# Low-tech water changes



## EdTheEdge (Jan 25, 2007)

I have never had a tank nor fish nor plants that didn't relish a WC


----------



## Firestarter (Dec 28, 2009)

I do at least 20% a week.


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

WCs are great for fish.

WCs are great for tanks where fertilizers are being supplied in "overabundance" (ie- those using the EI dosing regimen or similar)

WCs can stip a tank of nutrients in a low light/low tech setting if those nutrients are not being added back into the tank in the form of fertilizers, so I personally do a water change once a month at most (since I never dose my water columns).

I never vacuum my substrate, though I do "swoosh" my siphon around to stir up and suck away any loose debris.

There's not really a "one size fits all" here- it depends on each individual's tank setup and goals.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Since the demand for nutrient is low in the non CO2 aquarium, so is the dosing(often almost absent). Adding soil makes this even more the case. So doing water changes to mange the ppm's is not required.

the goal is to have the fish waste = the plant demand for nutrients.

Viola! Balance between fish and plants and no water changes or work.

The reduction in water changes, or elimination..........helps stabilize CO2 and bacteria. New tap adds lots of O2, which causes a dramatic spike in the bacteria community, and CO2 production. Plants adapt after a few weeks to low CO2, and thus have this large spike and start growing rapidly for a day or two, this changes the system and also a sudden spike in CO2 is similar to sprign run offs when algae blooms in natural systems.

If the system is stable and you do not do a water change, then the plants keep growing.

The water change confuses the plants some.

In a CO2 enriched system, we do lots of water changes since the CO2 is high and non limiting no matter what we do.

Different methods, but same result.
Plants dominate and grow, but at very different rates of growth(10X or so difference).

Since growth is slow in non CO2 tanks, it's much easier to manage, and deficiencies and other issues are greatly reduced due to time factors, and patience.

It allows the biological processes to adapt and occur on a better time scale for aquarium management. If you want a plant farm, then CO2/higher light is better. If you want something in between, then low light, CO2 and a few water changes here and there would be more suited. Excel is also another thing that could be used and water changes still done if desired.
Even with CO2, and lower light, you can go months without water changes.

Still, for general care, they are good to remove unknowns and clean things up, particularly after large pruning or where the tank is reworked and things moved etc, filter cleanings etc.

Simple effective management tool.
Slow rate of growth, balance is the goal for non CO2 however, but you do not need to do much pruning either as a result of the slower growth.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## AkCrimson (Dec 17, 2009)

I do a weekly 20%. I have low light and dose liquid ferts and co2 (for now).


----------



## morf2540 (Sep 23, 2009)

Outstanding response Tom. Thank you for taking the time to do this. What this says to me is that inunder certain scenarios, less frequent WCs may be OK, and even beneficial. I see that a small minority of the members of this forum seem to agree, based on a few posts I have read from devoted low-techers. I wonder why more folks are unwilling to detach themselves from the high-tech, high-maintenance routine. Maybe because the vast majority of the advice out there makse it sound liek there is no alternative.

I'm still interested to hear from others out there, to hear the various philosophies people may have on the topic.


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

morf2540 said:


> I wonder why more folks are unwilling to detach themselves from the high-tech, high-maintenance routine.


There's some really lovely plants that require high light, CO2, full ferts- the works- to bring them into their full glory. And some people do love having their hands in their tanks every day.

It's all just about what you want out of the hobby. :smile:


----------



## morf2540 (Sep 23, 2009)

Yes, of course you are right. Very true. The results that can be achived by a high-tech approach are stunning. I'm envious!


----------



## odie (Dec 29, 2009)

It would be nice to be able to find a happy medium. 
I am new to plants but have kept aquariums for a long long time. Often times I find their is a balance and often is in the middle. When I kept planted tanks before it was 10-20% weekly. Closer to 10%. Now I hear none or 50% weekly. Very polar opposites. Seems to me that maybe 10% weekly might be best again.:confused1:


----------



## Regloh (Jan 17, 2009)

Chiming in...

I actually think the 10% weekly wouldn't be much less work that 50% weekly... Once I have the hose out and hooked up there really isn't much of a difference changing less or more of the water...

I do the 50% weekly as well, but I have high light and ferts. I am thinking about reducing the maintenance on the tank and going "lower" tech, but that involves buying another light fixture...


----------



## Diana (Jan 14, 2010)

Small water changes when I need to clean the filter media. Roughly 10-15%. I do not spend a lot of time vacuuming the plant substrates, but the few tanks with gravel get a more thorough gravel vac. 
So, more or less monthly 10-15%. 

The fish look a lot happier after a water change.


----------



## Byron (Aug 20, 2009)

I change 50-60% of my tanks every week without fail, and have done this for 15 years. I vacuum the open gravel areas but not those covered by plants where I can't even see the substrate. I clean the open areas thoroughly because I have Corydoras and they feed off tablets and pellets in those open areas and I like the substrate to be clean.

My view is that water changes are solely dependent upon the fish; the more fish or larger the fish, the more critical are regular water changes. The ratio of fish to water volume is the key. Fish continually produce liquid and solid waste and the liquid cannot be removed by any filter, only with a water change. Plants can handle the liquid waste but not in the quantity produced by the number of fish in most aquarist's tanks. Something like 7 or 8 neon tetras in a well-planted 55 gallon aquarium is the limit; beyond this, a partial water change is essential for the health of the fish.

Byron.


----------



## OverStocked (May 26, 2007)

morf2540 said:


> Yes, of course you are right. Very true. The results that can be achived by a high-tech approach are stunning. I'm envious!


Further more, the patience required to achieve a low tech tank that looks as good as lush high tech tanks is often missing from our society. It is a slow, tedious process to get a full low tech tank.

ALl this aside, I practice water changes in all of my tank. Some get over 50 percent weekly, some 30 percent. I have never experience problems from them and my cichlids and L144 only breed after water changes.


----------



## Frenchie (Jun 24, 2009)

I've recently stopped doing water changes in my low tech, 5 weeks in and all the numbers still check out. I'll chime in if anything changes.


----------



## Tsartetra (Oct 20, 2003)

I have two tanks--both more or less low tech. For the 44, it usually gets at least 10% changed every 10-14 days. For the 10 gallon, I have found about 40-50% once a month works great (smaller bioload, higher percentage of plant-life).


----------



## topfrog007 (Dec 30, 2007)

On my 55G low tech I was doing around 2 X 50% water changes a year. Every 2-4 weeks I would top off any evaporation.

Things were really good, I had minor hair algae, but no problems and steady plant growth.


----------

