Water changes solves almost everything

[lectraplayer]

The operative word in PB's post is NEED. If you NEED to take out that much dirty water and replace it with clean, then eventually "something will break," meaning, yes, "wrong" is an accurate term. If, however, you're still changing 50% water biweekly, but your "ecosystem in a box" stays adequately clean for 4 weeks, that is fine and dandy, and that is not "wrong."

 

[PB_Smith]

The operative word in PB's post is NEED. If you NEED to take out that much dirty water and replace it with clean, then eventually "something will break," meaning, yes, "wrong" is an accurate term. If, however, you're still changing 50% water biweekly, but your "ecosystem in a box" stays adequately clean for 4 weeks, that is fine and dandy, and that is not "wrong."

Personally I don't care if someone changes 99% of their water every three hours, just please do not begin to preach it as the "bestest, most splederiffic methodology ever!!!" or say it "solves almost everything" as seems to be the case with the "50% weekly" camp on the forums.

there is nothing "wrong" with changing 50% weekly, IMO it isn't needed except for certain circumstances, but if you NEED to do that to keep your critters healthy, it's time to re-think your set-up.


My remarks concerning the industry is because I see a whole bunch of info out and about that when critically analyzed and compared against sound scientific principles, seems as if the advice is designed to generate profits for those who control the industry trends.
The Fluval recommendation to replace ceramic media being just one example.
HOB filters that use those pathetic cartridges are another. Almost useless and designed to promote repeat purchases, and lot's of folks sing their praises. Why?, it certainly isn't because it's the best or even good solution, just the easiest and most advertised/promoted.

It's like here in California they have a law that a business that does smog checks CAN NOT also do repairs of emission systems. It is a conflict of interest and in the past led to a lot of fraudulent diagnosis of car issues because the tester was the repairer.

Same principle holds true for this hobby as well. Is the info you are getting coming from a neutral source or from a source that has something to gain based upon what advice/practices they promote?
To me it is pretty simple to comprehend and also obvious.
and no, the above is not off topic, it is an attempt to answer a question utilizing metaphor and analogy.

 

[lectraplayer]

there is nothing "wrong" with changing 50% weekly, IMO it isn't needed except for certain circumstances, but if you NEED to do that to keep your critters healthy, it's time to re-think your set-up.

There you go!

 

[jetajockey]

The 50% weekly 'camp' is just a general guideline that people use when new fishkeepers ask about water change frequency. Of course, there are people that take this too far and blame every ill on lack of water change frequency/%. But in general it's just a very basic guideline directed towards people who want an answer and not a mile long explanation of how to figure out their own water change routine. (Not that this is a bad thing, it's just not applicable to most 'newbie help' situations)

I don't think that the weekly WC routine was spawned out of retailers trying to generate more $$. It's true that fishkeeping was one of those niche markets that is rife with mythology and crazy sales tactics, but thankfully with the information exchange of the internet a lot of it is easy discern. Many mom and pop stores went the way of the dinosaur because the internet opened up the market for consumers and they were no longer forced to buy dry goods and equipment from their often way overpriced LFS.

 

[PB_Smith]

I have never once said that the industry side of the hobby is promoting big water changes, just that some of the IDEAS about what are good practices and what constitutes good filtration have been skewed very much in favor of generating a consistent revenue stream by those promoting some of this merchandise/methodologies.
Now how that impacts things like water changes is simple to my mind.

If company XYZ Inc. is selling and promoting a certain type of filter that uses proprietary media with the intention AND instruction to change the media at regular intervals, while on the surface it sounds like good advice, from their perspective, the advice is designed to drive further repeat purchases, and the filters are often not adequate to actually fully meet the needs of the hobbyist. So then they resort to doing huge water changes in order to maintain water quality because that is what they hear from places like this, when in reality maybe all they really need is a better filter and not to listen to the advice of the company that has their hand out waiting for $$$.

I can see the interconnections, if others do not, I don't really know what else to say to illustrate my point.

At this point I feel as if I am

 

[PB_Smith]

going along with that, it is important to remember most business survive on those small, daily purchases of stuff like filter media, not from purchases of the filters themselves.
Repeat purchases of consumables ALWAYS generates more revenue than the item the consumable is used in/for.

 

[lectraplayer]

If company XYZ Inc. is selling and promoting a certain type of filter that uses proprietary media with the intention AND instruction to change the media at regular intervals, while on the surface it sounds like good advice, from their perspective, the advice is designed to drive further repeat purchases, and the filters are often not adequate to actually fully meet the needs of the hobbyist. So then they resort to doing huge water changes in order to maintain water quality because that is what they hear from places like this, when in reality maybe all they really need is a better filter and not to listen to the advice of the company that has their hand out waiting for $$$.

I would accuse the caister filter of this sin, but since we're talking water, I'll just say test weekly and change 25% water. Water is free anyway.

 

[BBradbury]

Water Changes

It's hard for me to believe how little water some "water keepers" are willing to remove and replace.

The tank is a closed system and all kinds of toxic chemicals from the fish waste dissolve in the water. There's no place for the wastes to go, so they must be removed through a water change.

If you're what I refer to as "a water change slacker", someone who changes a few gallons a couple of times a month, you're leaving most of the dissolved toxin in the tank water.

By removing a large amount of the old, toxic water and replacing it with pure, treated tap water, you remove most of the toxins and the rest are diluted to a very safe level in all the new, pure water.

Come on. If you're going to the trouble to get all the gear for a water change, then don't fool around and change a few gallons. Do the job right and change a lot of water. It doesn't take that long and your fish will appreciate your efforts with better health.

B

 

[jetajockey]

I have never once said that the industry side of the hobby is promoting big water changes, just that some of the IDEAS about what are good practices and what constitutes good filtration have been skewed very much in favor of generating a consistent revenue stream by those promoting some of this merchandise/methodologies.
Now how that impacts things like water changes is simple to my mind.

If company XYZ Inc. is selling and promoting a certain type of filter that uses proprietary media with the intention AND instruction to change the media at regular intervals, while on the surface it sounds like good advice, from their perspective, the advice is designed to drive further repeat purchases, and the filters are often not adequate to actually fully meet the needs of the hobbyist. So then they resort to doing huge water changes in order to maintain water quality because that is what they hear from places like this, when in reality maybe all they really need is a better filter and not to listen to the advice of the company that has their hand out waiting for $$$.

I can see the interconnections, if others do not, I don't really know what else to say to illustrate my point.

At this point I feel as if I am

I don't think the point you are making is complicated at all, I just think it's a bit shortsighted to assume that everyone here is just repeating something they heard or learned from retailers and that we don't have the capacity or experience to come to our own conclusions.

You are correct, most LFS have a shelf of filter media. Many manufacturers, hob especially, have their own drop in cartridges. I also know that most LFS also have bonded filter media sheets sitting right next to them. However, most of the people (especially people on forums like here) have learned that filter media doesn't need to be changed monthly, and when it does need changed you can buy bulk media at a fraction of the price.

This is all a huge detraction off of the main point. I don't think water changes solve everything, but water quality is a huge factor in many issues.

And when a newbie is asking if/when he should change his water, giving him a long convoluted answer rather than a general '50% every week /2 weeks' or whatever, just seems unhelpful to people who are very new to the hobby.

 

[PB_Smith]

Water is free anyway.

I wish!
Actually the opposite is the case where I live and I venture to guess is/will be in other areas around the world as well.

California Drought
SAN FRANCISCO, August 14, 2014 - The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) today ordered the water companies under its jurisdiction to provide direct notice to their customers of mandatory water use restrictions and potential fines in response to the State Water Resources Control Board’s Emergency Regulation for Statewide Water Conservation.
On Feb. 27, 2014, the CPUC in response to the Governor’s drought proclamation of January 17, 2014, adopted drought procedures for water conservation, rationing, and service connection moratoria for regulated water utilities. On April 25, 2014, Governor Brown issued an Executive Order to strengthen the state’s ability to manage water in drought conditions. In response, on July 15, 2014, the Water Board adopted Emergency Regulation that prohibits the use of drinking water for outdoor landscapes in a manner that causes runoff; the use of a hose without a shut-off nozzle to dispense drinking water to wash a motor vehicle; the application of drinking water to driveways and sidewalks; and the use of drinking water in a fountain or other decorative water feature, except where the water is part of a recirculating system. The Emergency Regulation also limits outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscape or turf with drinking water to no more than two days per week. Violation of these prohibited actions is punishable by a fine of up to $500 for each day in which the violation occurs. Additionally, all CPUC jurisdiction water utilities are ordered to comply with the Water Board’s requirements codified in Title 23, Article 12.5, Sections 865(b) through (e) in implementing either mandatory outdoor irrigation restrictions or, alternatively, mandatory water conservation measures.

 

[jetajockey]

I would accuse the caister filter of this sin, but since we're talking water, I'll just say test weekly and change 25% water. Water is free anyway.

I agree, although that's why people on forums have a basic formula for the average tank and the amount of GPH turnover needed in general, for adequate filtration. But again, this is also a very generic guideline so every situation can be different, it's just a starting point for newbies who have no idea what to look for.

 

[PB_Smith]

And when a newbie is asking if/when he should change his water, giving him a long convoluted answer rather than a general '50% every week /2 weeks' or whatever, just seems unhelpful to people who are very new to the hobby.

and that is exactly where I have the problem.
Why 50% whenever all my decades of experience as well as others tells me that 20% or so a week is enough.
Telling people new to the hobby things like "just change 50% weekly and all will be fine" is far more irresponsible or should I say lazy and potentially more detrimental than my advice of 20% weekly.

Ya know, by giving people the long, convoluted answers with the real science references to support just might educate the newbie enough that they "get it" and are able to sort things out for themselves.
Seems folks learn a lot more from long convoluted explanations that actually answer their question and explain how and why much more so than "just do this and that" type of response you seem to be promoting.

 

[Andy Sager]

I think the difference between today's hobby and yesteryear's hobby is that fish keeping was a hobby back then. A lot was to be learned still and was being learned. Now, it's a business. Designed to make as much money as possible (which IS the American way, right? ) but with little regard for the outcome.

The comment " If you need to change more than 50% of your water a week ....." was actually told to me by my Mentor 50 years ago when profits were still #1 and most of today's merchandise wasn't even around. But as municipal water changed, the need for so many "new" products came into existence. For example, I never needed to deal with Chloramine as a kid. It was just chlorine in the water. We used Super Chlor or Sodium Thiosulfate crystals to dechlorinate. That was all that was needed if we weren't just going to let the bubble filter aerate the water overnight so the water would be safe to use the next day. But that was then and this is now. Now, we have tons of people, through many avenues, offering advice and opinions to people who don't know better. I take a "better safe than sorry" approach to fish keeping. It has always worked for me. I will say this however, to say that overstocking is not WRONG just isn't true. Overstocking directly means that more fish than recommended are present. You can rationalize it any way you want but the guidelines that were put out are in the fish's best interest. The use of overcrowding African Cichlids has been used for many decades because that was how it was found to be able to keep more than a couple of fish in a tank because they are so territorial. But that doesn't apply to Guppies, Swordtails, Tetras , etc, a.k.a The common everyday fish that people keep. To say overcrowding every type of fish is okay is a little suspect to me.
So for those who want to change all that water, go ahead. I only hope you don;t have the same results as Gilpi did. I know I will not have his issues because I don't LET them happen. To offer a newbie advice that could possibly jeopardize their livestock is also questionable to me. To the comment "If we didn't try new things then nothing new would come" is a little off base here IMO. Overstocking (a.k.a. Overcrowding) is old, not new. It was found to go against the best interest of the fish which is why it isn't recommended. So how can one say that today it's okay to do because it's " the new
way of fish keeping"? If it is, then I'm just not with it.

I think I have said all I need to or care to on the subject. I wish you all well and happy fish keeping.

 

[lectraplayer]

and that is exactly where I have the problem...

Ya know, by giving people the long, convoluted answers with the real science references to support just might educate the newbie enough that they "get it" and are able to sort things out for themselves.
Seems folks learn a lot more from long convoluted explanations that actually answer their question and explain how and why much more so than "just do this and that" type of response you seem to be promoting.

Some people aren't interested in those long, convoluted answers "just yet" and these answers may overwhelm them for now. I think it's better to tell them (for now) to test their water for everything and then change 25% (twice a week) or 50% weekly. As they test, they can keep up with trends, and then get the more convoluted parts of the answer. ...about like teaching somebody to drive a car. With these trends, we can adjust the water change schedule.

 

[Delapool]

Has any work been done or any thoughts on what plants prefer for water change size? Not so much clearing water from ferts dosing at the end of the week but if plants have any preference? Or plants don't really care if you change 10% or 90% and are not very sensitive? Thanks

 

[lectraplayer]

So far that I can tell, plants don't get shocked like fish do so that one may be moot. The only time I have seen plants get stressed is when being transplanted. They, like clean(ish) water like fish do.

 

[Delapool]

So far that I can tell, plants don't get shocked like fish do so that one may be moot. The only time I have seen plants get stressed is when being transplanted. They, like clean(ish) water like fish do.

Like if they dry out a bit? We get ours in a bag with a little water to race home with.

 

[jetajockey]

Like if they dry out a bit? We get ours in a bag with a little water to race home with.

I ship lots of plants 4 days a week and most of them go into plastic 1mil bags with no extra water at all. The bag itself holds the moisture in so the plants are fine. They do benefit from water changes if the new water is bringing in more nutrients as well as (sometimes) co2 enriched water.

and that is exactly where I have the problem.
Why 50% whenever all my decades of experience as well as others tells me that 20% or so a week is enough.
Telling people new to the hobby things like "just change 50% weekly and all will be fine" is far more irresponsible or should I say lazy and potentially more detrimental than my advice of 20% weekly.

Ya know, by giving people the long, convoluted answers with the real science references to support just might educate the newbie enough that they "get it" and are able to sort things out for themselves.
Seems folks learn a lot more from long convoluted explanations that actually answer their question and explain how and why much more so than "just do this and that" type of response you seem to be promoting.

I agree that we should be giving detailed explanations so that people can make their own informed decisions, it's the best way. I just know that on forums like this, it takes a different approach in each situation. Some people are receptive to that, but some are not and they just want a quick answer.

 

[lectraplayer]

Like if they dry out a bit? We get ours in a bag with a little water to race home with.

Really, any drastic change. I melted them several times doing things like a rebuild. I leave them in water, but they hate to float 24 hours, or to go from 85 degree F "thick" water to 69 degree F "clean" water. That's spending less than 15 seconds out of water. However, I have never shocked plants changing water fortunately though.

 

[lectraplayer]

I ship lots of plants 4 days a week and most of them go into plastic 1mil bags with no extra water at all. The bag itself holds the moisture in so the plants are fine. They do benefit from water changes if the new water is bringing in more nutrients as well as (sometimes) co2 enriched water.



I agree that we should be giving detailed explanations so that people can make their own informed decisions, it's the best way. I just know that on forums like this, it takes a different approach in each situation. Some people are receptive to that, but some are not and they just want a quick answer.

I'm in the same boat...