NO NEED TO WATER CHANGE EVER AGAIN

by **yasherkoach** » Sun Dec 11, 2011 7:48 pm

DO NOT TRY THIS UNLESS YOU ARE EXPERIENCED

I have proven that there is no need to water change ever again - that's right, EVER AGAIN!
How? Simple -

Anyone on this forum who knows me, knows that the tank I have has no filtration, no lighting except for aeration provided by a few air stones to produce the much needed oxygen and a heater...all else is natural rock/stone, wood and live plants with naturally grown cladophora (algae). This is the tank set-up.

I use absolutely no chemicals in the tank. I have 40 fish in the tank. I test every Sunday for ammonia, nitrite and nitrate. I test for temperature every day. There is direct sunlight on one half of the tank. I fed Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday (human food and frozen bloodworms and shrimp).

Topped off the tank one or two days per week with a gallon or so of tap water.

This is the tank set-up.

October 16, 2011 was the last time I water changed. The chemicals, ammonia, nitrite and nitrate remained steady (ammonia: 0; nitrite 0; nitrate 40). On December 4, 2011 the ammonia level rose to 1.5 ppm, nitrite to 0.25 ppm and nitrate to 60 ppm.

I asked myself, should I water change or can I approach this in another way...........naturally.

I did not feed the fish in the tank (from Sunday, December 4, 2011 to December 11, 2011 Sunday); the fish were not lethargic, as playful as ever...and the liquid water test on December 11, 2011 revealed: ammonia 0; nitrite: 0; nitrate 40.

Yes, the fish get to eat on Monday (((smiles)))

Again, I have proven the fish industry is a huge hoax. The "experts" are more stupid than ever. It's all about the chemicals and the regulation thereof.

by **DanDman18** » Sun Dec 11, 2011 11:19 pm

So if ammonia goes up you should/could just not feed them until it goes back down?

by **yasherkoach** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:34 am

exactly - ammonia from fish feces is the sole cause of the ammonia rising

but like I said, one should be experienced in this hobby, in other words, one should know all about chemical testing and fish compatibility...and a good amount of good bacteria or nitro-bacteria...see the chemical process is simple: (1) food; (2) feces or decay; (3) ammonia (post-cycling creates the nitrite and nitrate) or the nitro-bacteria);(4) nitro-bacteria; (5) cycle completes

NEVER EVER TRY THIS IN A TANK THAT IS CYCLING - THE TANK MUST BE CYCLED

The nitro-bacteria will feed off the ammonia and the nitrite, thereby bringing the levels down to zero. The fish are not defecating or creating any more waste (ammonia) so it further helps the ammonia and nitrite levels to come down to zero.

Understand? It is a process. A natural cycle.

but again, ABSOLUTELY, if the feed is cut out - and by the way, I did not lose one fish all week due to the food deprivation for the fish further cleaned the tank by living off any foodstuffs or microorganisms in the tank - the tank will naturally replenish itself without a single water change

by **Alasse** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:50 am

Yep, which is why i only water change every 2-3 months.

Its not just the ammonia, nitrite and nitrate that is an issue, for me i require a decent change for the plants sakes and because i add fertz to one tank.

I do the same with planted cycling tanks. I do not water change until it has cycled.

by **natalie265** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:11 pm

yasher, i think your wording is a bit strong when you say that the fish industry is a huge hoax and the experts are stupid. You, yourself state that only an experienced fish keeper should try your method. It isn't for everyone. While i agree with your basic philosophy that espouses a more natural approach, i think that for the average fish keeper, filters and regular water changes are desirable.

by **yasherkoach** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:32 pm

all I am saying is, the fish industry is a huge financial market...the natural process is more akin to a fish's way of life than all the human gadgetry we put into the tanks. The seas, ponds, streams, rivers, lakes, oceans, even the swamps all have natural processes. I am simply bringing the tank as close as possible to the natural process that each fish in the tank is instinctively attune to.

Do we really need filters? Or is it because the "experts" in this field say so? Do we really need chemical agents added to the water; do we really need halogen, fluorescent, halide lighting fixtures above the tanks; do we really need artificial plants and rocks and little porcelain objects in the water?

I say, absolutely not - but the "experts" say it is true - so it must be true, right?

I say, wrong. And the tank I have proves the "experts" are dead wrong.

But if the average fish keeper wants to fall into the belief that the fish are better off with all the above-listed, then so be it - when I first started this hobby, I too believed the "experts" - all I am saying is, see through it for what it is, do we do what we do in this hobby for the fish or to satisfy some selfish human want?

Of course, we all have choice...I made mine.

by **DanDman18** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:08 pm

I think people should do at least a 20% watch change monthly, not for the ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, but just so new watch gets added, and so the fish aren't swimming in their waste. While the bacteria may get rid of the toxic parts to their waste, it is still waste. Would you want to swim in your urine just because someone said it's not bad for you? I agree the fish industry has people that want to make a quick buck, but somethings i do agree with. I know from experiance that growing up my father kept a 55 gallon with a bunch of fish, but never once in 13 years did water changes, however the fish grew alright. I do have one question though, if you don't do watch changes how do you get your nitrate down if you don't have live plants?

by **Alasse** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:39 am

There are things that need to be removed for an enclosed system. Hormones your fish excrete are not removed and can harm your fish in high doses. Electrolytes need to be replaces, can only be done in a tank with water changes. There is much hidden in water than just the basic ammonia, nitrate, nitrite....you are doing you fish a disservice.'

2 months is hardly time to be crowing about never needing a waterchange again EVER *LOL* Give it a year or so and see how your fish are doing, Come back and let me know

Yep there is a lot of bunkum out there and yes i agree that people now muck with their tanks too much. I personally dont, but i dont believe in absolutely NO maintenace at all,

Fish are hardy, and can tolerate a lot, but why? For the sake of a waterchange every 2-3 months. I mean honestly thats not proving much at all really, well that some are lazy i spose lol, but your fish far benefit from a waterchange than not.

Theres stretching the limits, something i have no issue in and, yep yasher i supported you, but this claim is rediculous.

After a year (or 13) you try adding some new fish into your waterchangeless enviro and see how they deal with the buildup of nasties 'the 'natives' have acclimatized to

by **natalie265** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 2:05 am

Nowhere in nature will you find so many fish in such a small amount of water. Even our most lightly stocked tanks can't compare with the amount of water per fish in the ocean, or the rivers and lakes of the world. You can't compare a fish tank, which is a completely unnatural condition to a natural body of water.

Another point: think about a lake. Not only is it much more lightly stocked than our fish tanks, but the water is constantly being renewed. Lakes are fed by rivers and snow melt. Rivers flow from lakes. Rain falls. Water evaporates. Honestly, it seems to me that doing water changes is more "natural" than NOT doing water changes. In nature, water doesn't just sit there and stagnate for months on end!

by **yasherkoach** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:42 am

for starters, like I said, I add about 2 gallons of fresh water each week to the tank for the water does evaporate

second, last year, mzhantsche stated: "Thats what i like about the people on this site. trying different ideas. Good luck Yasher. Ill be checking your updates to see the progress. I suspect the ammonia will get out of control too. We should take a guess on how long it will take. I say 13 days." on Wed Nov 10, 2010 12:43 am GMT

It's been over one year without filtration and lighting except for natural sunlight...during the entire year, I only lost 6 fish (all platys because the redtail shark stressed them out)

so we will see if I am right or not, come November 2012, if I do prove that no water changes is possible, and the fish are fine and the chemicals tested: ammonia, nitrite and nitrate are within their ranges (that is, 0, 0, 40), then I am sure my point will be well taken and understood

Before October 2011, I water changed 20% each week for over three years - then I spoke with a marine biologist who said, one needs only change the water every 6 weeks and only if the ammonia and nitrite levels rise...so I took it a step further, I went passed the 6 weeks - one week I did not feed, the ammonia and nitrite levels came back down to 0/0 without a water change...so explain to me Natalie or Alasse, how could this have happened without a water change? Because I permitted the natural process to occur.

Now I understand rivers etc constantly replenish themselves by having the water never remain stagnant - even swamps get replenished by rainfall - one of the reasons I place 2 gallons of water into the tank each week - but we are somehow forgetting a very basic fact on fish keeping: if ammonia, nitrite are 0, and nitrate remains 40 ppm and under, isn't this all that matters to have a healthy tank?

It's simple stuff guys - I'm not looking for an excuse to not water change; but if the theory is practical, which so far it is, why disrupt a natural process by human intervention?

as a side note: Dan, I do have live plants which keep the nitrates in check...but nitrates, even at 40 ppm is not toxic...if over 50-80 ppm, the fish stress, over 80 ppm, usually the fish will die...hope this answers your question (in other words, nitrates don't have to be at 0 like ammonia and nitrite)

Natalie and Alasse, come November 2012, when my stance is proven right...do I get a kiss on each cheek from the both of you (((smiles)))

NO NEED TO WATER CHANGE EVER AGAIN

21 posts • Page 1 of 3