Water changes solves almost everything

[Rivers2k]

I know there has been allot of debate over large weekly water changes and if you should do them or not. So just wanted to share my experience.

I have been keeping fish since I was 9 and am now 38 so just under 30 years of keeping fish. I started with my 10 gallon full of tetras then grew into keeping large salt,brackish and fresh water systems. When I started I new nothing of water changes I just topped it off and every once in a while I would loose a tetra here and there. I would replace them my thought is they are little fish they don't live long. Then I went through the phase of scrubbing the tank out every few months giving it a good cleaning (which you should not do)

I then learned about water changes and did a large water change every month or two with my vacuum and 5 gallon buckets. That phase lasted into my 20's never really lost any fish and they where doing well, so I thought. They weren't dying but they weren't as big and colorful as my fish are now. In that time I experimented with the right combination of fish and plants to make my WC less frequent. I made sure I had the right bottom feeders and alges eaters, using fish to try and do the job I should have been doing. Over all my tanks were doing well, Every once in a while I would see the problems people have on here. Algea bloom, Ich, bloat all stuff we all deal with.

About 8 or 9 years ago I got a python which made water changes super simple so since then about every week or two I do a 50%-75% water change.

Recently I was reading through some of the beginner threads and the "PLEASE HELP!!! threads" I realized I haven't had any real tank issues in years. I don't deal with any of these issues not even algae!

I only test my water about once or twice a year just for fun and it is always spot on. So the only think I can accredit my success to is Water Changes.

Taking 1 hour every week or two and I can't remember the last time I lost a fish. Ich out breaks used to decimate my tanks now the last out break I had was about 4 years ago. My fish are bigger and more colorful. I love firemouths and I see many firemouths that are drab grey with red bellies. My Firemouths that were born in my tank have all colors of the rainbow. I credit that to good feeding and water changes.

People can say what they want to and tell me I am wrong that it doesn't need to be done but this has been my experience so I am sticking with what is working.

 

[Brookster123]

I agree with you 100%. I may not have the years of experience but I certainly have undergone a serious crash course in this hobby of ours. Started with a 5 gal hex with orange gravel. I abide by the weekly 40-50% wc with my water barrel and things have been running smooth as silk for months. Only issue I've had is tank failures it's simple really.. don't overstock and don't be afraid to change water and clean your tank. Fish love fresh water!!!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Aquarium Advice mobile app

 

[Rivers2k]

I agree with you 100%. I may not have the years of experience but I certainly have undergone a serious crash course in this hobby of ours. Started with a 5 gal hex with orange gravel. I abide by the weekly 40-50% wc with my water barrel and things have been running smooth as silk for months. Only issue I've had is tank failures it's simple really.. don't overstock and don't be afraid to change water and clean your tank. Fish love fresh water!!!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Aquarium Advice mobile app

Stocking is also a big part of it to. I am big proponent of understocking. When I got over the idea of how many fish can I have and switch two how nice can I grow these fish it has changed everything. when I see a nice new fish I still get the itch lol but then I tell my self I don't have the room especially since mine keep breeding lol.

 

[Linwood]

If you do weekly oil changes your car will last much longer than if you do them very rarely.

But it will not last longer than if you do them monthly. Or Quarterly.

It's hard to argue that frequent water changes cure many ills. And there's probably rarely a point where one does damage by "too often", assuming you do them gently so as not to stress the fish. But there's certainly a point beyond which you get diminishing returns, it just is hard to tell where it is.

 

[Brookster123]

If you do weekly oil changes your car will last much longer than if you do them very rarely.

But it will not last longer than if you do them monthly. Or Quarterly.

It's hard to argue that frequent water changes cure many ills. And there's probably rarely a point where one does damage by "too often", assuming you do them gently so as not to stress the fish. But there's certainly a point beyond which you get diminishing returns, it just is hard to tell where it is.

Well.. comparing an aquarium to an engine is outright ridiculous. . Do whatever works for you I guess.. i change my oil every 4k on the dot.. tanks are a completely different scenario

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Aquarium Advice mobile app

 

[Linwood]

Well.. comparing an aquarium to an engine is outright ridiculous. . Do whatever works for you I guess.. i change my oil every 4k on the dot.. tanks are a completely different scenario

Really... no concepts of analogy... none....

OK, try a more direct approach. I agree that water changes are good. But in many tropical fish forums they have reached the point of panacea. It is not unusual for a discussion to distill down to:

Do a water change, then tell me what your question is.
​

There seems to always be an undercurrent of "you must do 50% water changes weekly" (or choose your number) to be healthy, with little concern or consideration whether the environment is small or large, sterile or heavily planted, overstocked or lightly stocked.

I do not suggest the OP said that, and am not trying to contradict their experience, but it had a hint of that flavor.

And in the "a water change is like an oil change" category (let's try a simile instead) circumstances tend to govern how often they are productive. But doing them more often is usually not harmful, just costly (at least in time).

 

[Brookster123]

Really... no concepts of analogy... none....

OK, try a more direct approach. I agree that water changes are good. But in many tropical fish forums they have reached the point of panacea. It is not unusual for a discussion to distill down to:

Do a water change, then tell me what your question is.
​

There seems to always be an undercurrent of "you must do 50% water changes weekly" (or choose your number) to be healthy, with little concern or consideration whether the environment is small or large, sterile or heavily planted, overstocked or lightly stocked.

I do not suggest the OP said that, and am not trying to contradict their experience, but it had a hint of that flavor.

And in the "a water change is like an oil change" category (let's try a simile instead) circumstances tend to govern how often they are productive. But doing them more often is usually not harmful, just costly (at least in time).

That's cool, if you drive your car to the market and back once a week (2 miles) , than a weekly oil change is absolutely unnecessary. If you drive 1000 miles a week in the city, like a taxi cab, you'd be crazy not to change oil weekly. All that being said... you're only going to feed your fish once a week for bi-weekly wc's? There is a proper equation for any result. I think the point here is this.. conservatively stocked tanks+ weekly 50% wc= smooth sailing.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Aquarium Advice mobile app

 

[jetajockey]

I think a better comparison between an engine and a tank is that both need maintenance based on usage. For an engine, this # is based on mileage, with varying oil life depending on type of oil used (synthetic and blends often go up to double the mileage rating over conventional oils). However, mileage doesn't factor in engine idling, so if I had a car that spent a lot of time idling, I'd probably factor my oil life more conservatively with that in mind.

With a standard non planted aquarium, the 'mileage' is based on the aquarium stock load and time. A lightly stocked tank is going to be in much better shape than a heavily stocked one over a longer period of time (without maintenance).

Planted tank is more like putting a new oil filter on your car every trip. It deals with a lot of the waste in the system but it doesn't replenish anything, so water changes (or additives) are still necessary.

 

[Andy Sager]

Okay, so here's another thread on the water changes. Well described and clearly stated. But here's the thing, for any knowledgeable hobbyist, doing a water change is not up for debate. It MUST be done since we are using closed systems but it's the amount of the water change that is safe to do is what's at issue. It depends on the fish in the tank, the water parameters at that time and the water used to refill the tank. It will be different from tank to tank and water source. I've kept fish in multiple states over many decades and I know that the water in different places differs from place to place. So one person's experience can not be considered the "standard."

The OP discusses now about his Firemouths. ( A fish I am very familiar with and have even seen in the wild.) This is a fish that, under the worst of conditions, still survives. No, it will not be at it's best under the worst of conditions and Yes, clean water will have a lot to do with the vibrancy and survivability of the fish, but the bottom line is that this routine can not be the "absolute standard" for all fish. Some fish just can't handle that much water change.

This is where I have problems with threads such as this one. How is a new hobbyist supposed to know what to do for their tank(s)? All I ask is to PLEASE, find a way to mention in the thread that "What I do may not be appropriate for you" so no one is left staring at a tank saying "I copied what I read on AA in this thread and all my fish died " This WILL happen for certain fish if this routine is done.

To the OP's credit, under stocking also plays a big part in fish health. So does the diet, psychological well being of the fish and tank mates. The water change alone is not responsible for the current outcome of these fish but it does play an important role in it.
So just to be clear, I'm not saying that water changes aren't necessary or that what the OP is doing is wrong, I'm just saying that the exact routine does not apply to all fish species. You have to learn the fish you keep so you can know the right process to use.

Hope this helps

 

[Masha]

Excellent post, Andy. By chance, I just came across an article that mentions an example of how too large water changes can cause problems under certain circumstances. Apparently, in a low light, planted tank, frequent large water changes can cause fluctuations in the carbon dioxide levels and cause an overgrowth of Black Beard Algae. No idea if this is true, and it's also not the WORST thing that can happen, but I thought it was interesting all the same, and an example of how there really is no "one size fits all" solution to all problems.

And also a reminder of how much I still have to learn, and how important it is to really understand what is going on in your tank.

Sent from my GT-I9190 using Aquarium Advice mobile app

 

[mikem691]

Okay, so here's another thread on the water changes. Well described and clearly stated. But here's the thing, for any knowledgeable hobbyist, doing a water change is not up for debate. It MUST be done since we are using closed systems but it's the amount of the water change that is safe to do is what's at issue. It depends on the fish in the tank, the water parameters at that time and the water used to refill the tank. It will be different from tank to tank and water source. I've kept fish in multiple states over many decades and I know that the water in different places differs from place to place. So one person's experience can not be considered the "standard."

The OP discusses now about his Firemouths. ( A fish I am very familiar with and have even seen in the wild.) This is a fish that, under the worst of conditions, still survives. No, it will not be at it's best under the worst of conditions and Yes, clean water will have a lot to do with the vibrancy and survivability of the fish, but the bottom line is that this routine can not be the "absolute standard" for all fish. Some fish just can't handle that much water change.

This is where I have problems with threads such as this one. How is a new hobbyist supposed to know what to do for their tank(s)? All I ask is to PLEASE, find a way to mention in the thread that "What I do may not be appropriate for you" so no one is left staring at a tank saying "I copied what I read on AA in this thread and all my fish died " This WILL happen for certain fish if this routine is done.

To the OP's credit, under stocking also plays a big part in fish health. So does the diet, psychological well being of the fish and tank mates. The water change alone is not responsible for the current outcome of these fish but it does play an important role in it.
So just to be clear, I'm not saying that water changes aren't necessary or that what the OP is doing is wrong, I'm just saying that the exact routine does not apply to all fish species. You have to learn the fish you keep so you can know the right process to use.

Hope this helps

Andy. One thing I got from your post is that some fish will not benefit from a 50% weekly water change. Can you give an example of this. I'm not questioning your knowledge just wondering what fish can't benefit from stable clean water.

Sent from my EVO using Aquarium Advice mobile app

 

[Dallascowboys16]

Guys, I will say Ive been watching the arguments unfold on these threads over the last couple of weeks and I have to say that they are insanely over analyzed. I sporadically do %50 water changes on my 55 gallon usually every 2-3 weeks but it is relatively low stocked and has a lot of fast growing plants in it with proper fertilization and co2 injection and Ive never had water quality issues and never have had a disease other than icy from introducing a non-qt fish. Im super busy as I'm 15 and along with football and homework not a lot of time for the tank during the week. If I let a couple weeks slide in-between water changes it is always fine and nothing terrible happens as a result I think we al just need to be practical about this. Everyone knows that its crazy to do multiple %50 a week as one member suggests here quite frequently and its not a great idea to go a month or 2 in-between. find a happy medium and you will be fine.

 

[PB_Smith]

I think we al just need to be practical about this. Everyone knows that its crazy to do multiple %50 a week as one member suggests here quite frequently and its not a great idea to go a month or 2 in-between. find a happy medium and you will be fine.

no need for further discussion.
/thread

 

[Andy Sager]

Andy. One thing I got from your post is that some fish will not benefit from a 50% weekly water change. Can you give an example of this. I'm not questioning your knowledge just wondering what fish can't benefit from stable clean water.

Sent from my EVO using Aquarium Advice mobile app

Here's a perfect quick example: Wild cardinal tetras. If you take these fish and change too much of their parameters too quickly, they will not do well and will probably die. Most cardinals on the market are wild opposed to say, Neon Tetras which are mostly tank raised. You see, 50% may be fine if you replace the water with exactly the same parameters as you are taking out sans the nitrates but does that always happen? A fellow member ( Gilpi) who, in another thread on doing large scale water changes was in favor of them, has a thread now about how his fish had an adverse effect from his "regular" large water changing regime. If I remember correctly, his was a PH issue as the water he used had a sudden PH change thereby reducing the PH in his tank. Considering he was dealing with African Cichlids ( again, I believe that was the issue) the drop in PH effected the fish adversely. Had the water change been smaller, the chemistry change would have also been smaller and may not have effected the fish at all.
My point being that while water changes are a necessity in fish keeping in closed systems, the need to do such large volumes has it's dangers that can be worse than the poor water quality and should not be taken as the "standard norm." Overstocking, over feeding, under filtering all will play a role in how bad your water gets and how soon it gets bad. This is why I still follow the method I was taught 50 years ago, " If your water gets that bad in 7 days that it's hazardous for the fish, you are either overfeeding or under filtering." With today's over stocking being the norm, this test is even more true. With too many fish comes too much food which leads to a quicker decay of water quality. As I said previously, to the OP's credit, the understocking of his tanks helps play a role in his fish's appearance as well as behavior and is really a better way to keep fish stock. It just so happens that the fish he talks about happens to be a very sturdy fish and is handling the larger changes. That would not be the case in all species.

Hope this better explains my comment.

 

[PB_Smith]

Here's a perfect quick example: Wild cardinal tetras. If you take these fish and change too much of their parameters too quickly, they will not do well and will probably die. Most cardinals on the market are wild opposed to say, Neon Tetras which are mostly tank raised. You see, 50% may be fine if you replace the water with exactly the same parameters as you are taking out sans the nitrates but does that always happen? A fellow member ( Gilpi) who, in another thread on doing large scale water changes was in favor of them, has a thread now about how his fish had an adverse effect from his "regular" large water changing regime. If I remember correctly, his was a PH issue as the water he used had a sudden PH change thereby reducing the PH in his tank. Considering he was dealing with African Cichlids ( again, I believe that was the issue) the drop in PH effected the fish adversely. Had the water change been smaller, the chemistry change would have also been smaller and may not have effected the fish at all.
My point being that while water changes are a necessity in fish keeping in closed systems, the need to do such large volumes has it's dangers that can be worse than the poor water quality and should not be taken as the "standard norm." Overstocking, over feeding, under filtering all will play a role in how bad your water gets and how soon it gets bad. This is why I still follow the method I was taught 50 years ago, " If your water gets that bad in 7 days that it's hazardous for the fish, you are either overfeeding or under filtering." With today's over stocking being the norm, this test is even more true. With too many fish comes too much food which leads to a quicker decay of water quality. As I said previously, to the OP's credit, the understocking of his tanks helps play a role in his fish's appearance as well as behavior and is really a better way to keep fish stock. It just so happens that the fish he talks about happens to be a very sturdy fish and is handling the larger changes. That would not be the case in all species.

Hope this better explains my comment.

Very well put, again.

I honestly don't know why this is such a hard thing for some folks to grasp.
It is science, but it ain't rocket science.

 

[Andy Sager]

Very well put, again.

I honestly don't know why this is such a hard thing for some folks to grasp.
It is science, but it ain't rocket science.

I agree. It ain't rocket science I have been fortunate enough to have been doing this long enough, in multiple states in the U.S., with many types of fish from all around the world which is why I know there is no 1 absolute therefore there shouldn't be threads written like there is. ( IMO ) I'm just trying to pass along the help.

 

[PB_Smith]

I agree. It ain't rocket science I have been fortunate enough to have been doing this long enough, in multiple states in the U.S., with many types of fish from all around the world which is why I know there is no 1 absolute therefore there shouldn't be threads written like there is. ( IMO ) I'm just trying to pass along the help.

I agree 117% with your mentor, if you need to do such big wc's so frequently, then there is something fundamentally wrong with the set-up or stocking levels, plain and simple.

IMHO from what I have seen online, in stores and on the forum here, many peoples tanks are under-filtered and hence all the "razor's edge" issues with parameters, folks constantly chasing numbers, having to resort to huge, frequent water changes to maintain quality.

By the standards I see taught and reinforced by the current industry trends with filtration methodologies, my little ten gallon has enough filtration potential to support a 40 gallon tank, easy.

I have always gone overboard with filtration capacity and redundancy, and it has always yielded very good results overall.

 

[Andy Sager]

Yeah, where's a Supreme Aquamaster or Aquaking when you need one? Today's filters seem to going back to the days of the Dynaflo air bubbler filters. lol Just not big enough to do the job right.

 

[PB_Smith]

Yeah, where's a Supreme Aquamaster or Aquaking when you need one? Today's filters seem to going back to the days of the Dynaflo air bubbler filters. lol Just not big enough to do the job right.

I think folks have been duped into thinking HOB/cartridge filters are great and easy when in reality they are designed more to induce repeat purchases of consumables and monetary gains before any other considerations.

I have built three filters for the three tanks I have running and including the cost of the pumps, I have spent less than $150 total and what I made far surpasses what can be purchased at that price.

 

[Linwood]

I have built three filters for the three tanks I have running and including the cost of the pumps, I have spent less than $150 total and what I made far surpasses what can be purchased at that price.

Sumps? Any chance you posted info on what you did? Curious.

I have canisters and find them very convenient. I disconnect and move the whole mess to a big utility sink to clean, bring it back and plug it in. But the manufacturers sure do lie about capacity.

Toward this original thread I think that is a contributor. If you're going for good, effective filtration, and believe the manufacturer numbers, you will be way, sadly, badly under-powered. Add a few chain pet store employees who "helped" customers stock their tank and told them how to use them, throw in a liberal helping of lack of any scientific method in most people's approach to problems, a dash of poorly selected internet advice, and .... 50% water changes every week are about all that's keeping anything alive.