Question on water change

[IPA]

If you feed fish a lot of food they will grow fast, if you feed fish a

Still, I do agree that in typical backyard ponds that have plenty of plants, low fish stocks, and receive plenty of rain, water changes are much less crucial and may even be totally unnecessary, and there is even the possibility that they could do more harm then good if done improperly.

Thanks for getting this thread back on subject

 

[MitchM]

Fish, and other creatures, produce and release chemicals (hormones. pheromones, steroids, whatever) that effect themselves and each other, this fact is undeniable. Most of these chemicals released in minute quantities in nature are quickly diluted and washed away but even in the minute quantities they are produced they still are measurable and can effect themselves and or other the fish in close proximity. Concentrate fish in a condition where these chemicals can not be diluted or washed away it makes perfect sense that they are going to have more of an effect on the surrounding fish in those confined spaces. This seems like easy logic to follow, but still it's easy to ignore or deny if you don't really have a vested interest. Fish breeders on the other hand do have a vested interest and years of accumulated experience so I'll only quote the one portion of the article link I posted earlier.

Fish breeders have demonstrated that large frequent water changes can aid good growth as these dilute and/or remove some of the growth inhibiting hormones such as somatostatin. Mark Brumell (PFK interview with Jeremy Gay, 2012) recommends an unlimited supply of fresh water for optimal growth in goldfish breeding.

Still, I do agree that in typical backyard ponds that have plenty of plants, low fish stocks, and receive plenty of rain, water changes are much less crucial and may even be totally unnecessary, and there is even the possibility that they could do more harm then good if done improperly.

Except there's no data that directs us as to how much % water to change because of these unmeasurable chemicals. (pheromones). Is 5% too little and is 75% too much?
Plus there's bacteria that will use hormones and pheromones as a carbon source (food)
We can however, say why a water change is a bad idea by using hobby grade test kits. (test existing pond water and new source water)
Like you say, a pond with a diverse ecosystem will probably do fine. A more concentrated, less diverse fish keeping setup will be more likely have many kinds of water quality issues.
It sounds like the best we can do is make recommendations with what facts are available. (as usual)

 

[Meyer Jordan]

Fish, and other creatures, produce and release chemicals (hormones. pheromones, steroids, whatever) that effect themselves and each other, this fact is undeniable. Most of these chemicals released in minute quantities in nature are quickly diluted and washed away but even in the minute quantities they are produced they still are measurable and can effect themselves and or other the fish in close proximity. Concentrate fish in a condition where these chemicals can not be diluted or washed away it makes perfect sense that they are going to have more of an effect on the surrounding fish in those confined spaces. This seems like easy logic to follow, but still it's easy to ignore or deny if you don't really have a vested interest. Fish breeders on the other hand do have a vested interest and years of accumulated experience so I'll only quote the one portion of the article link I posted earlier.

Fish breeders have demonstrated that large frequent water changes can aid good growth as these dilute and/or remove some of the growth inhibiting hormones such as somatostatin. Mark Brumell (PFK interview with Jeremy Gay, 2012) recommends an unlimited supply of fresh water for optimal growth in goldfish breeding.

Still, I do agree that in typical backyard ponds that have plenty of plants, low fish stocks, and receive plenty of rain, water changes are much less crucial and may even be totally unnecessary, and there is even the possibility that they could do more harm then good if done improperly.

Then there is this sentence from the same article.

"The process described above by Dr Loh is intended to help the fish suppress the competition, in a closed environment the fish can end up suppressing itself which has a significant impact on its growth."

Which addresses this question that I posted in post #175.

"-And here is the big one, IMO, Since it is known that these purported growth inhibitors are produced internally, why would this same chemical not affect the fish that produced it?"

So in a closed system (read pond), the release of any chemical, real or purported, by a fish would have a universal effect with the source fish also being affected.

 

[Gemma]

Still, I do agree that in typical backyard ponds that have plenty of plants, low fish stocks, and receive plenty of rain, water changes are much less crucial and may even be totally unnecessary, and there is even the possibility that they could do more harm then good if done improperly.

This thread got a bit complicated for me! I do understand not every setup requires water changes, but I'm still not 100% sure if "mine" is one of'em! I think I should start a new thread, posting pics of layout and filtering feedback of my complete setup, and then you guys could help me decide if "my pond" does, or does not need water changes, ok?

 

[IPA]

This thread got a bit complicated for me! I do understand not every setup requires water changes, but I'm still not 100% sure if "mine" is one of'em! I think I should start a new thread, posting pics of layout and filtering feedback of my complete setup, and then you guys could help me decide if "my pond" does, or does not need water changes, ok?

You have made it this far through the weeds and we only lost 1 member that was banned I think DM. @budgenator poster a video link by Dr. Erik Johnson and just watched the following by him recommending 10% a week and one of the top ten mistakes.

EDIT: clean up double link

 

[MitchM]

This thread got a bit complicated for me! I do understand not every setup requires water changes, but I'm still not 100% sure if "mine" is one of'em! I think I should start a new thread, posting pics of layout and filtering feedback of my complete setup, and then you guys could help me decide if "my pond" does, or does not need water changes, ok?

I think it boils down to:
Inadequate total filtration = water changes needed
Adequate total filtration = water changes not needed

.

 

[Mucky_Waters]

Then there is this sentence from the same article.

"The process described above by Dr Loh is intended to help the fish suppress the competition, in a closed environment the fish can end up suppressing itself which has a significant impact on its growth."

Which addresses this question that I posted in post #175.

"-And here is the big one, IMO, Since it is known that these purported growth inhibitors are produced internally, why would this same chemical not affect the fish that produced it?"

So in a closed system (read pond), the release of any chemical, real or purported, by a fish would have a universal effect with the source fish also being affected.

Who is saying it doesn't have an effect of the fish producing it?

It is not uncommon for animal to excrete chemicals that effect the animals around them whether it be simple ammonia to something more seasonal like sex pheromones (hormones?). Plants and biological filters can take care of ammonia but we know that sometimes the fish in our ponds can go quite crazy during spawning where the males will chase the females around to the point of physical exhaustion or even to death. In a natural setting the female has the option that they can generally get far enough away from the males may not be able to pick up her sent, but in a closed system the males will be constantly exposed to what would be abnormally high concentrations of the (pheromones?) the female is producing. (I think we have discussed this before). This might be one readily observable circumstance where frequent water change might be useful and save the life, or health, of overly stressed fish.
Its all about the differences between a closed systems as opposed to open systems.

 

[Mucky_Waters]

I think it boils down to:
Inadequate total filtration = water changes needed
Adequate total filtration = water changes not needed

I think my last post shows a circumstance where your formula may not always apply.

 

[IPA]

NM @Gemma . There appears to be no right or wrong, or actual answer. I have read a lot of post and conclude a lot of people here do some sort of water change and a lot of the people that don't do water changes focus a lot of effort on the eco conscious pond through a bog or other means. You should do what you are comfortable with but seems if doing a water change 10% a week to 20% a month seems to be an accepted standard around here.

 

[Gemma]

You have made it this far through the weeds and we only lost 1 member that was banned I think DM. @budgenator poster a video link by Dr. Erik Johnson and just watched the following by him recommending 10% a week and one of the top ten mistakes.

EDIT: clean up double link

Thank you! Iwill watch that video after work, I'm almost out of time (lunch break)

I think it boils down to:
Inadequate total filtration = water changes needed
Adequate total filtration = water changes not needed

.

Is it safe to assume that if the water parameters are in check that the filtering system is adequate?

NM @Gemma . There appears to be no right or wrong, or actual answer. .

I should have guessed as much! ...and I don't mean to nag or dispute, I genuinely want to learn what's best for my fish

 

[Mucky_Waters]

This thread got a bit complicated for me! I do understand not every setup requires water changes, but I'm still not 100% sure if "mine" is one of'em! I think I should start a new thread, posting pics of layout and filtering feedback of my complete setup, and then you guys could help me decide if "my pond" does, or does not need water changes, ok?

I think this is something you'll have to decide for yourself, but to further complicate the mater I'd like to point out that just like its true that not all ponds may need you to do ongoing water changes, it's equally true that not all ponds need biological filters. With low enough fish stocks and enough plants and surface area in a pond a additional biological filter may be totally unnecessary. There are a lot of ponds out there that can and do get by perfectly fine with just a pump circulating water, or at most just a simple mechanical filter. In many cases having a biological filter simply adds a little insurance or back up to the normal natural biological filtering going on in the pond itself and it sure does no harm to have that back up, so why not have it? Sure it takes a little effort to set it up and clean it once in a while, but having it in place might just make the difference one day if there is a spike in ammonia levels.
You can look at water changes in the same way, are they always necessary? Probably not. Do they do any harm? No, not if done properly. Do they require effort? Sometimes, although mine doesn't other then turning a tap on in the spring and turning it off in the fall. Do they help? Under the right (or should I say wrong?) circumstance they might provide that extra little bit of help to get rid of undesirable waste or chemicals in your pond water.

Personally I do both, and I do a number of other things to my pond like net out dead plant and algae debris once in a while and have a Phoam Phractionator (protein skimmer) set up to remove DOCs. I do these things not because I have to or feel they are absolutely necessary, but because I can, and I know every little bit helps, and mostly because I enjoy the hobby.

 

[IPA]

I should have guessed as much! ...and I don't mean to nag or dispute, I genuinely want to learn what's best for my fish

You have 3,000 gallons? How many fish, how big and how often do you feed? If you minimally, less than once a day, feed and have extra room with good marginal plants than no water change; if you are at stocking limits or a little over and feed 2 or 3 times a day that probably yes to water change. Hope that is helpful.

 

[MitchM]

I think my last post shows a circumstance where your formula may not always apply.

I think we could add a caveat that would recommend water changes after a pollution event, which could be a sudden increase of either an organic or chemical pollutant.
Also, making smart choices of which sex of fish a person is going to keep is a good idea to begin with.

 

[MitchM]

...Is it safe to assume that if the water parameters are in check that the filtering system is adequate?
...

Yes, unless you notice a trend towards deteriorating water parameters.

 

[Meyer Jordan]

You can look at water changes in the same way, are they always necessary? Probably not. Do they do any harm? No, not if done properly. Do they require effort? Sometimes, although mine doesn't other then turning a tap on in the spring and turning it off in the fall. Do they help? Under the right (or should I say wrong?) circumstance they might provide that extra little bit of help to get rid of undesirable waste or chemicals in your pond water.

Interesting. On this we agree.