What is this

[philipraposo1982]

bigfoot? pacu in a 55? sounds logic to me. keep deleting my post but you know your wrong.

 

[koltsixx]

bigfoot? pacu in a 55? sounds logic to me. keep deleting my post but you know your wrong.

This is an appropriate post, I do not erase posts that disagree with mine just those which violate TOS and one where you are insulting is a violation.

As for being wrong if you say so. Your stated your evidence I did mine, people will come to their own conclusions about who is right or wrong.

 

[philipraposo1982]

Some how my point seems to have been missed. Without scientific proof your statement is anecdotal evidence yet you accused moe214 of spreading misinformation. In of itself stating personal experiences as irrefutable scientific fact is more a kin to misinformation then someone stating their opinion.

As far as experiences go I myself can site others who are of similar belief and have had experiences counter to yours yet unlike you I don't use that to dismiss anyone else's opinion that is counter to mine publicly. I myself had a bad incident where I did a significant wate change because I had been neglectful earlier in the week. How ever unknown to me line work was being done and despite using water conditioners and testing the tap water prior to initiating the change I almost lost all my fish. The fish didn't react right away(survival imperative makes them act healthy even if they feel like death till they can't fake the funk anymore). How ever shortly after the change was completed I noticed distress. Rapid gill movements and general disinterest in my presence. Then I guess the weaker more fragile species started gasping at the surface. Lucky for me the workers decided to inform us after the work was completed that the water should be safe again. So I quickly did another significant change and luckily only lost one fish. Yet even when addressing this situation about large water changes despite my personal experiences I stated that this is my opinion based on what I consider logical deduction. All in the attempt to not do what you did which was pass off anecdotal evidence as fact. Why because without knowing the scientific reasons behind my experiences I can't say anything definitively and shouldn't therefore present it as fact.

There are plenty of people who claim to have seen bigfoot, does that equal irrefutable scientific evidence that bigfoot must exist? That's the biggest issue with misinformation, anecdotal evidence should never be presented as fact. I met a elderly woman with a Pacu that had to be over 20 inches in a 55 gallon who only topped off her water that evaporated rather then actually do a change. Does that mean I should follow her lead or treat her experiences as a definitive fact that can be applied to all fish and aquarium situations? Moe214 never stated anything as definitive as you did. Yet you chose to attack his opinion by calling it misinformation with nothing other then personal experiences of you and others you knows as the basis to present your statement as fact. I simply hoped you'd see my point and just show your fellow members posts a little more respect.

As for the actual point of whether large water changes might cause issues. I'll start with the fact that water conditioners state that for best results the water should be pre-treated and if not the dose used should be upped for the entire aquarium volume. That in of itself shows that those who created the product believe there is an inherent risk in not pre-treating water. Since their statements are almost guaranteed backed by scientific data, the very same data they used to develop said product and legally market it, it's very likely there is indeed a risk associated with water treated after introduction to the tank and logically any risk of course would be heightened by the higher concentration of chemicals and contaminants in a large water change versus a smaller one.

Water conditioners usually address specifically chlorine, chloramine, and ammonia. Detoxifies nitrite and nitrate and helps protect and stimulate growth of the slime coat. Not PH jumps created by outgassing or many of the other chemicals found in tap water. What about the other chemicals commonly found in tap water? Here's just a few of those chemicals :
Liquified chlorine, fluorosilicic acid, aluminum sulphate, calcium hydroxide, sodium silicofluoride.
Now here's just a few contaminants:
Chlorine, Fluorine compounds, Trihalomethanes, Salts of: arsenic, aluminium, copper, lead,mercury, cadmium, barium as well as Hormones, Nitrates and Pesticides. Things that can negatively affect people never mind fish or bacteria.

I'm sorry but I believe subjecting the fish and bacteria to higher concentrations of these things has a risk? Can you name a conditioner or group of aquarium conditioners that targets all the chemicals, contaminants and out gassing I've listed?

Now I'm not saying your statement isn't true for you or your friends but to make a broad statement and present it as fact without accounting for everyone's in every area and with every kind of tap water could actually cause harm. What about areas that use well water or areas that are really far from the reservoir and the pipes are showing their age or where the water has been contaminated by line work or a natural disaster such as contamination due to unusual run off that hadn't been detected yet? The fact is in such cases and in many where water supplies aren't as stable as others there's a real possibility of causing a major problem by doing a large water change which would subject the tank inhabitants to higher concentrations of contaminants then a smaller water change.

Well I've done up to 90% wc before when I had few fish and would put them in a bucket, I'd rinse the gravel clean the filters out wipe the tank down etc. but that was once in a blue when I did that and that was when I was in 5th grade with a juvenile oscar, rainbow shark, and maybe a jack Dempsey in a 55g. I'd never go overboard like that now knowing more about bb. But I do do a large fin level wc every other week, and then a 40% the next week now. But daily, I would never do 90%. Especially if I'm planning to do so for a week or more. But as you said to each their own. If it is such controversy, it's rude of someone to say people are misinforming, especially when you have no evidence to back you up. But hopefully he will provide links and we can learn something new. Other wise to each their own I guess

i have 100% proof that my statement of doing large water changes are fine. i can simply test and do test my water all the time and never had a mini cycle or death or stress from a water change. my fish don't act any different before or after a water change.

what more proof do you need? ask any discus owner what their water change schedule is for young growouts. or any fry growout tanks that are overstocked.

Its very regular practice to feed fry heavily and do large water changes to remove leftover waste.

BB mainly resides in the filter as its the best living conditions there. only a small amount resides in the water column

 

[koltsixx]

i have 100% proof that my statement of doing large water changes are fine. i can simply test and do test my water all the time and never had a mini cycle or death or stress from a water change. my fish don't act any different before or after a water change.

what more proof do you need? ask any discus owner what their water change schedule is for young growouts. or any fry growout tanks that are overstocked.

Its very regular practice to feed fry heavily and do large water changes to remove leftover waste.

BB mainly resides in the filter as its the best living conditions there. only a small amount resides in the water column

Discus owners almost always use treated aged water, which is different then what you are stating. And they do so to avoid the issues I mentioned. Matter of fact it's on many a Discus forum that they generally like to age and treat their water with multiple conditioners.

And how can I have had a bad experience with large water changes but it's not pertinent only your experiences are? If you can say what more proof do I need then by rights can't I say the same since we've both had different experiences?

This is what I'm saying your dealing in definitives and being condescending while I'm giving you as much credit as I'm giving my own argument. See the difference.

 

[philipraposo1982]

so you tested the water right after your water change and noticed that there was a spike? did you test your tap water that same day? was there a temp drop? did you use conditioner? was water supersaturated with gas? did you attempt to degas the water? did you check the ph levels? before and after?

or did you just assume that the BB died instantly causing your fish to gasp for only that reason and then decided another water change after that was the answer to your problem?

You post doesn't prove that the large water change killed the BB in your tank and filter. all it does it leave a ton of unanswered questions and many reasons as to why your fish died.

 

[moe214]

Sorry nzafi.. didn't mean to begin a derail in your thread. That being said I think it's best left to say to each their own. Or simply ignore each other. As was stated we are sharing our opinions based upon our experience and others we know of. Though my opinion was more of how I was thinking. Which was if I do a wc every day being so large, I don't feed everyday personally but even if I did, would that leave enough waste, enough food or fish feces, to feed and maintain the bb overtime? To me no. But to each their own.

Let us know when you get the controller and if the wolf gets better, wish you the best of luck bro

 

[koltsixx]

I test my water before and after my water changes, something you missed when you decided to disregard my other response as quote "garbage". There was no temp drop, no short causing issues in the tank, no supersaturation of gas and yes I treated the water with 3 different kinds of conditioners to try and avoid any issue.

Again if you had taken time to read my other reply you'd know that during my water change work began on my water line. Living in an apartment building this fact was not readily known by me as their was no announcement nor did I see workers. How ever when work was completed the workers alerted me that the water should be fine for use again. Apparently while working in the line excess contaminants that had adhered to the pipes was knocked loose making the water dangerous.

Is there anything ele you'd like to ask? Mind you I never tried picking your point apart. I haven't asked how many species you've kept? How old have you grown fish out to? How many fish have you bred? All pertinent since you used prior experience as basis for your point. Because all I'm asking for is the respect I'm giving you which is that either of our statements is equally feasible.

 

[shookONES]

Lot's of good info posted already in this thread (which I've skimmed through, but not read thoroughly), but I've heard of carbon adversely affecting cichla in a similar fashion. I'd remove any from the system and see if that makes a difference.

Personally, I've never run carbon in all my years in the hobby. At most, I'll run a Chemi Pure short for the sake of tannin removal or something along those lines.

 

[koltsixx]

Sorry nzafi.. didn't mean to begin a derail in your thread. That being said I think it's best left to say to each their own. Or simply ignore each other. As was stated we are sharing our opinions based upon our experience and others we know of. Though my opinion was more of how I was thinking. Which was if I do a wc every day being so large, I don't feed everyday personally but even if I did, would that leave enough waste, enough food or fish feces, to feed and maintain the bb overtime? To me no. But to each their own.

Let us know when you get the controller and if the wolf gets better, wish you the best of luck bro

I'm sorry as well N nzafi I should have acted more accordingly. Something I will try to rectify now. I hope your wolf gets better and that in the future I'm better help to you then I was here.

philipraposo1982 we can continue via PM or you can create another thread if you wish to continue further. We have accidentally derailed the thread as moe has pointed out.

 

[Grinch]

@OP: it does look like you are struggling with HITH

As for what causes HITH: science does not have anything close to a definitive answer for us on what the proximal cause of HITH is. There was a peer-reviewed review article on this recently. Here is the abstract:

"Hole-in-the-head disease is common in marine and freshwater fish. The fish develop supra- and infraorbital lesions in the skin above the lateral line channels of the head and the body. Depending on the severity of the lesions, the fish can show apathy and refuse food. A secondary bacterial infection may lead to death. This review summarizes all the causes of the condition that have been mentioned in the literature. There is still no agreement on the aetiology of the disease. Possible causes include infection with pathogenic agents, activated carbon, water composition, malnutrition, lack of ultraviolet light, stray current, stress and the uptake of copper. The published options for treatment are discussed."

Here is the paper for download if you want to read it. Be warned, it is in German. https://we.tl/NzgYbX5tSS This link will only work for 7 days, so get it now if you want it.

Citation:
RT Journal Article
ID 83400
A1 Amesberger-Freitag, A; Lewisch, E; El-Matbouli, M
T1 Lochkrankheit bei Fischen – ein Überblick.
JF WIENER TIERARZTLICHE MONATSSCHRIFT
JO Wien Tierarztl Monat. 2016; 103(1-2): 23-31.
YR 2016
VO 103
IS 1-2
SP 23
OP 31
NO
IS 1-2
LA ger
SN 0043-535X
DO
LK
DS Vetdoc
UL http://vetdoc.vu-wien.ac.at/vetdoc/...e&menue_id_in=&id_in=&publikation_id_in=83400