# too many water changes.



## honor (Apr 8, 2008)

i think alot of people here who are having problems with their tank are doing way to many water changes, 70%? 50%? i mean, i understand it when there's a disease or some water parameter that's off the charts, but really you should only be doing 25% per week max, and sometimes you dont even have to do it that often if you have a good balance going. but when you're doing 50+% water changes that causes a shock to the system that's been trying to balance itself off. espically if it's small tank, there's not enough water to buffer the effects of the new water. from what i see on the forum people are changing water without knowing exactly what's going on, mystery deaths, water change, more mystery death. hhm? just my opinion from what im observing atm. i have only about 4 years keeping fish and just started a planted tank but i'd like to think i've been pretty sucessful, only time i had fish die was when i moved my tank to a new place and my heater ended up being broken and heated some of them to death. what do you guys think?


----------



## ColeMan (Mar 9, 2008)

most people do large water changes because they dose using the estimative index dosing method. You can read up on EI methodology here http://www.barrreport.com/estimative-index/62-estimative-index-dosing-no-need-test-kits.html; there are frequent mentions of water changes and their role in keeping things "in balance" when using this kind of fertilizing regime.


----------



## Avalon (Aug 14, 2004)

Water changes are a large part of keeping a planted tank in good health, in particular "high-tech" tanks. It must be done. The size of the water change should be variable, but certainly an integral part. You must remove organics or you will have severe algae problems over the long term (BGA, hair algae, etc.). I've replicated this issue repeatedly in 'little to no water change' experiments. For lower tech tanks, it's not so much a problem, but water changes should still be done.

Then there's the EI thing. I've been dosing a regimine similar to EI before it was coined EI (it just makes good sense to dose like this), but the problem is people dump ferts into their tank because someone told them so. I've helped countless people correct their blind EI dosing habits for years. Nutrients will build up over time if you're not careful and it will cause problems eventually, usually from a small oversight or accident (CO2 runs out, too much light, etc.). People don't take the next step and learn nutrient uptake rates, how pruning effects uptake, plant mass, etc. Why dose more when you don't have to? While using test kits shouldn't be a daily activity, it can help when done every so often. To completely ignore them isn't a smart thing to do. Prevention is the key here.

Mystery deaths are usually only a mystery to those who lost their fish. Trying to troubleshoot fish illness is very difficult over the internet. There are far too many variables to consider when it comes to mysterious fish deaths. Without going into detail, I am inclined to say that water changes don't cause fish death...not on their own anyway.


----------



## honor (Apr 8, 2008)

ColeMan said:


> most people do large water changes because they dose using the estimative index dosing method. You can read up on EI methodology here http://www.barrreport.com/estimative-index/62-estimative-index-dosing-no-need-test-kits.html; there are frequent mentions of water changes and their role in keeping things "in balance" when using this kind of fertilizing regime.


jesus that's a long article. um, i duno about you guys but keeping a planted tank shouldnt be that complicated.


----------



## ColeMan (Mar 9, 2008)

it's not that complicated...the whole EI thing is designed to take the "complicated" part out of dosing. The article's length can be attributed to people wanting to know why they're doing something rather than just following directions. EI methodology is simple, cost-effective, and produces results, hence its popularity.


----------



## Brilliant (Apr 11, 2006)

Water changes do not have to be done...You can have a very healthy aquarium without water changes.


----------



## neonmkr (May 16, 2008)

I think everyone has their own opinion about water changes. 
This is an area that most people neeed to work out on their own, in other words what ends up working for them. My water changes vary from tank to tank. I top off my plant tank with a 15-20%wc about once a month. My african tank is about the same, but my discus tank gets daily wc of 15% with a weekly 50% wc. Why, it works for me. My fish are healthy as are my plants. When I get my discus out of their grow out tank into their final home, will I keep up the daily wc? I don't know yet, I'll wait & see how the fish & plants do. I let my tanks dictate what they need, that way my fish are happier, my plants do better & I'm much happier, because I've got a succesful tank.


----------



## Bugman (Jan 7, 2008)

Brilliant said:


> You can have a very healthy aquarium without water changes. Water changes do not have to be done...


Such a general statement. I would agree, water changes do not have to be done on ALL tanks. I would also add that water changes do have to be done on some tanks. Generalized statements don't work in this hobby. There are just too many variables in planted tanks..............amount of light. CO2, no CO2, dry ferts, Excel, liquid ferts, root tabs, water paramerters out of the tap, method of dosing ferts and the list goes on. For example I have read that you shouldn't do water changes on low light, low tech tanks but most will tell you that you should do changes on high light, high tech tanks. The variables determine how much of a change you should do.

I don't believe I am shocking my tank with water changes. My tap water is not that far off from my tank water. I have been doing 30% changes for some time now with no ill affects......no mystery deaths. I have just gone to 50% changes because I just started using the EI method of dosing. 

Read some of the work done by Tom Barr who is a professor and has studied and researched planted aquariums for years now. He is the one that came up with the EI dosing method. 

Here are some links to look at
http://www.barrreport.com/estimative-index/62-estimative-index-dosing-no-need-test-kits.html

http://www.aquatic-eden.com/2007/03/dos-and-donts-of-water-changes-in.html

http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/aqua/art_chlorine.htm


----------



## markalot (Apr 8, 2007)

> but really you should only be doing 25% per week max


Do you have any science to back that up? I ask because you state it as a fact. From where I sit I continually see people claim they don't need to do as many or change as much and then complain about fish health problems.

But I would never tell someone I know how much water they should change, I only know what I do and what I'm comfortable with.


----------



## Brilliant (Apr 11, 2006)

OK...all fixed...

Water changes do not have to be done...You can have a very healthy aquarium without water changes.

As far as Tom Barr goes...why not ask him instead of reading. I doubt he will suggest mounting your tank on EI's proverbial rails forever. EI is meant to be a starting point to grow wings. EI is highly excessive and 50% weekly water changes are wasteful. Once you learn your tank you can scale back dosing and water changes. The water changes are only meant to reset the nutrient levels...nothing more nothing less.


----------



## fishboy87 (Feb 19, 2008)

Like the other guys said, it all depends on the tank you have and the fish in it. Some people do 100% daily on discus aquariums because they want to breed them, some people do 25% weekly on planted discus aquariums where they are not trying to breed them but they have established plants to assist in taking out nitrates, ammonia, etc. Then there are people with a goldfish bowl who only do a water change when the water is cloudy. Some, you just don't have to do because there are enough plants to soak up the nutrients because of a low bioload with the only water maintenence being a monthly top-off. Basically, it all depends on the type of tank and fish you have. So there is not usually a "too much" or "too little" on water change frequency and percentage.


----------



## ColeMan (Mar 9, 2008)

plantbrain said:


> Another thing comes to mind about poor aquarium fish ownership; water changes.
> 
> Some have suggested that large frequent water changes are bad for the environment, bad for the wasting or water. Yet they have not considered the usefulness of large frequent WC's for the care of the fish and plants.
> 
> ...


from a thread about poor pet owners, nonetheless. 
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/general-planted-tank-discussion/67552-just-needed-vent-about-poor-pet-6.html#post627214

I will add, however, that you can overdo water changes in certain instances...


----------



## Bugman (Jan 7, 2008)

I also use my water on my outdoor plants. Pull my python out the front door and water all the containers I have in front of the house.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Here we go again.

If you wanna whine about water changes and I've seen folks talk lots of smack about EI, then you'll need to level the playing field and go after folks in the ADA contest, at least the top winning groups and Amano himself, not to do those same 50% weekly water changes.

Essentially, it's the same thing, adding ferts and then doing water changes to reset things. the only real difference is adding ferts to the sediment + water column vs Water column only. If you do not have ADA aqua soil etc, or a nutrient rich sediment(macros), then EI will work much better than the strict ADA liquid ferts.

If your goal is fewer water changes, then change your method.
Do not expect an ADA tank, extremely high growth rates, extremely high light etc.

Try low light+ CO2, such tanks can go months without water changes.
If you want no water changes at all really, non CO2 will be years even.

It depends on your goal, what results you are hoping for and if you have the patience to do a non CO2 tank. We had no choice in the old days, most everyone did non CO2 :thumbsup: 

Put another way, if you are too lazy to do water changes routinely, it's also very likely you will not prune often either, so you should reduce the rate of growth.

I guess all the breeders that do frequent water changes could likely get away with fewer water changes, but more certainly does not hurt and keep their routines and care very pro active and on top of things?

Rubbish.

You cannot, near as I can tell with CO2 and Excel dosing methods, over do water changes. It's an extremely simple tool any fish keeper can easily use.
Hoses can transport water anywhere in a home without labor, lifting etc, semi automated or fully automated systems can be set up as well.

Reasonable fish loads, reasonable light levels, good basic care = fewer fish deaths, better plant health, less algae.

It's really a trade off how much and many to do, but more will never hurt and can only help. By the time someone gets around to doing a water change, does not take that much more time/energy to do 20% vs 50%.

99% of the Breeders, ADA, myself, commercial operations and dozens of other folks in the know suggest it. Perhaps we are all wrong?
Still, go non CO2 and/or reduce light if that(fewer/less water changes) is the goal.

Some tanks will be able to handle fewer water changes, others will respond better with more. Still, both will do great with larger rather than smaller changes in virtually all cases. I think the WC issue is more human psychology and getting the motivation to do them rather than anything else.

I freely admit I can be lazy about them, so knowing this, I try and account and plan for this by setting up easy to do water changes, semi automated methods, gives me a good excuse to clean and prune without my entire wet arm flalling about or submerging my head. That's a lot easier and cheaper to do than testing and micro management and rules out more unknowns.
You cannot automated testing. But you can reduce the amount of testing or water changes then your potential for errors goes way up, same trade off with reducing water changes.

So both result in partial estimations.

The questions becomes how far can you go without causing real harm to the system and how much error and safety do you want to build into your method?

Should we teeter on the edge or have a nice wide margin of safety?
I'll let you all answer that question.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Brilliant (Apr 11, 2006)

I do not mean to bash EI. I actually like it and prefer it over anything else I've read about. I used it, learned from it and give credit to it. I think the nutrient ratios are good. I also know you can rewrite the rules, liquid dose it in lower quantities at a greater frequency with less water changes and have great success.

It's not about being lazy...believe me, I've been on the other side of the fence on this debate...I've begun to systematically test all the so called "requirements" of the tank. So far I've found that KH additives are not required and pH crashes are myths...now water changes also seem to be myth with my discus spawning and raising young to free swimming stage after three months without water change. Wild angelfish with three water changes in nine months, not a single loss with great appetite and health. My reply was in reference to the comment that a healthy aquarium required water changes. I care about my fish more then most and am the first to preach about good husbandry. Perhaps my large amounts of evaporation and use of diatom filter have more to do with it but as far as I can see it I am quite far from the edge.

The point about generalizations is a valid one. My scope is contained the home display tank. Breeders, who are over stocking their tanks are required to change water. Along with people growing young discus, water changes are required. I understand where and when water changes are required but coming to realize the world is not flat when it comes to water changes.

The planted tank needs a new world. The EI and El Natural worlds need to blend together. A New Natural tank with TMG dosing, fish waste and co2 is my sweet spot. :smile:


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Brilliant said:


> I do not mean to bash EI.


I know that is not your intent nor did you imply it.
But I do find it interesting that the same folks that are critical about EI and the WC's are curiously very very quiet when it comes to anything ADA:icon_roll 

It's not the only method I do, I do use various methods to achieve different goals. That's the point, some seem to claim that you should do only their method and that's it, that's all you will ever need to meet every goal. 



> It's not about being lazy...believe me, I've been on the other side of the fence on this debate...I've begun to systematically test all the so called "requirements" of the tank.


That's the deal though, test kits offer the exact same trade offs by doing fewer tests as does doing fewer water changes. The more you do, the less error that can be assumed. So they both have the same trade offs.

I can eye ball and do less frequent water changes the same as I can with less testing. But I get better results with fewer water changes using using less light, maybe CO2 for some goals, non CO2 for others, or Excel, using sediment based nutrients if I forget combined with some water column ferts to reduce the sediment draw.

Using several common sense things(eg light intensity, CO2 etc) can reduce the labor(if that is the main focus), or to increase rates of growth for gardening, growing, horticulture or scaping etc(other foci).

It really depends on your system and the sets of goals you have.
I really do not think many folks would do this hobby is it required a lot of critical testing.

Do you?

Some folks worship the test kit like it's some knowledge and power that it really is not. And that EI or any water change based re set method is somehow more error prone.........it's not. They are essentially no different in this trade off. 

We are all lazy at some point an neglect our tanks, I have never once met someone that's been in the hobby for several years that is not at some point.
So addressing this, admitting it, plan for it and account for it.
Then you reduce error and labor while increasing success.

If a nice tank with few water changes is the goal, you cannot beat the non CO2 method, you cannot beat adding sediment based ferts along with any WC column fert routine, you cannot beat using less light or having a decent wise stocking load, good pruning and filter cleaning.

and so on...........

No need for any test or water changes...........



> So far I've found that KH additives are not required and pH crashes are myths...now water changes also seem to be myth with my discus spawning and raising young to free swimming stage after three months without water change. Wild angelfish with three water changes in nine months, not a single loss with great appetite and health.


Ditto, I've seen it and have two friends that have done this in person.
Now, would you chose this method or water changes for good brood and to maximize success rates for the general aquarium keeper?

Probably not.
That's a trade off.

A discus zealot would not see it that way at all.
But discus zealotry might not be your goal either.
They breed in non CO2 tanks, CO2 tanks and EI tanks etc.
I'd say food vs water changes and balancing the system is more important there. However, general aquarium plant keepers do not always do that nor have that goal, nor are willing to do it.



> My reply was in reference to the comment that a healthy aquarium required water changes. I care about my fish more then most and am the first to preach about good husbandry. Perhaps my large amounts of evaporation and use of diatom filter have more to do with it but as far as I can see it I am quite far from the edge.


You need to define what type of tank you mean when you speak of requirements for water changes and what trade offs you have for not doing the water changes.

Simply put, it's a lot easier for virtually any aquarist to do a water change versus learning about good test methods and how to make reference solutions.

Even there, folks can still have a lot of issues with CO2, and there is not decent reasonable price method to measure CO2. Even fewer bother to test light in any meaningful method that can be applied to other tanks, plants etc.
I know many well meaning aquarist that louse their tanks up doing some "no water change" methods. It was not the WC, it was their CO2 in most cases.
Some had insane amounts of light.
Some are not willing to address those issues also.
So they try and fight things with other methods.
And life is harder for them.

It can be a lot of work and test to figure it out in some cases.
Even there, many find little help with the test that they did/do and stop using them.

Water change takes me about 15-20 minutes a tank, tank is clean, I know the plants and fish are doing well, no worries, less unknowns and I appear to be quite able to grow any species, fish, plant or invert I want at a very high quality level. When I do this WC, I prune and clean the sponges, filter (back wash via the water change), clean glass and really stay ahead of the game.
Do I need to do all this, is it a requirement?
No.

Is it wise?
In higher growth rates, it certainly will never hurt any aquarium that uses CO2 Excel etc. So yes, it's not a bad thing in any way and keeps folks on top of things. If I picked one habit for aquarist to keep up on, the water change would be it.



> The point about generalizations is a valid one. My scope is contained the home display tank. Breeders, who are over stocking their tanks are required to change water.


Yep.

And many plant folks have less than optimal stocking levels, less than optimal plant biomass, less than optimal CO2 etc as well.....many are clueless about test kit usage and simply do not want to be bothered with it. 
Others are not willing to address stocking levels, or want high rates of growth, scaping or other trade offs.

I cannot assume everyone is doing the same thing as yourself or myself.



> Along with people growing young discus, water changes are required. I understand where and when water changes are required but coming to realize the world is not flat when it comes to water changes.
> The planted tank needs a new world. The EI and El Natural worlds need to blend together. A New Natural tank with TMG dosing, fish waste and co2 is my sweet spot. :smile:


I agree wholeheartedly.
I see many folks going either all non CO2 or all CO2 and very few try both, that is slowly changing. I've tried for a long time to bring these 2 basic methods together and show how and why they work and what differences and trade offs are involved.

There is a strong CO2 gas bias on the web.
Has been for about 10 years or more.
Folks assume you have it and add it.
I showed folks how to do non CO2 semi EI type dosing.

The species you keep(type and no#, both fish and plants, inverts), the rates of plant growth you want and what trade offs are you willing to do to get there.

Water changes work well at high rates of growth, they are not suggested for non CO2 methods(this includes no Excel dosing also).

As the rate of growths increase and the aquarist switches over to more "industrial high yield agricultural" methods that employ CO2/Excel, high light etc, then water changes are certainly a good trade off.

But if no water changes and good fish health, with low rates of plant growth a so called "sustainable organic minimal input-output model is sought/is the goal, then the non CO2 method cannot be beaten.

Sadly many lose sight of this method and try and preach/market/sell about "nature", "balance", "harmony", say nice furry thing about how they can help achieve this and all this jibberish while doing their high light, inorganic amplified high tech industrial agriculture. 

I've kept it in context for the bloody sucker that it really is: horticulture.
If you are after more natural approaches, no water changes, then go non CO2. 

But that requires something else: Patience........ something very few aquarist have and a trade off few are able to do or willing to to do.


Regards., 
Tom Barr


----------



## mistergreen (Dec 9, 2006)

plantbrain said:


> .......
> But that requires something else: Patience........ something very few aquarist have and a trade off few are able to do or willing to to do.


Patience, laziness, same thing 

I highly encourage people to have both a high tech tank and a low tech tank.. You'll get to understand the whole nutrient thing better.


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

I'll chime in on this one in regards to fish health- or rather, problems with fish health.

If a person is having problems with sick fish, water quality is paramount to being able to nurse sick fish back to health. Doing a water change helps remove toxins, stress hormones, and can also reduce the number water-borne parasites/cysts/germs, etc. that may actually be present in the water column, to try and decrease the chances that other fish will become infected/affected.

That is the main reason I almost invariably recommend large water changes.

(When I say water change in this context I mean water of the same temp and other basic parameters as the tank water.)


----------



## BiscuitSlayer (Apr 1, 2005)

My personal observation has been that weekly 50% waterchanges utilizing the EI method (Thanks Tom!) has worked bueatiful for me. I used to have an occasional fish die every so often prior to doing more frequent water changes, and that is pretty much a thing of the past now. My fish and plants are healthier than ever before. I attribute it to more frequent water changes.

My tomatoes are doing pretty well with the weekly fertilized water from my tank. 

It isn't rocket science, and it isn't an absolute. In my eyes, it is a good practice with a high tech tank though. Should I not do a water change one week, I do notice a difference.

I also use RO water, so my water quality is pretty good. (that one was for you LL)


----------



## Brilliant (Apr 11, 2006)

plantbrain said:


> I know that is not your intent nor did you imply it.
> But I do find it interesting that the same folks that are critical about EI and the WC's are curiously very very quiet when it comes to anything ADA:icon_roll


:icon_roll haha  I am glad you understand. I also agree that EI works great. I think you can fine tune it.




plantbrain said:


> It's not the only method I do, I do use various methods to achieve different goals. That's the point, some seem to claim that you should do only their method and that's it, that's all you will ever need to meet every goal.


Yup, I agree. I have few different methods depending on the light. It is ok to go outside the box. 



plantbrain said:


> That's the deal though, test kits offer the exact same trade offs by doing fewer tests as does doing fewer water changes. The more you do, the less error that can be assumed. So they both have the same trade offs.
> 
> I can eye ball and do less frequent water changes the same as I can with less testing. But I get better results with fewer water changes using using less light, maybe CO2 for some goals, non CO2 for others, or Excel, using sediment based nutrients if I forget combined with some water column ferts to reduce the sediment draw.
> 
> ...


Thats the thing. I do not like test kits or testing. The only test I use is TDS and pH and it is electronic. I took leap of faith and auto dose EI. Few nitrate tests long ago. After talking with others I realize I dont really dose EI but a hybrid of EI and PPS. Now I have a feel for what the tank needs. I "read the plants". 

Use the EI, learn like Jedi to read the plants you will hmmm.



plantbrain said:


> We are all lazy at some point an neglect our tanks, I have never once met someone that's been in the hobby for several years that is not at some point.
> So addressing this, admitting it, plan for it and account for it.
> Then you reduce error and labor while increasing success.
> 
> ...


Yeah I tried without co2...I dont know if its addition of Phyllanthus fluitans or co2 but the tank is no longer needed attention in form of water change...my angelfish and discus tanks are properly stocked mature planted tanks with ample filtration & aeration.

I do plenty of maintenance. The discus still need the glass clean, water free of debris and all buildup removed. I can do that with filtration.



plantbrain said:


> Now, would you chose this method or water changes for good brood and to maximize success rates for the general aquarium keeper?
> 
> Probably not.
> That's a trade off.
> ...


If I am not a discus zealot I dont know what is. I am not breeding racks full of them but does volume display commitment?!

This natural way appears to provide better quality of fish. I am not culling fish left and right like some breeder who tries to force 100%.

Like I said I was once on the other side of this debate. I just wanted to share what I am seeing now. Water changes are eventually required in my soft water planted tanks. No where near 50% weekly...I could run a tank with a powerhead doing those weekly changes   



plantbrain said:


> You need to define what type of tank you mean when you speak of requirements for water changes and what trade offs you have for not doing the water changes.
> 
> Simply put, it's a lot easier for virtually any aquarist to do a water change versus learning about good test methods and how to make reference solutions.
> 
> ...


I understand. Its fool proof but at the end of the day even 50% is really far from the edge. Unless your really out of whack. 



plantbrain said:


> And many plant folks have less than optimal stocking levels, less than optimal plant biomass, less than optimal CO2 etc as well.....many are clueless about test kit usage and simply do not want to be bothered with it.
> Others are not willing to address stocking levels, or want high rates of growth, scaping or other trade offs.
> 
> I cannot assume everyone is doing the same thing as yourself or myself.


I understand the big picture a little better. I think we should encourage moving from the starting point. EI should have three stage plan or something...:thumbsup: 



plantbrain said:


> I agree wholeheartedly.
> I see many folks going either all non CO2 or all CO2 and very few try both, that is slowly changing. I've tried for a long time to bring these 2 basic methods together and show how and why they work and what differences and trade offs are involved.
> 
> There is a strong CO2 gas bias on the web.
> ...


I was initially set off by the comment that water changes are required for healthy planted tank. I do not want to condemn water changes but I would agree that there are too many.



lauraleellbp said:


> I'll chime in on this one in regards to fish health- or rather, problems with fish health.
> 
> If a person is having problems with sick fish, water quality is paramount to being able to nurse sick fish back to health. Doing a water change helps remove toxins, stress hormones, and can also reduce the number water-borne parasites/cysts/germs, etc. that may actually be present in the water column, to try and decrease the chances that other fish will become infected/affected.


Normally I would agree but after seeing my wild angelfish acclimate I have a chime too. They came in with internal infection and became healthy again over the time Ive kept them. They are now healthy as can be. Not a single loss. I would be very proud to breed them. :fish:


----------

