A new discussion...

[Lonewolfblue]

Well, what I saw at another forum gave me a thought on a topic to discuss. And I think it will be a very educational discussion as well. This discussion will be about water changes and conditioners. I will give you the basics for the discussion, then will open the floor to all, to discuss their knowlege and experiences here.

First, before we start discussing, I want you to go to another site and read what it has to say. It's not a forum, but a site that was presented at that forum. Go to this link and read it, then where it says to go to the link about conditioner, click and read that as well. Here's the link, go down to #4 and #5 and read, then click on the conditioner link....

http://www.aquariumfish.net/information/warm_water_aquariums.htm#4

Basically, what I get out of it is to do smaller PWC's more often, and don't use conditioners. And that the chlorine and chloramine will not harm the fish, but will help in removing more diseases and pathogens from the water. Then they promote AmQuel Plus to condition the water. What are your thoughts on this..... The floor is open for discussion..... Should be an educational discussion...

Edit:
And this shouldn't be a discussion on their touting of Amquel Plus, but a discussion on PWC's, large or small, not often or often, and conditioners in general, and on whether to condition or not to condition, and how diseases or pathogens are affected if the water is conditioned or not conditioned.

 

[fish_4_all]

Very interesting, I saw the same thing discussed on another forum. It makes sense if the statements are true. 20% twice a week results in less of a KH and GH change as well as other factrs that could cause more stress and possibly lead to algae problems. It also prevents huge swings in parameters if your local tap water all the sudden changes dratically and you don't know it. A 50% change would lead to a huge swing and could stress fish and verts. I have considered doing a 25% bi-weekly change to help with my CO2 levels to keep them a little more consistant.

I would like to see a little more on success with doing it and trial numbers before I try it though, at least without conditioner.

As for AmQuel Plus, not in my planted tanks. Maybe in non-planted tanks. Sounds like it wouldn't be very helpful but this is a guess and maybe a really uneducated one at best. This also I would have to see some proof that it is good for planted tanks before using it.

 

[jcarlilesiu]

I think that moderation or smaller water changes more often seems logical. Replacing more than 50% at once does seem like a drastic option in comparison to a little bit at more frequent intervals.

I think this theory is good... however I dont' think that its logical. Most of us are working, and involved in some sort of social aspects of life. In order to change the amount of water I do weekly, I would have to do 3 20% water changes. I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't have time for this.

As for not utilizing water conditioner. If im topping off my 4 gallon at work due to evap. I never use water conditioner. If Im adding more than 20% like the article states I do. I think that if you were to maintain only 20% changes, not utilizing a conditioner would be fine.

 

[DepotFish]

I do some Japanese tanks over the school year, since its easier. The water change is tub to tub. With some fish you need almost 100% water changed if they are going to be in a tank. It doesn't harm them to be in 100% fresh water daily if you have stable water. If you have a really s*itty water supply tht swings in all different directions in a matter of a few days, than you should already know to do smaller changes frequently.
I also only use dechlor minimally. If the water change is over 40% I use it, if less than I skip the dechlor. Small amounts of chlorine does not harm the fish or the benificial bacteria. Once again, if you have a water supply thats pumped full of chlorine, you should use the dechlor.

 

[Guest]

The theory behind more frequent water changes is sound, but impractical unless you have an amazing amount of time on your hands on a week to week basis. I personaly like to enjoy my tank without messing with it 3 or 4 times a week. My fish appreciate me doing maintenance once a week only and never seem to suffer from their weekly 40% pwc using water conditioner. I think the reduced stress to the fish more than makes up for frequent water changes without using a conditioner. Stress alone can promote disease whether or not you use, or do not use, a conditioner and 3 or 4 PWC's a week will increase stress.

 

[kostasonia]

I think that fish really get used in people´s hands inside the tank if this happens really often. They get used to the horrible sound of the cover of the tank whenever I open it to give them food. Has anybody ever thought how much noise it can cause just feeding them? But this is not a problem. If they asocciate a hand with "no danger", a hand will not stress them. This is my personal intuition though.

On the subject of the frequent small changes, in other thread I supported the idea of a constant flow of the water. The ideal system would be a 1 or 2% change every hour or every half an hour or something like this, produced automatically. This is what simulates the best the real conditions fish live. In nature NO3 does not increase up to 40ppm until suddenly it drops to 20ppm in 10min. This is the real stress...

 

[7Enigma]

I think both articles are pointless. They say nothing in regards to any data to back up anything they recommend, they contradict themselves on the safety of a 20% PWC without adding a dechlor agent, and as a consumer I NEVER listen to a position that benefits directly from the product being discussed. What about 15%? What about 30%? Why is 1/5th the tank volume the magical number?

It's like me saying iodine containing table salt should be put in all water changes (10 crystals per 1 gallon). This helps to kill bad things and does not harm your fish/biological filter. BTW, I happen to have the *special* salt right here, click to buy....

I don't have any data to back it up, but my fish havn't died yet. It's called a logical fallacy.

I think that with normal local tap water the constant variation of chemicals placed in the water make it imperative that a dechlor agent is used with each water change. I think the odds of chlorine or chloramine killing parasites in the tank from the 20% water change while hopefully not harming your fish/filter are far outweighed by the very real possibility of having a tank crash from untreated tap water.

I can clearly tell after a large storm that the local water supplier is preemptively adding more chemicals to the water so that it is safe for consumption. I don't want my fish to have to deal with those chemicals....

The other angle to this discussion is the possibility that we WANT these critters in our tanks. There are countless times where attempting to eradicate a species seen as detrimental has caused more problems because of the niche function that that species performed. What if all microscopic organisms in the tank that are not predatory to fish but rather predatory to other parasites are wiped out? Now you risk a worse problem when you add that new plant/fish that is harboring disease.

As for the small PWC's they are obviously better. Stress is caused by changing environmental conditions. These can be bad (GH or KH massive change), or good (ammonia removal during cycling). But as mentioned its the time required to maintain the tank that needs to be taken into consideration. If I have to choose between 1 50% PWC per week or 1 20% PWC per week with the possibility of doing the other 20% change if I have time, I'll keep the 1 50% PWC since its a guaranteed method.

If I had a nonplanted tank with no special requirements other than treated tap water, it would be great to have a 100gallon drum of treated tap water that would slowly be siphoned into the tank, and the tank water slowly out. This is essentially what happens at large aquariums. They could never hope to do a large enough PWC by draining and refilling, so they constantly have new water going in and old water going out.

This is not practical in a planted tank however, as fert levels need to be maintained...

 

[JeffreyL]

water

Very interesting topic, LWB. Thanks for starting it. I always felt uncomfortable with the idea of very large PWCs, unless for an emergency. We are always taught stable, stable, and stable!!!!!! As stated, if I remove 50% of tank water, with a pH of 7.2 and dossed nitrates of 15; and replace with water with a pH of 8.0 (no CO2 in city water, so it goes down to 7.0ish in a few hours) and 0ish nitrate......... Everyone seems fine and even the neons are frisky after all the commotion. Still.

But like some of you have said, I have a life and unfortunately, a job. lol Perhaps a good compromise is to try and do 2 smaller PWCs.

As for no conditioner. That is a tough one to give up!! I would need to know exactly what my city does to my water first. But there is logic to the thinking that chlorine in your tank will do the same as it is intended to in city water. That is, kill pathogens. Of course so does a UV sterilizer. But then if I wanted to mess with that, RO water and dig out my advanced Biochem textbooks ............. I would try to specialize in seahorses. LOL

So lets hear some more. What ya'll think??

 

[justrelax]

I think that, just like everything else in aquaria, it depends on the specifics of your situation. If your fish are producing 40 nitrates a week then of course smaller, more frequent pwc's will benefit them. On the other hand, if your fish only produce 10 nitrates a week then you can do them less frequently.
The point I'm trying to get at here is that, imo, we should be doing our pwc's according to test results done on a regular basis. There's too many variables in an aquarium to say 20% every other day or 50% a week is right or wrong for anybody.
As far as the use of water conditioners, I would have to agree with 7enigma completely. If tap water was reliable in any way maybe I would think differently, but that's not the case. If I were to skip using a conditioning agent, it would only be in the event I had water known to be unharmfull in any way... In which case I would agree with the author of the column. In the end, I think to ignore the presence of chlorine and chloramines would be reckless regardless of how often and what percentage of pwc is done.

Good post lwb. I often surf around looking through sites to get an idea of what other advice is out there. It's easy to settle into a routine of what we think is best, good to keep the old brain workin' lol.

 

[Toirtis]

10%-15% daily PWCs would be ideal, but impractical for most people. As for not using water conditioner, this would be safe in cases where chlorine was in the water, but not where chloramine was used, as there would be an eventually deadly build up of chloramines after a few days.

 

[7Enigma]

As for not using water conditioner, this would be safe in cases where chlorine was in the water, but not where chloramine was used, as there would be an eventually deadly build up of chloramines after a few days.

??? Both chlorine and chloramine are toxic to living tissues. Both will react when they come in contact with living tissue. There will be no build up of either in the tank if small daily PWC's are done. That is because they will be reacting with the pathogens in the water, the fish, the biological filter, etc.

 

[Guest]

Im no chemist, but is it true that when chlorine mixes with water, it irritates and can burn a fishes gills?

 

[7Enigma]

Doesn't need to be mixed with anything. Chlorine as a gas is VERY toxic and has been used in several wars as a weapon. In gaseous form when it enters your respitory system it will liberate a hydrogen from the surroundings (normally water). You've now got HCl or hydrochloric acid in your lungs. Not a pretty way to go........

 

[Guest]

Thats what I meant, when it mixes with water(even in the lungs), it forms something else that is toxic. So then I will take it as a 'yes', that it does irritate a fish's gills, even in small amounts. This leads me to another question to make sure. If a fish had a choice, say a tank with half the water with chlorine/chloramine, and the other half treated with a conditioner, which side would it swim in?

 

[JRagg]

I think the idea is more used for chlorine vs. chloramine. Chlorine is a gas, and will evaporate from the water. Yes chlorine is toxic, but only at certain elevated levels. Not sure about you, but I top off my tank with untreated tap water a couple times a week. I used to work at an indoor pool. I was inhaling chlorine all day long with no issues.

The reason chloramine is more dangerous than chlorine is that chloramines don't evaporate out of the water. This is taken from the EPA's website.

Other concerns with chloramines in drinking water
Chloramines, like chlorine, are toxic to fish and amphibians at levels used for drinking water. Unlike chlorine, chloramines do not rapidly dissipate on standing. Neither do they dissipate by boiling. Fish owners must neutralize or remove chloramines from water used in aquariums or ponds. Treatment products are readily available at aquarium supply stores. Chloramines react with certain types of rubber hoses and gaskets, such as those on washing machines and hot water heaters. Black or greasy particles may appear as these materials degrade. Replacement materials are commonly available at hardware and plumber supply stores.

Without the use of a dechlor product, chloramines will build up in the tank and kill your fish.

 

[Guest]

Ok then, going by the EPA report, these are toxic to fish. What might not affect a full grown human would certainly kill a 2 inch fish. I top off my tank also, but I add a medicine dropper of prime to the water first. I would still rather see what the fish would do, would it swim in the chlorine/chloramine side of the tank, or the treated side?

If you can say it wouldnt care, then adding chlorinated water helps, the fish doesnt mind and no harm is done. Pathagens are killed and everyone is happy.

If you say it would swim on the treated side, then it does bother the fish and it is not good for it. You may have killed a pathagen, but you also stressed your fish and maybe did some gill damage.

Toxic chemicals are never good for a fish.

 

[QTOFFER]

Great topic for discussion, LWB. However, I don't buy into the argument that 20% water changes can always be done safely without using a water conditioner. Most municipal water supplies are disinfected with chlorine or chloramine, which are toxic to fish, inverts, and nitrifying bacteria. (Here is a great article on chlorine and chloramine for those interested: http://www.skepticalaquarist.com/docs/water/chlorine.shtml )

Without saying so directly, the articles suggest that limiting water changes to 20% will dilute the disinfectants to non-toxic levels. That may be true for chlorine, which only takes hours to dissipate from tap water - less time is needed if the water is heated and aerated. However, Chloramines are much more stable - taking weeks to decompose. (reference)

I would expect chloramine levels to accumulate if 20% PWCs were done every few days.

 

[SCFatz]

I have'nt read everything linked but I guess the jist of it all is smaller in more frequent changes with untreated (clorinated) water.

I just can't see that happening at my house.More frequent changes are fine imo,but not needed.50% is the standard for mine...to some that may seem excessive,but the fish are healthy,active and growing.The overall health of my tanks suggests that I'm not wrong,or at least not wrong by much.

I will not be adding chlorine or chlorimine to any of my tanks...just aint gonna happen.

 

[JRagg]

Ok then, going by the EPA report, these are toxic to fish. What might not affect a full grown human would certainly kill a 2 inch fish.

My point is that there is a certain level above zero where chlorine is toxic to fish, just as there is a point where it is toxic to humans. Below those levels it is considered to be safe.

There is a government limitation on how much chlorine can be put into the water supply. A 20% water change will drop the maximum level that is possible to get into the aquarium by 80%. Maybe, just maybe, the safe level for fish is somewhere above what could result from a 20% water change.

I'm not advocating not using dechlor. I tend to go with the "better safe than sorry" mentality. I'm just playing devil's advocate now.

 

[Lonewolfblue]

For me, I'm personally a fan of larger PWC's. With having several tanks, and the fish I have, I do 50% weekly, and the fish are healthy and energetic. I've had some disease run-ins and ick often due to not QT'ing when I get fish from the lfs here, but other than that, the larger PWC's only seem to help things along rather than hurt. And the fish love swimming in the output of my python. Maybe that's an answer to the chlorine/no chlorine setting. Anyone ever thought about that? Why do fish seem more happy swimming in the output of your python, than swimming in the rest of the tank, when you do water changes? Could it be the water chemistry? Could it be a temp difference? Just another thought to discuss in here.

Well, this thread has been very good so far, and am happy with the participation from you all. Let's keep it up, and good job all.

Edit:
I still use Prime though, but have thought of trying with no conditioner. I may experiment someday, but for now, will stick to my normal routine.