Tropical Fish Keeping banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

For the Non-water changers in the crowd.

15K views 103 replies 28 participants last post by  dramaqueen 
#1 ·
I have a question, well, two.

What is the smallest tank that you think can successfully be set up to run with no water changes?

What is the smallest you have run that way, and for how long?

I may have others along the way but let's start with these.

When I first looked at an aquarium, just before Christmas, I asked the LFS guy about running such a setup as you guys do. He gave me that look that you give, unintentionally, to the extremely uninformed. So I am curious.

Jeff.
 
#2 ·
Sorry to burst your bubble, but humanity has never managed recreating any self-sustaining closed system. Thus trying to maintain a tank with no water changes is going to end poorly for you and the fish. Not even lakes or ponds are entirely closed systems and your trying to recreate something 1/2000 or smaller in scale. The smaller the tank the sooner it is going to crash, that much I can tell you. Freshwater biology is actually MUCH MUCH more complicated then we make it out to be. Really all we ever talk about is the nitrogen cycle, which lets be honest in a aquarium, its not even a complete cycle. Either we do water changes and remove it or some ppl like to insist its complete with the aide of plants, but again lets be honest if you trim back the plants and remove some of the plant matter from the tank again its not complete or self sufficient. There are many many many cycles in a self maintaining system that we completely ignore in a tank. Pretty much one for every element, tho some are more important then others. Nitrogen, phosphate, carbon, sulfate, and ect are a few of the important ones.

The issues with not changing water are this TDS, or total dissolved solids will increase regardless. There is no way to remove TDS apart from water changes or some sort of membrane filter. You can get a TDS meter for $10 off ebay and watch said tank climb and climb and climb. Without water changes certain nutrients like phosphate and sulfates are likely to increase. Carbonates, which buffer your pH are likely to decrease given enough time. Eventually to a point where a pH crash is possible. Most cycles are impossible to complete without some anaerobic step and sufficient anaerobic filtration is pretty much impossible in a aquarium. I've done filterless tanks just fine that consumed all nitrate, but regardless they still got weekly water changes to keep it stable otherwise it would not be long before the plants hit a nutrient deficiency. Some lacking nutrients will simply slow a plant down, some others, like magnesium are vital trace elements for chlorophyll production and photosynthesis.

Fish in such an environment will be fine initially, but after a period of time high TDS or improper water requirements will tax their systems. High enough TDS can chronically harm fish, especially soft water fish which are not built for dealing with it. The signs are slow to appear and irreversible. Lastly the longer between water changes the more the tank water will shift from the tap water which in turn means more or a sudden change for fish when you do change their water. I find it odd some ppl are confused by 50% or more weekly water changes and suggest against it. In reality the tank water in such a tank is more similar to the tap water because so much is changed so often hence when you do change it the fish don't see it as such a huge change since parameters are more similar.
 
#3 ·
My 15g guppy tank is doing fine without them. It is overstocked but doesn't really affect them(50+ guppies). For some reason the water is balanced and so far I haven't done water changes except for refilling the tank with water because of evaporation. I've had it for over a year.
 
#4 ·
Back in the day, my crowd never did water changes. Just topped off for evaporation. It was a matter of not messing with things. Leave the plants alone or you'll mess up their growth. Leave the fish / water alone or you'll mess up a good environment. Needless to say, we didn't do any testing. Plenty of plants and fat fish equaled a healthy tank. I honestly cannot offer any comparison between those tanks and my current regularly changed tanks. To get back to your original question, the minimum size tank that I can remember being truly healthy at that time was a 15 gallon. I don't even know if they still make those. It was basically a shorter version of the current 20 gallon high.
 
#5 · (Edited)
The smallest I've done was a 1.5 for 1/2 year. then I moved it's inhabitants to a larger tank and tore it down for an emmersed set up. I usually dont do water changes in my tanks for a month or two... only top ups.

the last time I measured my TDS it was around 140 in my 2.5 gallon, the only inhabitant was a betta and five or 6 cherry shrimps

stocking for the 1.5 was a hoarde of least killifish that kept multiplying (and hence the inevitable tank change)
 
#6 ·
Mikaila has said it, and said it very well indeed.:welldone:

If those new members who may not be familiar with our database here would like to follow up, I have two articles in the Freshwater Articles sections that are relevant.

http://www.tropicalfishkeeping.com/freshwater-articles/regular-partial-water-changes-117205/

http://www.tropicalfishkeeping.com/...al-solids-tss-tds-freshwater-aquarium-122027/

And the article on stress sets out some of the issues that occur from inadequate management.
http://www.tropicalfishkeeping.com/freshwater-articles/stress-freshwater-aquarium-fish-98852/

I'll just make a quick comment on the matter of things being fine without...you can't possibly substantiate this with fact. What may seem fine now, is not fine. And while some fish do seem capable of existing under such conditions, others cannot and will not.

Byron.
 
#7 ·
I agree in the benefit of routine partial water changes to dilute pollution and maintain a healthy water chemistry. This is how nature renews fresh water with rain. I also wish to point out to any newcomers to the hobby that not doing partial water changes weekly may be the short path to failure and fish loss.
However, at least in part, I feel I need to take the middle of the road here.

I'm remembering my youth in the 60's and my mothers tank. She had a 5 gallon, tar sealed, slate bottom Metaframe tank. It had an incandescent tube light in the hood, a bubble up filter with carbon and floss, just enough gravel to cover the bottom. She always had floating plants (Anacharis I think) and there was always a layer of mulm on the bottom. She had a catfish (emerald cory), an anglefish, a pair of red velvet swordtails, some other fish I forget and a (mystery like) snail.
She topped off the tank for evaporation, but never did water changes. The fish in this tank seemed crowded, but were big and healthy and thrived for years.

Not all tanks are created equally. First lets consider or rule out the newer tank not yet cycled and the tanks newer than 6 months not yet established. Weekly water changes in these tanks is even more crucial. Now lets consider smaller tank, the unplanted tank, the over stocked tank, the overfed and/or the poorly maintained tank...
Compare these to the larger, well filtered, heavily planted tanks with a modest stock level.
Or just compare alone the very small tank to the very large tank.
There are so very many variables that affect water quality.
Consider for a moment the commercial aquariums with thousands or millions of gallons of water. Surely they do not do 50% weekly water changes...but they have very sophisticated ($$$) filtration and additive systems that purify and regenerate the water (ensuring sufficient minerals and trace elements).

At the end of the day, the volume and/or frequency of REQUIRED routine partial water changes must be relative to any untreated pollution in the water. In addition, we must replace used nutrients and trace elements lost to fish osmosis and plant usage.
In a larger, well filtered, well planted, established tank, with a modest stock level, this may only be a few gallons a week. In a small, unplanted, overstocked and/or overfed tank, this may mean up to 50% twice a week!

I find myself in a somewhat unique and poor situation with very high nitrates (60-80ppm) in my (country) home well water system. This is most likely the result of a 95 acre farmers field across the road that gets ample amounts of organic (manure) and chemical fertilizer. Larger water changes are simply counter productive for me.
I've experimented with many things to deal with high nitrates and better purify water and plan to write these experiments and experiences in a separate article. However, boiled all down, my greatest success has been tweaking filtration for greater water purity, adding more plants, using additives modestly and reducing weekly water changes to 5g in my 60g tank or about 8.3%. This has been working for me, with crystal clear water for many, many months now and I believe it will continue to be even more successful into the future.

Finally, some have suggested that the aquarium is a closed system that can't be managed as well as nature. Although I agree that we may be missing some key life forms that would [even] better purify water, we also don't have torrential rains that that muddy the water or runoff from agriculture, landfills and chemical plants, etc. Instead, we have a lab experiment where we can control the inputs and strive for very pure, healthy water chemistry.

Disclaimer: For the average aquarium, in addition to sound tank/filter maintenance and proper feeding, I simply must recommend a 25% to 50% weekly water change as the best way to ensure a healthy, consistent water chemistry for your fish.
If you don't manage the litter box, the cat is gonna pee on the sofa! :tease:
 
#9 ·
For the average aquarium, in addition to sound tank/filter maintenance and proper feeding, I simply must recommend a 25% to 50% weekly water change as the best way to ensure a healthy, consistent water chemistry for your fish.
This is the crux of the whole thing, the average aquarium is probably better than 95% of aquariums out there which makes the need for partial water change the norm. Any of us who are actually doing no changes or are even looking at the idea, however remote the actual implementation of the idea is (I probably won't try it), are going to be in the 5% or less of fish keepers.

I'm one of the curious ones and like to see and learn what others are doing that is not the norm. Whether I condone, agree, or disagree with it has no bearing on my level of curiosity.

Jeff.
 
#8 ·
wheres bealsbob on this thread?
I'm calling you out....
AS you are the one man i see saying ''dont change the water'' all the time..... you'd think you had an opinion here surely?
 
#19 ·
:lol::lol::lol:

I finally posted just above this one.


:lol::lol::lol:


BTW water changes will limit but not prevent the build up in tds and everything else.


So there is that more like it.


:lol:
 
#10 ·
Dunno, Jeff. . . I suppose it all depends on how you look at things, really. The average aquarium HERE, on THIS forum, and among fish heads like US. . . does tend to get it's weekly water change. We understand the effects, more or less, on the inhabitants and the system as a whole if we fail to take proper care of our fish, and we LIKE our fish, and do our best to give them proper care.

That said, I know entirely too many people here in the 'real' world that have fish tanks. And it seems to me, at least in my area, that fish aren't so much regarded as animals or pets, so much as a decoration - like a picture in a frame or a vase of flowers. MOST of the people I know that have aquariums DO NOT change the water, EVER. And when/if they do, they almost always do it in such a way as to cause a full-tank cycle - and they never even seem to notice.

So in my PERSONAL experience, I'd say that the majority of people who keep fish do NOT do regular water changes. And while I don't think it is in any way the proper way of taking care of the wetpets, somehow. . . somehow they all manage to continue to have living fish! I don't understand it, but there it is. And no matter how much I talk to them and try to convince them - it doesn't work, because their fish are 'just fine' after all of these years. *shrugs* Fish can adapt to anything given time. And they might not live as long as they could have, but they manage somehow. . .

MY fish, on the other hand, are used to clean, fresh water. And if I were to stop doing water changes, I'm quite sure they'd die. . . I remember when I first started keeping fish - I didn't do research, and I did things wrong entirely. ALL of these people told me the same thing. "When you bring home fish, some of them die - it's just the way it is. The ones that live will be fine, though..." I refused to believe that people would buy a pet with the knowledge that it'd probably die, and that's how I found this site. If I wanted to buy 3 kittens, and was told that 2 wouldn't make it. . . I don't think I'd keep cats. Same goes for fish...

*sorry, random...*
 
#12 ·
Hmmm.... very good points. I know I read that 60% of fish bought don't survive initially and 60% of fish keepers quit before the year is out. I've never paid any attention to any aquariums that I might have seen in homes.... I've seen very few in fact.

Perhaps I should change how I put the 95% out there, perhaps 95% SHOULD be changing the water regularly. Or that 95% don't consider the water quality in their tanks at all. Perhaps it is the 5% that are concerned and take the time to educate themselves on tank maintenance and fish care properly.

All in all I don't expect to become a non-changer and the stats don't really matter much to me as they don't apply to me. I think that I have jumped in with both feet, as might be apparent by my posting here I suppose, and, like all my hobby endeavours, Gung-Ho is the word.

Jeff.
 
#11 ·
Hello;
I guess that iam in the short end of things because I don’t change aquarium water on a regular basis nor am I concerned with water chemistry. In fact I only change the water occasionally due to the doom and gloom preaching.

Back in 96 or so I had a 55 gal aquarium with two Oscars and about 3 green severms. I changed the water once or maybe twice by the time I tore down the tank in 2001. What is that five years. I never cycled this tank nor did I ever check water chemistry or use any water conditioners. This 55 gal aquarium had under-gravel filter, plastic plants. I am not bating you Bryon or any other person but I added salt to the above defined aquarium and never observed the negative effects described in salt in freshwater aquarium. I add salt to the aquarium because scientific fact that chloride ion will prevent the up-take of nitrate through osmoregulation.
If I remember rightly in the salt article the ratio of salt to water was one table spoon per 16 gallons of water, which is about a teaspoon of salt for every 5 gallons of water; whereas I used a ratio of 1 tea spoon per 55 gallons of water.

Do not fret I have learned a lot from the posts and articles presented and have a lot of respect for everyone’s knowledge about fish keeping. Just because I question ideas doesn’t mean I doubt or disregard the concepts.

pop
 
#13 ·
In this post I am only going to offer some comments on this assumption that fish adapt to this or that.

Fish never adapt to inappropriate water parameters or inappropriate water conditions. They "manage," but they do not adapt, ever. In nature, fish, like other animals, adapt to changes by what we term selective evolution. Evolution is on-going; it is not something that happened in the past, but it is continuing today. Existing species are evolving as their environment changes. But this evolution is very slow, over thousands of years in the case of fish.

Fish managing is very different from fish living. A Betta can exist for years in a glass of water on the shelf. But none of us [I hope] would suggest this is "OK" for the fish. A mature Oscar at 12 inches can exist for years in a 10g tank. But this is not living.

I get quite annoyed every time I read that someone doesn't do this or that and their fish are fine and healthy. Unless you are the fish, you are unlikely to have any idea as to the state it is in. There are clues along the way that some of us can read, but most if not all of these "fine" fish will never come close to their normal lifespan, and that in itself is significant. If a fish will not live to or past the normal lifespan, or will not spawn, or does not behave normally in your aquarium, then there is almost certainly something wrong with the water or the environment. And this does affect the fish, to some degree, whether or not you see anything.

This is what Dr. Neale Monks, a biologist with 20 years of experience keeping fish aquaria, says:

In the early days of the hobby, aquarists believed that ‘old water’ was somehow better for fish. Because old water contained a lot of nitrate and organic chemicals, it tended to become rather acidic. If you did a big water change and added water with a basic pH, you ran the risk of exposing the fish to a sudden and extreme pH change - something that could kill them.

It made sense to do small water changes instead, so that the fish could adjust to any slight changes in pH.
Modern day aquarists now understand that the more the water is changed, the better. Indeed, many fish simply won’t put up with old nitrate-rich water at all - cichlids, mollies and marine fish for example.

Weekly water changes of at least 25% will dilute the nitrate and organic chemicals that cause acidification in the aquarium, preventing that particular problem.

Big, regular water changes keep the aquarium much fresher than would otherwise be the case, meaning that your fish will be happier and healthier.
 
#14 ·
Simply saying a fish was 'fine' for years does not mean anything. An animal caged outside may appear fine for years as well, that has no bearing on if its environment is suitable or healthy for it. Animals and fish avoid showing stress as much as they can, its a sign of weakness and likely predation. Fish are also very tolerant of dealing with unsuitable water tho that does not mean it has no long term chronic effect on them. Also many fish are built to deal with short term poor conditions, especially fish that live with drastic dry and wet seasons like in the amazon. Sure tons still die during the dry season but some manage to make it.

Water changes are done for much more then nitrate. Its as simple as that. Nitrate is actually one of the easiest compounds to control without water changes, its the others that we rarely or never test that will gradually become a problem. Phosphate, kH, GH, TDS, and alkalinity to name a few. Example many nutrient cycles produce acidic compounds which will gradually consume carbonates to the point where you loose all buffering( and thus stable control of pH). In a normal aquatic system carbonates are always consumed, but they leach in from run off and bedrock so are normally not exhausted. Changing water replenishes carbonates and removes the bound up/neutralized carbonates which only add the TDS. Its pretty much impossible to compare or try to replicate a fish tank to a stable lake or pond. The lake is as complex as a city and your tank in comparison is a house in that city. Lakes, rivers, and ponds are truly amazing when you get down to just how greatly complex they are. Freshwater ecology by Walter Dodds was a really good textbook I used in college that covered the simple things to the really indepth things. And is a very very informative for anyone interested in how aquatic ecosystems function from the chemical levels up to the trophic levels.
 
#15 ·
Hey, I'm in the top 5%!! Haha...just kidding. :lol: But, seriously, this is an interesting thread. There are really 2 different schools of thinking, those who believe in the benefits of regular partial water changes and those who believe it's better to just leave the aquarium alone. OK, maybe a third category....those people who, as mentioned, just have aquariums for ornaments and don't want to or don't realize that they should be doing regular maintenance/PWC's.

I, for one, am a firm believer in regular water changes. I have seen the benefits. My sister in law never does water changes on her tank. She is always buying new fish to replace ones which have mysteriously died. I think the longest living fish for her has been maybe a year or so. She is always commenting on how colorful and healthy my fish are. Recently she and I took a trip to a LFS and we both bought some Dennison Barbs. A couple weeks later she was over at my house and commented on how much bigger and more colorful mine had become compared to hers.

My nephew also never does water changes and has had his tank crash on him and lost all his fish. He asked me to come over and help him with his tank. I tested his nitrates and they were off the charts!! His Ph had dropped to 5. Our tap water is 7.8 with Gh and Kh of 5 dH and this is what my tank Ph reads also and what his should have been since we are in the same town. I explained to him about nitrates and how I equate them to air pollutiion for us. It's like living in a smoggy, polluted city compared to the fresh air of the mountains. Sure fish can survive for awhile with no water changes but their lifespan is shortened and eventually they get sick and die. An average fish should live 8-10 years (just a generalization), not 1 or 2.

I realize everyone's experiences may be different and am not trying to preach to those who don't do water changes. Ultimately, it is your tank and if it has worked for you then kudos. But I can't imagine not maintaining my tanks without regular fresh water.
 
#16 ·
i'm a regular water changer,as i think that my fish swimming around
in the same water isn't very nice,and a breath of fresh air can't be a bad thing ?
 
#17 ·
I have a question, well, two.

What is the smallest tank that you think can successfully be set up to run with no water changes?

What is the smallest you have run that way, and for how long?

I may have others along the way but let's start with these.

When I first looked at an aquarium, just before Christmas, I asked the LFS guy about running such a setup as you guys do. He gave me that look that you give, unintentionally, to the extremely uninformed. So I am curious.

Jeff.

1 guart (or less) betta bowl. 3 years.
 
#27 ·
dude, dont ever post this in the betta side of this forum... you will be verbally butchered.
Not that it isnt possible since bettas breathe atmospheric air, theoretically as long as you keep the nitrogen down you can keep a betta alive. But I'm curious whether that water is liquid rock by now...get a TDS meter and test :)
 
#18 ·
Just to clarify. . . in no way was I implying that water changes aren't necessary, or that the fish who live in these conditions are healthy, or thriving. I personally feel strongly that it is nothing short animal cruelty to keep fish in these conditions, and I've been very vocal to fish owners that I come in contact with regarding my thoughts on the matter. I'm actually known for bringing my test kit over and showing some of these people exactly what is happening in their tank (in every case nitrates, phosphates are off-the-charts high), and explaining to the best of my ability the SCIENCE behind why this is not 'okay.' Through my involvement with the Kindergarten tank, I've come in contact with more than my fair share of fish-keepers - the little ones often 'tattle' on their parents, and insist that they talk to me, as the children have now been taught how to properly care for a tank, and have taken steps to 'bully' their parents into water changes and such. There have been quite a few cases in which I've managed to bring understanding to these people, and was able to help them turn things around, little by little, and they now have a healthy tank. But in the majority of cases, these owners insist that their fish are 'just fine,' and leave it at that. It's heartbreaking, but it really seems to be the 'norm,' at least in my area, for fish-keepers NOT to do water changes. And, to be fair, for the most part they never even realized that it's a necessary thing until I pointed it out to them! Granted this is no excuse, as many of us on this forum (myself included) started off with no knowledge or prior research, and have gone well out of our way to set things right and learn what is necessary for our fishy friends to thrive. . . It boggles my mind that a basic fact sheet on the care of fish isn't given out with their purchase, as tends to be the case with other animals. . . what really boggles my mind are those who continue to refuse to do maintenance, even after they've been presented with the facts. Depending on the size and setup of the tank, it would truly take most of them no more than 15 minutes a week to keep their tanks healthy. I don't understand why this is so difficult. . .
 
#20 ·
I am with you Jeaninel that I could not imagine not doing water changes with my tanks.

That said there are a lot of people in this world that keep animals. They all have different reasons. For me I keep animals as companions. As such it is very important to me no matter what kind of animal it is that they are given the absolute best that I can give, and given what is necessary for good health.

There are many people out there that think their animals are "Happy" because the animals are alive. Alive is not the same as happy. Alive is not the same as healthy. Animals put up with what situations we give them because they have no choice in the matter. Cows can't leave their pen for better pasture no easier than fish can leave their tanks to seek better waters.

A caged dog can only whimper and cry. What can a boxed in fish do when presented with less than ideal conditions because their owners have fooled themselves into thinking they are fine? The only answer is cope. So those of you who think that your animals are fine even though you don't do water changes...just remember. Animals cope with what we give them. Coping =/= healthy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chesh
#21 ·
I am with you Jeaninel that I could not imagine not doing water changes with my tanks.

That said there are a lot of people in this world that keep animals. They all have different reasons. For me I keep animals as companions. As such it is very important to me no matter what kind of animal it is that they are given the absolute best that I can give, and given what is necessary for good health.

There are many people out there that think their animals are "Happy" because the animals are alive. Alive is not the same as happy. Alive is not the same as healthy. Animals put up with what situations we give them because they have no choice in the matter. Cows can't leave their pen for better pasture no easier than fish can leave their tanks to seek better waters.

A caged dog can only whimper and cry. What can a boxed in fish do when presented with less than ideal conditions because their owners have fooled themselves into thinking they are fine? The only answer is cope. So those of you who think that your animals are fine even though you don't do water changes...just remember. Animals cope with what we give them. Coping =/= healthy.
I agree with you 100% .

The only thing we disagree on is whether or not constantly doing water changes provides a better enviroment then a balance and stabilized environment where the fish wastes are constantly being recycled into fish food and oxygen.
 
#22 ·
OK, I guess that I will weigh in with my experience. I have always changed water in my tanks. In the 80's, I was changing water weekly in my tanks, (yeah, I'm old as dirt) and I will continue to do that until I give up fish keeping. It was the "right" thing to do then, and it will always be the right thing to do for the fish, and they will give me years of enjoyment. If I say more, I will just be repeating others points about chemical changes in tank water.:)
 
#23 ·
OK, I guess that I will weigh in with my experience. I have always changed water in my tanks. In the 80's, I was changing water weekly in my tanks, (yeah, I'm old as dirt) and I will continue to do that until I give up fish keeping. It was the "right" thing to do then, and it will always be the right thing to do for the fish, and they will give me years of enjoyment. If I say more, I will just be repeating others points about chemical changes in tank water.:)
Gee my first tank was in the late '70's.

Does that make older than rocks? (I think they came before dirt.)
 
#25 ·
Hello all;
Your point is well taken but I have to say Bryon and others that your argument falls short.
The argument that is made is so anthropomorphic that it loses all aspects of validity. No greater mistake can be made than applying human attributes to non human life form.

An example is pain does pain exist before it is experienced? No it does not, pain only exist when there is a cognitive construct in other words you have to experience pain, before it exist for the individual. Do fish have cognitive constructs for pain or when they react to a negative stimulus is it just an unconditioned response?
What on earth is a happy fish does this mean fish can enjoy pleasures like a fine glass of wine? As stated in previous post “unless you are a fish, you are unlikely to have any idea as to the state it is in” if this concept is correct then how can we humans know if a fish is happy, unhappy, in pain or just having a glass of wine and a smoke for the pleasure of it. It is alluded that there are clues that only some can read. This sounds more like a self-fore filling prophesy than a sound and logical scientific approach. As for a normal life span I am wondering what is the normal life span for a fine fish in nature.

Mollies were mentioned and I fined it interesting that neil monks version of molly fry is somewhat opposed to the view expressed in the fish profiles. According to monks all molly fry are male and as a single fish gains dominance in the group it changes sex to female. Interesting concept but not unheard of in nature.

As for “regular water changes keep the aquarium much fresher than would otherwise be the case, meaning that your fish will be happier and healthier”.
How can we possibly know if a fish is happier and healthier since you have to be a fish to know if you are happy or healthy an we are humans that ‘are unlikely to have any idea as to the state it is in’ of course there maybe clues not just any clue but the right clue that supports the individual’s predetermined conclusion.

I understand that when anthropomorphic argument is used because we all have a sense of responsibility to provide the good life to our critters but the way we experience life is very different from the way fish in nature or in an aquarium experience life.

pop
 
#29 · (Edited)
A happy fish is a healthy one in my opinion. However if you want to remove the entire aspect of "Anthropomorphism" you cling to to try to debunk what others say we can pay sole attention to the very real condition called "health".

Health is what determines to some degree the behavior of your animals. Healthy fish live longer lives. Unhealthy fish do not. Same applies to people really. If we are going to take animals from their natural habitat, or domesticate them to keep them as pets don't we at least have a moral/and or ethical obligation to keep them healthy?

Even if you throw out the idea of morals and ethics, it's a huge waste of your money to set up a tank and then improperly keep it. You end up throwing money down the drain with each fish that dies/and or fails to live it full potential live span.

So for what ever reason that floats your boat I would imagine everyone here can agree that it is to the best interest of us all to keep "Healthy" animals in our tanks. Things like "water changes" fall into a category of health. If you don't do them the long term health of your fish can and will suffer.

As for "Pain" don't mix pain up as being purely an idea. Pain is a sensation that the brain picks up on as a response to harm/injury. The ability to feel pain is evolutionary advantageous. So is the ability to feel "Fear". I remember a while back there was a study on lab rats where they removed the ability to feel "fear" by removing part of the brain associated with it. The rats were unable to react to predators, and that handicap very well could have been their demise in a real predator/pray situation.

The ability to "feel pain" is very similar because if you cannot identify when something is hurting you than you are unable to react for the sake of self survival. It necessary to point this out. Pain, fear, stress are not purely ideological concepts, and neither are they purely anthropomorphic. Even concepts like depression are beginning to come out with emerging research as something even insects are capable of feeling. People often do not give animals credit where credit is due when it comes to their capabilities.

That said the arguments of those who are against water changes have shown me little in this thread or any others to back up their claims, or debunk the reality of how necessary water changes are. Our aquariums are not open systems. They are closed systems. Humans at this current time are unable to create an open system within a closed system artificially.

EDIT: Totally aware we may be on different pages when it comes to use of the term "Feeling pain". I 'm taking it at most basic reaction to a physical injury.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Byron and Chesh
#26 ·
Odd on the Mollies, from my personal experience regarding gender (and everything else I've read on the subject) - the reverse is true! Regardless. . .

It WOULD be interesting to set up two tanks, as identical as possible (though, obviously they would differ in some respects), and divide a 'fresh' batch of home-grown fry between the two. One with water changes, one without - and track it throughout the years. . . I couldn't do it, I'd feel to bad for the non-water change crew, lol! But it WOULD be an interesting study.
 
#28 ·
Not going to argue over water changing... people all have different ways of being successful in the hobby.
We as people THINK we are doing the right thing naturally, and so we try to influence others to do what we are doing. Sometimes this leaves us not open to entertaining both sides of an argument. The thing about knowledge, is that the things we know are constantly being disproved, so that is why it's important to be willing to accept new information, or if not analyze it thoroughly.
As Jes suggested, I would be much more inclined to listen to a person who has done both side by side (water change/no water change) than someone who says "this is what I do and it's right and you have to do this too." I do think it's good we have some of you non water changers on the forum, lets newbies listen to both sides and decide what's right themselves. . Nevertheless, the forum has "norms" and it can seem we're all against you at times.

Anthropomorphizing is a huge issue at times, but I would not keep fish without it. It is fun to set up little scenarios and make up personalities for the fish but you must remember that those two goldfish are not really in love, your betta isn't really a total narcissist, and the pygmy gourami are not really hiding something from you in the back of the tank (ohhhh kay... maybe that's just me.)

Do fish feel pain? Honestly, from a scientific standpoint, we don't know.
Even though they are vertebrates, they are a much lower form of vertebrate (because it took less evolution to get them to where they are), with a less developed nervous system than ourselves.
Here is an article published by Dr. Rose on fish pain. Not the most recent one, no, but last month he published a new one that basically came to the same conclusion (these are reviews, so he is basically going over a lot of other people's research and trying to put it all together).. What's the answer? Well, he wants to say "no," but he knows that'd be incredibly foolish to do, so he's stuck at "maybe." We have just as many great scientists that have good arguments that fish do feel pain.
Okay, so let's assume fish don't feel pain. This leaves us free to abuse them to our will. A very attractive thought, no?
Hundreds of years ago, it was "PROVEN" that higher animals like dogs and chimps do not feel pain. That's right, proven. Abuse levels were unbelievable, just for the fun of it in cases. Dogs were just robotically responding to stimuli, after all. Fast forward, and we prove that dogs do feel pain (though it can still be debated). "Oops."
So, if it's all fine and dandy, and we "prove" that fish don't feel pain, I don't believe this opens up a window for abuse. Fairly recently we thought people that were completely paralyzed also had no conscious mind or thoughts and were unaware of the outside world. Long story short, that was proven wrong as well, but the damage was done.
Personally, I don't think fish feel much if any pain, but I will be open to accept the fact that they do if the time comes that we are able to prove this. I'm just going to keep doing what I think is best for them. Right now, it's just a little extra comfort when you see a sick fish to believe there isn't much going on in there.

This is one of those posts that I normally type out but never send, but what the heck I'll let you guys have at it this time..
 
#32 ·
As far as we can tell his fish are fine though. As well as the other's who don't do much water changing. They look healthy, I saw pictures and they look just like any other fish. You say healthy fish live longer, but then when it comes up that his fish are living longer you say they are merely coping. Well, if they are living longer isn't that all that matters, according to you? I'm sure he will clear this up a little more when he returns. ;-)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chesh
#33 ·
To put it one way, I could take my 10 gallon low tech betta tank. I could stop doing water changes as of today. Top it off when necessary and my Betta may appear to live in health for 2-3 years. Considering that seems to be the average set not by their potential live span but instead by the fact most people who keep bettas don't take care of them properly...considering that one could say that the entire situation was okay and or successful.

Bettas live longer than 2-3 years(or have that potential). It is an unfortunate thing that seeing them live that longer is unusual in captivity due to the excess of bad keepers. If I had taken the time to water change at least once every two weeks that betta could have easily lived 2-3 times the live-span it did. (this is again talking in the realm of hypothetically).

There are other fish out that are very tough, well capable of coping with bad conditions...but would favor better ones if given the chance. Those fish can give such an illusion that an improper tank is problem free. Again I am not inclined to take everything I have learned and everything all the experts have learned and throw it away for some random group of people online claiming they had healthy fish with no water changes and no substantial research to back it up. It doesn't make logical sense as is. Aquariums are not open systems. They need water changes. Study the water cycle and apply it to fish, and tie in with fish keeping. The logic there is none in what the water changeless crowd is saying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Byron and Chesh
#36 ·
The things I do not understand with the frequent water changes is that most people live in a municipality which treats the water with harsh chemicals so other chemicals are used to supposedly remove these chemicals. How can one even remotely argue this is good for fish? On top of this most or many adjust the temperature of their water to be used with water from a hot water tank, where chemicals, toxins and minerals are even more concentrated.

I also find it amusing that the number one most important measurement one can make for fish is for dissolved oxygen, yet hardly anyone mentions this and likely most do not have a meter. How do you tell that your fish are in an oxygen sufficient environment? By their happy behavior, or are they just coping with the environment you are subjecting them to?

BTW, presently I am doing 8% avg daily water changes and checking all parameters [including O2], as I have a young tank with young discus but I am working towards very minimal water changes, once I acheive a measurable balance. My municipality uses no chemicals and I heat the water in a tub.
 
#37 ·
One of the things you are supposed to do is look up the water quality report of your area. You can see what kinds of things are coming through your tap and prepare for that. Really those "harsh chemicals" are not something that is going to be present much in your water. You drink it after all right?

However some people do have major issues with their local water and end up using RO water. There are some people who go so far as to buy equipment to make their own RO.

Personally I have loaches in one of my tanks and while they are not as sensitive as Discus they are still very sensitive fish. I premix new water and temp match it before putting it in and they thrive in the conditions they are in. However when I skip a water change or go too long (and have in the past) they become reclusive, refuse to come out and eat and well...you can tell that they are stressed. It's very clear in their situation they benefit from the water changes. They live in a heavily planted tank too.

As for Oxygen, if you have a planted tank you don't really have to worry too much about oxygen. In fact if you have a water fall type filter (like an HOB) and it creates a splash that will oxygenate your tank. That said there is a big reason why people who have non-planted tanks run those bubble walls. It is to take care of the issue with oxygen. Lack of oxygen very quickly kills fish in a tank environment. It's not something to my knowledge that they cope as well with unless they are by nature air breathers.
 
#43 · (Edited)
WOW...tap water is recycled human waste?!?!? WRONG, but thanks for playing our game! Municipal tap water typically comes from lakes, reservoirs and/or deep wells, so indirectly, it comes from RAIN. Chlorine/Chloramine is used to kill harmful bacteria and pathogens and is quite necessary to prevent disease.

Something being missed here is that many tropical fish evolved in very pure water. The Amazon river is nearly pure rain water and flows into the ocean at such a rate that fresh water can be dipped 12 miles out at sea!

So our tap water in the northern hemisphere is already much harder with minerals which would only get concentrated by topping off with more tap water.

If you do a google on "aquarium water quality" every single hit will recommend some percentage of a weekly water change as one of three basic rules:
1. Don't overstock.
2. Don't overfeed.
3. Do weekly water changes.
Nowhere will you find anyone recommending not doing weekly partial water changes...not one.

Along with good filtration, plants are recommended for water quality, but do not eliminate the need for partial water changes.

So then the question becomes how much water should be changed. Experts differ on this from 10-25% weekly. Some recommend 10% weekly and 25% monthly. Some suggest that with large, messy fish, 50% weekly may be required.

So the clear answer here is that hands down, experts all agree that routine partial water changes are extremely important in providing good stable water quality.
For a truly balanced aquarium, we need to replace some water periodically to simulate rain in nature.

"and that's all I have to say about that." -Forrest Gump
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chesh
#44 ·
Mhmmm. I do 20-40ish% on my small tanks and 80% with the goldfish. Because goldfish are ridiculously filthy animals and they can easily do over 40ppm a week it seems.
Posted via Mobile Device
 
#48 ·
Mhmmm. I do 20-40ish% on my small tanks and 80% with the goldfish. Because goldfish are ridiculously filthy animals and they can easily do over 40ppm a week it seems.
Posted via Mobile Device

Using my equation above if the tank is increasing at 1ppm/day and you're doing a 10% weekly water change is 0ppm water it will increase to 70ppm before the water change.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top