11% 2x per week or 22% 1x per week

[Fish Heads]

Talking about water changes of course. Now that I've got my bio filter
built back up, I'm thinking about going to 11% changes twice per week. Is
that any better or worse than 22% once per week? I can actually see a few
advantages and disadvantages to both.

Thanks in advance!

[~Vicki ~]

go with the 22% or even better is closer to 50%

I just read up on this today so bear with me while I try to explain just
using 10% vs 50%

In a 100 gallon tank just changing 10% a week
(amount of oldest water removed per change)

1st week = 10 gallons
2nd week = 9 gallons
3rd week = 8.1 g
4th week = 7.29 g
5th week = 6.46 g
6th week = 5.81 g
7th week = 5.23 g
8th week = 4.71 g

Ok as you can see even after 8 weeks of 10% water changes you have only
removed a total of 56.61 g of the oldest water but still have 43.39 g of
old water still in the tank. Now if you look at the same thing, but
using 50% you can see a big difference.

1st week = 50 g
2nd week = 25 g
3rd week = 12.5 g
4th week = 6.25 g
5th week = 3.12 g
6th week = 1.56 g
7th week = 0.78 g
8th week = 0.39 g

Now you have removed a total of 99.61 g of the oldest water and only
have 0.40 g of old water left in the tank.

Think about it this way tho. If your toilet backs up you can leave the
room. Fish don't have that luxury.

Vicki

Got my info from a book called "The simple guide to freshwater
Aquariums" by David Boruchowitz

[~Vicki ~]

I did not say it was my math but info from a book. The original
parameters were for 11% or 22%. I just used the books info on 10 and
50%

I have always been a 50%er anyways.

Vicki

[NetMax]

"~Vicki ~" > wrote in message
...
> I did not say it was my math but info from a book. The original
> parameters were for 11% or 22%. I just used the books info on 10 and
> 50%
>
> I have always been a 50%er anyways.
>
> Vicki

I know people who do 100% changes and because they do it often, it works.
Doing 50% will also work, if it's done at a frequency which would prevent
any significant build-up since the last change (IMO). The only problem
with these massive changes is when the interval gets too long, - such
that the difference in parameters now becomes stressful. It's also not
possible with freshly drawn well water. Letting the interval frequency
slide is not uncommon with new hobbyists, so 50% would become more
problematic for them. IMHO, if you can do 50% at short intervals, then
the short interval might preclude the requirement to do such a large
water change ;~)

Having said all that, I'm a firm believer that aquariums are like
preparing fine meals. There are many recipes to success.

NetMax

[Racf]

"NetMax" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "~Vicki ~" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I did not say it was my math but info from a book. The original
> > parameters were for 11% or 22%. I just used the books info on 10
and
> > 50%
> >
> > I have always been a 50%er anyways.
> >
> > Vicki
>
> I know people who do 100% changes and because they do it often, it
works.
> Doing 50% will also work, if it's done at a frequency which would
prevent
> any significant build-up since the last change (IMO). The only
problem
> with these massive changes is when the interval gets too long, - such
> that the difference in parameters now becomes stressful. It's also
not
> possible with freshly drawn well water. Letting the interval
frequency
> slide is not uncommon with new hobbyists, so 50% would become more
> problematic for them. IMHO, if you can do 50% at short intervals,
then
> the short interval might preclude the requirement to do such a large
> water change ;~)
>
> Having said all that, I'm a firm believer that aquariums are like
> preparing fine meals. There are many recipes to success.
>
> NetMax
>
>

Without a TDS/conductivity meter its just going to be guesswork.....I
have one and I know precisely when and how much water to change so my
fish do not get shocked and I do not have unhealthy build-ups....well
maybe I do sometimes.....but I know about it though...........

A discus guy did an experiment comparing fry growth relative to water
change frequency. Daily 50% and weekly 50% was compared for the growth
cycle of fry from 1 inch to 4 inches. The results, no difference.
There was plenty of facts and values and all that....but in the
end....no difference. So some build-up of waste..etc.... in the water
was deemed ok.

[Graham Broadbridge]

"Fish Heads" > wrote in message
...
> Talking about water changes of course. Now that I've got my bio filter
> built back up, I'm thinking about going to 11% changes twice per week. Is
> that any better or worse than 22% once per week? I can actually see a few
> advantages and disadvantages to both.

If you have the time, I'd change less water more often. More stable tank
chemistry that way.


Graham.

[coelacanth]

> Without a TDS/conductivity meter its just going to be guesswork.....I
> have one and I know precisely when and how much water to change so my
> fish do not get shocked and I do not have unhealthy build-ups....well
> maybe I do sometimes.....but I know about it though...........

Okay, I'll admit ignorance. Why is a TDS/conductivity meter such an
essential tool? Surely, not all dissolved solids/conductive ions are
harmful to fish. How would the readings be interpreted if used in a tank
with hard water or added salt? Is it more meaningful to concentrate on
reducing dissolved solids rather than reducing NOx and NHx?

-coelacanth

[Shane Kennedy]

i too believe in the less-water, more-often method
i'm doing 3%/day
i set up my tank w/ a drip feed from ro/di unit
& an overflow cut in the side that's tied in to the sewer lines of my house
i can see where hooking up to house plumping could be a bit of a challange for most
but i was lucky in that i have a basement w/ suspended ceilings

[Robert Flory]

"coelacanth"

SNIP
> wrote Is it more meaningful to concentrate on
> reducing dissolved solids rather than reducing NOx and NHx?
>
> -coelacanth
>
Probably not ..... It is just another tool.

TDS is like lots of other water parameters. Some fish do best in certain
ranges others may not care much. Abrupt changes of any of the parameters
are rough on fish. TDS is a garbage can term..... it maters just as much
WHAT is in the can as it does HOW MUCH is in the can. Obviously some things
are more toxic than others.

In the environmental business TDS and all the rest aren't the final test....
The fish kill test is the one that determines if the water you are dumping
is "OK" to the EPA. It is the measure real life toxicity test. Rainbow
trout are really touchy, a variety of others minnows less so. The first
test I ever had to run had 100% survival in the test tank and 60% survival
in the supposedly clean water standard tank. Rough life for test fish, but
the EPA thinks it is cool.

On topic, TDS is a good cheap test to monitor over all water quality
changes. pH, kH, gH and all the rest don't count for much if the other
dissolved materials reach a toxic level. I suspect osmotic shock is just as
much a killer as the rest. Obviously any of them in combination will wipe
out a fish. They are inter-related to a point. I would assume TDS to
increase with higher kH and gH, however TDS may not reflect TOC (total
organic carbon) which reflects the amount of Organics in the soup. I'm sure
dissolved ionic compounds like salt have a greater effect on TDS than a more
charge neutral organic compound, after all a TDS meter measures the
conductivity (the ease with which electricity passes through the liquid) but
doesn't really tell you what the dissolved material is.

During my oilfield days, we used conductivity as measured by wireline
logging equipment to calculate oil saturations. Most places we assumed
conductivity was all due to salt (NaCl), but I did a lot of work in "fresh
water" country where you had to use a whole bunch of fudge factors to make
the standard equations work. I ramble... but the point is conductivity
measures ease of movement of electrons..... TDS is related to that, neither
tell you what is in the water, so you need to check all the parameters once
in a while.

Bob>

[~Vicki ~]

Having said all that, I'm a firm believer that aquariums are like
preparing fine meals. There are many recipes to success.
NetMax
>
>
>
>
Thank you. And you are absolutely right there.
(ask me for my brownie recipe one day :)

Vicki

[Cam]

Hey RACF :)

I hear what you're saying.
But what i don't understand is this: (hypothetical situation)

I go to lake Tanganyika and measure the TDS of the water there. I get my
measurement and go home. I measure the TDS of my tapwater. I then try to
match my water as closely as i can to the lakes using what as a reference
point?. I could add coral sand or salt and arrive at the same tds reading as
the lake but would'nt the composition of the TDS be completely different?
Surely the lake has an abundance of trace elements, how do you
differentiate? How do i know which traces to add?

I also agree with you that we should be fussing over TDS rather than messing
with PH (besides for breeders that is) But the average Hobbyist IMO really
should not worry about PH. This is all relative mind you, obviously I
would'nt put my neons with the Malawis for example.

In ad Konings book he clearly states the composition of the trace elements.
How did he arrive at this conclusion? Specialised equipment maybe? Please
fill me in as I find this topic most interesting.

Thanks d00d
Regards
Cam

[Racf]

"NetMax" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Racf" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > > A discus guy did an experiment comparing fry growth relative to
water
> > > change frequency.
> >
> > Here is the link:
> >
> > http://members.shaw.ca/dclubine/master.htm
> >
> > under Experiment
>
> Thanks for the link. I became more interested as soon as he had the
> micron filters on both, reducing the variables and validating the test
> better. I found it particularly interesting that the beefheart
somehow
> caused some skittishness. It's always good practice to vary the
foods.
> My only negative comment would be that the level of biological
filtration
> appeared low, making it less representative of the average home
aquarium,
> but he needed to focus on his primary objective which was running a
> Discus grow-out tank. I wonder how that article was received by the
> Discus community? ;~)
>
> NetMax
>
>

The folklore for about the last 5 years or so was that any organic
build-up would impede growth of fry. This lore has lead to many
fishrooms being designed with drip systems to change out 50% to 100%+
amounts of water per day in order to achieve maximum growth. He
challenged that.....and appears to be correct. I am in the 50% per week
group already........so I was pleased.

Beefheart mixes are a cost effective staple for a lot of Discus
breeders.....self made food with all sorts of different recipes......Its
not too unusual for some of them to be rejected.....especially when
other foods are being offered.

I thought he was using sponge filters for bio filters...thats fairly
standard with a lot of breeders.

The micron filters is unusual......my guess is he used them instead of
siphoning off as many do.

On the www.simplydiscus.com forum....there seemed to be moderate
interest in the experiment. The topic was frozen so as to make the data
more available to new viewers. It looks mixed to me.. Here is a link
to the whole thread:

http://www.simplydiscus.com/forum/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=9248

[NetMax]

"Racf" > wrote in message
...
>
> "NetMax" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Racf" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > >
> > > > A discus guy did an experiment comparing fry growth relative to
> water
> > > > change frequency.
> > >
> > > Here is the link:
> > >
> > > http://members.shaw.ca/dclubine/master.htm
> > >
> > > under Experiment
> >
> > Thanks for the link. I became more interested as soon as he had the
> > micron filters on both, reducing the variables and validating the
test
> > better. I found it particularly interesting that the beefheart
> somehow
> > caused some skittishness. It's always good practice to vary the
> foods.
> > My only negative comment would be that the level of biological
> filtration
> > appeared low, making it less representative of the average home
> aquarium,
> > but he needed to focus on his primary objective which was running a
> > Discus grow-out tank. I wonder how that article was received by the
> > Discus community? ;~)
> >
> > NetMax
> >
> >
>
> The folklore for about the last 5 years or so was that any organic
> build-up would impede growth of fry. This lore has lead to many
> fishrooms being designed with drip systems to change out 50% to 100%+
> amounts of water per day in order to achieve maximum growth. He
> challenged that.....and appears to be correct. I am in the 50% per
week
> group already........so I was pleased.
>
> Beefheart mixes are a cost effective staple for a lot of Discus
> breeders.....self made food with all sorts of different
recipes......Its
> not too unusual for some of them to be rejected.....especially when
> other foods are being offered.
>
> I thought he was using sponge filters for bio filters...thats fairly
> standard with a lot of breeders.
>
> The micron filters is unusual......my guess is he used them instead of
> siphoning off as many do.
>
> On the www.simplydiscus.com forum....there seemed to be moderate
> interest in the experiment. The topic was frozen so as to make the
data
> more available to new viewers. It looks mixed to me.. Here is a link
> to the whole thread:
>
>
http://www.simplydiscus.com/forum/index.php?board=1;action=display;thread
id=9248

Thanks for the link racf. It progressed pretty much as I would have
expected, especially after Donna weighed in. ;~) From my amateur
hobbyist perspective, it seems that there would be a benefit in
customizing a filtration system for Discus. It would involve :

i) potted plants (no substrate)
ii) a continuous automatic vacuum system
iii) semi-automatic partial water change system keyed to start 30 minutes
after feeding, which would backwash # ii).

I've done elements of everything described, just not packaged it as
described. Maybe someone should build it and post the mechanical design
& schematic, or contract me to put it together. It would tie in nicely
with my current research into the different carbon quality levels for
in-line chlorine & chloramine removal on automated water changers.

I need to retire to have more time to play with all this stuff ;~)

NetMax