Question on water change

[Lisak1]

now I really don't know what to do

Continue reading and asking questions. Ultimately you have to do what makes the most sense to you. All anyone here can do is share their own experiences. To me, a balanced ecosystem is the goal and once in balance needs no intervention to stay balanced.

 

[MitchM]

The best thing you can do is make an educated decision.
If you're going to perform a water change, be aware of how your water quality will change. (maybe a lot, maybe a little)
If you're not going to perform a water change, be aware that your pond is best with a stable environment so make sure your filter system is capable of handling the present bioload.

 

[bettasngoldfish]

No need to apologize, a healthy debate can be very educational, I just didn't want to be the one causing it

This difference in opinions really came as a surprise to me, I thought for sure regular water changes were a common practice among fish keepers, now I really don't know what to do

There are many people who have ponds and do regular water changes as part of the routine maintenence.

You should do what you are comfortable with to keep your fish happy and healthy.

 

[Lisak1]

There are many people who have ponds and do regular water changes as part of the routine maintenence.

Yup! It makes you think that we are really just making ourselves happy and the fish could care less either way, doesn't it?

 

[Meyer Jordan]

sorry I offended you
the hobby is data to support this. Look up water changes for ponds. Or water changes.

And what scientific journal or publication would I find these in?. Anything else is purely he said, she said anecdotal postings with no scientific standing.

 

[DutchMuch]

@Meyer Jordan read this whole thing page 4 page, then your eyes may be opened my son...
https://barrreport.com/threads/rotala-kill-tank.13975/
And every single page of every journal on that website, and APC, and TPT, then maybe you just MIGHT understand what im saying.

When you're ready to discuss the chemical/biological aspects of an aquatic ecosystem, we can revisit this.

im just addressing what you said lmfao. If you want to talk about this PM me and we can talk.

 

[bettasngoldfish]

Yup! It makes you think that we are really just making ourselves happy and the fish could care less either way, doesn't it?

Well not exactly.....fish don't care because they are not capable of caring. However they will let you know there is a problem with water quality when they start having health issues.

As we have discussed before every situation is different. Water changes are especially important in smaller or overstocked ponds.

As for making ourselves happy, isn't that what this is all about?

 

[Lisak1]

Well not exactly.....fish don't care because they are not capable of caring. However they will let you know there is a problem with water quality when they start having health issues.

I was really just kidding - I'm sure the fish really do care as every living thing wants to continue living. As you said, the particulars of a pond will determine whether it can be a self-sustaining ecosystem or if it needs more regular outside intervention.

 

[brokensword]

so, are we all in agreement that if a system is balanced, that water changes are unnecessary?

 

[DutchMuch]

are we all in agreement that if a system is balanced, that water changes are unnecessary?

sword im not going after you here,
Many "systems" aren't balanced even when people say they are. Balancing a body of water, just one drop of ANYTHING can ruin that so called balance. Literally. if a pebble falls in the water, your system will COLLAPSE because of the 0.00000001Gh that pebble just caused to raise. Rain can do this to because of all the junk it encounters, on the way down from the clouds themselves!

 

[DutchMuch]

particulars of a pond will determine whether it can be a self-sustaining ecosystem or if it needs more regular outside intervention.

The larger the body of water (in this case) the less effect, something that enters that body of water, will have on the body of water. ocean for example, if I took a bottle of mtn dew and poured it straight into the ocean, it would slowly dissolve over time, slowly or quickly idk but it will dissolve. Now of course if you crashed 2000000k fighter jets into the ocean carrying nuclear warheads, maybe you'd have a more permanent effect.
Plus the ocean is saltwater and it carries all sorts of things that we haven't even discovered yet that, who knows, maybe those things like mountain dew...
Conclusion of this reply:
Small thing in a big area, little effect
Big thing in a small area, big effect
Little thing in little area, medium effect
big thing in big area, big effect


@Gemma looks like your post has sparked a nice little debate here lol its a good one.

 

[brokensword]

Dutch; yes, I knew this when I posed my question because 'balance' is a number that probably occurs randomly depending on which side of the 'balance' you're adding/subtracting. Of course I assume there's a reasonable 'range' for the values in questions such that the negative effects are 'handled' before any irrevocable damage is done. Which is to say; if the inhabitants (plants, animals, living organisms) are growing and reproducing, that you're on the 'positive' side of the balance and all is okay.

I accept the fact our ponds are not 'natural' because most have a fish/animal density that is 'unnatural' compared to what Nature provides. That said, I think if you can mimic nature as close as you can and deal with problems increased density give, it's the best you can do. So, changing water CAN get rid of some water which might be toxic. If the pond is thriving though, I don't see any reason to change anything, especially the water. The evidence should be right in front of you. Doesn't mean it won't change and water changes might be beneficial but it would be one of my last ditch attempts to save the fish/frogs/turtles/plants.

Just my two cents.

 

[DutchMuch]

If the pond is thriving though, I don't see any reason to change anything, especially the water.

If you have 1$ and your ok with that, would you want 100$?
If you had 1 house, for free, would you want 2 houses?
Why not turn something that is supposedly "thriving" (in an opinion), to something that is more than thriving? ex. Really Thriving. Not just thriving.

The evidence should be right in front of you.

This is my evidence, to you.

 

[brokensword]

If you have 1$ and your ok with that, would you want 100$?
If you had 1 house, for free, would you want 2 houses?
Why not turn something that is supposedly "thriving" (in an opinion), to something that is more than thriving? ex. Really Thriving. Not just thriving.

This is my evidence, to you.

More is not always better, Dutch; you'll learn this with more life experience (not trying to put you down). I've never been one to look askance at the $1 and see those that jump for the $100 too soon over their heads in a race to the same place my $1 got me.

And 'thriving' was qualified; growing, reproducing. Anything more is still thriving.

 

[cas]

@Gemma when I first built my pond, the pond store instructed me to do water changes. After reading the many discussions on this forum I started to reconsider what I had been 'taught'. I slowly cut back on water changes and now only vacuum the bottom of the pond in the spring and the fall to remove any sediment, then replace the water that was removed. Determine what is best for you and your situation and what makes you comfortable. In my own experience, I am glad I am no longer doing water changes.