- Thread Starter
Kasshan
Member
csu stanislaus turlock
We have something remarkably in common, I went there for two semesters myself, ions ago. Nice campus.Kasshan said:csu stanislaus turlock
Healthy long lived fish? Probably not. As far as she is concerned she is successful. Also, she can't seem to keep her husband from coming home with new, "cool" fish(his latest was a pair of oscars, one died) so she probably doesn't really care too much.Books&Fish said:Yeah, but how long and how healthy are the fish living? My mom has had a tank running for 30 years. Didn't know about the nitrogen cycle (until I told her several months ago), no test kit and never did water changes. Every 6 months, they drained the tank, leaving fish in buckets, and hosed the whole thing down, replaced cartridges, scrubbed everything until it was shiny new.
She got away with it because she mostly kept koI fish and when they got too big, she'd toss them into her pond and scoop out babies for the tank. No one was ever in it longer than 2 years. She's blown away by weekly water changes. I don't know if something changed in her water, but now she keeps rosy barbs and platies and they are twitching from high nitrates after going a few days without a water change. She has 30 ppm nitrates in her tap.
My point is, you can skip water changes. That doesn't mean it is what's best for the fish. Surviving isn't thriving.
As an aquarist with 50 years experience, I would never do what the OP is suggesting. Or I would never do it again, to be precise. As I said, it was the norm until the late 1980s, early 90s.James17 said:A lot of us do things with our tanks that are different from the others, I just hope any beginners that are reading this knows that it isn't for beginners, you need to do the weekly water changes until you have a well established tank and you learn exactly what your tank needs.
NavigatorBlack said:As an aquarist with 50 years experience, I would never do what the OP is suggesting. Or I would never do it again, to be precise. As I said, it was the norm until the late 1980s, early 90s.
But I don't think that debates between aquarists on ways to do things shouldn't happen. New aquarists are as intelligent as old ones, and they can read the discussion and make informed choices.
A vigorous debate never hurt anyone, agreed.NavigatorBlack said:But I don't think that debates between aquarists on ways to do things shouldn't happen
correct me if I'm mistaken but your approach from back then does sound to be on a more "lets throw things in and see what survives" side whereas the tanks up for debate here are all finely dialed in and incorporating scientific findings, so of course thered be different results.NavigatorBlack said:As an aquarist with 50 years experience, I would never do what the OP is suggesting. Or I would never do it again, to be precise. As I said, it was the norm until the late 1980s, early 90s.
But I don't think that debates between aquarists on ways to do things shouldn't happen. New aquarists are as intelligent as old ones, and they can read the discussion and make informed choices.
I can't speak for Kassan but what I read on the internet forums regarding WCs is absurd at times. Indeed like a religion. "Always do a 50% WC weekly...." implying you are lazy if you don't and your fish will surely die early. You didn't say that but I've read it in so many words a thousand times. Why 50%, why not 25 or 75%? Why every seven days? Why not five days or every two weeks? There are countless factors that effect what you should really do, but it's just easier to parrot weekly WC %. I get it people work, but the guidance should be about the fish. Personally I have seven tanks so far, and it is absurd to change water for no valid reason. I have a water softener so I can't use my water heater which makes large WCs a chore But I do them whenever parameters indicate it's truly necessary.grantm91 said:Its a mad post I'm still trying to take it all in, you are funny,I think its cool how you get away with not doing water changes and I like your fish, to me they look in good shape but I don't know why you find water changes absurd ....
I don't understand what your complaint is, this thread is openBuddyD said:WOW.... I stated my opinion on how things are done these days and they tried to roast me. And when someone agreed with me the Moderator shut down the thread......Way to keep an opened mind miss moderator. Anyway, I agree and don't do these things the way the majority here believe it should be done.
I agree absurd some things you can read on the net its all pretty specific in my opinion fish and tank dependant I like to think I get it right but one persons right is another's wrong and to me in this hobby success is shown only over time and the state of your fish, pictures paint a thousand words, and advice should be given from experience not what your sisters friends cats mother has told you is good to do, that's why I look through this forum a lot but its not to often I advise because I only give it from my own experience which is minimal really.OnTheFly said:I can't speak for Kassan but what I read on the internet forums regarding WCs is absurd at times. Indeed like a religion. "Always do a 50% WC weekly...." implying you are lazy if you don't and your fish will surely die early. You didn't say that but I've read it in so many words a thousand times. Why 50%, why not 25 or 75%? Why every seven days? Why not five days or every two weeks? There are countless factors that effect what you should really do, but it's just easier to parrot weekly WC %. I get it people work, but the guidance should be about the fish. Personally I have seven tanks so far, and it is absurd to change water for no valid reason. I have a water softener so I can't use my water heater which makes large WCs a P.I.T.A. But I do them whenever parameters indicate it's truly necessary.
Excellent thread in any case. Carry on.
No one roasted you, it was a debate just like this thread. It's just most people disagreed with you is all. If you have an issue with a moderator I would suggest you message her/hI'm about it. They are usually pretty good with replying back so I have seen.BuddyD said:WOW.... I stated my opinion on how things are done these days and they tried to roast me. And when someone agreed with me the Moderator shut down the thread......Way to keep an opened mind miss moderator. Anyway, I agree and don't do these things the way the majority here believe it should be done.
Thank you Grantm91grantm91 said:I often like your posts Discusluv because the way you do things is fool proof and with accuracy and your discus show it, as I do try to with my reef, but a side of me likes too push boundaries sometimes and I do believe a lot of peoples methods are over the top on here, you and op are like polar opposites and its always a good thread to watch lol.
Understandable.Kasshan said:direct me please. I'm ignorant. now that schools out itll be good to have some fascinating reading material. ive been restricted to jstor by professors so much that I guess I limited myself.
I got these guys for 40$ and I had visited them for 3 weeks in the store before I got them. online intrigued me, but I didnt who to buy from, so I wasn't going to risk it. and I am ignorant of the grades of discus and other adv hobby qualities that are considered desirable. but I'm fairly pleased with my price/discus/quality, likely because I haven't spent over a hundred bucks yet and don't know any better. someday.... when I have my own house and convert the 3rd garage into an insulated fish room. right now I'm maxed on # of tanks for my 1bed apt. lol
Every point valid and I think you are correct, I choose to change 25% of my water every 7 to 10 days because it's the right thing for me to do. Now if I could only get rid of these pest snails I'd be doing a lot better. LOLvikingkirken said:I do wonder how people arrived at such arbitrary water change percentages. If my nitrates are under 5, do I really need to change water anyway? Or, do I need to change 30-50% or is a 10-20% change adequate? I get that fish release more into the water than just ammonia, but aren't those numbers a good general indicator for how well the plants are doing purifying the water?
My questions aren't snarky and rhetorical, but quite genuine...
I figured it out based on my own parameters, and tank stocking. My ten gallon tank is just a nerite snail and shrimp tank so pretty low bioload. That means I take out only about 20%. Now with my 40 gallon breeder the bioload of the fish are larger, even my snails (mystery) have bigger bioload then the nerites. That's why I do a bigger water change. Plus my nitrates go up faster in my 40 gallon breeder.vikingkirken said:I do wonder how people arrived at such arbitrary water change percentages. If my nitrates are under 5, do I really need to change water anyway? Or, do I need to change 30-50% or is a 10-20% change adequate? I get that fish release more into the water than just ammonia, but aren't those numbers a good general indicator for how well the plants are doing purifying the water?
My questions aren't snarky and rhetorical, but quite genuine...
That's what I wish we preached here because it might cause more people to think past their cycle period. I could probably go a month in my 60G but I don't know what I don't know about my water with a simple API kit so it gets a small WC even though the numbers look very good. My fish tell me it's about right. Some of my small G fry tanks are crowded and need a substantial WC every other day.clk89 said:I figured it out based on my own parameters, and tank stocking. My ten gallon tank is just a nerite snail and shrimp tank so pretty low bioload. That means I take out only about 20%. Now with my 40 gallon breeder the bioload of the fish are larger, even my snails (mystery) have bigger bioload then the nerites. That's why I do a bigger water change. Plus my nitrates go up faster in my 40 gallon breeder.
lookijustneedhelp said:whats jstor?
Except the weakness is - no scientific findings to speak of in any of these postings. Talk about it, but no data. Impressions. The age of tanks is given, and we have pictures of linebred Discus. They are healthy. Death rates, growth rates, comparisons - all lacking.lookijustneedhelp said:correct me if I'm mistaken but your approach from back then does sound to be on a more "lets throw things in and see what survives" side whereas the tanks up for debate here are all finely dialed in and incorporating scientific findings, so of course thered be different results.
yeah this setup won't work if you loathe snails. lol. they are a key cornerstone to my plan.James17 said:Every point valid and I think you are correct, I choose to change 25% of my water every 7 to 10 days because it's the right thing for me to do. Now if I could only get rid of these pest snails I'd be doing a lot better. LOL
as you said, you misunderstood water. Kasshan has the information you were lacking back then, so you can't say it is the same kind of setup. I didnt mean to imply that the post itself gives scientific information, however the information about the biochemics that his tanks are relying on is out there.NavigatorBlack said:Except the weakness is - no scientific findings to speak of in any of these postings. Talk about it, but no data. Impressions. The age of tanks is given, and we have pictures of linebred Discus. They are healthy. Death rates, growth rates, comparisons - all lacking.
It isn't an article we're discussing - just a posting written in frustration. No one is paid to write an article here, there are no peer reviews or editors, so none of the above should be expected.
Science is an old approach, and aquarists of the 70s and 80s were very up on what they were doing. "See what survives" was not the approach. There was a lot of work done determining how to breed species, how to maintain them, etc. They were very methodical.
We misunderstood water. That was a flaw.
But a dirted tank doing this? I doubt it can be reproduced widely. It's working for Kasshan, with a certain set of fish, and that says something about how they could be kept. There are so many variables that haven't been addressed for this to be viewed as a system though.
If he were to try this with hardwater species, he would have problems. He already saw that with livebearers in his conditions.
It's potentially "rule making", the great weakness of aquarists, when we offer rules off limited data.
It's worth exploring though, for a limited set of species. Part of what should be worked on and written on is which species.
It's what we want to be. Man, if I could cut out water changes?
Now, why the arbitrary water change percentage suggestions? The best tank I ever saw had an automatic system changing all the water daily. I can't do that. I have metered water, a lot of tanks, a job and a family. Plus I don't need water treatments if I stay around 30% Above that, I have to dechlorinate (I don't have chloramines to deal with). Convenience is the reason.
I'd do 90% if I could.
Less then 20% seems to do little to fish vitality and breeding. 30% gives the basic results I want to see. 40 is better, but metered water - it adds up.
So you try to suggest a baseline amount. And voila, you have a percentage.
In my water, which is soft from the tap, dropping below 20% leaves me with a much higher chance of seeing velvet, a parasite of dirty soft water. Local conditions, learned. Not a rule for everyone.
I read that it would be closed.James17 said:I don't understand what your complaint is, this thread is open
Your personal WC strategy does not sound arbitrary. It's based on facts and great deal of experience, and I guess finances to a degree due to water costs. My well water is pretty clean, but it does have a bit of ammonia. A small WC makes it insignificant as my media cycles it to zero in a few hours. A very large WC is more problematic. Prime really isn't even necessary for a small WC. Why would I dump considerable ammonia on my fish with a large WC every Sunday when the nitrates are fine for weeks? Less than one mile from my house they are on municipal water with 2ppm ammonia. A large WC with that water isn't good maintenance, it's reckless. That quality of water is not rare in the US, and I suspect around the world. As a forum we need to teach people to make an intelligent WC plan based on their water, not our own. That isn't happening now.NavigatorBlack said:Except the weakness is - no scientific findings to speak of in any of these postings. Talk about it, but no data. Impressions. The age of tanks is given, and we have pictures of linebred Discus. They are healthy. Death rates, growth rates, comparisons - all lacking.
It isn't an article we're discussing - just a posting written in frustration. No one is paid to write an article here, there are no peer reviews or editors, so none of the above should be expected.
Science is an old approach, and aquarists of the 70s and 80s were very up on what they were doing. "See what survives" was not the approach. There was a lot of work done determining how to breed species, how to maintain them, etc. They were very methodical.
We misunderstood water. That was a flaw.
But a dirted tank doing this? I doubt it can be reproduced widely. It's working for Kasshan, with a certain set of fish, and that says something about how they could be kept. There are so many variables that haven't been addressed for this to be viewed as a system though.
If he were to try this with hardwater species, he would have problems. He already saw that with livebearers in his conditions.
It's potentially "rule making", the great weakness of aquarists, when we offer rules off limited data.
It's worth exploring though, for a limited set of species. Part of what should be worked on and written on is which species.
It's what we want to be. Man, if I could cut out water changes?
Now, why the arbitrary water change percentage suggestions? The best tank I ever saw had an automatic system changing all the water daily. I can't do that. I have metered water, a lot of tanks, a job and a family. Plus I don't need water treatments if I stay around 30% Above that, I have to dechlorinate (I don't have chloramines to deal with). Convenience is the reason.
I'd do 90% if I could.
Less then 20% seems to do little to fish vitality and breeding. 30% gives the basic results I want to see. 40 is better, but metered water - it adds up.
So you try to suggest a baseline amount. And voila, you have a percentage.
In my water, which is soft from the tap, dropping below 20% leaves me with a much higher chance of seeing velvet, a parasite of dirty soft water. Local conditions, learned. Not a rule for everyone.
ye if I had a turtle in a tank w/c would be necessary and routine. hence; I don't want a turtle.bettafanatic said:I very seldom do wc on my 55 gallon (like maybe once every 3-4 months) and 10 gallon (both heavily planted) but I do a lot on my 75 gallon due to a turtle and a few cichlids that won't allow anything live to grow. I just do top offs once a week and that's it. My 10 gallon is a shrimp only and my 55 gallon houses a male Betta, 30 neons (which are sensitive fish), cories, otos (also very sensitive) and more shrimp. Haven't had any casualties and my plants are thriving. I also have duckweed and absolutely LOVE the stuff. I just thin it out when it starts blocking the light to my other plants and call it a day.
Just realised this could be misinterpreted.Lindsay83 said:This thread got me curious, so I tested some aged drinking water from a bottle, which had been standing for at least 24hrs, and some water fresh from the tap.
I have a similar situation with someone I live with and their 350L aquariumAngelTheGypsy said:I actually have a friend with a 75 gallon tank and she never does water changes either. Just top offs. Fake decor. Stocking all over the place with various cichlids, DG, Oscar, glo tetras. All fish from Walmart. Changes all of her filter media at the same time, regularly, because it makes the water clearer. Has never tested her water, doesn't own a test kit. Somehow, she is successful, and has had this tank running for over a decade.
Everyone does it different.
I haven't read the Walstad book but from the articles I have read I believe she used hardy species. She did a few WCs as well but not many at all. Interesting nonetheless.Rshore said:I would just like to mention the Walstad method for all of you requesting scientific proof, this "no water change" method is oddly reminiscent of it.
For me I rarely do water changes on my 15gal, fluval substrate tank ( maybe once a year) and my 30 gallon I do when the nitrates hit 40ppm so maybe once a month
Admittedly I haven't read the book either just familiar with the method but could of sworn she is notorious for going on a decade without changing a drop of waterOnTheFly said:I haven't read the Walstad book but from the articles I have read I believe she used hardy species. She did a few WCs as well but not many at all. Interesting nonetheless.
There were WCs the first years, but not many, from the article I read that I'm almost sure was authored by Dr Wolstad. Probably while she developed her process. Which I find quite understandable. Much as Kassan has done. I don't think they awoke one morning with the perfect plan requiring no modification over the course of the experiment.Rshore said:Admittedly I haven't read the book either just familiar with the method but could of sworn she is notorious for going on a decade without changing a drop of water
Ponds are really outside the scope of the discussion. I am starting outside on a small scale right now. There is just no way to objectively assess if your fry survival rate is 75% or 5%. Or even your adult survival rate in "natural" water. In any event nature will help in a pond, or even a makeshift tub pond. Rain is the same as a WC. Bug hatches do not occur in the indoor closed aquarium. Many other differences no doubt. The incredible growth rate of plants and other organisms among them.d3221ck said:I bred swordtails for years in a pond with only plants growing in it with no filter or 1 issue. they were populating like crazy even if I never fed them I guess the bugs were enough and the fast growing plants made them all seem very happy and healthy they never got this big in my tanks.... I had that going for literally 8+ years without an issue and that pond is still clean today, so fast growing plants can do more than most realize I think especially outdoors.
This friend of yours needs to buy a lottery ticketAngelTheGypsy said:I actually have a friend with a 75 gallon tank and she never does water changes either. Just top offs. Fake decor. Stocking all over the place with various cichlids, DG, Oscar, glo tetras. All fish from Walmart. Changes all of her filter media at the same time, regularly, because it makes the water clearer. Has never tested her water, doesn't own a test kit. Somehow, she is successful, and has had this tank running for over a decade.
Everyone does it different.
On the other hand, their camper trailer got infested with rats and about 50 apparently died while in there <absolute stench>, then while cleaning it out, apparently someone turned on the gas and filled it with propane, so they literally had a bomb sitting in the driveway, so lucky some places, not so much others...conniem2424 said:This friend of yours needs to buy a lottery ticket