# Water change 50% net or gross ?



## eminor (3 Sep 2021)

Hello, i see a lot 50% water change, my tank is 54l, 30l of real water, should i change 15 or ~25l then for Estimated index ? thx


----------



## Zeus. (3 Sep 2021)

I go off depth of water, if 32cm to bottom of tank then 16cm is 50%. For EI dosing I use the calculated volume going off water depth x length x width of tank, ignoring substrate and hard scape


----------



## ceg4048 (3 Sep 2021)

eminor said:


> Hello, i see a lot 50% water change, my tank is 54l, 30l of real water, should i change 15 or ~25l then for Estimated index ? thx


Hello,
         Do whatever method is easiest. Everything are approximations and there is no penalty using whatever method you choose. That's why the word "Estimative" is used.

For changing water you can simply use the height of the tank. Again, this is about 50% but you are not constrained to this number. You can do 40% or 90% and anything in between. CO2 forces a higher metabolism in plants and so they produce a lot more organic waste, that if left unattended, can foul the water and can cause problems. The more water you change, the better because it dilutes the precursors to toxic compounds if present, such as ammonia or nitrite. To this end, removal of solid waste is also very important. Cleanliness of the tank is an important factor in success using ANY eutrophic dosing method.

Calculating dosing should be based on the tank size, simply because it is easiest. If the tank is filtered using a sump then the sump size should also be added to the size of the tank. Again, this is by far the easiest method and this is the method used to develop EI in the first place.

This is in stark contrast to dosing the aquarium with medicines, which are often toxic if dosed inappropriately.

Since the dry salts used in EI are non-toxic it does not matter whether you are above the target or even if you are somewhat below the target because the plants are still being fed several times more than they can actually uptake - for the vast majority of tanks.

Cheers,


----------



## eminor (3 Sep 2021)

thank you so much guys, i'm learning so much on this website, there is so much myth in this hobby, that's crazy, i always tought fertilizer caused algae until i've come here, i know now that's its a lie


----------



## ceg4048 (3 Sep 2021)

Another mind freed from the tyranny of The Matrix.


----------



## MichaelJ (3 Sep 2021)

eminor said:


> thank you so much guys, i'm learning so much on this website, there is so much myth in this hobby, that's crazy, i always tought fertilizer caused algae until i've come here, i know now that's its a lie


Niels Bohr, the great Danish physicist, defined _an Expert as a person who has found out, by his own painful experience, all the mistakes that one can make in a very narrow field._ Heisenberg later on offered a slightly different, and perhaps better version, paraphrasing his advisor allegedly, and said _an Expert is someone who knows some of the worst mistakes that can be made in his field, and how to avoid them. _
Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Garuf (3 Sep 2021)

I only recently had this thought after spending 15 years measuring out 50% of total system (including filter) and I’m glad to read someone else had the thought to ask.


----------



## John q (3 Sep 2021)

ceg4048 said:


> Another mind freed from the tyranny of The Matrix.


For now...  but as you well know the Matrix is a long run of rabbit holes, aka a Warren. I suspect we'll need bringing back from the brink before to long.


----------



## LondonDragon (10 Sep 2021)

I actually perform around 80% water change a week, sometimes twice! As once someone said to me; "doing a water change if like giving your fish a blood transfusion", haven't had any issues doing that, just crystal clear water all the time.


----------



## Cherries (11 Sep 2021)

LondonDragon said:


> I actually perform around 80% water change a week, sometimes twice! As once someone said to me; "doing a water change if like giving your fish a blood transfusion", haven't had any issues doing that, just crystal clear water all the time.


I agree 100%! I do 80s myself, and someone said when doing such large water changes dilute out any potentially harmful microorganisms out of water. Buy I met someone that said such large water changes kill fish, so I see its quite a controversial topic. But I personally never had a problem with large water changes.


----------



## Garuf (11 Sep 2021)

I’ve done whole system water changes when I’ve had co2 disasters and monitored the tanks after and had no detectable spikes to indicate that the biological aspect of the filtration has also crashed.


----------



## MichaelJ (11 Sep 2021)

Cherries said:


> I agree 100%! I do 80s myself, and someone said when doing such large water changes dilute out any potentially harmful microorganisms out of water. Buy I met someone that said such large water changes kill fish, so I see its quite a controversial topic. But I personally never had a problem with large water changes.


@Cherries. Totally agree... And I get that, especially for high energy tanks and high stock tanks and other factors that plays into this. For my tanks, I would think of 80% as excessive - unless combatting an issue like algae or disease. There is also a measure of practicality that goes into all this. For instance, for my two tanks I have to carry buckets through the house... I am definitely teetering on the edge of what my better half appreciate, especially when I spill water on the floor 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## sparkyweasel (11 Sep 2021)

Cherries said:


> Buy I met someone that said such large water changes kill fish, so I see its quite a controversial topic.


There's at least one way that can happen. If a tank hasn't had any proper water changes for a long time, perhaps if if you're trying to help some-one rescue a tank from neglect, a big change can be too much for the fish that have gradually adapted to the old water. It depends on the fish and the circumstances, so doesn't always happen. But with a badly neglected tank it can be safer to start with smaller water changes and build up.
But big, regular, frequent water changes are safe for any fish I've come across.


----------



## ceg4048 (12 Sep 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> @Cherries. Totally agree... And I get that, especially for high energy tanks and high stock tanks and other factors that plays into this. For my tanks, I would think of 80% as excessive - unless combatting an issue like algae or disease. There is also a measure of practicality that goes into all this. For instance, for my two tanks I have to carry buckets through the house... I am definitely teetering on the edge of what my better half appreciate, especially when I spill water on the floor


Wow, do people still use buckets in 21st century? Why not just get a 50 ft. hose and a cheap submersible pump to get the siphon started? Use a spring clamp to affix the hose to the glass (or a Shepard's crook to hang it over the glass). Then use the pump on the other end if the fill water is stored in a barrel, or connect the hose directly to the faucet if filling with tap water. Come on now people, the Sumerians figured these things out 5,000 years ago and then invented irrigation. 

Could also buy a Python, which uses faucet water to run and to accelerate the siphon, but this wastes a lot of water.




I would have thought by now we would have developed the Star Trek Transporter, where we could just beam the water out of and into the tank. Very disappointing...

Also, why would an 80% water change be excessive? If it's good for treating a disease or algae, wouldn't it also be good for _preventing _disease and algae? Owners of CO2 injected tanks take heed. The plants actually produce more toxic waste than the fish do. Their waste is primarily in the form of carbohydrates, including, amazingly, sugars. There is a symbiotic relationship between plants and bacteria. The plants _actively farm_ certain types of aerobic bacteria by releasing these carbohydrates upon which these bacteria feed. As a result, the tank becomes flooded with the carbohydrates, which then rot causing a reduction of oxygen in the water column. CO2 Hobbyists will be surprised that their filters  quickly become clogged with the nasty brown detritus, which is the result of the increased metabolism of the plants and is comprised of rotting carbohydrate products. Filters need to be cleaned more often, gravel needs to be vacuumed more often and water needs to be replaced more often. This is exactly how algae and pathogens are kept in check, and how the tank is prevented from choking itself.

Any fish living in a body of moving water gets a water change of thousands of gallons or even hundreds of thousands of gallons of water every second of every day. Clearly the fish don't consider it excessive. Keeping fish in their own polluted  toilet water ultimately kills them by virtue of multiplication of toxins and pathogens as well as by reduction of oxygen.

Folks who talk about fish kills after changing water may easily have replaced the removed water with water high in chlorine without using dechlorinator, possibly or perhaps made some other similar error with the quality of the water being imported to the tank. Fish can also panic and injure themselves during the act of the water change, become ill and perish as a result of their injuries. There are a million ways to kill fish and to then blame it on one's favorite boogieman.

Cheers,


----------



## MichaelJ (12 Sep 2021)

ceg4048 said:


> Wow, do people still use buckets in 21st century? Why not just get a 50 ft. hose and a cheap submersible pump to get the siphon started? Use a spring clamp to affix the hose to the glass (or a Shepard's crook to hang it over the glass). Then use the pump on the other end if the fill water is stored in a barrel, or connect the hose directly to the faucet if filling with tap water. Come on now people, the Sumerians figured these things out 5,000 years ago and then invented irrigation.


Hi @ceg4048   I have thought about changing my setup for WC's for sure. The situation at my house is that I am doing all the prep in our laundry room and the tanks are installed on a different floor pretty far from the  laundry room... Running a hose could possibly work - would have to be at least 150-200 ft (big house) ... I'll have to figure out a bigger WC prep container and a sizable pump that can move the water.  Anyway, now that I've been yelled at (again), I'll see what I can do to keep up with the Sumerians    (and btw.my wife like your idea... so it just might work).



ceg4048 said:


> I would have thought by now we would have developed the Star Trek Transporter, where we could just beam the water out of and into the tank. Very disappointing...


Agreed - lets hope the Heisenberg compensator is just around the corner. 



ceg4048 said:


> Also, why would an 80% water change be excessive? If it's good for treating a disease or algae, wouldn't it also be good for _preventing _disease and algae? Owners of CO2 injected tanks take heed.


Well, of course. I was being specific, as I mentioned, to my low-tech tanks... and _excessive_, implying there would be something undesirable or wrong about it, was not what I meant (_unnecessary_ perhaps would have been a better word - again, specific to my tanks...). With a CO2 injected tanks I would be in line with a much larger percentage as plants are running at a much higher (x10) metabolic rate. I guess, we all have to find the balance where it works for the specifics of our tanks, factoring in CO2 usage, plant mass, stocking level  etc. (and yes, the practically so we don't burn out), be it 40% or 90% or anything in-between, as you mentioned above.



ceg4048 said:


> Their waste is primarily in the form of carbohydrates, including, amazingly, sugars. There is a symbiotic relationship between plants and bacteria. The plants _actively farm_ certain types of aerobic bacteria by releasing these carbohydrates upon which these bacteria feed. As a result, the tank becomes flooded with the carbohydrates, which then rot causing a reduction of oxygen in the water column.


The biochemistry aspects of this sounds _suspiciously_ related to another thread on  Ca/Mg Gluconate usage for water remineralization - could you take a look? would love to hear your take on what's going on.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Garuf (12 Sep 2021)

Shots fired.


----------



## MichaelJ (12 Sep 2021)

Garuf said:


> Shots fired.


@Garuf  Haha! Good to know it's not only us backwards Minnesotans who haven't caught up with the Sumerians


----------



## erwin123 (13 Sep 2021)

I use a hose for water change as my tank is 5m away from the nearest water point. but if you can't use a hose, how about a container with tap (this one is 15 litres)

Use a ladder or something so that its above the tank, connect a small hose if necessary and open the tap.


----------



## MichaelJ (13 Sep 2021)

erwin123 said:


> I use a hose for water change as my tank is 5m away from the nearest water point. but if you can't use a hose, how about a container with tap (this one is 15 litres)
> 
> Use a ladder or something so that its above the tank, connect a small hose if necessary and open the tap.


Actually for transfer out of the tanks  I do use a hose (and gravity) running out in our yard... for adding WC water to the tanks from 5-6 US Gallon buckets (~20 liters)  I am using a 1.5 GPM (6 liters per minute)  battery driven transfer pump - like this from Menards (large home improvement retailer in the midwestern US):





Cheers,
Michael


----------



## MrClockOff (13 Sep 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> @Garuf  Haha! Good to know it's not only us backwards Minnesotans who haven't caught up with the Sumerians


Count me in 😂


----------



## oddn0ise (13 Sep 2021)

Yeah pre-Sumerian era here too, and am in the middle of cycling so have transported over 600 litres this weekend by bucket. I'm somehow scared of the tech (and the tightly coiled green tubing) and transporting it through the house and up the garden. Tried a pump and it flipped off the glass and I ended up with a large scale mop-up project. Still hoping for the _beam the water out_ solution


----------



## MichaelJ (13 Sep 2021)

oddn0ise said:


> Yeah pre-Sumerian era here too, and am in the middle of cycling so have transported over 600 litres this weekend by bucket. I'm somehow scared of the tech (and the tightly coiled green tubing) and transporting it through the house and up the garden. Tried a pump and it flipped off the glass and I ended up with a large scale mop-up project. Still hoping for the _beam the water out_ solution


@oddn0ise  Holy smokes 600 liters by bucket!  ... that makes my weekly 3 to 4  20 liter buckets per tank (have 2 x 150L tanks) sound like a walk in the park... You gotta figure out a way to make that easier for yourself!


----------



## Dominik K (13 Sep 2021)

Investing in 5 meters of hose and a small pump was the best decision ever... Empty out x  buckets worth of water. Put in x buckets worth of conditioner into the bucket sitting in the sink, put pump in, run hose back to the tank. Switch on pump and tun run tap until tank is full again.


----------



## ceg4048 (15 Sep 2021)

Dominik K said:


> Investing in 5 meters of hose and a small pump was the best decision ever... Empty out x  buckets worth of water. Put in x buckets worth of conditioner into the bucket sitting in the sink, put pump in, run hose back to the tank. Switch on pump and tun run tap until tank is full again.


Yeah.....duh, and guess what? Minnesota has at least 10,000 lakes. You would thinkthese people would be at the forefront of water management innovation and technology, but no. Having said that, I did buy my molded polystyrene modular sump from a Minnesota company, so this lack of innovation must just affect the stubborn traditionalists.


MichaelJ said:


> The biochemistry aspects of this sounds _suspiciously_ related to another thread on  Ca/Mg Gluconate usage for water remineralization - could you take a look? would love to hear your take on what's going on.


I've looked at that thread and it seems like a good possibility that the cloudiness may be due to bacterial reaction. I don't know exactly which tank bacteria can directly metabolize gluconate as opposed to glucose. There is a difference in the metabolic pathways when comparing the two.

It could be innocuous but generally I'm not really a fan of supporting large bacterial colonies simply because they typically are aerobic and so take oxygen away from the fish and plants. Also, I'm not really sure what the residue of this gluconate metabolism would be. Whatever it is, it should be gotten rid of, and this might suggest an endless water change loop (maybe). So if you are doing all this for shrimp there could be a downside. I might have missed it somewhere along the way and you may have rejected it for some reason, but CaCl is a great way to increase Ca without increasing the KH, and Mg, well, you don't really need much of this stuff for plants at all (maybe for shrimp again?). Mg just has to be non-zero, so a little bit of Epsom Salts is all you need from a plant perspective.

Plants accrue the micronutrients within the leaves and these metals never move from the leaf, so if the dosing is regular next week the leaves will have more of everything than they do this week. I'm also not sure what the aversion is to high SO4 either, unless it's another shrimp thing. It could be that you're overthinking the scheme. Unless the shrimp species is something out of the ordinary I don't think it's necessary to optimize the water's content to this level of precision. 

Cheers,


----------



## MichaelJ (15 Sep 2021)

ceg4048 said:


> Yeah.....duh, and guess what? Minnesota has at least 10,000 lakes. You would thinkthese people would be at the forefront of water management innovation and technology, but no. Having said that, I did buy my molded polystyrene modular sump from a Minnesota company, so this lack of innovation must just affect the stubborn traditionalists.


LOL @ceg4048, that is hilarious and true... It's gotta be all those stubborn Scandinavians around here that are holding us back ... Oh, _molded polystyrene sump_ that sounds like a bucket to me! 



ceg4048 said:


> I've looked at that thread and it seems like a good possibility that the cloudiness may be due to bacterial reaction. I don't know exactly which tank bacteria can directly metabolize gluconate as opposed to glucose. There is a difference in the metabolic pathways when comparing the two.
> It could be innocuous but generally I'm not really a fan of supporting large bacterial colonies simply because they typically are aerobic and so take oxygen away from the fish and plants.
> Also, I'm not really sure what the residue of this gluconate metabolism would be. Whatever it is, it should be gotten rid of, and this might suggest an endless water change loop (maybe). So if you are doing all this for shrimp there could be a downside. I might have missed it somewhere along the way and you may have rejected it for some reason, but CaCl is a great way to increase Ca without increasing the KH, and Mg, well, you don't really need much of this stuff for plants at all (maybe for shrimp again?). Mg just has to be non-zero, so a little bit of Epsom Salts is all you need from a plant perspective.
> Plants accrue the micronutrients within the leaves and these metals never move from the leaf, so if the dosing is regular next week the leaves will have more of everything than they do this week. I'm also not sure what the aversion is to high SO4 either, unless it's another shrimp thing. It could be that you're overthinking the scheme. Unless the shrimp species is something out of the ordinary I don't think it's necessary to optimize the water's content to this level of precision.


Yes, this was all mostly a shrimp _and_ shrimplet thing, by trying to get rid of the additional Chlorides and Sulphates that the tanks won't really benefit from anyway, as far as I understand. With CaCl I couldn't really get my TDS down to the level I was aiming at while retaining the ~7 GH and NPK dosing, that is why I switched over to CaSO4, which shaved off quite a bit of the TDS and that actually has worked out just fine - by switching from CaCl to CaSo4 I essentially traded the 57 ppm of chloride with 26 ppm of sulphate, while keeping the same amount (32 ppm) of Ca.
I randomly discovered the Ca Gluconate and asked around if that would be an option. No one around here seem to have tried it and I couldn't find good references elsewhere of anyone using Gluconate based compounds in freshwater tanks - except for Gluconate combined with Fe (which supposedly improves the availability / plant uptake of the Iron?) and I was further speculating (yes, overthinking I guess...) that the carbon content of the Gluconate could be beneficial for the plants as well (?), so I thought it would be worthwhile to take a shot at using Ca Gluconate (and a small amount of Mg Gluconate). I didn't work out the way I had hoped. The bloom/cloudiness was obviously not pleasant to deal with, not to mention the fear of jepodizing the livestock and plants due to oxygen depletion if the cloudiness was indeed caused by a bacterial reaction. So I am back on CaSO4 and will stick to that. My remineralization scheme is actually very simple - 4 compounds mixed with my weekly Tap/RO water gives my tanks all the Ca,Mg and NPK that they need.

Thanks a bunch for taking a look at this.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## ceg4048 (16 Sep 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> No one around here seem to have tried it and I couldn't find good references elsewhere of anyone using Gluconate based compounds in freshwater tanks - except for Gluconate combined with Fe (which supposedly improves the availability / plant uptake of the Iron?) and I was further speculating (yes, overthinking I guess...) that the carbon content of the Gluconate could be beneficial for the plants as well (?)


Yes, ferrous gluconate is a popular addition used as a component in some commercial mixes as well as in DIY mixes, but you're only adding small amounts to raise the iron by fractional amounts, like 0.4ppm. But no, as mentioned, plants cannot use this carbohydrate. The Rubisco molecule only recognizes and sequesters CO2 and O2 (by mistake). Anyway, we are just guessing that the cloudiness is an organic reaction. It could also simply be a slow to develop calcium or magnesium precipitation with some anion in the tank water. Without a microscope or other tool it's just not clear  (no pun intended).


MichaelJ said:


> It's gotta be all those stubborn Scandinavians around here that are holding us back ..


Oh, no doubt mate. Studies indicate that all those years of ice fishing causes frostbite of the temporal lobes.
Neither the Sumerians, the Arcadians, the Hittites nor the Egyptians had to worry about frostbite, so yeah, they were free to innovate as their lobes were firing on all cylinders. Pity about the Scandinavians - they could only think about how to be green...


MichaelJ said:


> Oh, _molded polystyrene sump_ that sounds like a bucket to me!


Yeah, true but you see, _that's_ an innovative way to use a bucket. While everyone else builds their sumps using acrylic panels and glue, which creates seams that fail, buckets are seamless, so they can't fail. The system is modular, so it has limitless potential as you can add modules whenever you want. Biofilm or algae cannot stick to the polystyrene so the buckets are super easy to clean. Check out the promo (cheesy but you get the idea)=>


Cheers,


----------



## MichaelJ (16 Sep 2021)

ceg4048 said:


> Yes, ferrous gluconate is a popular addition used as a component in some commercial mixes as well as in DIY mixes, but you're only adding small amounts to raise the iron by fractional amounts, like 0.4ppm. But no, as mentioned, plants cannot use this carbohydrate. The Rubisco molecule only recognizes and sequesters CO2 and O2 (by mistake). Anyway, we are just guessing that the cloudiness is an organic reaction. It could also simply be a slow to develop calcium or magnesium precipitation with some anion in the tank water. Without a microscope or other tool it's just not clear  (no pun intended).


Hi @ceg4048  Thanks... on the carbohydrates, it's interesting that some products claim the ferrous gluconate has the added bonus of being a source of carbon... Well, not the first time these companies have made unfounded claims to sell their products.



ceg4048 said:


> Oh, no doubt mate. Studies indicate that all those years of ice fishing causes frostbite of the temporal lobes.


That explanation makes perfect sense - not to mention the accompanying copious alcohol consumption 



ceg4048 said:


> Yeah, true but you see, _that's_ an innovative way to use a bucket. While everyone else builds their sumps using acrylic panels and glue, which creates seams that fail, buckets are seamless, so they can't fail. The system is modular, so it has limitless potential as you can add modules whenever you want. Biofilm or algae cannot stick to the polystyrene so the buckets are super easy to clean. Check out the promo (cheesy but you get the idea)=>



Wow, that is some serious badass filtration!  I always thought of sump filtration as something that mostly applied to reef tanks... I guess not.  Never heard of CustomAquariums before - looks like a solid company for custom builds - should I ever go down that path.   

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## ceg4048 (17 Sep 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> Well, not the first time these companies have made unfounded claims to sell their products.


Yes, it's just another subroutine which exists as part of a neural-interactive program we call The Matrix.


MichaelJ said:


> I always thought of sump filtration as something that mostly applied to reef tanks


Well, even though it's the reefers who drive the developments in this hobby the sump is relevant to any type of water. The sumps water volume adds to the tanks volume enhancing temperature stability. You can also put all of your equipment in the sump and get them out of the tank for visual appeal. Also you can run multiple tanks off the same sump. The only real downside is that it's an open loop system, so it's very easy to flood your floor. With a canister (another brilliant use of a bucket) which is a closed loop, what goes in exactly matches what's going out, automatically, but with a sump you have to tweak the pump to send exactly the same amount of water back to the tank as what is falling into the sump.

Cheers,


----------



## MichaelJ (17 Sep 2021)

ceg4048 said:


> Yes, it's just another subroutine which exists as part of a neural-interactive program we call The Matrix.


... The Matrix... That sounds oddly familiar... Should I go ask Alice for details?... Well, now I just can't wait for the day of Resurrections. 



ceg4048 said:


> Well, even though it's the reefers who drive the developments in this hobby the sump is relevant to any type of water. The sumps water volume adds to the tanks volume enhancing temperature stability. You can also put all of your equipment in the sump and get them out of the tank for visual appeal. Also you can run multiple tanks off the same sump. The only real downside is that it's an open loop system, so it's very easy to flood your floor. With a canister (another brilliant use of a bucket) which is a closed loop, what goes in exactly matches what's going out, automatically, but with a sump you have to tweak the pump to send exactly the same amount of water back to the tank as what is falling into the sump.


I hear you on the sumps... we could definitely take some cues from the reefers...  A buddy of mine runs a reef tank. It's a whole different ballgame compared to what I am doing.. His sump tank (i.e. filter) is almost as big as the tank itself (I send him the info on the CustomAquariums modular sump btw.). Every time I talk to him he is always in the middle of maintenance, adding Strontium or something weird to his tank    ... most of the time I have absolutely no clue what he is talking about with respect to his tank, but the fish and corals look incredible! .. and guess what, he actually wants certain algae for symbiotic purposes to grow in his tank.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## ceg4048 (18 Sep 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> I hear you on the sumps... we could definitely take some cues from the reefers... A buddy of mine runs a reef tank. It's a whole different ballgame compared to what I am doing.. His sump tank (i.e. filter) is almost as big as the tank itself (I send him the info on the CustomAquariums modular sump btw.). Every time I talk to him he is always in the middle of maintenance, adding Strontium or something weird to his tank  ... most of the time I have absolutely no clue what he is talking about with respect to his tank, but the fish and corals look incredible! .. and guess what, he actually wants certain algae for symbiotic purposes to grow in his tank.


Yep, it is a sight to behold when you get the salt tank set properly, but it's in the "just too hard" category.
Hope your friend finds the info useful The sumps really do add a lot of water. I add up the volume of my four modules and they total about 100 US gallons versus the tank which is about 200 USG. I always have to remember to dose EI for a 300 USG tank. A lot more CO2 is used as well...


MichaelJ said:


> Well, now I just can't wait for the day of Resurrections.


You know, I saw the trailer and I kept wishing Keanu would have ditched the John Wick beard...It really dilutes the immersion.

Cheers


----------



## MichaelJ (18 Sep 2021)

ceg4048 said:


> You know, I saw the trailer and I kept wishing Keanu would have ditched the John Wick beard...It really dilutes the immersion.


I hear you on the J Wick beard... I do like the new cast of characters with some familiar faces thrown in. Will miss Fishburne though, but think Abdul-Mateen will do great - he definitely got the cool factor down.


----------



## Cherries (26 Sep 2021)

sparkyweasel said:


> There's at least one way that can happen. If a tank hasn't had any proper water changes for a long time, perhaps if if you're trying to help some-one rescue a tank from neglect, a big change can be too much for the fish that have gradually adapted to the old water. It depends on the fish and the circumstances, so doesn't always happen. But with a badly neglected tank it can be safer to start with smaller water changes and build up.
> But big, regular, frequent water changes are safe for any fish I've come across.


Yeah, exactly.. And since I have been seeing much happier fish after doing that large water changes, so I just keep doing only those.


----------

