Water changes do not remove bacteria for the most part. They may remove or lower the ammonia and nitrites and thus some bacteria may die off, but for the most part a water change has little affect on the bacteria, and that's my understanding.
Ick does not occur because of any nutrient/toxin spike. It's introduced when you add infected plants and fish.
I worry more about pH shock when I do large water changes.
Confused Newbie... can you help?
33 posts • Page 4 of 4
-
miami754 - Posts: 373
- Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 9:18 am
Thanks Peter for backing me up. I totally agree that the more pressing issue with a large water changes would be a big swing in pH if your tap water is much different than your tank pH. Now this could cause problems.
And yasher, nitrates are not "good" compounds. They are just "less toxic" compounds. The fish don't care if you have a reading of 0 ppm nitrates - it makes no difference to them. It is not like they need the nitrates. All they care about is that all of the compounds (ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate) are kept to a minimum. Since ammonia and nitrite are so much more toxic to fish, it is important to keep tham at 0 ppm. Since nitrates are less toxic, you can let them get up to 15 ppm or so before you need to do a water change. Saying that nitrates are good is just wrong. They are simply the lesser of three evils.
Other than that I think I am done with this thread. I am moving on. Thanks again Peter for agreeing and offering your own supporting information.
And yasher, nitrates are not "good" compounds. They are just "less toxic" compounds. The fish don't care if you have a reading of 0 ppm nitrates - it makes no difference to them. It is not like they need the nitrates. All they care about is that all of the compounds (ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate) are kept to a minimum. Since ammonia and nitrite are so much more toxic to fish, it is important to keep tham at 0 ppm. Since nitrates are less toxic, you can let them get up to 15 ppm or so before you need to do a water change. Saying that nitrates are good is just wrong. They are simply the lesser of three evils.
Other than that I think I am done with this thread. I am moving on. Thanks again Peter for agreeing and offering your own supporting information.
-
yasherkoach - Posts: 1306
- Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 1:24 pm
well I thought this matter or debate was settled too from the other page.
technically, you are correct miami that nitrate is lesser of the three evils; the reason I said good is because I rather have nitrate above 0 than nitrite and ammonia. But to be more specific for this debate, I will stick to your line of thought, that it is lesser of the three evils
I do still disagree with the 80% water change all at once, but so be it. I think she should have water changed 20% every 2-3 days to reach the 80%.
Also you are right, ammonia is a compound. Bacteria converts ammonia, nitrite and nitrate into toxins that are less toxic to the fish. But I still disagree that a 80% water change all at once in a 2 week old freshwater tank is okay. I disagree with this completely for it will wreck havoc with the good bacteria, minerals, or nutrients.
even though I still disagree with you on the gist on this thread I believe kimberhugo has enough info to begin to form an informed decision on her own.
so instead of turning this into an argument, I will agree with you on one thing miami, "I am done with this thread. I am moving on."
technically, you are correct miami that nitrate is lesser of the three evils; the reason I said good is because I rather have nitrate above 0 than nitrite and ammonia. But to be more specific for this debate, I will stick to your line of thought, that it is lesser of the three evils
I do still disagree with the 80% water change all at once, but so be it. I think she should have water changed 20% every 2-3 days to reach the 80%.
Also you are right, ammonia is a compound. Bacteria converts ammonia, nitrite and nitrate into toxins that are less toxic to the fish. But I still disagree that a 80% water change all at once in a 2 week old freshwater tank is okay. I disagree with this completely for it will wreck havoc with the good bacteria, minerals, or nutrients.
even though I still disagree with you on the gist on this thread I believe kimberhugo has enough info to begin to form an informed decision on her own.
so instead of turning this into an argument, I will agree with you on one thing miami, "I am done with this thread. I am moving on."
