# Water change obsession vs not changing



## GeToChKn

I'd like this to be a serious thread where people can discuss why they change their water so much or so little. With some recent topics on shrimp and/or fish dieoffs, this brought me curious as to how much people messing with their water could have an effect.

I read some people who do like a 50% 2 times a week and that seems insane to me, especially with a planted tank. Others do nothing but top off ever.

To me, it goes like this. Fish and other creatures and food create ammonia and other byproducts, filter eats ammonia, makes nitrites, filter eats nitrites and makes nitrates. Plants eat some nitrates, and the rest can be removed with a water change every once in a while.

Some people obsess over the #'s of pH, gH, kH, in order to get an ideal number based off something online and whether or not their fish need it.

I've read many things about the Japanese breeders who breed the shrimp and they never change water, just top off. The crystals seem to like old water and constantly messing with it, the shrimp don't like.

So if anyone wants to chime in on how much and often they change and why, go ahead. I'd like to get people reasoning and experience.


----------



## Chlorophile

Well its all about balance

I'm only keeping a Mini-M and a 20 Gallon at the moment, the Mini-M is high tech and I do EI dosing, and that sort of dictates the 50 percent water change each week. 

In my 20 gallon, I can't remember the last time I changed the water. It was probably a bit after Christmas, but I probably wont change it again till around Christmas. 

The difference is that the 20 gallon is low-tech, low light, full of Bacopa, Mayaca Fluvalis, Rotala, Alternantherea, a few other stem plants, a ton of cryptocoryne wendtii Green and I mean a TON, and dwarf hydrocotyle. There are so many plants in there stacked ontop of eachother and competing for the little light available. 
I dose that tank every few weeks, the nitrates stay really low from all the plants, its super low maintenance - I don't even bother to clean the glass anymore haha.

The plants absorb all sorts of chemicals that you wouldn't want in the water, and they hold them in the leaves and roots. Then they come out as trimmings. 

I think the water in my 20 gallon is probably good to drink if I took the fish out for a week.
I'm not going to, but still.


----------



## Higher Thinking

Yea, I think a great deal of people that do mass water changed typically do so in accordance with EI dosing regiments. For me, it just makes things seem cleaner. I have seven tanks and don't use carbon on any of them so water changes ensures that I have no odor from the tanks. I live in a one bedroom loft apartment and no one can ever smell the existence of tanks and I like to think this has to do with my regular water changes. One tank is EI dosing so that gets the 50 percent every week but the others just get around 20.


----------



## 2wheelsx2

I vary my water changes. The bigger the fish/tank/bioload, the more and bigger changes I do. My planted discus tank (no CO2) gets 3x50% a week, my 125 gallon pleco tank gets 2x 60+% a week, my 46 bow gets 2x40% a week, my 20 gets 2x25% a week and a 3.5 gallon gets maybe 10% a week.

I don't think big water changes are the answer to everything, and some would argue a big waste of water, but when I have problems, the first thing I do is run a big water change.


----------



## jasonpatterson

The TDS from my tap is over 500ppm, if I just top off I get deposition.


----------



## nonconductive

my 125 discus tank gets a water change about every 3 months. if they didnt crap all over everything, i probably wouldnt even do that. plants take care of pretty much everything.


----------



## plantbrain

GeToChKn said:


> I'd like this to be a serious thread where people can discuss why they change their water so much or so little. With some recent topics on shrimp and/or fish dieoffs, this brought me curious as to how much people messing with their water could have an effect.
> 
> I read some people who do like a 50% 2 times a week and that seems insane to me, especially with a planted tank. Others do nothing but top off ever.
> 
> To me, it goes like this. Fish and other creatures and food create ammonia and other byproducts, filter eats ammonia, makes nitrites, filter eats nitrites and makes nitrates. Plants eat some nitrates, and the rest can be removed with a water change every once in a while.
> 
> Some people obsess over the #'s of pH, gH, kH, in order to get an ideal number based off something online and whether or not their fish need it.
> 
> I've read many things about the Japanese breeders who breed the shrimp and they never change water, just top off. The crystals seem to like old water and constantly messing with it, the shrimp don't like.
> 
> So if anyone wants to chime in on how much and often they change and why, go ahead. I'd like to get people reasoning and experience.


So is this about Shrimp......or plants or water changes?

Planted tanks are defined by the rate of growth that the user desires.
The water changes are a vetry simple management tool for HIGHER rates of growth, plants grow just fine at low light and without CO2.

The problem is that some seem to assume and think that their goal happens to be the one everyone else should follow and then try argue it should be all things to all people.

Many folks, ADA included, desire a more rapid rate of growth for gardenign and horticulture than non CO2 offers.

The hobby today would not be where it is at regarding CO2 injection.
No one can argue that is NOT the case.

However a non CO2 method has been used for much longer and requires no water changes basically. Balancing nutrients is simple if you do water changes vs trying to test and dose or that. Most are simply never going to do that, you can do a semi sustainable approach by using less light, good ferts/CO2 and sediment based ferts, then slowly back off the ferts to the water column and then also the water changes.

No reason folks cannot do that either.
again, the problem is folks assume you MUST do water changes with a particularly method, that is not the case. You can and should adjust to suit whatever labor routine you have or desire. There's a few trade offs, but that's why you have different methods for different goals.

Regarding shrimp, then tend to over molt if you do frequent water changes.
They also do best in a non CO2 enriched planted tank without water changes.


----------



## GeToChKn

plantbrain said:


> So is this about Shrimp......or plants or water changes?
> 
> Planted tanks are defined by the rate of growth that the user desires.
> The water changes are a vetry simple management tool for HIGHER rates of growth, plants grow just fine at low light and without CO2.
> 
> The problem is that some seem to assume and think that their goal happens to be the one everyone else should follow and then try argue it should be all things to all people.
> 
> Many folks, ADA included, desire a more rapid rate of growth for gardenign and horticulture than non CO2 offers.
> 
> The hobby today would not be where it is at regarding CO2 injection.
> No one can argue that is NOT the case.
> 
> However a non CO2 method has been used for much longer and requires no water changes basically. Balancing nutrients is simple if you do water changes vs trying to test and dose or that. Most are simply never going to do that, you can do a semi sustainable approach by using less light, good ferts/CO2 and sediment based ferts, then slowly back off the ferts to the water column and then also the water changes.
> 
> No reason folks cannot do that either.
> again, the problem is folks assume you MUST do water changes with a particularly method, that is not the case. You can and should adjust to suit whatever labor routine you have or desire. There's a few trade offs, but that's why you have different methods for different goals.
> 
> Regarding shrimp, then tend to over molt if you do frequent water changes.
> They also do best in a non CO2 enriched planted tank without water changes.


It was just a general thread because I see so many conflicting reasons on how much people change all the time or little and was just curious as to why, because as you said above, someone said it and then everyone jumps on and thinks their way is right. If its working for you, whatever you are doing, keep it up. One thing is there no absolutes in this hobby and two people can almost identical everything have very different results.


----------



## mistergreen

Water changes are for the fishes. Overall, I find weekly changes will produce the healthiest fishes.


----------



## BBradbury

*Water Change Routine*

Hello Ge...

I have several 55 G tanks and change 50 percent of the water every three weeks. My filters are small, (HOB Aqua Clear 50s) for the tanks, but all tanks are well planted. 

I keep Fancy Guppies and Corydoras and have around 100 to 150 fish per tank. Tanks have been running for several years with no problems and haven't tested the water conditions in so long, I don't recall how. 

For me, the keys to a successful tank are lots plants and setting up a workable maintenance schedule and then following it.

B


----------



## amberskye

this is very interesting. As a relative novice I started with fish only tanks and was spoon fed by a very fish friendly forum who advocated water changes for just about everything. 
Traces of ammonia? daily 50% waterchange miss!
cycling a tank with fish in? 2 x 50% waterchanges daily miss!
Using bottled bacteria? stop immediately and start 50% daily waterchanges miss!
overfed the fish today? 50% waterchanges miss and a smack on the hand lol 
maintenance? 50% waterchanges weekly miss and dont forget your testtubes !! 
On that premis it was what I did for a long time, which is ok with one small setup, but throw 3 or 4 more larger, heavy fishloaded tanks into the mix, plus a demanding child and a social life (remember one of those? ) and it becomes a chore. I was beginning to lose interest and started to find it was no longer enjoyable, but just uphill work. 
Moved over to planted tanks, came here and saw that a lot of people dont do nearly as many waterchanges as I was doing, and in fact some threads actually maintain too many large waterchanges can be harmful and deplete your tanks of the good stuff. Im still undecided, and admit to worrying (Unecessaryily maybe) if I live dangerously an omitt that 50% waterchange  Often I read a thread and it raises more questions than answers


----------



## The Dude

I change the water in my tanks when I feel like it or I see or have some idea that a water change is needed. I strive to set my tanks up to where they are near self sufficient. All of my tanks are heavily over filtered (my 75g and 46g both have two Rena XP3 filters each) and the normal cleaning of the filters every couple of months gets rid of anything that may have built up along with a couple gallons of water. My tanks are all open as well so they are "topped off" with fresh water at least once a week.


----------



## farrenator

My water changing schedule is based mainly on how much work I want to put into it. I actually got more serious about plants as a tool to reduce my need for water changes! I am coming at the plants from a 'fish first' perspective. When I had a bunch of Rainbows and I fed the heck out of them I would change about 30% once every 7 days or so. Now that I have a lower fish load, healthier plants, CO2 and light dosing I change 30% every 2 weeks or so. Sometimes I do it once a week though. Why do I do it? I don't have a scientific reason why. I just do it because that is the way I have always done it before I started investigating using plants as filters. Plus, I have developed a system whereby water changes are fairly easy.


----------



## Booger

I often read thinly veiled brags about skipping water changes as though there's some kind of merit badge for it. The notion of creating a "natural balance" is flawed, at best. Why open the door to a host of nutrient related issues that can become increasingly more problematic over time?

Water changes are as easy or as difficult as you make them. I'll never understand how so many folks will invest thousands of dollars/hours into this hobby, but balk so hard at 10 or 20 minutes of work per week.


----------



## plantbrain

GeToChKn said:


> It was just a general thread because I see so many conflicting reasons on how much people change all the time or little and was just curious as to why, because as you said above, someone said it and then everyone jumps on and thinks their way is right. If its working for you, whatever you are doing, keep it up. One thing is there no absolutes in this hobby and two people can almost identical everything have very different results.


This sounds nice and all...but we and the newbie learns little from this however.

What are useful? What are the best management practices for particularly goals? For folks not planning on water changes, not trimming(this labor aspect goes right along with the no water changes part, folks that trim often or garden, typically do not mind more labor), basically they are smart enough to admit to being lazy, having kids and not enough time etc........non CO2 is an excellent choice.










Folks that want a little bit more gardening, but not much headache? Well, perhaps a once a month water change etc, Excel dosing etc dosign maybe 1-2x a week.

Next stage might be low light + CO2, in all cases, sediment rich nutrients sources are used, and a little bit of water column ferts. Maybe once a month water change.










Well chosen plants and fish stocking.

Maybe you want a little bit more growth........more light etc:










*With less growth RATES, we have less nutrient demand and thus less water changes without any monitoring labor added. *So we get the best of both worlds with non CO2 method and no water changes, but less desirable gardening rates unless one is patient.

Now we have a decent model to work with when applying how much labor we'd like to put into a water changes versus our gardening goals. This is far more explanatory than "just do what works......" the person must define their goal first before we can offer them the best solution holistically, you cannot just piece meal off water changes in isolation. 

Same for Test kits, they have their place, same for dosing ferts, or adding more/less light, adding CO2 etc. It's a tough argument to make if you try and separate these things from the whole.

Water changes are just a simple easy management tool.

Now you can take the Engineering approach instead of the Biologist view also: make the water changes easy or automated. Then there's no labor associated with this. Timers, float switch and a pump to the drain is all this takes. Hard plumb a refill and a drain to larger tanks(I do this for most all the tank's I set up), or make a simple DIY hang on hose set up that simply drains to the yard/landscaping pants and then refills off the shower or faucet.










I have to clean the filter, and do other things to the aquarium, so while that water is drained/refilled, I'm doing that labor, this is hardly any work at all. 

So you figure out ways to be lazier for sure, or as I like to say: smarter *and* lazier.:hihi:


----------



## plantbrain

amberskye said:


> this is very interesting. As a relative novice I started with fish only tanks and was spoon fed by a very fish friendly forum who advocated water changes for just about everything.
> Traces of ammonia? daily 50% waterchange miss!
> cycling a tank with fish in? 2 x 50% waterchanges daily miss!
> Using bottled bacteria? stop immediately and start 50% daily waterchanges miss!
> overfed the fish today? 50% waterchanges miss and a smack on the hand lol
> maintenance? 50% waterchanges weekly miss and dont forget your testtubes !!
> On that premis it was what I did for a long time, which is ok with one small setup, but throw 3 or 4 more larger, heavy fishloaded tanks into the mix, plus a demanding child and a social life (remember one of those? ) and it becomes a chore. I was beginning to lose interest and started to find it was no longer enjoyable, but just uphill work.
> Moved over to planted tanks, came here and saw that a lot of people dont do nearly as many waterchanges as I was doing, and in fact some threads actually maintain too many large waterchanges can be harmful and deplete your tanks of the good stuff. Im still undecided, and admit to worrying (Unecessaryily maybe) if I live dangerously an omitt that 50% waterchange  Often I read a thread and it raises more questions than answers


I came at this from this and MisterGreen's view as well about 20 some odd years ago myself.

Like yourself, I and many folks have increased demands and different goals.
So the methods can easily be adjusted to reflect that, while still producing a nice aquarium.

A good question should question more questions and discussion.:icon_idea
That's the smell of brain cells working and thinking.:biggrin:


----------



## plantbrain

Booger said:


> I often read thinly veiled brags about skipping water changes as though there's some kind of merit badge for it. The notion of creating a "natural balance" is flawed, at best. Why open the door to a host of nutrient related issues that can become increasingly more problematic over time?
> 
> Water changes are as easy or as difficult as you make them. I'll never understand how so many folks will invest thousands of dollars/hours into this hobby, but balk so hard at 10 or 20 minutes of work per week.


I'm interested in what each trade off gives the user and what goals are important to that person, or particular tank set up.

I think this is more instructive and informative. So, I have done each method and cooked up a few along the way, and advocate those also.
Try them and see what each has to offer.

The closest to a balanced natural system is going to be the planted non CO2 method.

Low light Excel dosing next

Low light CO2 enrichment with easy to deal with plant species

Low light CO2 will harder to deal with species.

Med light CO2

High light CO2

These are all defined by light and CO2.

Nutrients are not even really considered since the CO2 and light drive their uptake and the growth of the plants.

After that.....then we get to water changes maybe/maybe not.

Tropica lays this out well in terms of light and CO2:

http://www.tropica.com/advising/technical-articles/biology-of-aquatic-plants/co2-and-light.aspx

Table 1 has 9 different treatments and in every case, there is some growth, the main difference is the rate and efficiency you get out of the light.
They all grow plants however.

Obviously, dealing with 1.1% growth is easier than 17% growth and the nutrient demand and limiting range will be much easier to handle at lower rates of growth.

I do agree strongly with you about the bragging about skipping the water change and spending lots of testing and time to avoid a 20 min easy labor practice. The web is a good place to find the few folks that do enjoy that aspect of spending lots of to avoid the water change. I figure if you spend that much, might as well hire a plumber to hard plumb drain and fill valves.

$ well spent at least.


----------



## ray-the-pilot

I do what is easiest. I have a 55 gal planted tank that I keep as an Amazon biotype so I have to make RO water to add to my city water which is a slow process so i usually do 2 x 10% changes per week. The 5 gal changes is limited to the size of storage bottles that I can handle.

I also have a 10 gal reef tank. I do 50% water changes on this tank each week. The same 5 gal goes a lot further in this tank.


----------



## wetworks

How often I do water changes and how much I change depends on the type of fishes I keep and how large the bioload is. My smaller tanks (less than 55 g) get a 10-20% water change weekly, but in these tanks I usually have more fish per gallon than the bigger tanks, and I tend to keep a lot of cichlids in these as well. From 55 to my 110 g, I do the same amount (10-20%) every two weeks, but I also have these tanks stocked much more lightly than the smaller tanks I keep. Right now none of my tanks are heavily planted; as I add more plants to my existing setups I will re-evaluate and test the water parameters to see if I need to make changes to my regimen. I have had good luck with this over the last 20 years, but I stay on top of my tanks and test them frequently so I can respond to anything out of the ordinary as quickly as possible. When I kept discus many years ago, I changed the water much more frequently and more of it. It really depends on what I keep in my tanks.


----------



## JasonG75

I do maybe a 40% every sunday. I do not EI dose, but liquid. I think when you're dosing ferts you need to do some WC on a weekly basis to remove build up. HOWEVER I think twice a week is a bit much, but to each their own.

I run 2 PennPlax Cascades 1000 (each can handle 100gal tank)


----------



## fresh.salty

I've always thought that a water change was to reduce the build up of some things that are not reduced in the tank by natural process. This doesn't have to be the macros but the trace elements introduced mainly by added foods.

It's taken me a while to determine what my goals were. At first it was super fast plant growth but that got old fast. Now by changing the lighting I've honed in on a sweet spot where the tank can look good for more the a couple of weeks without a trim.

50% water changes happen about once a month.

The WC's are for the fish. I'm not sure large water changes are good if you spread them out much further.


----------



## 2in10

I do about 25% a week most weeks. I feel it is good for the fish although I know the plants will sequester just about any biproduct produced by the fish. This came from using tap water and not dosing trace elements. Since the quality of my tap water varies greatly as of late I now use the same RODI water that I filter for my reef tank and top offs.

I have a reef tank and do a 5% change weekly. This tank is heavily filtered, has a light fish load and no trace elements are dosed. The weekly change provides the trace elements from the salt mix.


----------



## plantbrain

JasonG75 said:


> I do maybe a 40% every sunday. I do not EI dose, but liquid. I think when you're dosing ferts you need to do some WC on a weekly basis to remove build up. HOWEVER I think twice a week is a bit much, but to each their own.
> 
> I run 2 PennPlax Cascades 1000 (each can handle 100gal tank)


Liquid vs dry does not define a method. You can make a solution for EI, but for many, it's simply easier to dose dry. Everyone has a teaspoon set etc....and are familiar with them.


----------



## plantbrain

fresh.salty said:


> The WC's are for the fish. I'm not sure large water changes are good if you spread them out much further.


So how do we explain excellent fish health in non CO2 tanks that get almost no water changes ever?

I am not so sure, if you balance the dosing and add CO2 also, I see few reasons why this cannot extend to CO2 enriched tanks also, management and monitoring is harder........build up and the rates are higher etc.........so you do not save much labor this way...........unlike the non CO2 method..........but as far as fish are concerned, I am not so sure, I have not seen evidence otherwise.

I know fish do well in both cases.

They breed etc.

I like to do water changes etc, mostly because it's a simple method to manage............and allows me to clean the tank and garden nicer.
But I'm not so sure as far as the fish.

I do not see enough evidence to say there's a relationship.
With non planted tanks, I would argue otherwise however.


----------



## Eldachleich

I do a 30% water change very 3 weeks. Other than that I just top it off every day.


----------



## hbosman

For me it's easier to do cleaning and planting when at least 1/3 of the water is out. No water dripping from my elbow onto the floor. Water changes are much cheaper than decent test kits also. The shower in my basement isn't used that often so, I leave the hose attached for refilling. I still drain old tank water into a white 5 gallon bucket. I suck gunk off of the substrate so, there is always the possibility to suck up animals.


----------



## sick lid

180gallon. No co2, no ferts. Moderate plant level of mostly slow growth plants. Moderate fish load: 13" common plec, a dozen each sterbai, otocinclus, and amanos, 8 or so each boesmani and congo tetras, 2 each botia dario and SAE. Think that's about it. Weekly top offs, 40 gallon water change every 3 months or so if I remember. Used to do w/c religiously on a bi-weekly basis, but it seems the less I mess with it, the happier the fish appear. Oh, and if the filter gets cleaned twice a year I would be surprised. Been set up since 2007, and I bet I have pulled the filter apart less than 6 or 7 times. I have had zero mortality since I stopped mucking with it every other week.


----------



## ray-the-pilot

plantbrain said:


> So how do we explain excellent fish health in non CO2 tanks that get almost no water changes ever?
> .......
> I know fish do well in both cases.
> ........
> They breed etc.
> ......


I disagree with this completely! There are a large number of fish that do not breed well in any system. A good example is the ubiquitous Cardinal Tetra. While it is not at all threatened in its native environment it is very rarely breed in captivity. So much so, that almost all Cardinals are wild caught. Any system that I would recommend would result in regular Cardinal breeding! At least if you are growing Amazon plants!


----------



## ray-the-pilot

sick lid said:


> 180gallon. No co2, no ferts. Moderate plant level of mostly slow growth plants. Moderate fish load: 13" common plec, a dozen each sterbai, otocinclus, and amanos, 8 or so each boesmani and congo tetras, 2 each botia dario and SAE. Think that's about it. Weekly top offs, 40 gallon water change every 3 months or so if I remember. Used to do w/c religiously on a bi-weekly basis, but it seems the less I mess with it, the happier the fish appear. Oh, and if the filter gets cleaned twice a year I would be surprised. Been set up since 2007, and I bet I have pulled the filter apart less than 6 or 7 times. I have had zero mortality since I stopped mucking with it every other week.


What plants do you grow? Do you have a recent picture?


----------



## plantbrain

ray-the-pilot said:


> I disagree with this completely! There are a large number of fish that do not breed well in any system. A good example is the ubiquitous Cardinal Tetra. While it is not at all threatened in its native environment it is very rarely breed in captivity. So much so, that almost all Cardinals are wild caught. Any system that I would recommend would result in regular Cardinal breeding! At least if you are growing Amazon plants!


Huh? Did you read what was said there? This statement does not support or refute the notion of water changes being better or worst for breeding fish. :wink:


----------



## plantbrain

ray-the-pilot said:


> What plants do you grow? Do you have a recent picture?


Click his sig

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/low-tech-forum/65085-180g-inwall-build-journal.html#post594434


----------



## Eldachleich

Cardinal tetra's are hard to breed? My moms are kept in terrible conditions ( I really do try and get her to listen, she just ignores me) and they breed all the time... My sister has 6 of them in a 2 gallon with no plants, hiding spots, or a filter, or heater, and they also have babies. 

I'm just honestly wondering... Why would they breed in those conditions but not a well maintained tank?


----------



## Chlorophile

plantbrain said:


> So how do we explain excellent fish health in non CO2 tanks that get almost no water changes ever?
> 
> I am not so sure, if you balance the dosing and add CO2 also, I see few reasons why this cannot extend to CO2 enriched tanks also, management and monitoring is harder........build up and the rates are higher etc.........so you do not save much labor this way...........unlike the non CO2 method..........but as far as fish are concerned, I am not so sure, I have not seen evidence otherwise.
> 
> I know fish do well in both cases.
> 
> They breed etc.
> 
> I like to do water changes etc, mostly because it's a simple method to manage............and allows me to clean the tank and garden nicer.
> But I'm not so sure as far as the fish.
> 
> I do not see enough evidence to say there's a relationship.
> With non planted tanks, I would argue otherwise however.


Theres not much evidence otherwise... in specific cases. 
Non planted tanks aside there are plenty of cases where fish appear to be healthier by doing water changes. 

Surely you aren't saying that if a fish breeds it is equally as healthy as another fish that breeds?
These aren't plants, you can't just assume that since they are growing they are healthy.
(and you can't assume that the faster growing plant is healthier than the slower growing plant either, but lets not go there)

What about fish hormones?
A fish in a large tank that gets no water changes won't grow as large as a fish in a small tank with frequent water changes, you can ask anyone who grows out discuss the differences you get in a tank with or without water changes.
And you cant chalk that up to plants either because people get the same results growing out discus in tanks with or without large plant mass.
No water changes = small discus.
Does this mean the fish are less healthy just because they are small?
Maybe not, but stunted growth isn't my idea of health. 
It could be a biological adaptation to the fish hormones - no point growing huge if you wont survive at that size. After all if it can be selected for it will be selected for.


----------



## JeffHB

In my experiences with heavy fish bioload (I would not consider 1-14" plec and a bunch of feeder size fish "heavy stocked"), such as multiple 12-14" carnivors, water changes are paramount. For one, bio-filters do little to remove "macro" waste such as skin/scale, debris etc. and as the water ORP drops it seems less bioavailable to assist in reducing these to filter manageable "micro" bio-waste....for me this leads to planaria, tube worms, high TDS, ammonia fluctuations, and general poor water quality. In my opinion, a heavy fish stocked aquarium is just too small to replicate nature and water changes have proven the only reliable means to a healthy tank.


----------



## Ashok

My personal experience has been that if I do 30-50% water changes once a week, the tank is healthier overall: less algae on the tank, fish more brightly colored, fish spawn more often, water is cleaner, plants covered less with algae etc. 

This is both with my high tech(relatively) CO2 planted tank and with a low tech non-planted tank.

I never stock heavily: no big messy fish. I imagine if I had those the benefits would be greater.

Oh and my fish tanks have ranged from 20 long to 55 gallon and my current 29 gallon. I would think if you have a bigger tank with a light fish load, you can get by with smaller and less frequent water changes. 

Someday I do hope to get a 200+ gallon tank with a very light fish load: maybe 20-30 small tetras and a lot plants. I'm sure I can get by with water changes once every couple of weeks or less then.


----------



## plantbrain

Chlorophile said:


> Theres not much evidence otherwise... in specific cases.


So.........this falsifies such claims that it is entirely dependent on the factor of interest: water changes.

There are many reason why something may not work, but if it does and we use the no water change treatment, even for a few cases, it brings into question the likelihood that water changes add some benefit to fish in and of themselves.

There are many other......reasons......why fish might be doing poorly, and the evidence has never addressed them apples.

So I can only say what something is not.......and as someone who has bred numerous fish in planted tanks, has non CO2 tanks, I think I have some background here.

Why do my fish bred in such tanks then?
Answer that one.

Sort of questions the claim that water changes are for the fish............



> Non planted tanks aside there are plenty of cases where fish appear to be healthier by doing water changes.


This is a planted forum and we are on topic by discussing specifically planted tanks, I will not debate the non planted tank aspect, I would agree water changes are helpful there.



> Surely you aren't saying that if a fish breeds it is equally as healthy as another fish that breeds?


Not entirely, but if a fish can reproduce, it's not a bad sign. The real question is survivorship of the brood and growth rate.



> These aren't plants, you can't just assume that since they are growing they are healthy.


The same metrics used on plants can be applied to animals for ecology, eg: growth rates, survivorship, toxicology etc. Most of the plants are clonal, all the critters by and large are sexual reproduction, thus variation is more pronounced. 



> (and you can't assume that the faster growing plant is healthier than the slower growing plant either, but lets not go there)


If one plants sequesters and packs on more dry weight biomass, then yes over the same time period, it will be competitively/evolutionarily more able to survive.

For horticulture, our goals can be different due to management. Some might desire smaller plants and slower rates of growth, but as far as what is preferred by plants, not really. Relative growth rates define preference in agriculture/plant production. Horticultural production as well, but for the end user, many desire lower maintenance plants.



> What about fish hormones?
> A fish in a large tank that gets no water changes won't grow as large as a fish in a small tank with frequent water changes, you can ask anyone who grows out discuss the differences you get in a tank with or without water changes.


With plants or without? Activated carbon can be added, so like the plant example you chose above, are LARGER fish better?

Depends on the goal, wild fish tend to be smaller. Most of the collectors have stated this I've talked to. Our fish are overfed.



> And you cant chalk that up to plants either because people get the same results growing out discus in tanks with or without large plant mass.


So how many folks you know have no water change planted discus tanks that bred might I ask????

That's a narrow group, I know 3 folks.
That's it.

Their fish are fine.

They are not massive, but they look nice and good size. About what one might find in the wild.

Raising brood in a bare bottom tank vs a thickly planted tank = the bare bottom tank will have better growth rates, hormones? AC will run that control easily, this has not been done however.

So is it really the no water change factor and not the other factors for growth?

I have no seen any real evidence that is the case.
Fear not, we have plenty of local Discus breeders and I know them, and the production methods. If my sole goal was merely production, bare bottom tanks and large water changes............but that's not my goal.

I'd like a nice no water change tank and I do not think anyone has evidence to really suggest that not doing water changes is bad/deterimental to fish.
That is the topic.

Not max brood production.

We have not established any controls or methods to compare just water changes in a planted tank under typical hobby conditions for fish health. That is the question.

Not breeding production at the commercial scale without plants and where max brood production is the goal.

I have no issues trading off 30% reduction in brood for a nice looking tank vs a bare bottom tank.

But is it simply they can find the food better etc, or is it due to less area for the fish to swim or the plants...or the water change?

We cannot honestly say, but I can say I have not seen any evidence in a planted tank that a lack of water changes is inherently deterimental to fish or shrimp if well managed.

That is the point.



> No water changes = small discus.
> Does this mean the fish are less healthy just because they are small?
> Maybe not, but stunted growth isn't my idea of health.
> It could be a biological adaptation to the fish hormones - no point growing huge if you wont survive at that size. After all if it can be selected for it will be selected for.


Bonsai are fine with many so why not fish? Many want discus but they get too large and often make the tanks look smaller. 

Unlike plants, animals have a generally a finite growth, plants can grow almost forever(10000's of years clonally). Developmental growth is also an issue for critters. 

Size could be due to a lack of food, poor ability to find food in a far more complex environment(BB tank vs Planted tank), smaller swimming area etc. It may have nothing to do with the water change.

That(the water change) has not been demonstrated. So if smaller brood production and smaller fish size is "bad", is that the only "risk" you can come up with for NOT doing a water change?

When folks say it's bad NOT to do a water change......what does that even mean?

These are really basic questions. I do not see many asking these questions, that in itself is troubling. Many of us just assume these things to be true without question or looking and thinking about them more. Myself included.

Can we say it's all about the water change? I do not think we or anyone can and no test have really looked at it in the planted tank context.


----------



## plantbrain

Large water changes do remove algae, as does high current and fluffing of plants when doing said water change. 

Swishing the plants around will knock off a great deal of epiphytes.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304377097000028

Large water changes and exposure to air etc, this can help.

I like water changes for many reasons, mostly for access to the tank without sticking my head under water. The other is to keep the tank spiffy and clean, but.....if I do that, then I can use EI and modify it all over the place to test nutrients.

But......I can also question the risk factor/s of not doing them and see what methods will reduce and enhance a reduction in WC's but still produce nice results.

These are trade offs. No single method will be the best management for all the different goals aquarist have.

I have 3 levels of water changes on my own tanks and each tank has bred numerous species of fish(which is more than many can say that have planted tanks): no water change non CO2, low light low growth plant species but with CO2, monthly water changes, and a higher light (not really that high though) with stem plants etc and weekly water changes.

Shrimp bred best in the non CO2 tank.
Perhaps CO2 is the factor in reduced brood production, small stunted growth?

And not water changes?


----------



## ray-the-pilot

Thanks PB.
I was interested in what kind of plants he kept with plecos. My experience is very little is safe with them and they are NG in a planted taank set up. 

I think sick lid had the same experience with plecos.

My experience with growing in high light, high fert settings is that there are not very many fish you can keep that will not waste your plants.


----------



## ray-the-pilot

plantbrain said:


> Huh? Did you read what was said there? This statement does not support or refute the notion of water changes being
> better or worst for breeding fish. :wink:


No what it says is that water changes may or may not improve the chances of breeding any fish. What is important is supping the right natural stimuli that will induce them to spawn. 

Let's face it, if you are trying to spawn rift valley cichlids and do a lot of water changes with soft acid water, you are probably not going to be successful.

It is the same issue? Do you want a farm to grow sheep and cows or do you want a velt that can support cheetah and antelope?


----------



## ray-the-pilot

Eldachleich said:


> Cardinal tetra's are hard to breed? My moms are kept in terrible conditions ( I really do try and get her to listen, she just ignores me) and they breed all the time... My sister has 6 of them in a 2 gallon with no plants, hiding spots, or a filter, or heater, and they also have babies.
> 
> I'm just honestly wondering... Why would they breed in those conditions but not a well maintained tank?


Actually, everyone here would like to know the answer to that question! The idea behind any forum like this is that people who are successful at something should present as much detailed information about what they are doing; so, we all can all try to do the same thing. If we all are successful, then an advance has been made. 
I am really, really interested in why your family is so successful in breeding Cardinal tetras. Please PM me.


----------



## sick lid

ray-the-pilot said:


> Thanks PB.
> I was interested in what kind of plants he kept with plecos. My experience is very little is safe with them and they are NG in a planted taank set up.
> 
> I think sick lid had the same experience with plecos.
> 
> My experience with growing in high light, high fert settings is that there are not very many fish you can keep that will not waste your plants.


This is true. My big common plec will eat new growth on almost anything if I forget to feed him cukes or zucchini on a regular basis. This usually happens when I go away for more than a couple of days, (I don't have anyone feed while I am gone, up to 5 days.) Boesmani rainbows and male congos are all 4inches, with the loaches close behind. SAE's at 6 inches. Bristle nose at 3 inches. The common plec has been the only culprit as far as wasting my plants, as far as I can tell. Anubias barteri petite, cabomba, creeping jenny, egeria densa(?) tiger lotus, java moss, java fern, African water fern, water wysteria...all enjoyed time in my tank, all did very well with no ferts or co2. Pulled all the stems after year 1- got tired of the constant trimming. Pulled most of the wysteria for the same reason. Common plec eventually ate the tiger lotus in 1 night, although it thrived for 3 years before that. All that remains is TONS of java fern, moss, a lot of the anubias (though I have to watch to make sure he's well fed whenever new growth appears) the AWF, and some of the wysteria that I left.The irony is that I got the plec 9 years ago and have had to continually upgrade the size of his home, lol.
And yes, obviously whenever I do water changes, I end up with more cories


----------



## Hoppy

plantbrain said:


> Large water changes do remove algae, as does high current and fluffing of plants when doing said water change.
> 
> Swishing the plants around will knock off a great deal of epiphytes.
> 
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304377097000028
> 
> Large water changes and exposure to air etc, this can help.
> 
> I like water changes for many reasons, mostly for access to the tank without sticking my head under water. The other is to keep the tank spiffy and clean, but.....if I do that, then I can use EI and modify it all over the place to test nutrients.
> 
> But......I can also question the risk factor/s of not doing them and see what methods will reduce and enhance a reduction in WC's but still produce nice results.
> 
> These are trade offs. No single method will be the best management for all the different goals aquarist have.
> 
> I have 3 levels of water changes on my own tanks and each tank has bred numerous species of fish(which is more than many can say that have planted tanks): no water change non CO2, low light low growth plant species but with CO2, monthly water changes, and a higher light (not really that high though) with stem plants etc and weekly water changes.
> 
> Shrimp bred best in the non CO2 tank.
> Perhaps CO2 is the factor in reduced brood production, small stunted growth?
> 
> And not water changes?


GADZOOKS! Is there nothing sacred anymore? We all know that water changes are very good for fish, something we all learned at our father's knee. Next you will be telling us that we don't need high light intensity to grow high light plants.:icon_mrgr

So far you haven't told us that water is unnecessary to breed fish.


----------



## Jeffww

Eh...I tried going without water changes for awhile (like a month or so) but I got tired of mulm just building up. Plants grew fine, fish were okay but the tank just looked ugly without water changes. I suggest doing water changes for aesthetic reasons...


----------



## malaybiswas

There is no absolute answer to this as many has mentioned already. IME even with high tech tanks with relatively high load of fish I can do away with minimal wc without any detrimental effect to the fish or plants. I only keep shrimps for algae control and do not breed fish and have no experience on wc effect for these goals. But for a healthy planted tank the way I see it, it is a mechanism to remove waste and nutrient build up. I only used bio filter a while ago but now I also use activated charcoal. With that and much lower dosage (compared to EI ) of nutrients I only do monthly 50% wc. Other than that on weekly basis I do a basic cleaning of the tank that results in some wc but very minimal (5-10%). Algae control needs different measures and wc is not something I rely for that.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## sampster5000

I didnt see this addressed once in the thread... Arent there things in our tap water that plants do not use? So everytime we top off, dont they just build up more? So are these things in our water harmless? That is what I am not sure of.


----------



## Hilde

I started my planted tank so that I wouldn't have to do many water changes. Found I have to do it monthly or I have algae problems. Only have a small canister filter, Ecco 2032,on the 29g. It has 6 Serpae Tetra and 8 Cherry barbs. I dose 5ml of liquid ferts weekly.



Hoppy said:


> We all know that water changes are very good for fish
> So far you haven't told us that water is unnecessary to breed fish.


I know people whom have tanks that do not do weekly water changes. They have algae on the walls and the fish are doing great.

People whom breed killifish have them in green water, for there is food in that green water. Changing water weekly would destroy the green water.


----------



## 150EH

I've done it both ways in the same tank over a period of years and I like both but there is no doubt in my mind that the plants & fish love water changes and some fish won't even breed unless the water is kept clean.

I use all small fish (under 2 inches) and always keep a mating pair or harem of something that's a little larger, most of the time it's some species of Pelvicachromis becuase they will produce fry 2 to 4 times a year if you keep the water really clean.

I think a lot of fish and plants come from streams with a fast flow or high volume of water is exchanged at a very rapid rate, much faster than the 62 gallons a week I'm doing. 

One of my older Pelvicachromis pulcher males has "hole in the head" from poor water quality from a period of about 3 years when I was the road constantly in my own little Harley world. His brother has just died 2 weeks ago and was born in the tank on 3-31-05 from my original breeding pair and with a new interest in the tank his HITH is getting smaller due to clean water and NLS Thera+A (garlic).

These tanks need clean water with no doubt, even ponds get rain, morning dew, etc., but if you let a tank go without any water changes for a long period the animals are going to suffer. And you have to look at the natual world for the answers, ponds get fresh water weekly in most climates, monthly in the worst cases and daily in the best cases and we should follow these guidelines.

If you start getting into differences in tank sizes, filter sizes, circulation pumps, etc., etc., etc., you can twist the variables in circles with conflicting accounts, the fact is none of us are on an equal playing field and many tanks are kept in different ways to yield different results. 

There are ways to extend the intervals between water changes but it always needs to be refreshed.


----------



## Hilde

150EH said:


> I've done it both ways in the same tank over a period of years and I like both but there is no doubt in my mind that the plants & fish love water changes and some fish won't even breed unless the water is kept clean.


Oh, yes I forgot about the cichlids be sensitive to dirty water. Some, Walsted, whom rarely do water changes keep a UV sterilizer in the tank. 

Less water changes do help build up TDS, so I have read. My TDS is very low, thus another reason to not change water weekly.


----------



## talontsiawd

I have a few tanks and my reasoning for each is different.

5 gallon. I rarely do water changes. Once a month tops. I have never found a need to do more, it is very balanced and didn't seem to need it.

20 gallon #1. This is at my GF place. I do 50% at least once a week. The only reason for this is that I use the water for the plants out back. No reason other reason.

20 gallon #2. This is at my place. It gets a 25% water change every now and then. I just find it easy to clean. It has never had much in the way of livestock. I will probably do shrimp now that I don't have anything in there and I found that small water changes are best so I will keep this up.

29 Gallon. I do 50% a week. This is for now. I do EI doesing, only reason. If I find a better way, I would love to do less water changes (both frequency and volume). By find a better way, I mean something that I learn on my own that I find works better.


The only tank I have really found WC to make a big impact is my 20 Gallon #2. Too often and I get some BBA. To little and I get GSA and GDA (which tends to go away after a WC).

My 29 is a new setup so I can't comment on that yet.


----------



## mistergreen

Don't confuse water changes with health and breeding. 

A lot of it has to do with the foods and hormones when it comes to breeding.

Botia loaches rarely breed in the tank not because of the water quality. Some breed like rabbits right after a water change like cory cats. It's a factor in some but not others.


----------



## Hilde

mistergreen said:


> Some breed like rabbits right after a water change like cory cats. It's a factor in some but not others.


I had read that the water change cools the water simulating what occurs when it rains. This stimulates cory's to propagate.


----------



## Statik

Hi everyone,

i too am wondering the benefits of a frequent water change. let me explain, i have had my planted mixed fish tank for over a year now and three weeks ago i traded my fish and bought some discus ( 14 of them) ranging from 2.5 to 4 inches. i feed them 4 times a day and i do a 25% wc. every two days. here are my water parameters.

fish tank ------- tap water

ph 7 -------7.5
gh 6 ------- 6
kh 6 ------- 8
nh3 0 ------- 0
no2 0------- 0
no3 5------- 0

my filter is a fluval g6 , i use seachem purigen and phosguard and peat. i have co2 injection and i dose flourish excel everyday and flourish comprehensive plant supplement once a week. my last 25% wc. was 4 days ago on the 17th sept. 

So here is the thing: i am skipping my wc. and monitoring my water parameters closely to see if theres any spikes. since my tap water ph is higher by doing a wc. it will mess with my tanks ph. i will keep you guys updated .

i know on the discus forums everybody preaches on water change some even do daily 50%
supposidly it promotes rapid fish growth but personally im not looking to have the biggest possible discus in my tank. i prefer them being happy at a relative size to my 90g tank.

let me know what u guys think.

this is a link to my tank on youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8lU0yyVNo8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CWLY5XsB1E&feature=related

this was one week after i bought them. now they are 100% acclimatized and come up to me for feeding. i even have a couple forming as they chase others and spend their time cleaning a flat rock.


----------



## Elrodg

I change 25% every month. If tank size is over 55g then water changes are not as important. The water parameters dont fluctuate as abruptly as say a 15 tall. 


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=36.615607,-88.302936


----------



## Uptown193

When I had my 10 gallon planted I would do water changes every two weeks and clean glass everyday. Water changes take only 10mins and cleaning glass (Inside and outside) take a whole 2mins. I feel if you do not have the little time to do that this is not the hobby for you. It is so simple to do and fun. I love a crystal clear tank.


----------



## Statik

it takes me 20 min. to do a 25% wc. wich is no problem for me. The only questioning i have is the people on the discus forum preaching everyday wc. What benefit would i gain if my water parameters are good? When my nitrate level goes to 20 i will do a wc. So im doing a test to see how many days it will take.


----------



## Mxx

Check out this article which gives a very comprehensive argument for doing water changes. http://www.americanaquariumproducts.com/Aquarium_cleaning.html
There are however other means to achieve the same ends for each of these reasons. 

The Discus keepers 'Cult of Extreme Maintenance' is basically much a result of them not knowing any other ways to control nitrates. And if challenged on why they insist on WC's they can't provide adequate answers. It is one way to raise fish, but certainly not the only way or best way. They're just trying to emulate the practices of commercial hatcheries, (which is a pain in the ass for home aquariums obviously). 

In a heavily planted tank you may find you need to actually dose nitrates to keep your plants from getting deficiencies. And if you have excess nitrates put Seachem Matrix in your filter and leave it there permanently.


----------



## Statik

Ok so today is my 6th day since my last 25% water change, here are my water parameters:


ph 7
kh 6
gh 6
nh3 0
no2 0
no3 10
co2 17.7


Just curious to know who thinks i should do a wc. how much and why? Or i should leave it as is?


I have a heavily planted tank with 14 discus and 25 cardinals and a cleaning crew with a colony of trumpet snails.
I feed my discus lightly 4 times a day

I just put in a dose of potassium in to see if it will help my plants intake nitrate faster


----------



## plantbrain

Well, WC's are easy and you cannot over do them.

Amano, myself and most that have nice scapes and do well, suggest them and large ones.

In new set ups, some folks do them daily for the first few weeks, likely to prevent algae and to add CO2, plants always grow very well and algae risk is reduce after large water changes, I've seen this is every type of tap water. 

Then you do not even need to bother with test and management of parameters.

this also is true for Reefs and marine tanks, but that salt mix cost you $$$ to do the WC's there, not so with FW.

Simple device if you do not want to hard plumb the tank to a drain/refill:










I can change 5 tanks and total of 460 Gal worth of tank and do 50-80% in under 2 hours and also.......while they drain/refill, clean the filters, trim the plants, wipe glass if needed(once a month at most) and dose. 

The waste water heads to the yard to avoid irrigation, so I use less water total(about 20% of any same sized yard of my neighbor's). I can feed my fish to the gills, trim and scape aggressively, sell plants and livestock that breeds prolifically. No worries, simple same effective routine.


----------



## scapegoat

with the notion that frequent WC increases the rate of plant growth... i think i'll try to do one every week then. ultimately i end up doing a wc every couple of weeks... and usually just when i need to either trim or move plants around. I would love increased plant growth and the fish never minded the 50% changes when i did them, so i'll break out the python tonight.


----------



## Mxx

How much does doing water changes have to do with ensuring Redox levels are maintained at a high level, while otherwise they might fall? I'd been asking about that on a separate thread here http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/g...cussion/149090-redox-paradox.html#post1525307 but thought I'd contribute this notion to this discussion as well.


----------



## amberskye

I LOVE HOPPY AND PLANT BRAIN.....thats all


----------



## Steve001

I follow what occurs in natural water systems.


----------



## NWA-Planted

Back when I had my 55 gallon and it was a literal JUNGLE, I changed water... oh maybe 1x every two weeks or so and even then it was only a 25% change.

With my 125 I have now I do a 50% water change weekly. Usually on Sunday, thats my tank maintenance day. Even then the only reason I really do it is because I have a sand (black diamond) substrate and I dont like the look of fish excrement littered all over the bottom of the tank. So I clean out the poo and just change the water while I am at it!


----------



## epiphany

My tank is a bit overstocked, 35g high with 2 dwarf gouramis, 7 golden barbs, 1 BN pleco, 4 otos, 1 bamboo shrimp, 2 amano shrimp and ~15 ghost shrimp. I have an aquaclear 50, and an airpump rated for a 40 gallon tank that powers a sponge filter and a corner filter filled with bio media. Moderately planted with some stems, a bit of moss and an anubias. I generally do a 10-15%(filling a 5g bucket most of the way up) once or twice a week, sometimes once every other week. I do it for peace of mind, although I've never seen my parameters go anywhere near worrying. I've never had mulm build up in my tank though, even in my overstocked tank that I sometimes overfeed.

Edit: Holy cow got linked to this thread and didn't realize how old it was. Sorry everyone.


----------



## sleepswithdafishez

plantbrain said:


> Large water changes do remove algae, as does high current and fluffing of plants when doing said water change.
> 
> Swishing the plants around will knock off a great deal of epiphytes.
> 
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304377097000028
> 
> Large water changes and exposure to air etc, this can help.
> 
> I like water changes for many reasons, mostly for access to the tank without sticking my head under water. The other is to keep the tank spiffy and clean, but.....if I do that, then I can use EI and modify it all over the place to test nutrients.
> 
> But......I can also question the risk factor/s of not doing them and see what methods will reduce and enhance a reduction in WC's but still produce nice results.
> 
> These are trade offs. No single method will be the best management for all the different goals aquarist have.
> 
> I have 3 levels of water changes on my own tanks and each tank has bred numerous species of fish(which is more than many can say that have planted tanks): no water change non CO2, low light low growth plant species but with CO2, monthly water changes, and a higher light (not really that high though) with stem plants etc and weekly water changes.
> 
> Shrimp bred best in the non CO2 tank.
> Perhaps CO2 is the factor in reduced brood production, small stunted growth?
> 
> And not water changes?


Sorry ,but I am still confused after reading several debates on the subject of WC ,vs EI or Non Co2 methods.
I have a moderately planted 10 G ,around 1.8wpg of T8.I dose following wet's calulator ,EI low light weekly ,with no CO2 or Excel added.
I have 3 Peacock Gudgeons ,1 Oto ,20-something Red Cherry and 3 Amano.- water column is around 7 gallons.

Can I safely do monthly WC on this tank?(I do them weekly ever since I got into the hobby)-I mean ,can I at least syphon-vacuum the bottom regularly(for aesthethics) ,filter the syphoning water through some wool or micron mesh ,etc. ,and put it back in the tank?? ,as not to disturb the Co2 levels with fresh ,tap water(plants would invest energy in destroying Rubisco to adapt to latest Co2 levels).

And when I top off ,must I absolutely use RO water ,or treated tap water do just fine?which ,by the way is about 450 TDS.
My tank management is a mixture of Low-Light EI/weekly ,and Non Co2 method ,hence my confusion.Classic EI advises large weekly WC ,and Non CO2 method ,the opposite.Thanks.


----------



## Matsnork

I´ve got a 8g vase in my living room window with no filtration, no water changes, no tech at all. The inhabitants consisting of snails and shrimp are very well and produce healthy offspring. ADA soil substrate and moss. 

A friend of mine has got seveval tanks with only artificial lighting, clay substrate and plants, no water changes. Fish and shrimp are doing fine.


----------



## sleepswithdafishez

plantbrain said:


> Well, WC's are easy and you cannot over do them.


Yet ,you advocate No WC ,if using the low light non CO2 method.
I tried it ,and I went 3 weeks without one ,but the bottom was full of mulm and brown algae covered a lot of the glass.Tank is not overstocked (only 3 Amanos ,1 African Fan shrimp and some fry).
I am not saying you are wrong ,but maybe my tank is too young to last that long without WC- only 5 months old tank
The change in the CO2 levels caused by the replaced water leading to BBA scared the **** out of me and decided to let the tank be for a few weeks.
Water was yellow ,a lot of mulm cumulated ,brown algae on glass.Bad tank balance i guess....so ,should I revert back to weekly WC??


----------



## jrman83

Personally I don't get the issues around this sometimes. Very old thread.

I changed and advocated large weekly changes long before plants entered into my equation. I do it for the health of my fish and shrimp. Plants can help remove some of the buildup of waste from fish but to me it never meant stopping what I was doing. I dose EI in my CO2 tanks but my normal wc more than covers what I need for that. Even after the years with plants, they are not my first thought when it comes to changing. 

Sent with my Samsung S4 via Tapatalk


----------



## herns

A nice 6 old thread on partial water change.


----------

