Question on water change

[Tula]

Ahhhhhh, the joy of sipping coffee in bed, listening to the sound of the waterfall through my bedroom window.....knowing the round up was yesterday - LOL !

 

[Mucky_Waters]

I apologize if you took personal offense to my post. None was intended.
I do not apologize for finding the example humorous, because it is.

It's OK Meyer, because I actually find your seemingly apparent lack of understanding of the simple dilution and elimination principle behind water changes kind of humorous. Although I would have never stated that in an open forum without an opening like this.
In previous posts you have asked for examples of what sort of chemicals could be building up in a pond that might benefit from water changes, so I provided one which seems perfectly logical. Of course it doesn't fit with your no water change stance, but instead of producing any sort of logical reasoning to dispute it you tried to ridicule it by making a joke out of it with your example.
Nothing personal, but that right there is a very weak debating tactic.

I agree that having all one sex (eg; all males) might be a better way to keep things better under control with regard to the stresses of spawning, but in a pond with mixed sexes where males are becoming aggressive because of constantly being exposed to higher concentrations of sex pheromones in the water, which would not normally be found in a natural flow through system, why wouldn't it make sense to dilute those levels somehow to correspondingly reduce the stress levels?
Also with regard to spawning in a heavily stocked pond, the water quality can become very adversely effected (eg; milky water and foam) and benefit from a water change, or preferably an ongoing water replacement.

 

[Meyer Jordan]

It's OK Meyer, because I actually find your seemingly apparent lack of understanding of the simple dilution and elimination principle behind water changes kind of humorous. Although I would have never stated that in an open forum without an opening like this.
In previous posts you have asked for examples of what sort of chemicals could be building up in a pond that might benefit from water changes, so I provided one which seems perfectly logical. Of course it doesn't fit with your no water change stance, but instead of producing any sort of logical reasoning to dispute it you tried to ridicule it by making a joke out of it with your example.
Nothing personal, but that right there is a very weak debating tactic.

I agree that having all one sex (eg; all males) might be a better way to keep things better under control with regard to the stresses of spawning, but in a pond with mixed sexes where males are becoming aggressive because of constantly being exposed to higher concentrations of sex pheromones in the water, which would not normally be found in a natural flow through system, why wouldn't it make sense to dilute those levels somehow to correspondingly reduce the stress levels?
Also with regard to spawning in a heavily stocked pond, the water quality can become very adversely effected (eg; milky water and foam) and benefit from a water change, or preferably an ongoing water replacement.

I found the use of spawning as an example humorous for the simple reason that, in practice, it would be virtually impossible to attain any degree of effective dilution before this pheromone had an effect. Perhaps a different example may do more to promote your position.
I am not really convinced that water quality is adversely affected by this naturally occurring event. It may not look or smell right to a human, but from the fish's point of view it is hardly an issue as these organics are quickly dissipated by natural means.

 

[Meyer Jordan]

the simple dilution and elimination principle behind water changes

I understand this principle quite well. Well enough to realize that a 10% - 20% water change will not effectively dilute anything to any greater extent than 10%-20% which can hardly be considered an effective dilution when 80% - 90% of the target substance still remains in the water column.

 

[Lisak1]

which can hardly be considered an effective dilution when 80% - 90% of the target substance still remains in the water column.

Agreed. Also, if the desired effect is to reduce the assumed stress that spawning puts on the system (in this particular example), how do you factor for the assumed stress that a water change creates (both assumptions being equal). Also, if 10 or 20% is good, then would 50-60% be better and 90-100% be best? And what if the assumed dilution applies not only to undesirable factors in the water, but also dilutes desirable elements in the water?

 

[IPA]

@Mucky_Waters @Meyer Jordan, I like the healthy debate because it helps many of us become better pond keepers. For every member there are probably 10 or more visitors who will also be trying to follow and comprehend the information, so seriously, and sincerely,Thanks.

And now something completely irrelevant:
Antonia Cook: You must be so excited.
Steve: I hope so. You think it went OK?
Antonia Cook: No. Congratulations... Seriously.
Steve: Thanks. I wish it didn't require the "seriously," but thank you.

 

[Gemma]

Ahhhhhh, the joy of sipping coffee in bed, listening to the sound of the waterfall through my bedroom window.....knowing the round up was yesterday - LOL !

I have the same feeling every year, after all my plants are put away for the winter!

@Mucky_Waters @Meyer Jordan, I like the healthy debate because it helps many of us become better pond keepers. For every member there are probably 10 or more visitors who will also be trying to follow and comprehend the information, so seriously, and sincerely,Thanks.

.

I'm not getting involved for obvious reasons, but I'm still following with interest...so thank you from me too!

 

[Lisak1]

You obviously asked a question that many of us have thought long and hard about, so good job @Gemma !

I, too, love a good back and forth sharing of ideas - there's no better way to learn than to listen to what someone says who disagrees with you. You may not end up changing your mind, but you'll definitely have a better idea of why you believe the way you do.

 

[Mucky_Waters]

it would be virtually impossible to attain any degree of effective dilution before this pheromone had an effect.

There is a difference between something having and effect and being overwhelmed by something. A strong cup of coffee in the morning has an effect on me, but if I was being forced to drink it constantly all day and night..... Well lets just say it would go beyond just having an effect.
The whole point is just to try and dilute it to what it might be like in a natural setting instead of being exposed to concentrations well beyond what is natural.
Similarly another substance that fish excrete that can build up and cause stress is ammonia, and if for some reason levels of ammonia in the water approach levels that can cause fish stress a water change (dilution) is a widely accepted procedure for quickly bring those levels down. I assume you must similarly find humor in that as well?

Agreed. Also, if the desired effect is to reduce the assumed stress that spawning puts on the system (in this particular example), how do you factor for the assumed stress that a water change creates (both assumptions being equal). Also, if 10 or 20% is good, then would 50-60% be better and 90-100% be best? And what if the assumed dilution applies not only to undesirable factors in the water, but also dilutes desirable elements in the water?

Lisa you are right that a 100% water change would be the most effective and is certainly closer to what happens in a natural environment and yet generally causes no stress to the fish. The scenario is one where the fish are already visibly stressed and a method of water change is one that causes no stress otherwise, ya, there would be no point.
Water changes are not at all stressful if done properly.

 

[bettasngoldfish]

Water changes are not at all stressful if done properly.

Agreed 100%

I have tried to get this point across many times on this forum.

 

[Tula]

With the sand & gravel filter we're now using, this is the first time I've actually pumped water out of the pond while back flushing, then adding water to refill what was pumped out.......resulting in a water change. Previously I just topped off the pond, or over flowed it a bit.

I'm not a scientist, or an expert........but my 4 koi have positively thrived this summer. When I say thrive, I mean they are interactive, active, feeding well and growing. I've also noticed changes in the skin of one of my koi......it has developed furkin and is very lustrous.

I'm only sharing my personal experience

 

[Meyer Jordan]

The whole point is just to try and dilute it to what it might be like in a natural setting instead of being exposed to concentrations well beyond what is natural.

Which is one of the problem areas that I see with recurring water changes. What is "it"? How does one know that concentrations are above what is "natural"?
I have stated repeatedly that there are occasions where water changes are indicated. What I take issue with is conducting water changes on a recurring basis for no identifiable reason...no symptoms or indications of water quality issues that can't be permanently corrected in other ways.
Ammonia spikes are indeed one of those times (acute) where a water change would be indicated, but this is typically an event occurring only during pond cycling. Even here, once the pond has cycled, Ammonia should no longer be a problem and a water change is unnecessary.
Water changes are never a cure for recurring (chronic) water quality issues. The source of these issues should always be identified and eliminated and without any recurring, identifiable water quality issues there is no valid reason for conducting water changes.

 

[Meyer Jordan]

Agreed 100%

I have tried to get this point across many times on this forum.

A 100% water change is not stressful to fish? Of course it is, as would be 75% or 40% or even 10%. The amount of stress would be in direct proportion to the level of water change. The impact of this stress would be determined by the sudden altering (and level of altering) of environmental factors (water quality parameters). Granted a 10% water change would impart very little stress to fish, but it also alters the water chemistry only 10%. The water chemistry in a pond can easily fluctuate 10% or more over 24 hours naturally and still maintain acceptable level ranges. The biochemical make-up of the pond is not noticeably changed. Yet, are we to believe that a weekly 10% water change will accomplish what Nature does not?
Aquaculture facilities that utilize intensive RAS, quite often (dependent on species) will add 1% -10% of the water volume to make up for evaporation loss and system flushing, but this is done on a daily basis, not weekly or monthly, to minimize stress and is not done to replace or minimize any minerals. Only if the Nitrogen cycle becomes overwhelmed are large water changes performed.

 

[Meyer Jordan]

With the sand & gravel filter we're now using, this is the first time I've actually pumped water out of the pond while back flushing, then adding water to refill what was pumped out.......resulting in a water change. Previously I just topped off the pond, or over flowed it a bit.

I'm not a scientist, or an expert........but my 4 koi have positively thrived this summer. When I say thrive, I mean they are interactive, active, feeding well and growing. I've also noticed changes in the skin of one of my koi......it has developed furkin and is very lustrous.

I'm only sharing my personal experience

Could it be possible that this is a result of better overall filtration? This was your reason for the addition of the sand and gravel filter, was it not?

 

[bettasngoldfish]

@Meyer Jordan You misunderstood me. I said I agree with him 100%.

Although I don't feel 100% water changes are all that stressful. Many of my betta fish got 100% water changes weekly and sometimes more with no ill effect.