# Opinion: How many water changes are necessary - it depends



## Aquatic Athlete (Oct 7, 2017)

I really enjoyed reading this tank and found your approach and reasoning very logical. 

I'm running a 29 (much much smaller) with moderate planting and very low bio-load. 6 Oto cats and a tiny colony of Neo shrimp, and have found that most of my screw ups are from water changes.

Good read and beautiful tank.


----------



## deepgreen1 (Mar 15, 2015)

Thank you for your feedback. I do not think that water changes are bad in principle, but it is usually much effort which might not be always necessary. I am not sure what could lead to negative effects of water changes. Too much chlorine may be or potentially some contaminants like too much copper?


----------



## fantaseaaquariums (Nov 19, 2017)

I have to ask if you aren't doing water changes what are you spending 1-2 hours a week on? I am just curious 

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


----------



## secuono (Nov 19, 2009)

Everyone knows I keep a wild jungle, lol.
125 gal. Real wood, real rocks and some fakes for hiding. Easy plants, no strict ferts added. DIY root tabs added 2x a year. Liquid Leaf Zone & custom blend added when I remember, 1-2x a month or so. Lights match the sun, so in winter, minimal hours and summer hours are long, on a timer I adjust as the sun changes. Water changes every 2-5mo, 75%. We are on well water & I made an attachment for my kitchen faucet so I can refill at the same temp. Made HOB drain attachments as well, so everything is as easy as possible for me. Husband wouldn't let me drill holes and make it all automatic. =( 
FX5 & FX6 canisters cleaned every 3mo, alternate them. Well water, so easy to clean them, but heavy and hard to move filters. I fill them so restart is instant and do not use the drains because I don't want it to fail from over use or loose. Don't need more flooding...lol.
Tank is for my Miss BGK, her tankmates are 5 angelfish, young common Pleco, 2 Clown plecos, family of 4-5 BN plecos, family of 5-6 Emerald Green Cory, 2 very old Flagfish females and w/e snails that manage to live w/o BGK eating them.
I try to sell plants for cheap in spring and autumn, to tame the jungle some. No muck to vacuum off the bottom.
Levels always read perfect. 
My koi pond is similar. 3.5k gallons(expansion to 10k soon to come), 3 fantail, 1 shubunkin, 9 or 10 koi. Heavily planted along the sides + floaters, bog heavily planted, 50g & 30g DIY filters that go to bog, perfect parameters. I try to w/c as much as possible, but well pump is screwy now and limits me to 500g at a time. No algae when shade is up. Lots of muck to clean out the filters and fine particles to finely floss out.
I would be lost w/o my plants.


Totally possible to have very few water changes.


----------



## Triport (Sep 3, 2017)

I think people tend to get a bit dramatic when advocating weekly water changes. I always try to speak from experience rather than make generalizations. I think your post sums up nicely that it is not always so cut and dry. 

I often see people in FB groups or forums telling newbies "Your fish will die if you do not do weekly water changes." But when my life has been crazy I have gone many many months without water changes and many fish that people would consider sensitive have survived for long periods with very high nitrates. It is not ideal and I definitely recommend regular water changes but with the amount of tanks I have, the other stuff going on in my life, and my general laziness level I know that for me every two weeks is more likely than every week and sometimes it might be more like once a month. 

One thing I will say from experience is do not add new fish if your tank has gone a long time without a water change and you know your nitrates are very high. Your existing fish will have adjusted to the buildup of nitrate over time. For a new fish it will be a shock that could do them in.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

*When are frequent changes necessary?*

The biggest reason not on your list is when you are new to the hobby and your not sure about how your tank will react to buildup of ferts and/organic waste.

Your not going to go wrong by doing regular weekly water changes, but you could go very wrong by not doing them. Water changes are preventive in many cases not necessary all the time. I'd rather prevent a problem before it starts then deal with it after it's happened.

Once your in the hobby for a while you could "read" your setup better and decide what's necessary, but for a newbie coming in the water change is a "Magic Bullet"


----------



## JusticeBeaver (Oct 28, 2017)

Triport said:


> I think people tend to get a bit dramatic when advocating weekly water changes. I always try to speak from experience rather than make generalizations. I think your post sums up nicely that it is not always so cut and dry.
> 
> I often see people in FB groups or forums telling newbies "Your fish will die if you do not do weekly water changes." But when my life has been crazy I have gone many many months without water changes and many fish that people would consider sensitive have survived for long periods with very high nitrates. It is not ideal and I definitely recommend regular water changes but with the amount of tanks I have, the other stuff going on in my life, and my general laziness level I know that for me every two weeks is more likely than every week and sometimes it might be more like once a month.
> 
> One thing I will say from experience is do not add new fish if your tank has gone a long time without a water change and you know your nitrates are very high. Your existing fish will have adjusted to the buildup of nitrate over time. For a new fish it will be a shock that could do them in.


I think that mainly comes from advice given out to beginner tanks that people put goldfish in. Goldfish produce a ton of waste so nitrates can build up very fast. Rather than tell people to monitor their waste levels, a simple rule of thumb would be changing water every week. If you're a bit more advanced and using proper filtration and live plants you won't have any issues since the plants absorb nitrates so those levels don't really build up.


----------



## nel (Jan 23, 2016)

houseofcards said:


> *When are frequent changes necessary?*
> 
> The biggest reason not on your list is when you are new to the hobby and your not sure about how your tank will react to buildup of ferts and/organic waste.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I would add this to the list too. When you are just getting into the hobby it's best to start with weekly 30-40% water changes to be safe. Later you can start to variate. Actually when I'm starting a new tank I'm doing weekly 30-40% water changes too and after I see how the tank is going I'm changing it. Summarizing I would recommend frequent water changes on every new setup and only after some time I would go down (even if you had 50 tanks before).
When I was fertilizing my tank lightly I was doing water changes once 2-3 weeks and only 10-15%, but to do that you need knowledge and deep understanding of your tank.


----------



## deepgreen1 (Mar 15, 2015)

fantaseaaquariums said:


> I have to ask if you aren't doing water changes what are you spending 1-2 hours a week on? I am just curious
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


It is primarily trimming and replanting. I have to constantly make sure that I do not loose plants due to overgrowth. If I am lazy, I just cut the tips and trash them. This is the fastest, but I also have to be careful not to trim too low. I could lower the number of stem plants and have more forground plants, but then the temptation to get new plants takes over LOL.


----------



## deepgreen1 (Mar 15, 2015)

houseofcards said:


> *When are frequent changes necessary?*
> 
> The biggest reason not on your list is when you are new to the hobby and your not sure about how your tank will react to buildup of ferts and/organic waste.
> 
> ...


I agree that doing water changes more frequently does not harm and it might help prevent problems for newbies. My list is certainly not exhaustive. My point is more about the differences in approaches and the involved work. There are certainly other advises one can give. I would consider it even more important to put as many cheap plants in a beginner tank as possible with less frequent water changes rather than having a few lonely plants with many water changes. It all depends on the approach.

But I take your point and that of user nel that level of experience should be added.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

deepgreen1 said:


> ..* I would consider it even more important to put as many cheap plants in a beginner tank as possible with less frequent water changes rather than having a few lonely plants with many water changes. It all depends on the approach.*
> 
> But I take your point ant that of user nel that level of experience should be added.


But you see that's the point about water changes. Your aren't as restricted. Your suggesting putting in cheap plants to increase uptake and purify the water and I don't disagree, but what if you don't want that? There are many sides and styles to the hobby. Dutch style, Forest, Iwagumi, Minimalists many don't involve a tank full of plants buy doing water changes you have the flexibility to plant the way you want to. You also can drive light further for tough carpeting plants when you don't have a tank full of stems. 

As you say it depends on your approach, but regardless of the approach the water change is always going to help the reverse can not be said for not doing them.


----------



## deepgreen1 (Mar 15, 2015)

houseofcards said:


> As you say it depends on your approach, but regardless of the approach the water change is always going to help the reverse can not be said for not doing them.


I do not say that there is no benefit of water changes, but that there are conditions where frequent water changes are not necessarily needed.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

deepgreen1 said:


> I do not say that there is no benefit of water changes, but that there are conditions where frequent water changes are not necessarily needed.


I didn't say you said that (where did I say that?), what I am saying is a water change is beneficial to every type of setup whether it needs the change or not. The reverse is NOT true, so when you don't know it's better to do the change. It's the difference between something being preventive (like a vaccine) vs treating a disease with medication after it occurs.

BTW a water change is probably one of the easiest, quickest things to do and the benefits are enormous. It's literally a 10 minute procedure with a python for most tanks.


----------



## deepgreen1 (Mar 15, 2015)

houseofcards said:


> what I am saying is a water change is beneficial to every type of setup whether it needs the change or not. The reverse is NOT true, so when you don't know it's better to do the change. It's the difference between something being preventive (like a vaccine) vs treating a disease with medication after it occurs.


At this point, I usually ask where is the evidence. The beneficial effects of vaccines have been demonstrated by many controlled scientific studies. I have not seen anybody demonstrating that *in the conditions of my last example with low need for water changes* that a water change is beneficial. Just because something is not harmful does not mean it is beneficial. I provided evidence that despite very low frequency of water changes, my tank has thriving plants, healthy fish and shrimp. I even have some freshwater annelids that have been introduced about 10 years ago.

When your water quality is low, a water change is no longer that simple or cheap in the long run as you need to add water conditioners or RO waters because not every inhabitant of a tank is happy with high chlorine or nitrate levels, different metal ions, or high KH. In addition, not everybody has hoses setup for their tanks anyway. So, it is not always as easy as you say. 

What harmful compounds should accumulate in a highly planted tank with RO water and low fish load? Even with high KH it takes some time to increase KH levels depending on your evaporation. I understand your point that you would like to extend the safety line, but I would like to draw a line where it becomes a waste of time and who has time to waste?


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

@deepgreen1

For some reason you keep missing the whole point. It's not about YOUR tank not needing regular or larger water changes it's about using regular water changes as a universal preventative measure for anyone's tank, especially someone not knowing what bandwidth they could work with. I'm talking about any tank, any parameter will benefit from a water change. You don't need a tank full of plants like you have to counter. Not everyone wants that. 

If you don't have 10 minutes to do a water change, I would recommend a different hobby. A water change is one of the easiest things you could possibly do. How bout you take 3/4 of your plants out and double the light intensity. Let's see if you can get by without more water changes. That's the limitation to a setup that doesn't get regular water changes. You need heavily plant mass and/or lower light with a limited number of plant types.


----------



## deepgreen1 (Mar 15, 2015)

houseofcards said:


> For some reason you keep missing the whole point.


It is interesting that you say this. The whole point of my list is that there are differences between tanks and approaches. There is nothing more to say.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

deepgreen1 said:


> It is interesting that you say this. The whole point of my list is that there are differences between tanks and approaches. There is nothing more to say.


I give up, you still don't get it!


----------



## Kubla (Jan 5, 2014)

How many water changes are necessary? None. The question should be what's beneficial, not what's necessary.


----------



## deepgreen1 (Mar 15, 2015)

Kubla said:


> How many water changes are necessary? None. The question should be what's beneficial, not what's necessary.


Exactly in this sense. Necessary to still provide a beneficial effect to the inhabitants of a freshwater tank :wink2:


----------



## Triport (Sep 3, 2017)

I have probably lost more fish to water changes (before I changed my method of doing water changes) than I have when I went long periods without water changes. 

I am not advocating not doing water changes with this statement just putting it out there on the record.


----------



## tropicalmackdaddy (Mar 7, 2012)

houseofcards said:


> If you don't have 10 minutes to do a water change, I would recommend a different hobby.





houseofcards said:


> A water change is one of the easiest things you could possibly do.


Top offs are easier. and I would say it definitely takes me more than 10 minutes :/

I think a no water change tank is just as commendable a goal as an IAPLC contending tank. Personally, I have a 2.9 bed side tank that hasn't had a water change in its 2.5 year existence. Is it going to win a competition? Naw. Could I have more than 30 shrimp in there at a time? Probably not. But its my only 100% algae free tank, and its grown every plant I have tossed in (although vveerryy slowly). And thats part of the reason I like it. I know its my little ecosystem of green that hasn't really needed me except to turn on the light when I wake up and turn it off when I go to bed. 

I don't think the OP disagrees that more frequent/larger water changes are always beneficial, but I think they are trying to outline strategy for people who want to do less water changes, per his words: 



deepgreen1 said:


> My main point as you see at the end is that under the appropriate circumstances, you can get away with very few water changes which saves much time.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

tropicalmackdaddy said:


> Top offs are easier. and I would say it definitely takes me more than 10 minutes :/
> 
> I think a no water change tank is just as commendable a goal as an IAPLC contending tank. Personally, I have a 2.9 bed side tank that hasn't had a water change in its 2.5 year existence. Is it going to win a competition? Naw. Could I have more than 30 shrimp in there at a time? Probably not. But its my only 100% algae free tank, and its grown every plant I have tossed in (although vveerryy slowly). And thats part of the reason I like it. I know its my little ecosystem of green that hasn't really needed me except to turn on the light when I wake up and turn it off when I go to bed.
> 
> I don't think the OP disagrees that more frequent/larger water changes are always beneficial, but I think they are trying to outline strategy for people who want to do less water changes, per his words:


If your water changes are taking more than 10 minutes than your doing something unnecessary. On a small nano-type tank it should take under 5 minutes. You shut off power to your filter (5 seconds). You stick a 1/2" filter tube in the tank and empty 1/2 the water into a bucket 30 seconds or so depending on size of nano. And then refill with a couple of 1 Gal Water jugs (1-2 minutes), turn filter back on (5 seconds). 

On a large tank you use a python to empty and refill none of what I described would take more than 10 minutes. The point you and the OP are missing is that when you don't know the limits of your tank which most new people don't your always going to be better off doing water changes. it's the simple. Its doesn't work the other way around. So for you to say topoffs are easier that doesn't help every tank. 

BTW to set a goal not to do water changes to an IAPLC competition makes no sense to me. Not sure where that came from nor why that would be a goal. It's more a limitation to what you could do with said tank. Water changes provide much more range and freedom. Plenty of my tanks can go a long time without weekly water changes, but why ask for a problem as opposed to preventing one. 

The key difference is it's PREVENTIVE. There's is nothing easier and more beneficial OVERALL then a water change.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

This is an excellent topic, more important than fertilizing routines. 
*
There are two groups:*
*A.* Aquariums where new growth looks shiny but not for long. Older leaves die prematurely and are consumed by algae. 
*B.* Well run aquariums where is no algae and old leaves die of old age, disintegrate while algae free.

In the *A.* scenario, more water changes don’t help, in contrary, they make situation worse. This can be tap or RO, small water changes, large water changes, complete water changes, daily dosing, and weekly dosing. Even perfectly premixed water changes to specific mineral levels do not work. This, for many became the “normal” in this hobby. It is called “outgrowing the algae”.

In the *B.* scenario, water changes cause no harm as long as B. conditions remain. However, in order to cross from A. to B. water changes must be avoided while preserving and maintaining proper mineral levels. Every time water change is performed, valuable by plant produced chemicals are lost. These are chemicals plants use to become strong and healthy and consequently be able to destroy algae in their surrounding environments. 


The cleanest and healthiest, crystal clear aquariums I have seen did not have water changes in 3, 7 and even 15 years. PPS-Classic was design to get aquariums from scenario A. to B. Then PPS-Pro drives scenario B. Or by any other means keeping the mineral levels right. 

To get to know more about plant chemical warfare, communication and life strategy this video below is worth the time watching.


Thank you
Edward


----------



## Kubla (Jan 5, 2014)

Edward said:


> This is an excellent topic, more important than fertilizing routines.
> *
> There are two groups:*
> *A.* Aquariums where new growth looks shiny but not for long. Older leaves die prematurely and are consumed by algae.
> ...


Have you seen pictures of the 2400 gallon aquarium in Takashi Amano's (the father of aquascaping) home? About as close as you could get to perfection for years and years. It's set up for automatic water changes.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Edward said:


> ..The cleanest and healthiest, crystal clear aquariums I have seen did not have water changes in 3, 7 and even 15 years.


Could I see a few examples of the tank that didn't have a water change in 15 years. How did you even verify that? Is it your tank? Are the aquascaping contest winner in your signature an example of one such tank?


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

Much talk about plant's and their need's, and what one might or might not get away with while fauna often seems to take a back seat, or inserted into planted tanks for photo/aesthetic values only.
If my weekly water changes that I have performed for nearly 45 yrs now would not also work while growing the aquatic weed's,then I would pitch the weed's in a heart beat.
I agree with much of the OP's views especially, the point that the water changes do no harm.
Also agree with houseofcards point that if your squeaking about difficulty, and or time it takes to perform water changes, that you might be in the wrong hobby and or aren't trying to make the process easier which is stupidly simple.
Lot's of thing's I might try and get away with in plant only tanks that I might balk at with fauna present either in large number's or few specimens.
My tow cent's.


----------



## IntotheWRX (May 13, 2016)

Triport said:


> I have probably lost more fish to water changes (before I changed my method of doing water changes) than I have when I went long periods without water changes.
> 
> I am not advocating not doing water changes with this statement just putting it out there on the record.


I too lost fishes when I do my bi-montly water changes

I think people emphasize "50% water change per week" too much. I think that standard has been thrown around like a testament rule. 

50% water change once a month is a more realistic standard

when i started this hobby, people online told me 50% a week. I skipped a week and though I am 200% late, If I miss my third week, I am wayyyy off and my tank is in danger. After 2-3 months past, I was like wtf are all these people trippin about water changes. I'm 10x late to everyone's standard and everything is still ok.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

It is the long periods without water changes that do not help fishes much if and when a water change is finally performed for whatever reason.
Fishes must try to adapt to whatever the condition's are in a glass box of water ,even bad conditions.
Is not like they can swim away to find more favorable water condition's.
They must do this or perish as water condition's dictate, or deteriorate.
Some are more tolerant than other's.
It is when a sudden change to these condition's through a water change occurs, that fishes might become stressed even if the condition's are for the better.(see osmoregulatory function in fishes).
If one begins a routine of changing a % of water each week,then condition's cannot change much from the source water used for water changes from week to week, and this to me anyway,,,has proved itself to be a good practice if it is truly the fishes welfare that is of interest,


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Aquarium water parameters should not get out of whack with time. If they do then the cause need to be found and resolved. There is no reason not to have the same basic water parameters for years. Waste is mineralized and taken by plants, then removed. Plants purify water making it better for themselves and for the fish, and unbearable for algae.

As an example, some substrates may be leaching minerals or affecting pH. This need to be monitored and either removed or maintain with minimal necessary water changes. 
Another may be overdosing that need to be modified to avoid buildups. 
Another is high NO3. Dose K2SO4, monitor stable TDS, add lava >1” size into filter to denitrify it. It can remove 3-4 ppm of NO3 a day.

Then, there is no reason why delayed water change should stress fish.

Thank you
Edward


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Edward said:


> Aquarium water parameters should not get out of whack with time. If they do then the cause need to be found and resolved. There is no reason not to have the same basic water parameters for years. Waste is mineralized and taken by plants, then removed. Plants purify water making it better for themselves and for the fish, and unbearable for algae.
> 
> As an example, some substrates may be leaching minerals or affecting pH. This need to be monitored and either removed or maintain with minimal necessary water changes.
> Another may be overdosing that need to be modified to avoid buildups.
> ...


I take the above to mean you don't have a picture of the 12 year old tank with no water changes that is the clearest in the world?


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Dear houseofcards,
this thread is about water changes, not aquascaping.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Edward said:


> Dear houseofcards,
> this thread is about water changes, not aquascaping.


Hi, what does my question have to do with aquascaping? You mentioned tanks up to 12 years old that never received a water change. I wanted to see such a tank. 

It has to do with whats more practical advice for the masses. Doing regular water changes or not doing them at all.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

houseofcards said:


> It has to do with whats more practical advice for the masses. Doing regular water changes or not doing them at all.


 I don’t think of people on this forum as “masses”. There are experts with lots of experience who want to share with one another. Why not let people to choose what to read and what to do?


----------



## Audionut (Apr 24, 2015)

Experts, lol.
In either case, just because a userbase _may be_ of some description, how many people browse this site for information without registering.

Go and find a puddle of water with an overstocked aquatic load and judge the health of the inhabitants vs a high flow river. I bet you can't, and yet I assume you put yourself into this "expert" category. Maybe I'm just confused as usual. Did you mean experts at opinion?


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Edward said:


> I don’t think of people on this forum as “masses”. There are experts with lots of experience who want to share with one another. Why not let people to choose what to read and what to do?


I'm not sure what your talking about. I'm referring to masses as most people who want to have a setup and learn with the least amount of problems. The majority of people here come and go and they are not experts by any stretch. To come into a thread without really reading anything and give the impression from your "expert" standpoint that if your do A,B,C and D you don't need water changes. It's much easier for people to understand and keep it simple.


----------



## Surf (Jun 13, 2017)

> Aquarium water parameters should not get out of whack with time. If they do then the cause need to be found and resolved. There is no reason not to have the same basic water parameters for years. Waste is mineralized and taken by plants, then removed. Plants purify water making it better for themselves and for the fish, and unbearable for algae.


Sorry but water parameters will change over time if you do not do water changes. When you feed fish you are adding elements to the water some are taken up by the plants but others shuch as sodium, iodine, selenium are not (these are elements fish need to live and they are in fish food). What the plants don't take up increases TDS and eventually the water will become toxic to fish and plants.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Surf,
plants are incredibly greedy organisms. They uptake more than they need and interestingly, also elements they don’t need. And, it does include sodium, iodine and selenium. In well run aquariums TDS is dropping. 

I have to add that there are people spreading an uncompromising dogma for a long time. Funny is, they don’t get tired doing that for so long. It is like they don’t want to allow this hobby to progress. 

So yes, plants will uptake elements like sodium, iodine and selenium.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

Edward said:


> Surf,
> plants are incredibly greedy organisms. They uptake more than they need and interestingly, also elements they don’t need. And, it does include sodium, iodine and selenium. In well run aquariums TDS is dropping.
> 
> I have to add that there are people spreading an uncompromising dogma for a long time. Funny is, they don’t get tired doing that for so long. It is like they don’t want to allow this hobby to progress.
> ...


Plants also respire(check for yourself), and throw off/cast out things like lipid's ,enzymes,protein's,sugars.(not all is utilized)
Fish waste is not all processed by plant's.
Near any substrate that has the physical properties to allow mulm and waste to sift it's way to the bottom will eventually affect the water parameter's unless some method is in place to remove the dissolved matter that the plant's cannot (ie water changes).
We are talking about a closed system or aquarium. Where other's might have opinion's on how best to maintain their particular system, I am confident that water changes do no harm, and can be a benefit for both plant's and 
fishes.
You are dead wrong to think that a stagnant glass box of water left to it's own for extended period with fishes /plant's,nutrient's being delivered daily/weekly,+fish food's will be same as source water used to top off, or fill the tank from the outset.
No dogma attached.


----------



## rainbowfish2 (Dec 3, 2017)

Edward said:


> Every time water change is performed, valuable by plant produced chemicals are lost. These are chemicals plants use to become strong and healthy and consequently be able to destroy algae in their surrounding environments.


This made me think this is similar to saying: 

Every time you flush the toilet or wash yourself valuable chemicals are lost. Do you keep them around ?
Plants produce byproducts. If they grow faster they produce more. It will take some time for those chemicals to be broken down even in nature. Your aquariums, my aquariums are not nature. There are boxes with very small volumes and frequent human energy inputs. Taker responsibility for your aquarium. 


There is no support showing that aquatic plants used in aquariums produce chemicals that "destroy algae". It does not make sense for plants to produce such a chemical in nature when you have 100000000000000000...00000 : 1 water volume : plant volume . And algae being unicellular organisms will quickly adapt and become resistant, much like bacteria do to antibiotics. So no, pipe dreams do not apply in reality, sorry. 

I can say I had aquariums with no water change for more than 6 months. I can say I have aquariums with weekly water changes. So what ? When we are speaking in general, do that 50 % water change. If you master growing plants with 50% water changes then adapt your technique. 

If you tell a newb you can do a water change every 1- 12 weeks, you can bet it will be wk 13 when the change will be done.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

rainbowfish2 said:


> This made me think this is similar to saying:
> 
> Every time you flush the toilet or wash yourself valuable chemicals are lost. Do you keep them around ?
> Plants produce byproducts. If they grow faster they produce more. It will take some time for those chemicals to be broken down even in nature. Your aquariums, my aquariums are not nature. There are boxes with very small volumes and frequent human energy inputs. Taker responsibility for your aquarium.
> ...


Great first post!

My thoughts exactly especially "your aquariums, my aquariums are not nature." There are boxes with very small volumes and frequent human energy inputs. Taker responsibility for your aquarium."

Whenever you see someone link a study to a natural body of water or a terrestrial plant just hit the delete button. It doesn't apply to what you are trying to accomplish in a 2-4 ft closed glass box.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Deepgreen1
Thanks for posting your beautiful aquarium pictures and congratulation.

Edward


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

I still cannot fathom how a WC schedule can create such a debate.
Sometimes the path of enlightenment can be a rough rode for some.

We all change water for different reasons, whatever they may be.

I purposely try to not change water in my 80G.
Some weeks it gets a double EI dosing and still a decline in TDS reading.
There is no substrate visible to plant and the fish load is 7 1" Cory's.

I only have Cory's, I didn't want "Phish" anyway.
They are only there to stir the bottom and keep things moving.
Cute fish though, C123 yellowcats and they do their intended job.
Oops I lied, there are two blue dream shrimp in there if one can find them.

Only reason for WC is after vacuuming from the cap breaches during a trim.
And the 4 gallons per week due to evap.
I am considering topping off with R/O in the future though.

See how easy and painless that was!:grin2:


----------



## deepgreen1 (Mar 15, 2015)

Edward said:


> Deepgreen1
> Thanks for posting your beautiful aquarium pictures and congratulation.
> 
> Edward


Thanks for your kind words. I try to provide evidence for what I claim. Everybody can judge themselves.


----------



## deepgreen1 (Mar 15, 2015)

Edward said:


> Surf,
> plants are incredibly greedy organisms. They uptake more than they need and interestingly, also elements they don’t need. And, it does include sodium, iodine and selenium. In well run aquariums TDS is dropping.
> 
> I have to add that there are people spreading an uncompromising dogma for a long time. Funny is, they don’t get tired doing that for so long. It is like they don’t want to allow this hobby to progress.
> ...


I agree. Plants are used for detoxification of soils. A tank is not a closed system to which elements are only added. A large amount of these compounds leave the tank with the harvested plants and I trim almost every week. It seems that the main message got lost which is that I do not doubt the beneficial effects of frequent water changes in many situations. I only doubt that it helps in all cases. I cannot see a negative effect so far neither for my fish, shrimp or plants.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

deepgreen1 said:


> I agree. Plants are used for detoxification of soils. A tank is not a closed system to which elements are only added. A large amount of these compounds leave the tank with the harvested plants and I trim almost every week. It seems that the main message got lost which is that I do not doubt the beneficial effects of frequent water changes in many situations. I only doubt that it helps in all cases. I cannot see a negative effect so far neither for my fish, shrimp or plants.


Tanks ARE a closed system, that need some method of export of that which is imported daily like detritus,decaying plant matter,fish waste,fish food's. Whether it is through manual removal such as what you or I are doing when removing/changing water,or trimming,removing plant mass, vaccuming substrate, We are removing it .
Filter's only trap much of the solid waste until such time as we clean it,or replace media to remove it.O2,acid's,gases,that are result of nitrification, are only thing's in my mind that escape naturally through evaporation.
Pleased to see that the majority of hobbyist's recognize the benefit's of regular water changes .
Not so much with those who look for way's /reason's not to perform them, not withstanding those cases where the water changes are not as critical as has been pointed out in first post.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

It's a given that some tanks don't need regular water changes. It's also a given that those tanks have conditions that have to be met (i.e. heavy plant mass, low livestock, less than extreme light, etc. 

The majority of people are not "experts" here. They are visiting or joining the forum for advice. Many don't understand heavily planted, low light, low stock ,etc so they are ALWAYS better off doing regular water changes as a preventive measure. To give the impression that water changes overall are bad or not necessary to appease a tiny minority who have proven they can run a tank that way is just bad advice. It does not advance the hobby. There is nothing easier and more beneficial overall then a water change. Every major entity in the planted tank space agrees with this.


----------



## deepgreen1 (Mar 15, 2015)

This is getting technical, so let’s go there.

A tank is not a closed system unless it is a sealed box in the dark. 
We have influx of compounds and this is the reason we have this discussion. The question is how we balance influx and efflux in the tank whether it is primarily fish-based or plant-based. The influx consists primarily of the compounds in fish food, additional fertilizer and material potentially accumulating from top-off water and water evaporation. (Let’s neglect things like energy intake in form of light). Without efflux, various compounds accumulate and this is what we are talking about. There are different ways of regulating efflux. The most common and favored way to accomplish this are water changes. There is however no reason to use alternative ways when possible. In a heavily planted tank, the efflux can be achieved with removal of plant material which needs to be done anyway with high plant growth. It does not matter how you remove these accumulating compounds as long as you do it somehow. Obviously, regulating efflux through growth removal is only possible in a planted tank. 

The regulation of efflux obviously also depends on your fish to plant growth ratio. The more fish-biased the tank is the less effective is efflux control through growth removal and other means are required the easiest of which is a water change. It is absolutely necessary to regulate efflux somehow to prevent harm to fish and other inhabitants and I do not advocate delaying water changes when needed in a fish-biased tank. I do also not advocate using this post as an excuse to be lazy and potentially stress fish. 

As the title of my post indicates, how you use water changes to control efflux DEPENDS on your system. Rather saying you always need to do frequent water changes, I point out that this depends on your specific tank. 
I also stated that I think that less frequent water changes are needed the more plants you have in the tank and the more your fish/plant ratio is shifted to growing plants. Apparently, handling a well planted tank already requires some skills and therefore it is implicit that it is not aimed at total newbies.

The argument that I should leave the hobby if I cannot spend 10 min for a water change not only totally misses the point and is not really an argument, but also postulated that it is as easy as that for everybody to do a water change. Many factors affect this and not everybody’s system is set up in the way that allows doing this in 10min. If it works for somebody it is great, but that does not mean it works for everybody like that. In addition, giving the impression that only one who does take the time for frequent water changes is really serious about the hobby and one who tries to assess what is necessary and what is not is not serious again is not a good argument.

Only because a rule has been applied for decades does not mean it is valid for all cases. In addition, sticking to rules without thinking about whether these rules are applicable to all situations is not improvement. If we never think about what can be changed and what provides a real benefit, then we do indeed make no progress. The argument that it should be done because it cannot harm and is preventive does not hold if it does not produce a benefit. Just because something is not harmful does not mean it is beneficial. There are many other preventive measures such as water conditioners, UV filters, charcoal filters, antibiotics, … . One can also install a power backup and so on. This is all beneficial in certain situations and the preventive argument can be applied. The main question is whether it is really necessary and whether it really produces a benefit under the given circumstances. 

Progress stops when we stop thinking about what goes on in a tank, what we can change, and what of the current practice is valid.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

A tank IS a closed system and no one other than you or the misguided, has ever stated otherwise.(point to anywhere that it is stated otherwise).
Is not only what need's to be removed through water changes to maintain water quality,(benefit's fishes/plant's) but also minerals that need replaced for fish/plant structural development, many of which are easily provided from source water(for free) at water changes.
Even those who run freshwater tanks with R/O water, or marine tanks, must remineralize to provide for the inhabitant's whether they be plant's, fishes,invert's,coral's,etc.
Been around the hobby for forty five year's and if I thought there was little need for something , or it provided no benefit,I would be the first to climb on board with ya.
Yes,,regular water changes in a sealed glass box of water provide a benefit to both fishes and plant's.
It is a truth that is difficult to discount,though some are more persistent in their effort's than other's.
I have grown tired of kicking this dead horse ,and take comfort that the topic rear's itself much less frequently on the forum's I visit than in past year's.


----------



## rainbowfish2 (Dec 3, 2017)

deepgreen1 said:


> We have influx of compounds and this is the reason we have this discussion. The question is how we balance influx and efflux in the tank whether it is primarily fish-based or plant-based. The influx consists primarily of the compounds in fish food, additional fertilizer and material potentially accumulating from top-off water and water evaporation. Without efflux, various compounds accumulate and this is what we are talking about. There are different ways of regulating efflux. The most common and favored way to accomplish this are water changes. There is however no reason to use alternative ways when possible. In a heavily planted tank, the efflux can be achieved with removal of plant material which needs to be done anyway with high plant growth.


You are deliberately ignoring the metabolic by-products of plants, bacteria and fish that fill the water, substrate and filters. You are not removing those by taking out only the plants. Some products like certain polysaccharides or amino acids may be easily broken down, others may not. Some non-PO4, P containing products will pretty much never become available for plants again within our glass boxes. It takes a good 15cm of anaerobic marsh soil to recycle it. How many tanks have this ? 

In other words, the cycle is broken. Our aquariums will never be a natural ecosystem. 



deepgreen1 said:


> (Let’s neglect things like energy intake in form of light). .


Let's not, just because reality is hard to fit into pipedreams. 





deepgreen1 said:


> As the title of my post indicates, how you use water changes to control efflux DEPENDS on your system. Rather saying you always need to do frequent water changes, I point out that this depends on your specific tank. .


Sorry, but this is just like "things will get better, when you feel good"... Water change strategies are not really an advanced aquarist wants to learn off the internet. He will be "expert" enough to know when and how and why. But if a newb reads that he may get around without water changes, he will not do water changes. It depends can be said about everything. 




deepgreen1 said:


> The argument that it should be done because it cannot harm and is preventive does not hold if it does not produce a benefit. Just because something is not harmful does not mean it is beneficial. ... This is all beneficial in certain situations and the preventive argument can be applied. The main question is whether it is really necessary and whether it really produces a benefit under the given circumstances.


So what you are saying is that you also stopped washing your hands before eating because it was not beneficial under 99% of the circumstances and also stopped showering because --- is it really necessary ?


----------



## somewhatshocked (Aug 8, 2011)

*Moderator speak:*

Come on. Keep things friendly. There's no reason to insult others - even if they're dumber than a box of rocks. Educate them with facts and things based on science.

If someone is spreading pseudoscience or myths? Correct them with something factual or at least verifiable. I don't want to clean up another thread filled with pointless insults. There are other internet forums where that's acceptable. Go there if you want to be terrible.

Update:

Let this serve as a reminder that if you received a warning for being terrible to other members or for using foul language? It's not wise to get nasty or retaliatory. Especially if you have a history of infractions and suspensions because you'll get the permanent boot.

This is a plant forum. It's not life or death. 

*Normal forum member speak:*

This is a hobby, as we all know, that is based on practices that work and are verifiable. Water changes work and if anyone is suggesting otherwise, they're fools. Period. Full stop. There are obviously gray areas, of course. I have tanks that I almost never have to change or alter for myriad reasons (but monitor regularly). Also have tanks that require frequent changes and alterations. 

No one's tank is going to be identical to another. Requirements are going to vary. This should be common sense. 

But don't come at me trying to tell me water changes are unnecessary because they usually are. The average hobbyist isn't skilled enough to avoid it. And most experienced hobbyists know it's waaaay easier to change water in most systems on a regular/semi-regular basis to avoid headaches.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

This is from the founder of Seachem, Dr. Leo Morin. Keep in mind Seachem sells obviously purigen and a host of other organic removal products. 

"Fundamental to the success of a healthy aquarium is the stable aquarium environment made possible by scheduled
water changes and filtration. Water changes provide systematic removal of wastes not normally removed by
filtration and restoration of a balanced ionic environment. No system exists, despite irresponsible or misinformed
claims to the contrary, that can replace water changes."


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

This is starting to remind me of all the micro toxicity threads of controversy!


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

houseofcards said:


> This is from the founder of Seachem, Dr. Leo Morin. Keep in mind Seachem sells obviously purigen and a host of other organic removal products.
> 
> "Fundamental to the success of a healthy aquarium is the stable aquarium environment made possible by scheduled
> water changes and filtration. Water changes provide systematic removal of wastes not normally removed by
> ...


Founder of Seachem? Oh come on, House, we need a credible source of info. Not someone who's main interest would be in recommending water changes to take advantage of the masses by causing them to use more Prime and increase corporate profits .


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Maryland Guppy said:


> This is starting to remind me of all the micro toxicity threads of controversy!


Yes, those got pretty bad.




Jeff5614 said:


> Founder of Seachem? Oh come on, House, we need a credible source of info. Not someone who's main interest would be in recommending water changes to take advantage of the masses by causing them to use more Prime and increase corporate profits .


LOL, forgot about the Prime angle. That is one slick operation.


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

I used to stir the kettle on the micro toxicity threads.
Dumb comments and stupid questions as if I was naïve to the situation.

Have to let this one go now.
I guess I will never see the path of enlightenment regarding WC's.
Phishless is the only way!


----------



## Kubla (Jan 5, 2014)

deepgreen1 said:


> Only because a rule has been applied for decades does not mean it is valid for all cases. In addition, sticking to rules without thinking about whether these rules are applicable to all situations is not improvement. If we never think about what can be changed and what provides a real benefit, then we do indeed make no progress. The argument that it should be done because it cannot harm and is preventive does not hold if it does not produce a benefit. Just because something is not harmful does not mean it is beneficial. There are many other preventive measures such as water conditioners, UV filters, charcoal filters, antibiotics, … . One can also install a power backup and so on. This is all beneficial in certain situations and the preventive argument can be applied. The main question is whether it is really necessary and whether it really produces a benefit under the given circumstances.
> 
> Progress stops when we stop thinking about what goes on in a tank, what we can change, and what of the current practice is valid.


Reading this I would come to believe that this rule hasn't been challenged and that there aren't hundreds of pages on this forum dealing with this topic, but that's not the case.


----------



## AquaLady86 (Jun 2, 2013)

Interesting topic

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Oughtsix (Apr 8, 2011)

My 180g changes ~40g every morning. It is amazing to see how much the plants start pearling and see the fish perk up and get more active after the water change.

So is the topic the minimal necessary water changes to maintain a tank or the optimum amount of water changes to maintain the healthiest plants and fish? 

With daily water changes I have not found any need to fertilize or inject C02 in my dirt bottom gravel capped tank.


----------

