Water Changes

[barryian]

I hear ya - Have a fresh cord in a shed I built just for that. Just too warm for a fire here which is quite unusual.
Enjoy ... Barry

 

[MitchM]

Smaugs claims above are not backed up by science.
Trying to remove bacteria is a bad idea because bacteria are some of the very organisms that keep the water safe for the fish to live in.
"Swimming in their own filth".... I don't even know what that means.
There are constant biological processes happening in a pond and fish live in that environment. Always have, always will.

As far as performing water changes as being "the best way to keep an algae free pond"...try water changing your way out of a suspended algae problem. It won't work.
Stock your pond appropriately, keep the water well oxygenated and don't overfeed.

Overstocking a pond is hazardous for the fish, and will overload a pond's filtering capacity but apparently that practice is ok........(it's not)
Hopefully new ponders don't try to follow Smaug's example and don't listen to his (or hers) "knowledge".

.

 

[MitchM]

Hi Mitch - Well, I don't see that a 10-20% water change is upsetting the osmotic balance of a fish. I think a large ph change would do that.
Agreed, the filtration does quite a lot and my filtration is overkill. Your reason is exactly the reason that I do the changes and that is pollution.
Also, water changes keep down the phosphates and proteins which help fish growth. I recall with my old pond, the fish perked up. In my new pond, it's not that noticeable which tells me the water quality is better as they're always perky and swimming around. For that reason, less changes are necessary. I'm not sure if this is completely valid but I was always under the impression that the changes kept the bacteria and whatever might be lurking, down in numbers to a degree. Seems like common sense. So ....
I'd say it's like preventive medicine. If the koi are healthy, they'll not be affected by whatever is lurking in the pond such as aeromonas, but water changes would keep the numbers down. My pond is a clean healthy dedicated koi pond also, not a garden pond where changes would be unnecessary. Please correct me if I'm off base somewhere. Thanks.

I'm not saying that all water changes are evil, per se.
It's just the general advice and practice of performing water changes needs closer examination than "just do them"
Everyone's source water is different than their pond or aquarium water, and people should be aware of what changes are occuring when a water change is performed.

What is actually accomplished with a water change?

If a person is trying to reduce phosphorus, are they also paying attention to how much phosphorus they are adding each time they feed their fish? Phosphorus will be listed on most fish food ingredient labels. Perhaps look for a lower phosphorus fish food. How long will the lowered phosphorus level last as they keep feeding the fish?

How many people are aware of the salt level in their source water? I'm not just referring to sodium, I'm also referring to potassium and chlorine.

If there is a big difference in the salt level between the source water and the pond water, how does a person measure to what degree of stress the water change is causing the fish? The fish's kidneys need to work harder to rebalance the fish's body salt level every time a water change is performed.

If a person is trying to reduce algae, have they instead tried increasing aeration in order to allow for more vigorous bacteria activity that will consume excess ammonia produced from excess decaying organic matter?

It seems to me that the risks outweigh the benefits when deciding to perform a water change, and if people could identify what exactly they are trying to accomplish when doing a water change, there will be an alternate method to accomplish the task without subjecting the fish to the additional stress.

.

 

[morewater]

Municipalities routinely add phosphorous agents to water lines as an anti-corrosive. Doesn't everyone want to add phosphorous compounds to their ponds on a regular basis?

 

[Tula]

I am not a scientist, and don't possess all the scientific knowledge some here have. I belong to two fish forums and each have completely opposite information on water changes. Frankly, I'm too intimidated to post on either forum....I didn't used to feel that way here.

 

[Meyer Jordan]

I am not a scientist, and don't possess all the scientific knowledge some here have. I belong to two fish forums and each have completely opposite information on water changes. Frankly, I'm too intimidated to post on either forum....I didn't used to feel that way here.

There is certainly no reason for anyone to feel intimidated on this forum, unless knowledge itself intimidates you. Sometimes it is necessary to get a little 'technical' in order to explain how processes really work in Nature and to correct misconceptions regarding a certain topic. This, in no way, should intimidate anyone but instead encourage them to learn more about their hobby.

 

[Meyer Jordan]

I'm not saying that all water changes are evil, per se.
It's just the general advice and practice of performing water changes needs closer examination than "just do them"
Everyone's source water is different than their pond or aquarium water, and people should be aware of what changes are occuring when a water change is performed.

What is actually accomplished with a water change?

If a person is trying to reduce phosphorus, are they also paying attention to how much phosphorus they are adding each time they feed their fish? Phosphorus will be listed on most fish food ingredient labels. Perhaps look for a lower phosphorus fish food. How long will the lowered phosphorus level last as they keep feeding the fish?

How many people are aware of the salt level in their source water? I'm not just referring to sodium, I'm also referring to potassium and chlorine.

If there is a big difference in the salt level between the source water and the pond water, how does a person measure to what degree of stress the water change is causing the fish? The fish's kidneys need to work harder to rebalance the fish's body salt level every time a water change is performed.

If a person is trying to reduce algae, have they instead tried increasing aeration in order to allow for more vigorous bacteria activity that will consume excess ammonia produced from excess decaying organic matter?

It seems to me that the risks outweigh the benefits when deciding to perform a water change, and if people could identify what exactly they are trying to accomplish when doing a water change, there will be an alternate method to accomplish the task without subjecting the fish to the additional stress.

.

Well said!!

 

[barryian]

I'm not saying that all water changes are evil, per se.
It's just the general advice and practice of performing water changes needs closer examination than "just do them"
Everyone's source water is different than their pond or aquarium water, and people should be aware of what changes are occuring when a water change is performed.

What is actually accomplished with a water change?

If a person is trying to reduce phosphorus, are they also paying attention to how much phosphorus they are adding each time they feed their fish? Phosphorus will be listed on most fish food ingredient labels. Perhaps look for a lower phosphorus fish food. How long will the lowered phosphorus level last as they keep feeding the fish?

How many people are aware of the salt level in their source water? I'm not just referring to sodium, I'm also referring to potassium and chlorine.

If there is a big difference in the salt level between the source water and the pond water, how does a person measure to what degree of stress the water change is causing the fish? The fish's kidneys need to work harder to rebalance the fish's body salt level every time a water change is performed.

If a person is trying to reduce algae, have they instead tried increasing aeration in order to allow for more vigorous bacteria activity that will consume excess ammonia produced from excess decaying organic matter?

It seems to me that the risks outweigh the benefits when deciding to perform a water change, and if people could identify what exactly they are trying to accomplish when doing a water change, there will be an alternate method to accomplish the task without subjecting the fish to the additional stress.

.

I'm a bit confused @MitchM ... My purpose for water changes were to keep down contaminants, aeromonas and basically a higher level of bacteria that might accumulate over time. My filtration does a great job. I'm not a scientist and I basically have read different info over the 23 years. Things seem to change as the medical field when they say do this, then 10 years later it's a no, no.

So, when it comes to changes, I can't imagine doing 2 water changes in the 8 months my pond is up and running. As far as what goes in my pond, my water going in has an 8.3 ph, my pond water is 8.4 ... I raise the kh at the same time using baking soda maintaining it ( 150 + ) into my skimmer to not lower my kh.
This has no adverse effect on the koi as long as it isn't changing the ph as it should be done slowly if it will change you ph. ... I don't see any measurable amount of salt and naturally, I neutralize the chlorine. It's worked for me for ions with beautiful crystal clear water and perfect numbers and happy koi. Yet, reading this, I feel like I'm doing something wrong. Heeeellllppp !!! hahaha

Seriously, can you comment on this ....

 

[Meyer Jordan]

My purpose for water changes were to keep down contaminants, aeromonas and basically a higher level of bacteria that might accumulate over time.

I apologize for intruding here, but this begs the questions: What contaminants? How do you know that they are high? How is a high level of general bacteria harmful?

 

[morewater]

Some will always feel that there is a need for interference in the pond, that if you don't do this or don't do that, that you're neglectful. I'm from the school of "benign neglect" whereby I don't screw with it unless it needs screwing with. It's really quite simple, adequate aeration, proper fish load, adequate filtration, a decent crop of marginal plants, keep the debris off the bottom, drink gin and look at it. Simple really.

 

[Meyer Jordan]

'Benign Neglect'-----the only universally reasonable rule of Pond care.

 

[peter hillman]

There is certainly no reason for anyone to feel intimidated on this forum, unless knowledge itself intimidates you. Sometimes it is necessary to get a little 'technical' in order to explain how processes really work in Nature and to correct misconceptions regarding a certain topic. This, in no way, should intimidate anyone but instead encourage them to learn more about their hobby.

You need to have an open mind and realize there are people who know more than yourself sometimes. Then you can learn from them. I enjoy the technical aspects given by 'experts' here and elsewhere. I certainly don't have time to be an expert on everything I see or do, it's nice to have someone who's spent the time to be educated on a subject of personal interest.

 

[addy1]

I do the same, benign neglect, the pond runs itself, I just add well water now and then, feed now and then, groom lilies off and on.

 

[Lisak1]

I hope no one ever feels intimidated here! This is a great forum filled with people with varying levels of knowledge and experience. We can all learn from each other! Every question leads to more learning for me. There are times I have to read something five or six times to understand and even then I'm sometimes scratching my head. But my brain stretches and that feels good!

It is important to realize that science is constantly adding more and more to the knowledge base in all areas of life - health being a great example. Anyone else remember going in to a shoe store and getting your feet X-rayed to make sure the shoes fit? Practices need to change as we learn more and more - and that includes the pond world.

 

[MitchM]

Maybe I'm not explaining this salt thing very well.

You know how when you put salt on a slug, the slug shrivels up and dies?
That's because the salt is drawing water out of the slug and the slug dies because it's organs are not left with enough water to carry out their life functions.

The same water transfer process would happen if you could somehow put salt inside the slug, except so much water would be drawn into the slug that it's outer skin would not be able to contain all the water and the skin of the slug would rupture.

The fish's kidneys are responsible for balancing the salt content of the fish, so every time there is a change in the salt content of the water, the fish's kidneys have to work extra hard to keep the fish healthy by dealing with the change in the salt level.


barryian, to repeat Meyer Jordan's question, which contaminants, and which bacteria are you concerned about?
There are about 200 different types of bacteria in a pond, and if you have anything of a sediment layer, there are additional fungi and microbes that are capable of handling any waste and decomposition that occurs.

.

.