant isn't going to saturate your tank with oxygen; all it's going to do is keep the dissolved oxygen in the tank in equilibrium with the air around it.


Well never said anyone said it, just curious if you could have to much..


----------



## funkman262 (Jan 12, 2013)

JDM said:


> it will remove a lot of CO2 which could be detrimental a large plant load.


What will remove CO2? If you're referring to aerating the tank, then yes and no. Aerating will remove CO2 _IF_ CO2 is being dosed into the tank, _OR_ if there's enough fish that the CO2 produced is higher than the equilibrium concentration. However, if neither of those are the case, then aerating will replenish the CO2 that's being used by the plants.



Mikey1973 said:


> Well never said anyone said it, just curious if you could have to much..


Sorry, I guess it just sounded very sarcastic. No, you can't have too much O2 in the tank. And it would be very difficult to oversaturate the water with oxygen the way a typical fish tank is set up.


----------



## madyotto (Mar 24, 2012)

Timjwilson said:


> The things I do not understand with the frequent water changes is that most people live in a municipality which treats the water with harsh chemicals so other chemicals are used to supposedly remove these chemicals. How can one even remotely argue this is good for fish? On top of this most or many adjust the temperature of their water to be used with water from a hot water tank, where chemicals, toxins and minerals are even more concentrated.
> 
> I also find it amusing that the number one most important measurement one can make for fish is for dissolved oxygen, yet hardly anyone mentions this and likely most do not have a meter. How do you tell that your fish are in an oxygen sufficient environment? By their happy behavior, or are they just coping with the environment you are subjecting them to?
> 
> BTW, presently I am doing 8% avg daily water changes and checking all parameters [including O2], as I have a young tank with young discus but I am working towards very minimal water changes, once I acheive a measurable balance. My municipality uses no chemicals and I heat the water in a tub.


i agree totally bleach water then de-bleach it then put in copper piping x years old then add it to our tank how many minerals and good things for fish can possibly be good for them to breath and we have to do lots of water changes so our plants thrive and out fish yet we have all seen people who do yearly changes and all have thriving fish long as they clean it out monthly 

but no science talk but most scientist have one aim not many like the best


----------



## madyotto (Mar 24, 2012)

Olympia said:


> That's why I do 80% for them.
> And all my water test kits read under 10ppm for the other tanks constantly anyways so obviously no, not true. My fish would start dying before we even hit 40ppm since they are fragile species.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


i must be doing something wrong then because i have an overstocked 350L that only has 20 liter changed monthly or bi monthly depending on how long it takes my DIY 2 liter 600lph filter to choke up 

i only vacuum 6 times a year at best and all my test always read 0 except nitrate that is constant at 0-5ppm on test but from color it i abouts 2 

lol


----------



## JDM (Dec 9, 2012)

JDM said:


> it will remove a lot of CO2 which could be detrimental a large plant load.
> 
> Jeff.


Rephrase: it will remove a lot of *EXCESS* CO2 which could be detrimental to a large plant load, *particularly if you are adding CO2 to the system*. 

I expect that it will still lower the dissolved CO2 to lower levels than might be occurring naturally which may not be noticed on small plant loads. I still think that it could affect, however slightly, larger plant loads even if we are not adding CO2 artificially.

Plants will only grow to the potential allowed them based on the lowest nutrient that is available to them. 

Jeff.


----------



## madyotto (Mar 24, 2012)

Mikey1973 said:


> Can you have to much Oxygen in a tank? Could that do damage as well? I am running a HOB filter, Air Curtin and a huge plant. Too much maybe?


too much air achievable if the water conditions will absorb enough yes i cant say it is bad or unhealthy to a fish but i can say that most of the habitats are not mega high in aeration like our tanks 

but it is also apparent that aerated water helps rid of nitrite quicker

a hell of a lot of tanks are more aerated than there fish's habitat but we do know that a bit more is always healthy


----------



## Olympia (Aug 25, 2011)

madyotto said:


> i must be doing something wrong then because i have an overstocked 350L that only has 20 liter changed monthly or bi monthly depending on how long it takes my DIY 2 liter 600lph filter to choke up
> 
> i only vacuum 6 times a year at best and all my test always read 0 except nitrate that is constant at 0-5ppm on test but from color it i abouts 2
> 
> lol


I don't quite understand what you are saying..
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## madyotto (Mar 24, 2012)

Byron said:


> Mikaila has said it, and said it very well indeed.:welldone:
> 
> If those new members who may not be familiar with our database here would like to follow up, I have two articles in the Freshwater Articles sections that are relevant.
> 
> ...


so what about my clown's and glass cats and the fact that before i rid of my apple snails they had bred many time's this would not happen in a unhealthy setup 

glass cat would be the first to go if there was anything wrong


----------



## madyotto (Mar 24, 2012)

Olympia said:


> I don't quite understand what you are saying..
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


just that if a tank has been setup up properly to deal with chemical load and some.
and then planted with many different types then it can handle it own chemical load so nothing ever changes for more than 24 hrs and when it does it never changes much


----------



## Olympia (Aug 25, 2011)

The only tank that has the nitrate issue is my 90 gallon goldfish tank. This is just a consequence of these fish. If you look back, it's been known for HUNDREDS of years that 80-100% water changes are needed every 10 days. They receive a high quality food (flake/pellet is unhealthy for them) which is extremely messy. I have plants but they also need a lot of room, they would have a hard time in a densely planted tank. Just natural that they are messy.. A healthy goldie should be growing 4-7" in it's first two years, so that high growth rate means high mess. Again, hundreds and hundreds of years has been put into perfecting goldfish care so I would not argue over it. 
However I do agree otherwise. I have a 75 liter with over 30 fish and it never goes about 10ppm nitrate, even if I skip a week in changing. ;-)
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Byron (Mar 7, 2009)

> No, you can't have too much O2 in the tank. And it would be very difficult to oversaturate the water with oxygen the way a typical fish tank is set up.


Referring solely to live plants, it is possible to have too much oxygen, and this can inhibit the uptake of certain nutrients by the plants. When dissolved oxygen levels are high, several nutrients, especially iron, bind with oxygen and become too large to be assimilated by the plants.



> What will remove CO2? If you're referring to aerating the tank, then yes and no. Aerating will remove CO2 _IF_ CO2 is being dosed into the tank, _OR_ if there's enough fish that the CO2 produced is higher than the equilibrium concentration. However, if neither of those are the case, then aerating will replenish the CO2 that's being used by the plants.


This topic has been debated on plant forums. The long-held view is that water movement will drive CO2 out and bring in excess oxygen. While a few notable authors have suggested otherwise, there has so far, to the best of my knowledge, been no concrete evidence that aeration in a natural (low-tech) method planted tank actually brings in CO2 rather than driving it out faster.

The sediment water contains much higher concentrations of CO2 than the upper water, as much as 100 times more. Two main reasons account for this. First, the organics in the substrate will be broken down by various bacteria and as they decompose a lot of CO2 is produced. Second, the plants themselves cause CO2 in the substrate. Plants have large internal channels for the transportation of oxygen, and most of this oxygen is transported to the roots where it is released. [The oxygen released by the roots of floating plants diffuses directly into the water, and this is one of the major benefits of floating plants.] In the substrate, this oxygen combines with carbon and organic elements creating CO2 which enters the water is then taken up by the plant (through its leaves) in photosynthesis.

The uptake of CO2 from the water is a much slower process than from air. The diffusion of CO2 into water is 10,000 times slower than in air. This means that the CO2 molecules don't contact the plant leaves fast enough, limiting CO2 uptake. Plants with an aerial advantage, such as those floating or sending leaves above the water surface, take up far more CO2 and thus photosynthesize (grow) faster.

Water in equilibrium with air contains 0.5 mg/l of CO2, which is insufficient for most plants. In our natural method planted tanks, CO2 for aquarium plants is mostly derived from fish food and organic matter in the substrate. It is vital to limit loss of this natural CO2 which will occur through any measure that increases air-water mixing. The higher level of CO2 from the substrate compared to the air will be lost faster than the plants can take it up if there is increased surface disturbance.

Byron.


----------



## madyotto (Mar 24, 2012)

Olympia said:


> The only tank that has the nitrate issue is my 90 gallon goldfish tank. This is just a consequence of these fish. If you look back, it's been known for HUNDREDS of years that 80-100% water changes are needed every 10 days. They receive a high quality food (flake/pellet is unhealthy for them) which is extremely messy. I have plants but they also need a lot of room, they would have a hard time in a densely planted tank. Just natural that they are messy.. A healthy goldie should be growing 4-7" in it's first two years, so that high growth rate means high mess. Again, hundreds and hundreds of years has been put into perfecting goldfish care so I would not argue over it.
> However I do agree otherwise. I have a 75 liter with over 30 fish and it never goes about 10ppm nitrate, even if I skip a week in changing. ;-)
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



i have a 350L 76UK Gallon or 93US Gallon

there is over 30 moillies and 15 other fish but some grow large example i have 2 silver sharks at 7.5 inch 3 clown loach at 2" 3 weather loach at 8.5inch and more


and i change 20L out of 350L a month which is only 7%

never get anything other than 1-3ppm nitrate


----------



## Byron (Mar 7, 2009)

madyotto said:


> so what about my clown's and glass cats and the fact that before i rid of my apple snails they had bred many time's this would not happen in a unhealthy setup
> 
> glass cat would be the first to go if there was anything wrong


This depends. As I have stated previously, fish do somehow manage to cope with less-than desirable situations. Some fish are obviously better at this than others. And one must take all the factors into the equation. Live plants certainly do benefit in such situations, as will less fish load, less feeding, etc. And as things deteriorate slowly, the fish may adjust to it, in an effort to remain alive. The will to live is very strong in most animals (and plants, for that matter).

But one must not assume that just because the fish are coping, they are at their best. They clearly are not. Our aim as responsible aquarists should be to do all we can to benefit the health of the fish we acquire, and this will have a consequence long-term. Apropos the blue paragraph in my signature.

Byron.


----------



## Olympia (Aug 25, 2011)

Again, the point you are making eludes me.. :s
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Byron (Mar 7, 2009)

madyotto said:


> i have a 350L 76UK Gallon or 93US Gallon
> 
> there is over 30 moillies and 15 other fish but some grow large example i have 2 silver sharks at 7.5 inch 3 clown loach at 2" 3 weather loach at 8.5inch and more
> 
> ...


But nitrate is only one of several issues. There is no way for aquarists to test the water with respect to these issues; it is simply a fact that the various issues occur as substances accumulate. Mikaila in this thread and I in the articles spell all this out.


----------



## redchigh (Jan 20, 2010)

As for my opinion, I'm not a bio-chemist.. I don't do many water changes in most of my tanks. My 20 long hasn't had one In over a year. I'm breeding gourami in it though, and they don't seem to need well in talks with a lot of water water changes.I have a tea tdsmatter, and the tds seem stable.on the high side, but stable nonetheless.why? I don't know for sure but I have a theory.

My tanks are full of plants, and I use lots of bacteria.. I innoculate my tanks with a small amount of soil that I collect from an area of my yard that collects run off from a forested hill and forms puddles whenever it rains.

I rinse my filter media every month or so, and its full of sludge.

I think that most of the yrs are broken down and converted to growth by.bacteria and plants that is removed by trimmings and filter rinsing. This tank is lightly stocked, with only gourami and their spawn. Water is clear, and nitrates are stable at 20. My ph slowly to 6.4, and is also stable.

If you set up a experiment, make sure you introduce bacteria, feed light, understock, and keep an eye on the ph.

I don't understate the risk and complexity of a no water change tank, just like I don't say soil is guaranteed toworkperfectly.. only that it works for me.


----------



## redchigh (Jan 20, 2010)

Btw, all sides the consequent arguments have been made, I chose to only answer original post.


----------



## JDM (Dec 9, 2012)

redchigh said:


> Btw, all sides the consequent arguments have been made, I chose to only answer original post.


Thank you.

Jeff.


----------



## Quantum (Jul 23, 2011)

my answer to your first question


1 - if you define successful as: 'the fish live, reproduce, and seem to be doing great', the answer is just about any size aquarium


----------



## Timjwilson (Dec 13, 2012)

I venture it would be extremely difficult to raise the dissolved oxygen [DO2] in an aquarium, using typical reasonably used equipment to a high enough rate to negatively effect nutrient uptake by plants. If this is indeed the case then I'd certainly like to see the literature substantiating this. I would also like to know what this rate would be.

In nature, there are situations where water can become supersaturated with DO2. This can be caused by plants, algae and waterfalls. Some may be surprised to know that DO2 can be 12 PPM and more in a natural setting with plants in coldish water. 

I still have not heard what DO2 is considered a good range for aquariums. Mine is around 7.5 PPM. At less than 6 PPM some aerobic bacteria do not function.

I don't know the relation to aquarium plants but hydroponic farmers increase DO2 to submerged roots to increase nutrient uptake.


----------



## Byron (Mar 7, 2009)

Timjwilson said:


> I venture it would be extremely difficult to raise the dissolved oxygen [DO2] in an aquarium, using typical reasonably used equipment to a high enough rate to negatively effect nutrient uptake by plants. If this is indeed the case then I'd certainly like to see the literature substantiating this. I would also like to know what this rate would be.
> 
> In nature, there are situations where water can become supersaturated with DO2. This can be caused by plants, algae and waterfalls. Some may be surprised to know that DO2 can be 12 PPM and more in a natural setting with plants in coldish water.
> 
> ...


I've no idea what the level of DO2 [= dissolved oxygen] should be, nor do I know at what levels it may cause issues. I frankly do not see the relevance of worrying over this. The important point is that you are not going to have any oxygen shortage in any aquarium unless something is wrong, meaning too many fish, too much decaying matter, adding diffused CO2 during darkness, etc. If the fish stocking is suited to the aquarium, and there are live plants, the oxygen will be sufficient for the needs of fish and plants.

My earlier point was that CO2 will be minimal with live plants, all else again being equal, and you do not want to be doing something that decreases it even further before the plants can take it up.

Byron.


----------



## Timjwilson (Dec 13, 2012)

> I've no idea what the level of DO2 [= dissolved oxygen] should be, nor do I know at what levels it may cause issues.


I'll try researching this a little if I have some time. I do know that in my area (which is multiplying microorganisms used in agriculture) that a small shift in DO2 can have a profound effect on the microbial population. I use oxygen supersaturation to manipulate the environment to benefit aerobic bacteria & fungi but as I stated I doubt that properly used aquarium equipment could have this effect to the degree that nutrient uptake by plants would be impacted.




> The important point is that you are not going to have any oxygen shortage in any aquarium unless something is wrong


Agreed, along with many other parameters which are measurable but not popular and affordable with the aquarium crowd. I've heard one 'scientist' argue that discus require a measured bacterial population of >100 cells/ml (cannot remember the exact number) in the water. I'm not implying this is necessary...just for illustration.




> My earlier point was that CO2 will be minimal with live plants, all else again being equal, and you do not want to be doing something that decreases it even further before the plants can take it up


I'm guessing that this is a non-issue if one has adequate fish (& invertebrates) and a good microbial population. I'm going to need a CO2 tester of some sort to verify. I also guess a lot is light quality dependent.


----------



## Timjwilson (Dec 13, 2012)

From what I can quickly ascertain one wants a dissolved oxygen rate of 7 PPM or greater (to a point; eg 9 or 10?) for fish to thrive and over 5 PPM for them to survive (appearing happy but who knows what is behind that happy smile :lol:)

Although this does not address aquarium fish here is some cursory reading material for those who may be interested. I have yet to research the water plant nutrient uptake issue.

*http://www.krisweb.com/stream/do.htm** 
**http://www.water-research.net/Watershed/dissolvedoxygen.htm** 
**http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/BCguidelines/tgp/tgptextonly-02.htm** 
**http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00288330.1999.9516860** 
**http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/aqlife/upload/2009_01_13_criteria_goldbook.pdf** 
*


----------



## madyotto (Mar 24, 2012)

i may have to do a small scale experiment with my next batch of mollies 

i will use 2 15-L tanks identical and with identical filter system 

i will also put both of these tanks in my 2,5 ft tank so they get the same light and environment 

i will also weigh the gravel 

the only problem i have is these tanks i hope to get have no thermostat with them i will just have to make space on my floor my room is warm and they will both be the same temp so as far as comparison goes this should be fine 

i have no fancy fish equipment for testing GH KH TDS TSS and much more but the proof is in the pudding after 6 months the fry that have grown the most will win lol

the only small snag i can see is feeding if i feed one tank more they will grow faster to some extent so i am thinking that instead of constant messing round trying to weight food i will just feed a few time over 5 mins but bits at a time this way it will give some kind of an indication on what the difference is in there appetite's 

These will also be planted tanks and i will use the exact same plants in each i will pick 2 plants that are different and split to equal sizes a week before starting 

the plants can also help us tell the size of the difference between changed and none changed 

oh also i will do the changes on the changed water system daily to mimic a year or so if it was a 150L+ 

CAN ANYONE ELSE THINK OF WAYS TO MAKE SURE THIS IS AS SCIENTIFIC AS CAN BE 



i would love to do this with 2 150L tanks but you know when i win the lotto and all lol 

but i guess that in most way the 15L's will give an idea on the effect over years in something like a 150L


----------



## madyotto (Mar 24, 2012)

the water changers always go to the science of it but how can this be meritable when we do not even know half of the properties fish could need.

also the effect of weekly stress caused by water changes on our fish 

yes some say that they are less stressed after reciving fresh water ho do you know your fish are less stressed after this i would love to know i mean come on did it speak to you ?

i really do think that the water changers sooner or later need to except that it can be done another way with the same sucsess levels


----------



## Reefing Madness (Jun 26, 2011)

Water changes can be done with little to no stress i believe. My fish don't even know i'm doing a water change, I empty my 45g sump,under the tank, and refill that, and bam, no fuss no muss.


----------



## JDM (Dec 9, 2012)

Reefing Madness said:


> Water changes can be done with little to no stress i believe. My fish don't even know i'm doing a water change, I empty my 45g sump,under the tank, and refill that, and bam, no fuss no muss.


Nice.

Jeff.


----------



## madyotto (Mar 24, 2012)

Reefing Madness said:


> Water changes can be done with little to no stress i believe. My fish don't even know i'm doing a water change, I empty my 45g sump,under the tank, and refill that, and bam, no fuss no muss.


i agree totally but most in fresh water game do not have a sump like me im just designing my new sump now


----------



## Reefing Madness (Jun 26, 2011)

madyotto said:


> i agree totally but most in fresh water game do not have a sump like me im just designing my new sump now


----------



## JDM (Dec 9, 2012)

OK.

Based on the discussion thus far, I would suggest that water changers are likely to stay water changers and non-water changers are going to stay non-water changers and there are some that are in the middle, infrequent changers I suppose, who may be swayed one way or the other.... or not, the swing vote, so to speak.

I see far too many posts regarding fish troubles that are corrected by water changes and feel that in almost all of those cases water changes should have been more regular or at least a first option to correct a problem that could have been aggravated by not changing it. A lot are non-planted tanks, changing is a given in that situation. Others are tanks that are too sparsely planted and changes should be a given. Then others again are just plain overstocked for the system and everything is riding on the edge of a variety of problems such that when one thing goes, everything falls apart quickly.

In my case I am reconsidering what heavily planted really means for my tank (every tank is different). Although I considered my tank to be heavily planted, I have concluded that it is not heavy enough to eliminate enough of the cycle with my fish load to eliminate some nitrite spiking, which seems to be the key. With enough plants in place there is very little free ammonia in the water long enough to have the nitrosomonas propagate quickly. This leads to very little nitrite being produced which leads to very little nitrate being produced and the plants can deal with the little bit that is. 

Effectively it creates a more closed self sustaining system as far as the nitrogen cycle is concerned. TDS can be measured if a concern and other non-measurables... well, let the debate continue on that topic.

I think that I probably should have followed a rule that applies to other non-aquarium situations. Once I felt that I had enough plants.... double them.

Am I going to stop changing water?

The "old water" mentality of days of yore has some merit but feel it is flawed, perhaps I will consider a water freshness scale similar to that used for the measuring of the age of cheddar cheese. New, Medium, Old, Extra Old. I think I like the idea of being able to sustain a medium water tank which, to me, might be a 25% biweekly water change once the system gets firmly established.

That is a ways away yet though.

Jeff.


----------



## madyotto (Mar 24, 2012)

JDM said:


> OK.
> 
> Based on the discussion thus far, I would suggest that water changers are likely to stay water changers and non-water changers are going to stay non-water changers and there are some that are in the middle, infrequent changers I suppose, who may be swayed one way or the other.... or not, the swing vote, so to speak.
> 
> ...


just a heads up i have 8 plants in my 250L this is plenty for keeping the water just so 

but there are other factors to take into account such as the nateral pete i use under my gravel 

things like this will allow the plants to rid of more ammonia and nitrate 

there are too many things that have to be done and understood before contemplating running a tank without c fully understand these things would be a bad move in a none changed tank


----------



## JDM (Dec 9, 2012)

madyotto said:


> just a heads up i have 8 plants in my 250L this is plenty for keeping the water just so
> 
> but there are other factors to take into account such as the nateral pete i use under my gravel
> 
> ...


Is that a fileting knife on the stand... how ominous for the fish to see that sitting there...:shock:

I agree, I think that anyone contemplating that sort of a move might need to consider starting the tank with that goal in mind... and lots of experience, or a very slow transition of an existing setup. Too often someone puts it out there that they don't change water as if that is helpful for someone with a tank that needs the changing.

Either way, I'm not about to try to jump on a non-changing setup, although I would like farther between changes.

One setup that I am fond of doing is a summer turtle pond. I fill a washtub in the spring from the river, add mud, plants, polywogs, insects critters and whatever we can catch. Add large sunning stone, turtle(s) and it keeps until the fall. The water change is looked after by the rain and evaporation. I never test this setup, wouldn't have thought to as I've done it many years and the turtles eat most of the other live things anyway, always have to catch more stuff as I would not feed wild turtles prepared food. 

The kids love it...OK... so do I.:roll:

Jeff.


----------



## FishyFishy89 (Jul 3, 2011)

I can honestly say, this thread has been a VERY interesting read. OldFishLady(shes mostly on the betta forum) has had success in making minimal water changes in her heavily planted tanks. Then again, I believe she mostly has bettas and they don't produce waste like, say, a goldfish does. Nevertheless, I read some interesting points and I'm taking them into my own account, questioning and researching them.

Also, after reading the inputs on what tap water is, I can say I am glad I almost never drink straight from the tap.

Lastly, I hate to bounce back and forth, but rewind back to fish feeling pain. If you were to take a needle and poke a fish(in water). Would it not have a reaction of some sort? Wouldn't that reaction be from pain? The same as if you were to poke yourself with a needle?


----------



## funkman262 (Jan 12, 2013)

AbbeysDad said:


> Fresh water is only fresh in nature because it is constantly renewed by rain..."the solution to pollution is dilution."


You're still assuming that rainwater is "new" water. In order for there to be rain, there must be evaporation. When water evaporates, pure water exits causing the contaminants within that water to become more concentrated. All rain does is dilute it back to where it was before any water evaporated. We can duplicate the process you're referring to by simply topping off our tanks with RO/DI water.



FishyFishy89 said:


> Also, after reading the inputs on what tap water is, I can say I am glad I almost never drink straight from the tap.


My educational background is in environmental engineering and I've done research in various drinking water treatment processes (my current research is in bacterial filtration using GAC as a media). I can tell you that I drink straight from the tap without any concerns. Many people feel more comfortable using a Brita filter (or a similar filter using activated carbon), but all that's really doing is removing the residual chlorine to improve taste.


----------



## Byron (Mar 7, 2009)

funkman262 said:


> You're still assuming that rainwater is "new" water. In order for there to be rain, there must be evaporation. When water evaporates, pure water exits causing the contaminants within that water to become more concentrated. All rain does is dilute it back to where it was before any water evaporated. We can duplicate the process you're referring to by simply topping off our tanks with RO/DI water.


I must question this. Taking the last sentence first, I know this is not accurate. "Topping up" evaporated water in a fish tank is not even remotely akin to what occurs in nature because of the very confioned closed system that is about an un-natural as you can be. Even a daily 90% water change is not duplicating what occurs in the fish's natural environment. Plus, the water entering the stream/lake is not "pure" water.

As for the evaporated water containing contaminants, I am not a chemist but from what I can remember this is not correct. This is true "pure" water. As the rain falls, it picks up various substances so when it hits the ground it will be different.

Byron.


----------



## funkman262 (Jan 12, 2013)

Byron said:


> As for the evaporated water containing contaminants, I am not a chemist but from what I can remember this is not correct. This is true "pure" water. As the rain falls, it picks up various substances so when it hits the ground it will be different.
> 
> Byron.


I'm not referring to the evaporated water containing contaminants. What I'm saying is, if we just consider our tank now to keep it simple, as water evaporates, the water left in the tank becomes more concentrated. That's the reason why it's very important for saltwater keepers to constantly top off their tanks or the salinity will rise too much. If you take an simplistic exaggerated instance of a freshwater tank, if 50% of the water evaporated, the ammonia concentration would double. So if you topped off with RO/DI, yes you're diluting the tank-water, but you're only bringing the ammonia concentration back to where it was before any water evaporated. The same thing essentially happens in nature. I'm not claiming that our aquariums exactly duplicate nature, but I don't see having a heavily planted, lightly stocked tank with no water changes being worse for fish than a non-planted, heavily stocked tank with 50%+ weekly water changes.


----------



## Byron (Mar 7, 2009)

> I'm not referring to the evaporated water containing contaminants. What I'm saying is, if we just consider our tank now to keep it simple, as water evaporates, the water left in the tank becomes more concentrated.


Yes, I agree completely.



> I don't see having a heavily planted, lightly stocked tank with no water changes being worse for fish than a non-planted, heavily stocked tank with 50%+ weekly water changes.


Your "qualifiers" are the crucial point. The more plants and fewer fish, the better, no argument there. Water changes will still benefit, even if they become less critical.

Byron.


----------



## funkman262 (Jan 12, 2013)

Byron said:


> Your "qualifiers" are the crucial point. The more plants and fewer fish, the better, no argument there. Water changes will still benefit, even if they become less critical.
> 
> Byron.


Yes, those qualifiers are very important here. I would never suggest this method to someone with a non-planted goldfish tank. I wouldn't even suggest it to someone with a heavily planted goldfish tank, simply because they are extremely messy fish. I keep small community fish in an extremely heavily planted tank. I've had the same fish for a year and a half, no water changes, they've grown large, extremely colorful, and a couple species (angelfish and kribensis) breed frequently and the fry even manage to grow large and healthy. Now let's be honest with ourselves, if we truly "loved" fish, we wouldn't keep them at all. Do they enjoy being shipped all over the world in little bags, and in the case of retail being left in tiny tanks until a customer decides to buy them? Are they excited about the high death-rates during shipping? Do you think they enjoy being confined to such a small space when they should be able to enjoy an entire pond, lake or river? Realistically, even if you kept a single neon tetra in a 200g+ tank, it's still in a much more confined space than it would be in nature. There's absolutely no way to completely duplicate the fish's natural environment, but I will continue to hold that the way I maintain my tank is still better for the fish than the way many others do, even if they conduct weekly water changes.


----------



## redchigh (Jan 20, 2010)

Lets make this simple. Can anyone find an ichthyologist, biochemist, or published writer that says water changes aren't crucial (in something 20 years old or less).

(Other than Diane Walstad).


This is degrading away from a civilized debate. Be nice, or it will be closed. 


"As for X fish breeds for me, and I don't do waterchanges", its an invalid point. There is no way to know that the lack of water changes is the reason. It could easily b "in spite of no water changes, x breeds".


----------



## jentralala (Oct 5, 2012)

madyotto said:


> yes some say that they are less stressed after reciving fresh water ho do you know your fish are less stressed after this i would love to know i mean come on did it speak to you ?



Just to put this out there, all of my Harlequin Rasboras immediately start spawning after a water change. It's like clockwork.


----------



## madyotto (Mar 24, 2012)

jentralala said:


> Just to put this out there, all of my Harlequin Rasboras immediately start spawning after a water change. It's like clockwork.


yes if anyone was to keep a breeding tank with no changes this is a different matter

i will run a tank with no changes but not breed there is 2 major reasons to this one being that fry/eggs are not as acclimed to the water as the rest of fish 

two is that hormones that are released during breeding are not good for fish there is no fact to this just logic and the fact it is the way i was taught 

also yet again i find myself saying this 

them like your self that change water 

your water goes like a yoyo good water then it goes back to the equilibrium state in a matter of a day or two then a few days after they get used to the water's equilibrium state a few days later you change water again 

i ask how can a fish know where it stands from day to day 

compered to a fish that lives at a healthy equilibrium and you all argue water changes are not stressful of corse they are 

let me restrict your air supply to 50% of what you are used to and see how much it stresses you every few days with such a change

is it that far out of reasoning that the fish will breed just bellow the equilibrium no truth of it is they would anyway usualy 24 hours after tank gets cleaned and plants eat all bad chemicals


----------



## JDM (Dec 9, 2012)

madyotto said:


> yes some say that they are less stressed after reciving fresh water ho do you know your fish are less stressed after this i would love to know i mean come on did it speak to you ?


Jen reminded me that you asked this question. 

Check out this video and you tell me that this fish (our Oscar the betta) is more stressed or less stressed as the fresh water pours into the tank. Can a person even speak of a lack of stress anymore eloquently than this? I think not :lol:






'Nuff said.

Jeff.


----------



## redchigh (Jan 20, 2010)

People need to go back and reread from the beginning. The same points keep getting brought up.

In a tank with no waterchanges, a sudden waterchange can shock the fish. Absolutely.

In a tank with regular waterchanges, the tank water will be more similiar to tap, so there will be no "shock".


----------



## JDM (Dec 9, 2012)

redchigh said:


> People need to go back and reread from the beginning. The same points keep getting brought up.
> 
> In a tank with no waterchanges, a sudden waterchange can shock the fish. Absolutely.
> 
> In a tank with regular waterchanges, the tank water will be more similiar to tap, so there will be no "shock".


The worst of this, as much as the discussion is interesting even with the tangents, I wasn't asking about opinions, scientific proof or anything... just some input from those that actually are running or have run closed tanks, mainly for curiosity sake.

Jeff.


----------



## funkman262 (Jan 12, 2013)

JDM said:


> The worst of this, as much as the discussion is interesting even with the tangents, I wasn't asking about opinions, scientific proof or anything... just some input from those that actually are running or have run closed tanks, mainly for curiosity sake.
> 
> Jeff.


So essentially all of you that are arguing to the "importance" of water changes should stay out of this thread as that's not what the OP wanted.

To go back on topic, I don't know about the _smallest_, but I've successfully run a 90g tank using soil topped with black sand, a variety of plants including many fast-growers, and lightly stocked with small community fish.


----------



## beaslbob (Oct 17, 2012)

JDM said:


> I have a question, well, two.
> 
> What is the smallest tank that you think can successfully be set up to run with no water changes?


1 quart or less


> What is the smallest you have run that way, and for how long?


1 Quart 2-3 years
5 gallon 8-9 years


> I may have others along the way but let's start with these.
> 
> When I first looked at an aquarium, just before Christmas, I asked the LFS guy about running such a setup as you guys do. He gave me that look that you give, unintentionally, to the extremely uninformed. So I am curious.
> 
> Jeff.


how's that for back to original question? :shock:


----------



## Byron (Mar 7, 2009)

> you put your hand in your tank you stress every fish in most tanks one fish will spook another and then that will do the same until you get a fast fish that will make them all jump
> 
> imagine some one lowering the roof in your room and then 5 mins later lifts it up again ok you would get used to it but it can be to easy for it to disrupt your day
> causing stress why would fish be any different sure they could and maybe


This is rather misleading.

First on the fish response, it is not always stress but quite the opposite. I remember changing water with Carnegiella marthae [hatchetfish] nibbling on the hairs on my arm as I was vacuming the substrate; they certainly weren't jumping out of fear. And today, the Black Ruby Barb were clustered around the siphon tube pecking at it in the hopes of grabbing some of the bits of detritus being vacumed up, while I was moving it along the substrate. And others were nibbling my hand. And they regularly swim into the tube when the tank is refilling.

But taking the stress issue, what about the stress of not doing the water change? Which do you think is going to have the longer lasting effect on the fish? A few minutes of annoyance during the water change, or the cumulative effect of all the "stuff" not being removed from the water? The latter is by far the worst.

Byron.


----------



## funkman262 (Jan 12, 2013)

You know the cool thing about a properly designed heavily planted tank? No ammonia spikes when adding fish or accidentally overfeeding. The plants can take up nitrogen much quicker than bacteria. You'll probably think of some way how plants consuming nitrogen is bad for the fish though...


----------



## Quantum (Jul 23, 2011)

yes, we test for NH3, NO2/NO3, PO4 and the like, but is that all that is present?


can't we infer that the best conditions for fish in an aquarium are those most closely match those in which they evolved?


----------



## AndrewM21 (Mar 4, 2012)

funkman262 said:


> While we're at it I should just toss some predator fish into my tank because that's what they evolved with...


You can toss them where the sun don't shine if it sees fit, doesn't mean it's going to work out to your advantage. 



Quantum said:


> the ocean is only 240 gals?


Perhaps instead of filling this thread with unneeded garbage, try posting with something that is on topic and isn't a jab because you couldn't post a proper rebuttal statement.

-----------

There are two logical points I found paramount from reading this thread. One being that one can successfully setup a system that allows infrequent water changes and the other being that water changes are a necessity for some.

ReefingMadness showed his point that he has a successful setup that requires infrequent water changes. Not many people will or can do this type of setup thus they will require more frequent water changes. 

The point here being that it is possible to maintain an aquarium without doing weekly or monthly water changes. There has been very little knowledgeable debate throughout the entire thread and I find a majority of what has been posted to be highly misleading to users that will potentially read portions of this thread without reading the entire thread to get the full facts. 

There are 3 types of people in this thread currently, the one that prefers frequent water changes, the one that prefers infrequent changes, and the idiots who don't know which one is which so they decide with the one who has the most followers. 

Feel free to take your "stabs" at me if you wish, I will surely take them into advisement. :roll:


----------



## jeaninel (Aug 24, 2007)

Guys....guys....guys....sheeesh!! :frustrated::frustrated::frustrated::frustrated:

What had started out as an intelligent, healthy debate has taken a turn for the worst. Cut the crap with the insults and mud flinging. There is nothing gained in just cutting each other down. People have different ways of taking care of their fish. One thing we have in common. We all care about our fish otherwise we would not take the time to join a forum. I, for one, am tired of my phone getting blown up with emails only to open the thread to such garbage as what is being currently dished out. I think it's time for the mods to lock this thread. :roll:


Edit: Now if I can only figure out how to unsubscribe from a thread. I have never done that in all my years being on this forum.


----------



## dramaqueen (Jul 7, 2008)

Argumentative posts have been removed.


----------

