Water Changes

[drewzaun]

@Byron - Regarding fish swimming in urine, I realize you come at this with a somewhat different angle. But I see the statement regurgitated across the web whenever the subject of water changes comes up....and I feel it's become another myth of the hobby.

I would agree with you. Freshwater fish have kidneys connected to a urinary pore, their kidneys strip wastes, return water to the body and urinate similar to most animals, and I wouldn’t call urine “stale water”. Salt water fish excrete ureates and other typical urine components through their gills, and their kidneys deal primarily with salt. Perhaps what sw fish pass through their kidneys could be classified as water?

All organic waste decomposes in the established fish tank just like it does in nature. We can't really debate the extent and degree of decomposition/recycling and its effect on water purity because we simply don't have the means to test it even if we were so inclined.

It does, but not as efficiently per fish as it would in the wild, since even what we consider “lightly stocked” is way more fish mass per gallon than you would see naturally. Decomposition is evident in the nitric cycle but at some point we need a way to export waste that can’t be removed fast enough considering our systems are microscopic in comparison to a lake or ocean.

Clearly gluteraldehyde somehow breaks down in the aquarium. There are folks that have added Excel daily for years and fish still live in there! We could say that initially it's diluted and causes no harm...but day after day after day, more and more is added - where does it go? Something causes it to break down so I suggested decomposition.

Gluteraldehyde is water soluble. We generally think of solvents as something you wouldn’t want to touch, or ingest, but water is a very active solvent. The exact chemical reaction I’m not well versed on, but since it adds a carbon source to the aquarium I’d hazard a guess and say it’s oxygen based. It’s primary role in industry is a disinfectant, used a lot for medical tools. I’d be afraid that it could have an impact on beneficial bacteria (disinfectants don’t discriminate unfortunately) but as you said, people have dosed it for years. I have heard though water conditioners like Prime bind it, so dosing it while your conditioner is active is simply wasting money.

I agree that glute is not necessary and is a poison that should be avoided. However, I confess to using Excel to fight a nasty battle with BBA.

I tried it too, it’s often referred to as an algicide. I never noticed any improvement personally. Maybe I wasn’t dosing enough.

Given that many hobbyists use it regularly, and even od it from time to time, it’s possible that the chemical itself is not taken in and broken down by fish, or most commonly kept species. It may be the reaction that causes trouble if way too much is added,like high levels of co2, but that’s just a guess. Also not everything in the water winds up inside the fish. Tissues in fish, like our own, allow some things to pass and block others. Some chemicals are absorbed through dermal contact, some are not. Nutrients are absorbed by different parts of our digestive system, passing completely through the rest, and if parts are removed or altered pass right out untouched. The same goes with certain things we may ingest, that pass out with being digested.

I would of course be careful what goes in the water, but we do have a list of things known as safe and have been used for decades. It may be their chemically inert relating to fish, or just that we aren’t ever using enough to harm them. I’m not comfortable putting glute in that category though, for me at least the jury is still out.

I feel that the bottom line in this thread is that at least for FW, periodic partial water changes are the easiest, best way to maintain stable, high quality water (chemistry) for the aquarium.

For sure. The more often you turn over your tank water, the closer the chemistry is to your source water. I’m an advocate of multiple changes per week, I think the benefits outweigh the extra work involved.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[AbbeysDad]

For sure. The more often you turn over your tank water, the closer the chemistry is to your source water. I’m an advocate of multiple changes per week, I think the benefits outweigh the extra work involved.

The question is whether a 25% change on Wednesday and a 25% change on Saturday is equal to say a 50% change alone on Saturday. I think what Byron was saying is that the 50% change on Saturday would be a more effective change.

Joey Mullen (King of DIY) recently presented some interesting data regarding his drip system. Basically even trickling 20g/day in a given system only prolongs the necessary partial water change, not eliminates it.
That being the case, the more effective change is the larger weekly change.

 

[Byron]

The question is whether a 25% change on Wednesday and a 25% change on Saturday is equal to say a 50% change alone on Saturday. I think what Byron was saying is that the 50% change on Saturday would be a more effective change.

Joey Mullen (King of DIY) recently presented some interesting data regarding his drip system. Basically even trickling 20g/day in a given system only prolongs the necessary partial water change, not eliminates it.
That being the case, the more effective change is the larger weekly change.

As you have raised it, and I was challenged by another, here is an article with the science/mathematics. I am not going to argue anything in this article, it appeared in TFH in November and December 2009, and I just scanned it.

 

[drewzaun]

The question is whether a 25% change on Wednesday and a 25% change on Saturday is equal to say a 50% change alone on Saturday. I think what Byron was saying is that the 50% change on Saturday would be a more effective change.

Joey Mullen (King of DIY) recently presented some interesting data regarding his drip system. Basically even trickling 20g/day in a given system only prolongs the necessary partial water change, not eliminates it.
That being the case, the more effective change is the larger weekly change.

Mathematically there may be some merit to that, but it’s not a huge difference. Unless you’re changing 100% of your volume weekly, you are not exporting all your waste, and it’s not going anywhere fast. You can adjust the volume of your changes to reduce creep to the lowest possible, but if you’re only changing once a week it’s a much bigger swing than if you changed 100% or more split up between 2-4 smaller changes in the same time frame.
For most of the last 10 years I did 50% (or more when distracted)every other day. At first I was trying to see if I could handle the workload that successful discus keepers told me they were doing, and then when I decided discus weren’t floating my boat it was just a habit. 3 times in that span there were issues with my local water supply that made me want to skip one or two changes.
If I were doing 50% every seven days and then it gets pushed out 3 or 4 more days? What if I then had a work or family emergency and didn’t get to the water change? Stability suffers. This really isn’t that out of the question either, there is a water main break in Baltimore as I type. Multiple changes per week imo is easy insurance that my levels and stability won’t suffer as much.

My tracking software has also told me that multiple changes a week equal smaller changes over the same period of time that one change of similar value does. I think most of us subscribe to the theory that even sensitive fish can acclimate to conditions that aren’t their ideal, so long as it’s stable, but bouncing from one extreme to another even within their preferred range can stress them out or kill them. I’m not saying one big change a week will do that, prior to the last 10ish years it’s what I did and I had no problems.

I did have a problem with that aggressive schedule growing plants though, I started to see a lot of nutrient deficiencies, I think I was exporting too much.
I recently dropped to once a week on one tank to try out PPS pro dosing, but I don’t like some of the things I’m seeing. I disturbed my dirt bed and got an ammonia spike, and nitrates are higher than I like to see, they’re in the safe range, but I’ve got 4 kids and full time job, so life interferes on occasion and unexpectedly. Now I’m trying 30% every three days, to see if my levels look a little better and my plants improve. So far my fish seem fine, and I’m observing their behavior and testing parameters to see what this does for me. Nitrates are down some and the ammonia was cut in half when I tested Saturday. Once things are under control I’ll switch back to weekly and see if it was the dirt or not.

I’m not saying any one of these strategies is right or wrong, certainly there are pros and cons for everything, and we all need to find what works best for us.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Byron]

I wasn't going to stay in this discussion, but there are a couple things here.

Some of your conclusions/suppositions above are certainly valid and with merit, but a couple are not. If you read the article I took the trouble to scan, you will easily see them. For the summary, the difference between doing 10% daily and 70% once a week is considerable. But if you can manage 40-50% two or three times a week, as you seem to suggest, that is even better, no argument there. But I suspect most members here are not prepared for that sort of regime, and if they can manage one day a week, then it needs to be significant as the benefit is worth it.

The other thing the article debunks is the matter of stability being less with major changes. No one can really argue that forcing our fish to live in more polluted water is better for them. Parameters need to be similar, agreed. But parameters should not be changing with water changes. It is the "bad" stuff we want to reduce, as much as possible. And the argument is made in the article that allowing fish longer exposure to pollutants is not better for them than removing a larger percentage at one time. Fish exposed to any toxin including nitrate and pollution will recover better the sooner they are clear of it. Fish do not acclimate to poor water quality; they tolerate it for a time maybe, which is a very different thing. But we should not expect them to do that, nor view it as "OK" regardless.

You mention soil substrate...that is your ammonia and possibly nitrate issue. I don't know how long this tank has been set up, but ammonia spikes during the first six months can be significant. I won't mess with soil because I value my fish more than plants; all my tanks are planted, but the plants have to adjust to the needs of the fish. There is no nutrient value in soil over plain sand other than the CO2 initially, so I could never see it worth the risks.

 

[NickAu]

I value my fish more than plants;

Me too, I quit a forum because it was all about plants with fish being a source of ammonia.

My fish especially my female Bettas are my pets and everything in my sorority tank is there for the girls benefit including the red cherry shrimp it gives the girls something to hunt.

My Betta tank is low light low tech and the plants are left to grow wild, some would say its in need of a prune I say its perfect for Bettas.

 

[drewzaun]

I wasn't going to stay in this discussion, but there are a couple things here.

There is no reason to quit. I actually enjoy debating the merits of X vs Y, and I have no problem when someone disagrees with me. I either reinforce my ideas, and impart knowledge, which is awesome, or I was wrong, and I walk out of a conversation smarter than I walked in, and that doesn't suck either. My problem was the way you conveyed your disagreement. If you don't get what I am saying ask, I can be vague at times, and I can mistype stuff too, I am not perfect and am usually typing here while wrangling two toddlers...Our disagreement started because you asserted I have a wait till things get bad before work approach, and I am completely the opposite.

Some of your conclusions/suppositions above are certainly valid and with merit, but a couple are not. If you read the article I took the trouble to scan, you will easily see them. For the summary, the difference between doing 10% daily and 70% once a week is considerable. But if you can manage 40-50% two or three times a week, as you seem to suggest, that is even better, no argument there. But I suspect most members here are not prepared for that sort of regime, and if they can manage one day a week, then it needs to be significant as the benefit is worth it.

I read the first one, I haven't had the chance to read the second yet, so all my comments are based on just the first article.
First, I think the author notes points for both of us, second, I have a problem with some of his math, I will get to that.
Third, I don't think one large change a week is inadequate, I am not opposed to it, but I do think there is a better way (and no, 10% per day as described isn't it, but I will make that work later in the post) I do agree multiple changes aren't for everyone, but if you can, I believe there is merit.

The other thing the article debunks is the matter of stability being less with major changes. No one can really argue that forcing our fish to live in more polluted water is better for them. Parameters need to be similar, agreed.

I would not use the word "debunk" here. The author absolutely agrees that fish can be shocked if parameters are different between tank and source water (Stability Revisited insert) I agree that higher levels of pollution are bad, but I think when we examine his math we will find even his 10% example isn't as far from the 70% per week as he says, perhaps not significant enough to worry.

But parameters should not be changing with water changes. It is the "bad" stuff we want to reduce, as much as possible. And the argument is made in the article that allowing fish longer exposure to pollutants is not better for them than removing a larger percentage at one time.

Agreed, our crappy test kits should not be definitive in parameter changes pre/post water change. I do believe with the average stocking if you only do one large change a week you will see a change, not enough to "shock", but enough I see room for improvement. I have seen though extreme cases where tanks had no water changes for months, then there were problems (ich and in some cases death) when a big water change was done. Were talking nitrates off the charts though, but I think important to note stress can and does happen even when conditions are markedly better, because they are also markedly different.

Fish exposed to any toxin including nitrate and pollution will recover better the sooner they are clear of it. Fish do not acclimate to poor water quality; they tolerate it for a time maybe, which is a very different thing. But we should not expect them to do that, nor view it as "OK" regardless.

We aren't opposed here either. Hardy species will live in conditions far worse than I ever allow mine to get, but it doesn't make it right just because its possible.

You mention soil substrate...that is your ammonia and possibly nitrate issue. I don't know how long this tank has been set up, but ammonia spikes during the first six months can be significant. I won't mess with soil because I value my fish more than plants; all my tanks are planted, but the plants have to adjust to the needs of the fish. There is no nutrient value in soil over plain sand other than the CO2 initially, so I could never see it worth the risks.

I've had fish as pets since I was 8, been taking care of them myself since I was 13, so 30 years now. Plants I started with about 18 months ago. I too value my fish (a few over 10 years old) more than my plants. I saw a lot of people having seemingly effortless success with dirted tanks, but I am less than enthused with mine, and am considering ripping everything out and trying root tabs in plain sand. Too much algae, these weird ammonia releases, lots of particulate in the water...not a fan at the moment. Keeping my parameters where I like them for the fish seems to remove too many nutrients for the plants.

Now, onto my issues with the article. Firstly I am not sure what he was getting at with the tetras in a 150 vs Oscars in a 10, if he wanted to pound home that percentages are equal, there are better ways. I have a feeling some people may pick up TFH with their new tank at PetSmart and think its ok to put Oscars in a 10 gallon, not a smart example and really not helping make his point.

I am suspect of the author's math, he seems to pick variables that support his argument when there seems to be no scientific or mathematical need to choose them.

Using his own analogy of equating his PU, or pollution units to one dollar per day, his math was way off. He stated in the article that pulling 10% of the pollutants per day equates to only 10% of the daily deposit. He has the readers believing that at the end of the week, only 70 cents worth of suspended pollution was removed, while 7 dollars worth was added at one dollar per day.

That's not how the mechanics of water changes work though. If you are changing 10% of the water each day, then you are also removing 10% of the total suspended pollutants per day. So that first day, he's right, the fish add a dollar, we take a dime. However on day 2, the fish added their dollar to the 90 cents we left, but we're not taking a dime, we're taking 19 cents, or 10% of the total, which is 1.90 At the end of the week he had 6.30 left out of 7, but if you extrapolate the math you actually have 4.68, much much closer to the 3 you have left if you just did a 70% change at the end of the week. Which one is better? Perhaps the obvious answer is the lower pollutants, but if you just had fish shipped cross country the lower partial chemistry changes resulting in less stress may well save you an ich battle, or some other stress induced condition, and if the total waste in the tank is far below tolerable levels, perhaps testing the same on the API card, I would argue for the 10 percenter.

That's on quarantine though, and assumes short term schedule, what about creep week after week? Here is another area I would question, his assumption that asymptote is 3, which on his graph equates to a permanent minimum of only 30%. He admits in the endnotes that this value is based on the number of decimal places he takes the calculation to, but I am not convinced that his stopping at 3 is an accurate model for what is taking place in the aquarium. I did not see him quote any studies or testing statistics anywhere in his article, which honestly removes the article from the realm of science and places it into more of an op-ed category. In other words, with no testable data to back this up, we have to rely on his math where he gets to chose values that are sympathetic to his point of view, and that is simply not good science. I will withhold my final judgement until after I read part 2, maybe the data is listed there?

I do see in my own tanks that testable pollutants like nitrate do seem to level off with regular water changes and filter cleanings, so there is a value, but I am not certain it's "3", nor am I convinced that level off benefit is only seen with large changes and not smaller more regular ones as well, as he would have us believe.

A quick note on those non testable pollutants, he mentions pheromones but there are others. If you can not find a way to quantify it, it does not belong in anything pretending to be scientific. If you can't directly see it, you need to be able to see the effects it has applied as a force to something you can measure. Black holes or dark matter in space for example, physicists knew of the existence of these not because they could see them, we cant, but because they exert forces on things we can see or measure. For my money in an aquarium nothing beats a nitrate test to measure total suspended pollutants, I have nothing else. I can observe my fish and so long as they act normal and healthy I can't care about unseen bogeymen that I have no ability to test for, measure, or true idea of how long they last in the water and what effect if any they may have on my fish. I can only react to what I can see and test for.

It should be every aquarists go to move to change water the first sign of trouble, unless you have reason to suspect the source water may be the cause of distress.

Unlike the author I do have results of low stable pollutants I can test for to make me feel good about what I do for my fish. 1 set of data does not an experiment make, but I am ok with what I have. BTW not testing for nitrates because you cant test for other possible contaminants is like not having a mammogram because you cant feel a lump.

As for my promise to make that 10 percent change better, if you can set up an automatic water changer to do 10% a day for 6 days, then do your manual 70% change, you are orders of magnitude better. Maybe not realistic for everyone, but I didn't promise that.

Anyway, I don't think one large change is bad per-se, but may be in some cases. I do think it can be done better, but better is not always necessary.

I am not at all convinced by part 1, in which the author cherry picks his values and has no data to support anything. In fact after reading that I am rather disappointed TFH would label it "Aquarium Science", even if you stripped out his obvious attempts at entertainment, wise given the intended audience this article would not even be subjected to peer review in any respected journal. In fact its not science at all, but again, I will reserve final judgement until I have a chance to read the second part you scanned...

 

[drewzaun]

Ok, I read the second article. Wow, if that is representative of what TFH is publishing now, they’ve really exceeded the depths I thought them capable of.

First, still no data, no controlled experiment, just the authors untested suppositions supported by his fuzzy math.

Second, his lack of understanding of Boyle’s Law is palpable. A 10 year old who has passed a Discover Scuba class knows more. Did he really say fish are at risk of decompression sickness from a water change? I could go on for days why this is bs.

This article was published in 2009, it declares a hobbyist changing 27 gallons of water per day is the equivalent of flushing the toilet up to 9 times. The most toilets can flush since 1992 is 1.6 gallons per flush, most only flush 1.28. 1.6x9=14.4, or just about half his claim, which places the rest of his math right in the bowl...

His Oscar “experiment”? Doesn’t even address his question let alone the common lfs garbage, and crosses the ethical line imho. If you wanted to you’d still need controls, 1 Oscar in a big tank alone, and 1 in a 5 gallon aquarium with similar water conditions to see what differences in growth rates may be.

A simple experiment would go a long way to further our understanding. Take x number of identical tanks. Run the exact same filtration for circulation (more exact than air pumps), use distilled water for evaporation top offs, and use pure ammonia to cycle. Once all are cycled do a 100% water change, tank 1 is a control, topped off only, tanks 2-x have varying water change schedules, weekly testing, run for 52 weeks or however long you need to to prove equilibrium or fatal levels of what we can test for.

I’m not doubting one massive change cleans more at once than 10% per week to start, the math supports that, but where things even out and how much creep there is can’t be learned otherwise. What other schedules may result is also not given unless you test!

If you’ve got a subscription, I’d ask for my money back. It’s really really bad on just about every level...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Jordan_Deus]

10% of the water each day, then you are also removing 10% of the total suspended pollutants per day.

I claim not to be a fish expert. I'm a total beginner, haven't completely set up my first tank.

Would just like to add that logically this is incorrect. For the sake of argument let's say you have 10 ppm of X pollutant in your water. If you remove ten percent of that water today you'll now have 9ppm of X pollutant. If you perform the 10% water change again tomorrow you'll remove less than 1ppm of X pollutant because there is now less pollutant per volume of water. So the same ten percent contains less pollutant. That's why mathematically it makes more sense to do one big water change.

I won't debate fish health because again I have absolutely no experience. Just wanted to point out the small error in the math there.
Hope I helped...



Sent from my MX4 using Tapatalk

 

[AbbeysDad]

@Jordan_Deus - Did you consider that the tank with fish is generating say y ppm of pollutant x per day? So with a 10% WC/day, the pollution increases each day.
No matter how you do the math, at some point a much larger water change would be required.

 

[Jordan_Deus]

@Jordan_Deus - Did you consider that the tank with fish is generating say y ppm of pollutant x per day? So with a 10% WC/day, the pollution increases each day.
No matter how you do the math, at some point a much larger water change would be required.

No I didn't take that into consideration, which makes my math flawed as well [emoji23]. I took into consideration that the amount of pollutant doesn't change. If the pollutant was produced at a rate in which 1 ppm was produced ever 24 hours than, referring to my first post, ten percent every day would keep it at 10 ppm. A large water change would reduce it significantly but if performed only once a week would eventually build up over 10ppm (depends on the size of the water change). In the example I've given, mathematically, only frequent relatively large water changes would work.

Sent from my MX4 using Tapatalk

 

[drewzaun]

Would just like to add that logically this is incorrect. For the sake of argument let's say you have 10 ppm of X pollutant in your water. If you remove ten percent of that water today you'll now have 9ppm of X pollutant. If you perform the 10% water change again tomorrow you'll remove less than 1ppm of X pollutant because there is now less pollutant per volume of water.

This is true if the level of pollutants stays constant between changes, but they don’t.

In the article the author has the fish adding a constant amount each day, his analogy was 1 dollar per day, but 100ppm works just as well, and is perhaps less confusing.

Day 1 fish add 100ppm, you pull 10% out, that leaves 90ppm.
Day 2 fish add 100ppm, now when you start your change there will be 190ppm, you take 10% of that, or 19ppm. Each day both levels increase.

The problem is the author only credited that 10% change on his 100ppm addition.

His math for the first 2 days:
Fish add 100 we take 10%=90 left.
Fish add 100 we take 10%= 100-10=90, then add that to yesterday’s leftovers, so you have 180 left.

The real math would be:
Fish add 100 we take 10%, leave 90
Fish add 100 which makes 190, we take 10%, 19ppm not 10ppm which is all the author credits. In his article he claims a 10% water change removes 10% of waste day one, but only a little over 5% day two, and subsequently a little less each day, despite being a 10% Change everyday.

You are correct in assuming 10% per day alone is inadequate, but it calls the authors methods into question, along with everything else in the article. We’ve literally learned nothing.

My guess is the author had a tank, did his 70% per week, saw his parameters “level” off, and tried to reverse engineer a mathematical formula to describe it, and then use it linearly to extrapolate results across a variety of volume and frequencies.

The problem is the assumption of constants and trying to make sense mathematically, it doesn’t work, which is why Sheldon hates biology, his math doesn’t relate.

The rate and reason testable parameters (nitrate specifically) appear to level off is, afaik unknown, but many variables are at work, and most are not quantifiable.

Also the most common nitrate test in the hobby, the API is really bad. The second bottle needs to be really agitated for a long time, and is really hard to tell the difference between the lower values, especially 10 and 20ppm, depending on light, angle and distance from the card you can have varying results.

At any rate, despite the title the article and methods used to gain the results...unequivocally not science, not applicable or useful and has done nothing to advance our knowledge.

Maybe some day if I get the time and space I’ll run the experiment I described previously, and publish the results.





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Byron]

I said I wouldn't argue the article contents and I won't simply because I am not good with any math stuff. I take away the benefits of changing more rather than less water, however it's done. I believe we are on the same page. And hopefully the OP now realizes this benefit and will do regular substantial changes. That was the start of this discussion, the OP questioining the value of water changes if in his mind things seemed OK. The point is, things are not OK, ever, without water changes, and the more the better.

I would like to discuss one related issues though:

A quick note on those non testable pollutants, he mentions pheromones but there are others. If you can not find a way to quantify it, it does not belong in anything pretending to be scientific. If you can't directly see it, you need to be able to see the effects it has applied as a force to something you can measure. Black holes or dark matter in space for example, physicists knew of the existence of these not because they could see them, we cant, but because they exert forces on things we can see or measure. For my money in an aquarium nothing beats a nitrate test to measure total suspended pollutants, I have nothing else. I can observe my fish and so long as they act normal and healthy I can't care about unseen bogeymen that I have no ability to test for, measure, or true idea of how long they last in the water and what effect if any they may have on my fish. I can only react to what I can see and test for.

This is a scientific hobby, and if one does not understand or at least accept the science evidence, success will be less than optimal, and the fish will suffer for it.

Fish communicate by hearing (sound as pressure waves), sight (eyes), smell and taste, and for some species electroreception (water is an electrolytic solution, you know that). I'll hone in on the smell and taste. All chemicals are dissolved in the water and readily diffuse through it. This water is continually entering fish through every cell and the gills. Fish are very adapt at rapidly "tasting" or reading these chemicals. This is highly developed in fish, since it is vital for communication and discovering food. The distinction between smell and taste is difficult to make, so it is best described as "chemoreception." Receptor sites are concentrated in the nasal opening, mouth, around the head, and in many species all over the body. [Most of this paragraph and the following paragraph is summarized from The Manual of Fish Health, an excellent book by several noted ichthyologists and biologists.]

The coordination and control of all bodily processes is in response to external and internal stimuli, achieved by the brain in cooperation with the nervous and endocrine systems. The brain receives and assimilates information from the sensory organs, and then coordinates and stimulates the correct responses from the appropriate organs.

Fish continually release pheromones and allomones to communicate. This is actually their prime communication tool, as visibility may be near-non-existent in their dark waters and these chemical signals can be "early warning." Pheromones are read by fish in the same species, and allomones by other species. Biology Online defines them thus:

Pheromones: chemical substances which, when secreted by an individual into the environment, cause specific reactions in other individuals, usually of the same species. The substances relate only to multicellular organisms. This includes kairomones [these are released by flowers].​

Allomones are repellent pheromones that induce a behavioural or physiologic change in a member of another species that is of benefit to the producer.​

The only way to remove these is via water changes. In their habitat, these chemical signals are strong enough to be read even in the vast volume of water; imagine how strong they would be within the closed confines of any aquarium where the fish is living in the same water. In nature, their surrounding water is different every second, but we cannot replicate this in the largest aquarium.

Aside from the above, we have the build up of various chemicals we add, out of necessity (water conditioner), plant additives (which is why they should always be minimal, never more like the EI method), treatments if needed, etc. All of this is getting inside the fish, affecting at the very least, and even debilitating in some cases.

There is no way we can measure much of this. TDS meters can ID some, and any increase in TDS is cause for concern. Soft water species are more vulnerable to some of this than harder water species. But it is a part of the fish's physiology that must be understood, and all fish are affected at whatever degree. If an aquarist is prepared to ignore these, it is at the risk of the fish, and I know they will be affected. I know it because science has described it. I'm sorry, but when you say because you cannot quantify it you will not accept it as scientific, that is a grave error. I must accept it just as I must accept the earth is not flat, even though I have no actual proof of my own. I am trusting the science, which in the absence of peer-reviewed published contradiction should be taken as accurate.

 

[drewzaun]

I said I wouldn't argue the article contents and I won't simply because I am not good with any math stuff. I take away the benefits of changing more rather than less water, however it's done. I believe we are on the same page. And hopefully the OP now realizes this benefit and will do regular substantial changes. That was the start of this discussion, the OP questioining the value of water changes if in his mind things seemed OK. The point is, things are not OK, ever, without water changes, and the more the better.

Fair enough, and I agree that we need to change water a lot.

I was disappointed as I think predicting where different schedules intersect using pure math, then testing this out and seeing if our predictions were accurate, or not, would go a long way to furthering our understanding of what is really going on in there.

I
I would like to discuss one related issues though:



This is a scientific hobby, and if one does not understand or at least accept the science evidence, success will be less than optimal, and the fish will suffer for it.

(Snip)

Aside from the above, we have the build up of various chemicals we add, out of necessity (water conditioner), plant additives (which is why they should always be minimal, never more like the EI method), treatments if needed, etc. All of this is getting inside the fish, affecting at the very least, and even debilitating in some cases.

There is no way we can measure much of this. TDS meters can ID some, and any increase in TDS is cause for concern. Soft water species are more vulnerable to some of this than harder water species. But it is a part of the fish's physiology that must be understood, and all fish are affected at whatever degree. If an aquarist is prepared to ignore these, it is at the risk of the fish, and I know they will be affected. I know it because science has described it. I'm sorry, but when you say because you cannot quantify it you will not accept it as scientific, that is a grave error. I must accept it just as I must accept the earth is not flat, even though I have no actual proof of my own. I am trusting the science, which in the absence of peer-reviewed published contradiction should be taken as accurate.

I do agree with all the above. Gist of my point, most likely poorly crafted, was that from a practical standpoint, I can’t do anything about them.

We, the colloquial we anyway, can test for all those chemicals, including their concentrations and if they break down, what they turn into. Unfortunately I can’t, as I’ve yet to succeed in convincing my wife I need a gas chromatograph, but I’m working on it.

At any rate, it makes sense to assume they are there and stay there, (if there are studies that show pheromones etc break down or otherwise leave without a h2o change I’m unaware) but I see no evidence of them causing distress in my fish.

If I can’t see them directly, and I can’t see evidence that they may be causing an issue, I’ve no other choice but to assume my routine is adequate.

I watch my tanks more than tv, it’s a primary source of relaxation, if one or more of the fish start acting different I notice right away, and thus far I’ve been able to attribute aberrant behavior to something I can quantify.

I design my routine to export nitrate, because I can track that, and my philosophy is to keep overall chemistry as stable/consistent as possible, and levels of known toxins low enough that when life gets in the way missing a change or 3 nothing climbs anywhere near dangerous. This August I broke a bone in my neck, and went 10 days without being able to change water. Appetite and activity didn’t change noticeably, nitrates got up to either 10 or 20ppm, I can’t tell the difference on the api card honestly. I’d like one of those digital meters but I haven’t gotten around to it yet.

Anyway, I think we’ve about covered it...Wilford Brimley says it best...”change your water, change it often”



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

 

[Byron]

The comment "I see no evidence of them causing distress in my fish," is one I get often on here, and my response is always that there is much we cannot see until it is too late. Once you see it, the fish has already been compromised. Our aim should be to know what this or that will likely/probably lead to, and prevent it. In this hobby, prevention is much better and safer than reaction.

I delved into stress a few years back for an article on another forum. Here is an excerpt that may explain what I'm thinking.

The effects of stress on fish are very complicated physiologically, and are often subtle. There may or may not be external signs discernible to us—it can continue for weeks and even months, sometimes up to the point when the fish just suddenly dies. The reasons for this are involved.

Adrenaline released during the stress response increases blood flow to the gills to provide for the increased oxygen demands of stress. The release of adrenaline into the blood stream elevates the heart rate, blood flow and blood pressure. This increases the volume of blood in vessels contained within the gills, increasing the surface area of the gills to help the fish absorb more oxygen from the water. The elevated blood flow allows increased oxygen uptake for respiration but also increases the permeability of the gills to water and ions. This is what is known as the osmorespiratory compromise (Folmar & Dickhoff, 1980; Mazeaud et al., 1977). In freshwater fish, this increases water influx and ion losses. This is more critical in small fish than larger due to the gill surface to body mass ratio (Bartelme, 2004).

Short-term stress will cause an increase in heart rate, blood pressure, and respiration as described in the preceding paragraph. The fish can only maintain these altered states for a short and finite period of time before they will either adapt or (more often) the stress will become chronic. During this initial stage the fish may look and act relatively normal, but it is depleting energy reserves because of the extra physiological requirements placed upon it. At the chronic stage the hormone cortisol is released, which is responsible for many of the negative health effects associated with stress.​

Understanding the above is why I also reject any notion that we should wait for signs of something before taking action when it comes to maintenance and similar. The aquarists who rely on their tests are making a mistake, because by the time some problem shows up in a test for nitrate the fish has probably been under stress for some time and is therefore compromised. You criticized me previously for not testing more often, but if one is maintaining a sufficient regime it is not necessary to test. With a fish room of 8 tanks, I do periodic or random tests, always prior to the WC so I see what is going on in the tank for a week, and I have the results back several years. When I see pH varying no more than 0.2 or 0.4 over several years, and nitrate always 0-5 ppm, there is no reason to be testing more frequently. I do test at the onset of any abnormality, if I should spot increased respiration or more than one fish dying at the same time, but ammonia, nitrite, nitrate and pH have never been off even then.