# My 75g no water change tank



## Tbonedawg08

I want to start by thanking everyone in this forum. Without your knowledge, I would never have a tank like this.

I can go in to more detail on what type of fish/plants I have and my fert regimen, but for now I'd like your thoughts on how much 75g low tech tanks looks. FYI, I've NEVER done a water change and my ammonia, nitrites, nitrites, and TDS are all within safe parameters.
Edit: Apparently I don't have "permission" to add pictures?


----------



## Monrankim

Tbonedawg08 said:


> I want to start by thanking everyone in this forum. Without your knowledge, I would never have a tank like this.
> 
> I can go in to more detail on what type of fish/plants I have and my fert regimen, but for now I'd like your thoughts on how much 75g low tech tanks looks. FYI, I've NEVER done a water change and my ammonia, nitrites, nitrites, and TDS are all within safe parameters.
> Edit: Apparently I don't have "permission" to add pictures?


The Tapatalk app makes posting pics very easy if you are using your phone. Hope that helps.

You don't want to do water changes at all? What are you using for a substrate? Water changes aren't always about removing nitrate but to reduce dissolved organics or adding minerals back into the water depending on your tanks needs.


----------



## Tbonedawg08

Thanks for the tip!



















































Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## Tbonedawg08

As far as TDS, it's been consistently at 375-390 for a couple months. I started this tank maybe around 9 months ago?
I only top off with distilled water to keep that down, but I also add ferts 3x/month to replenish nutrients

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## Tbonedawg08

Oh and sorry, my substrate is Miracle Grow Organic capped with blasting compound

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## arod79sae

Looks great man 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk


----------



## Tbonedawg08

I'm surprised no one else is surprised by my lack of water changes. FYI, I remove around 2 cups every week to water my plants and top off with a gallon of distilled water. 3x/month I add a small amount of dry ferts and I use 6ml of metricide daily.
So far i can't find any reason not to continue what I'm doing, but I may do a 25% change soon just because

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## AbbeysDad

Diana Walstad feels/felt that water changes removed nutrients the plants could otherwise use. She also felt flow was important but filtration should be kept to a minimum.
Now she wasn't using any chemical ferts, making it a true biotope. However, I think in order for this to work, a fine *balance of bio-load to plant mass* is required. That is to say there needs to be enough fish food, fish and plant waste to support the plants...but not so much bio-load as to overload what the plants could handle (as excess organic nutrients often encourages algae). I think Walstad had a fairly large plant mass and a fairly low bio-load.

I think there's perhaps another important factor in the equation. Lower quality fish foods with grains and fishmeal result in more fish waste...and subsequently more 'fertilizer' for plants. Higher quality foods (made with fresh whole fish) result in less waste and subsequently less fertilizer. This could mean more stock or more feeding may be required for balance.

I tend to think that modest water changes along with modest ferts will handle a much wider range of bio-load and create the purest possible water for fish. I see the modest water change much like occasional rain, replenishing some minerals and replacing stale water with fresh. And since the water change is very modest in volume and/or frequency, fewer chemical ferts (if any at all) are necessary.


----------



## Tbonedawg08

My bioload seems to be pretty high from what I can tell, but I would also consider my tank to be "heavily planted". I'm considering fertilizing only every two weeks instead, but I don't have any algae of any kind and haven't really since day one. Maybe I'm lucky, but I like to think the plants are the main reason. I also have probably 50 or more RCS and God knows how many snails. I even have an Amano Shrimp in there.
Overall, I'm very pleased with my tank and I hope people use it as an example how to have a no-water-change tank that actually works.

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## AbbeysDad

Tbonedawg08 said:


> My bioload seems to be pretty high from what I can tell, but I would also consider my tank to be "heavily planted". I'm considering fertilizing only every two weeks instead, but I don't have any algae of any kind and haven't really since day one. Maybe I'm lucky, but I like to think the plants are the main reason. I also have probably 50 or more RCS and God knows how many snails. I even have an Amano Shrimp in there.
> Overall, I'm very pleased with my tank and I hope people use it as an example how to have a no-water-change tank that actually works.


I also have a team of snails, including Malaysian Trumpet Snails that burrow in the sand.
It sounds like you must be in good balance. If I was you I might still fertilize every week, just half as much. After a few weeks, if plants are still doing well, I might try even less. The tricky part is ensuring that the plants (and fish) continue to have the necessary trace elements as these can be depleted.


----------



## mistergreen

Your TDS will continue climb if you don't do a water change.
Your fish will enjoy a water change.


----------



## Tbonedawg08

Is there any way to know if that is in balance or not? What are the symptoms if I'm running low?

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## IntotheWRX

Tbonedawg08 said:


> I'm surprised no one else is surprised by my lack of water changes. FYI, I remove around 2 cups every week to water my plants and top off with a gallon of distilled water. 3x/month I add a small amount of dry ferts and I use 6ml of metricide daily.
> So far i can't find any reason not to continue what I'm doing, but I may do a 25% change soon just because
> 
> Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


I think water changes are overrated. As long as there is a balance in the tank, you don't need to do water changes. I haven't changed mine in months, people havent changed it in years. I heard of people never changing it.


----------



## houseofcards

There's not a lot of things you have to do. It's more a matter of what your goals are and how much limitation your willing to accept.


----------



## natemcnutty

mistergreen said:


> Your TDS will continue climb if you don't do a water change.
> Your fish will enjoy a water change.


He's topping off with distilled water, and plants do (slowly) decrease TDS as they consume some of those trace elements. If it's in balance, he should be fine.

As for fish enjoying water changes, it makes sense to my brain, but I've never had the fish tell me so


----------



## houseofcards

natemcnutty said:


> ..
> As for fish enjoying water changes, it makes sense to my brain, but I've never had the fish tell me so


Most communication is non verbal :grin2:


----------



## AbbeysDad

houseofcards said:


> There's not a lot of things you have to do. It's more a matter of what your goals are and how much limitation your willing to accept.


You keep speaking of other tanks being limited, but don't you think your avitar nano tank with moss balls and your 1.5g Iwagumi tank (both with no fish) are pretty limited?


----------



## Smooch

natemcnutty said:


> He's topping off with distilled water, and plants do (slowly) decrease TDS as they consume some of those trace elements. If it's in balance, he should be fine.
> 
> As for fish enjoying water changes, it makes sense to my brain, but I've never had the fish tell me so


Topping off with a gallon of distilled water doesn't mean anything in 75. All distilled water means is that is comes from somewhere and has been put through a few filters. There is nothing magical about it.

Fish display spawning behavior, their colors become brighter, ect... after a water change.

As for the TDS, my tap has 275 which I think is really gross. Water that goes in has a TDS of 1-2, which then increases to 160 after I add Equilibrium for water changes. After a week of not doing a water change, my tanks are still cleaner than what comes from my tap. 

I've never understood the concept of celebrating lack of water changes. I don't like living in filth and my fish shouldn't have to either.


----------



## houseofcards

AbbeysDad said:


> You keep speaking of other tanks being limited, but don't you think your avitar nano tank with moss balls and your 1.5g Iwagumi tank (both with no fish) are pretty limited?


You mean Plant Tribble? It's limited? You don't like it? :frown2: 

I generally don't put fish in a 1.5G that has about 1G of water in it, but that's me. There are some shrimp and snails in there. :icon_cool

Do you think those are the only tanks I've set up?


----------



## mistergreen

natemcnutty said:


> He's topping off with distilled water, and plants do (slowly) decrease TDS as they consume some of those trace elements. If it's in balance, he should be fine.
> 
> As for fish enjoying water changes, it makes sense to my brain, but I've never had the fish tell me so


Fish poop adds to TDS too. Organic dissolve solids. I doubt plants soak up all of the excess TDS.


----------



## Tbonedawg08

Smooch said:


> Topping off with a gallon of distilled water doesn't mean anything in 75. All distilled water means is that is comes from somewhere and has been put through a few filters. There is nothing magical about it.
> 
> Fish display spawning behavior, their colors become brighter, ect... after a water change.
> 
> As for the TDS, my tap has 275 which I think is really gross. Water that goes in has a TDS of 1-2, which then increases to 160 after I add Equilibrium for water changes. After a week of not doing a water change, my tanks are still cleaner than what comes from my tap.
> 
> I've never understood the concept of celebrating lack of water changes. I don't like living in filth and my fish shouldn't have to either.


I certainly wouldn't say my fish are living in filth. In fact, other than the mulm, the tank is spotless. No obvious signs of distress from the fish (great color, eating, swimming etc). Keep in mind of the amount of plants I have. 90% of which are fast growing.
My TDS is a little high, but my tap water is practically the same so a major water change won't help unless I buy tons of distilled water.

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## Tbonedawg08

I also have a small army of a clean-up crew. 50+ RCS, 1 Amano Shrimp, 80+ Snails(MTS, Ramshorn, Pond, Assassin), 1 Bristlenose Pleco and 5 Kuhli Loaches. No food is ever left to rot and the fish poop is probably nearly inert with all of my plants.
Correct me if I'm wrong ,but with the research I've done, my fish seem to be very happy and well kept.

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## Tbonedawg08

mistergreen said:


> Fish poop adds to TDS too. Organic dissolve solids. I doubt plants soak up all of the excess TDS.


I'd agree with you except my meter has read in the upper 300s for about a year now 

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## natemcnutty

Smooch said:


> Topping off with a gallon of distilled water doesn't mean anything in 75. All distilled water means is that is comes from somewhere and has been put through a few filters. There is nothing magical about it.
> 
> Fish display spawning behavior, their colors become brighter, ect... after a water change.
> 
> As for the TDS, my tap has 275 which I think is really gross. Water that goes in has a TDS of 1-2, which then increases to 160 after I add Equilibrium for water changes. After a week of not doing a water change, my tanks are still cleaner than what comes from my tap.
> 
> I've never understood the concept of celebrating lack of water changes. I don't like living in filth and my fish shouldn't have to either.


Smooch, I think you misread what I said. He claimed TDS would rise significantly without water changes, and I was stating that is not a certainty especially since evaporation was being replaced by distilled water. Planted heavily enough, it is possible for the plants to consume faster than waste generation. 

I am fortunate to have about 70 TDS from my tap, and I definitely keep very close tabs on my CRS tank. I actually have to add some GH booster between water changes to keep it up in the right range.


----------



## AbbeysDad

houseofcards said:


> You mean Plant Tribble? It's limited? You don't like it? :frown2:
> 
> I generally don't put fish in a 1.5G that has about 1G of water in it, but that's me. There are some shrimp and snails in there. :icon_cool
> 
> Do you think those are the only tanks I've set up?


I have no idea,,,just all I see a record of here.

So a large water change for you is like 1 gallon? :wink2:


----------



## Smooch

Tbonedawg08 said:


> I also have a small army of a clean-up crew. 50+ RCS, 1 Amano Shrimp, 80+ Snails(MTS, Ramshorn, Pond, Assassin), 1 Bristlenose Pleco and 5 Kuhli Loaches. No food is ever left to rot and the fish poop is probably nearly inert with all of my plants.
> Correct me if I'm wrong ,but with the research I've done, my fish seem to be very happy and well kept.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


The pleco alone is adding to your TDS problem as they are big poopers regardless of their physical size.

Your plants do not make the pleco poop instantly disappear. Poop needs to be broken down which happens over time. That is more time for the TDS of your tank to increase. Shrimp contribute to your TDS as they break food bits down and leave stuff all over the place. Snails in a large numbers also contribute to TDS as like the pleco, they also poop all over the place. Mulm is adding to your numbers as is overstocking. 

It's run your tank, run it as you see fit. However, as I said, I don't understand of these types of threads 'celebrating' lack of water changes. That to me says "Lazy fish keeper". From where I'm sitting, that is not something to be proud of.


----------



## natemcnutty

Smooch said:


> The pleco alone is adding to your TDS problem as they are big poopers regardless of their physical size.
> 
> Your plants do not make the pleco poop instantly disappear. Poop needs to be broken down which happens over time. That is more time for the TDS of your tank to increase. Shrimp contribute to your TDS as they break food bits down and leave stuff all over the place. Snails in a large numbers also contribute to TDS as like the pleco, they also poop all over the place. Mulm is adding to your numbers as is overstocking.
> 
> It's run your tank, run it as you see fit. However, as I said, I don't understand of these types of threads 'celebrating' lack of water changes. That to me says "Lazy fish keeper". From where I'm sitting, that is not something to be proud of.


I agree with not celebrating laziness, but I see a lot of praise for Diana Walstad on here, and her methodology is very similar. I personally limit my water changes to reduce stress of my CRS, but I'm not about to tear into someone who feels they have found a nice balance in their tank either. If it's working, I'd rather figure out why than tell them they're doing it wrong.


----------



## Tbonedawg08

Smooch said:


> The pleco alone is adding to your TDS problem as they are big poopers regardless of their physical size.
> 
> Your plants do not make the pleco poop instantly disappear. Poop needs to be broken down which happens over time. That is more time for the TDS of your tank to increase. Shrimp contribute to your TDS as they break food bits down and leave stuff all over the place. Snails in a large numbers also contribute to TDS as like the pleco, they also poop all over the place. Mulm is adding to your numbers as is overstocking.
> 
> It's run your tank, run it as you see fit. However, as I said, I don't understand of these types of threads 'celebrating' lack of water changes. That to me says "Lazy fish keeper". From where I'm sitting, that is not something to be proud of.


You may be right, and theoretically I know you are, however my TDS meter hasn't moved since I got it.

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## AbbeysDad

Smooch said:


> Topping off with a gallon of distilled water doesn't mean anything in 75. All distilled water means is that is comes from somewhere and has been put through a few filters. There is nothing magical about it.


Well, no, not exactly. Distilled water is condensed steam from water that is boiled. Like RO water, it has no minerals (and no TDS) at all.



Smooch said:


> Fish display spawning behavior, their colors become brighter, ect... after a water change.


Correct, but fish also display great color and spawn in relatively pure water too.




Smooch said:


> I've never understood the concept of celebrating lack of water changes. I don't like living in filth and my fish shouldn't have to either.


Much like the Walstad method, it merely represents another method of tank management. I also believe that there is merit in partial water changes, but feel that with a well managed, heavily planted tank, the volume/frequency can be much less than some other methods and still have very pure water. Plants are most excellent 'filters'.


----------



## Smooch

natemcnutty said:


> I agree with not celebrating laziness, but I see a lot of praise for Diana Walstad on here, and her methodology is very similar. I personally limit my water changes to reduce stress of my CRS, but I'm not about to tear into someone who feels they have found a nice balance in their tank either. If it's working, I'd rather figure out why than tell them they're doing it wrong.


I'm not a fan of Diana Walstad, or I should say I'm not a fan of how her 'teachings' have been twisted around to point of low tech tanks are 'hands off'. Plop in some plants with some fish and a person is done. All person has to do is feed the fish and leave the tank to fend for itself.

The collective we see the outcome of this 'hands off' approach around here all the time. Sick fish, algae problems, nitrate levels through the roof, ect... One of the few things I recall from the Diana Walstad method is lightly stocking a tank. So clearly she does have a understanding that heavily stocking a tank using her method is going to cause problems. Nobody talks about that part of it though.

I'm not tearing into anybody unless pointing out what is reality is tearing into somebody. *shrugs*


----------



## natemcnutty

Smooch said:


> I'm not a fan of Diana Walstad, or I should say I'm not a fan of how her 'teachings' have been twisted around to point of low tech tanks are 'hands off'. Plop in some plants with some fish and a person is done. All person has to do is feed the fish and leave the tank to fend for itself.
> 
> The collective we see the outcome of this 'hands off' approach around here all the time. Sick fish, algae problems, nitrate levels through the roof, ect... One of the few things I recall from the Diana Walstad method is lightly stocking a tank. So clearly she does have a understanding that heavily stocking a tank using her method is going to cause problems. Nobody talks about that part of it though.
> 
> I'm not tearing into anybody unless pointing out what is reality is tearing into somebody. *shrugs*


Sorry Smooch, didn't mean to imply you were tearing into anyone - I was referring to the negativity in the thread. I agree with you on light stocking as well as her methods have a lot of limitations to them. 

The more I learn, the more I realize how little we actually understand, make assumptions based on our own experiences with a very small sample of tanks, and even those with their doctorates in this stuff are disproven all the time. It is a hobby after all, and I'm glad he's found a balance that makes him happy and hasn't killed all of his livestock and plants [emoji14]


----------



## houseofcards

natemcnutty said:


> ...I agree with you on light stocking as well as her methods have a lot of limitations to them.


Did someone say limitation. Of course, whenever you have a tank with no water changes, your limited to the amount of light, the amount and types of plants you can grow. It's pretty tough to argue with that. If the plants are doing the lions share of the filtering then removing many of those will cause serious issue both with algae and fish. 

Finding this 'balance' requires a much tighter range then a tank that receives regular water changes and is dosed regularly. If you don't have enough plants/uptake then your nitrates, etc might get too high and if you don't have enough nitrates then your plants will run short and algae creeps in. It's easier to hit an outer ring of a dart board than the bullseye. :wink2:


----------



## Brolly33

Tbonedawg08 said:


> I'm surprised no one else is surprised by my lack of water changes. FYI, I remove around 2 cups every week to water my plants and top off with a gallon of distilled water. 3x/month I add a small amount of dry ferts and I use 6ml of metricide daily.
> So far i can't find any reason not to continue what I'm doing, but I may do a 25% change soon just because
> 
> Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk




Sounds like a balanced tank. Plants are great bio filters and dirt can soak up nutrients for years. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Tbonedawg08 said:


> I'm surprised no one else is surprised by my lack of water changes. FYI, I remove around 2 cups every week to water my plants and top off with a gallon of distilled water. 3x/month I add a small amount of dry ferts and I use 6ml of metricide daily.
> So far i can't find any reason not to continue what I'm doing, but I may do a 25% change soon just because


I tried minimal water changes in a 55 with about 30 guppies, NO3 was never the problem.
Ca & Mg were on a severe decline, no Ca found while testing, tap water provided both of these elements.



houseofcards said:


> Finding this 'balance' requires a much tighter range then a tank that receives regular water changes and is dosed regularly. If you don't have enough plants/uptake then your nitrates, etc might get too high and if you don't have enough nitrates then your plants will run short and algae creeps in.


I don't wish to start a grand debate here but my $.02 is this.

Every tank needs a parameter to establish the interval of a water change.
If NO3 is used for a high bioload, TDS used for accumulated ferts, or loss of KH etc...

I apply ferts to all tanks hi or lo tech makes no matter.
Having picked a target parameter for dosing, it is PO4.
Some may ask why PO4, I have found that NO3 uptake by plants is increased with optimum PO4 levels.
Using a heavily modified PPS-Pro solution and always target 1 ppm of PO4 in the water column.
Hi-tech gets a daily dose, some lo-techs get a weekly dose, all my tanks are different.

Yes I do some water testing, the only way I know to see the invisible.
At least I have established a set of guide lines to follow.


----------



## JohnnyHo

I haven't done any water changes in my 75 gal tank for over two years as well. The only new water has been coming in my system are either from top off or when I clean and refill the canister (every 2 weeks).


----------



## ichy

natemcnutty said:


> He's topping off with distilled water, and plants do (slowly) decrease TDS as they consume some of those trace elements. If it's in balance, he should be fine.
> 
> As for fish enjoying water changes, it makes sense to my brain, but I've never had the fish tell me so


My discus tell me when they need a water change! They are completely different fish with regular WC's.
If you think your fish and plants don't benefit from WC's you have a limited understanding of water chemistry as it relates to fish husbandry.


----------



## natemcnutty

ichy said:


> My discus tell me when they need a water change! They are completely different fish with regular WC's.
> If you think your fish and plants don't benefit from WC's you have a limited understanding of water chemistry as it relates to fish husbandry.


Why thank you random condescending person on the Internet. I've completely changed my mind based on your anecdotal evidence of a very specific fish and tank!

Perhaps you shouldn't be waiting until your fish are showing signs of needing a water change... My tanks are incredibly understocked especially given my plant mass, and I've never seen a behavior difference in my fish or plants after a water change. Perhaps I've never let it get so bad that they needed it? Nah, that can't be it - the only logical conclusion is that I'm an idiot...


----------



## ichy

natemcnutty said:


> Why thank you random condescending person on the Internet. I've completely changed my mind based on your anecdotal evidence of a very specific fish and tank!
> 
> Perhaps you shouldn't be waiting until your fish are showing signs of needing a water change... My tanks are incredibly understocked especially given my plant mass, and I've never seen a behavior difference in my fish or plants after a water change. Perhaps I've never let it get so bad that they needed it? Nah, that can't be it - the only logical conclusion is that I'm an idiot...


Sorry if the truth hurts.
Take it any way you want, and you certainly don't have to believe me!
But the science of chemistry as it pertains to water in aquarium systems says you are wrong.


----------



## Bananableps

Smooch said:


> I'm not a fan of Diana Walstad, or I should say I'm not a fan of how her 'teachings' have been twisted around to point of low tech tanks are 'hands off'. Plop in some plants with some fish and a person is done. All person has to do is feed the fish and leave the tank to fend for itself.
> 
> The collective we see the outcome of this 'hands off' approach around here all the time. Sick fish, algae problems, nitrate levels through the roof, ect... One of the few things I recall from the Diana Walstad method is lightly stocking a tank. So clearly she does have a understanding that heavily stocking a tank using her method is going to cause problems. Nobody talks about that part of it though.
> 
> I'm not tearing into anybody unless pointing out what is reality is tearing into somebody. *shrugs*



I feel like the vast majority of panicked visitors to this forum are people with inert gravel and no pressurized CO2. I suppose it's just my anecdotal observation against your's, but do you really find that it's mostly dirted tank people coming to the forums for advice about treating algae, nitrates, and sick fish? Because I hardly ever see that.

You do have a point about people misusing Diana Walstad. In addition to overstocking, there people who refer to her methods but don't even use dirt. But you can't take that out on her and the dirted tank community in general. Similarly, I wouldn't be right for saying that pressurized CO2 is bad just because there are a lot of people who have accidentally knocked a valve, gassing all of their fish to death. 


Personally, I have a lot of success with minimal water changes. My dollar sunfish spawned twice this summer, and I only change my tank's water about four times a month. Is this laziness? Is this pride? No. Diana Walstad gives convincing argument for the benefits of having organic dissolved solids in the water column. Also, it is my experience that frequent water changes only leave an aquarium dependent on frequent water changes. It's just an unnecessary waste of water and time that leaves your tank less resilient.


----------



## natemcnutty

ichy said:


> Sorry if the truth hurts.
> Take it any way you want, and you certainly don't have to believe me!
> But the science of chemistry as it pertains to water in aquarium systems says you are wrong.


Since you have such a mastery of this, how about you start your own bow at the feet of ichy thread and get out of this one. Maybe you could write a book - I'm sure someone or there might buy it.

I never said anything about not doing water changes in my own tank. You have no clue about how I manage my tanks, and yet you have the gall to come into someone else's thread, immediately assume you are better than them, and start insulting people based on absolutely nothing. The truth is, you spoke without thinking, and you are too much of a coward to apologize. Sorry if that hurts...


----------



## ichy

natemcnutty said:


> Since you have such a mastery of this, how about you start your own bow at the feet of ichy thread and get out of this one. Maybe you could write a book - I'm sure someone or there might buy it.
> 
> I never said anything about not doing water changes in my own tank. You have no clue about how I manage my tanks, and yet you have the gall to come into someone else's thread, immediately assume you are better than them, and start insulting people based on absolutely nothing. The truth is, you spoke without thinking, and you are too much of a coward to apologize. Sorry if that hurts...


I apologize to all the folks on here that have to read your replies:crying:


----------



## houseofcards

Bananableps said:


> ... *Also, it is my experience that frequent water changes only leave an aquarium dependent on frequent water changes. It's just an unnecessary waste of water and time that leaves your tank less resilient*.


Oh do tell, this I'd really like to hear. Exactly what experience do you have running tanks that way. I mean what kind of tanks have you run long term that were successful? High light, co2, macro dosing, etc.


----------



## Bananableps

houseofcards said:


> Oh do tell, this I'd really like to hear. Exactly what experience do you have running tanks that way. I mean what kind of tanks have you run long term that were successful? High light, co2, macro dosing, etc.


Yeah I did the high light, co2, macro dosing thing for a bit over a year. Was just too much stuff for me, personally. I absolutely acknowledge that there are things you can only do with high high, co2, macro dosing, and frequent water changes. 100%. But those things have nothing to do with algae control or fish (most fish) care. What _you_ can do, and I can't, is keep certain aquatic plants. I am not trying to say that that isn't a worthwhile objective. But I just haven't heard any convincing arguments to support the claim that frequent water changes are necessary for healthy plants and fish. All I ever see is anecdotal support, and it is my theory (as we've discussed before), that anecdotal observation of the necessity of water changes comes from people with tanks that are not acclimated to infrequent water changes.

As is, Walstad put her empirically supported arguments forward in her book, and I haven't seen any convincing rebuttals so far.


----------



## roadmaster

Bananableps said:


> Yeah I did the high light, co2, macro dosing thing for a bit over a year. Was just too much stuff for me, personally. I absolutely acknowledge that there are things you can only do with high high, co2, macro dosing, and frequent water changes. 100%. But those things have nothing to do with algae control or fish (most fish) care. What _you_ can do, and I can't, is keep certain aquatic plants. I am not trying to say that that isn't a worthwhile objective. But I just haven't heard any convincing arguments to support the claim that frequent water changes are necessary for healthy plants and fish. All I ever see is anecdotal support, and it is my theory (as we've discussed before), that anecdotal observation of the necessity of water changes comes from people with tanks that are not acclimated to infrequent water changes.
> 
> As is, Walstad put her empirically supported arguments forward in her book, and I haven't seen any convincing rebuttals so far.


 
If you truly have not heard or scene evidence to support the benefit's of water changes in a tank holding fishes or plant's,then you just ain't been around long enough.
Plenty of reason is out there and nobody with any lengthy experience with keeping fishes and or plant's will tell you any different.
When you been around a while,:crying: and begin reading up on thing's like Biological oxygen demand in the aquarium,or Old tank syndrome,or balanced REDOX potential in the aquarium,or mineral's needed by fishes, shrimp,plant's,for structural development and how they might be acquired or depleted ,or begin caring for large Waste producing fishes, or swarm's of fry from same,then one can not only just read about the value of water changes,but you will actually see differences in growth,and development of the flora and fauna within a glass box of water. 
Course this all is directly tied to ones commitment or want to know.
Plenty of way's to run a tank that requires fewer water changes but it too is also a balancing act that work's till it don't anymore.
High tech,low tech ,plant only,or fish only tank's, nobody that's been doin it a while ,will truthfully tell you different.


----------



## Bananableps

roadmaster said:


> If you truly have not heard or scene evidence to support the benefit's of water changes in a tank holding fishes or plant's,then you just ain't been around long enough.
> Plenty of reason is out there and nobody with any lengthy experience with keeping fishes and or plant's will tell you any different.
> When you been around a while,:crying: and begin reading up on thing's like Biological oxygen demand in the aquarium,or Old tank syndrome,or balanced REDOX potential in the aquarium,or mineral's needed by fishes, shrimp,plant's,for structural development and how they might be acquired or depleted ,or begin caring for large Waste producing fishes, or swarm's of fry from same,then one can not only just read about the value of water changes,but you will actually see differences in growth,and development of the flora and fauna within a glass box of water.
> Course this all is directly tied to ones commitment or want to know.
> Plenty of way's to run a tank that requires fewer water changes but it too is also a balancing act that work's till it don't anymore.
> High tech,low tech ,plant only,or fish only tank's, nobody that's been doin it a while ,will truthfully tell you different.



So in lieu of an actual argument, you're just going to sit back and claim authority based on forum seniority? I haven't been on here for as long as you have, but I think three years is a pretty good span of time to get a sense of the typical problems people coming to this forum have. Just going through the threads of panicked aquarists with dying fish and plants *today*, I'm noticing a lot of inert substrate and pretty much no dirt. 

I am familiar with all of the concepts you condescendingly listed in your post. If you want to actually incorporate some of them in a real argument, that would be neat-o. Otherwise, feel free to keep blowing smoke. It really adds authority to your argument when you add apostrophes to every word that ends in an "s".


----------



## houseofcards

Bananableps said:


> ..Personally, I have a lot of success with minimal water changes. My dollar sunfish spawned twice this summer, and I only change my tank's water about four times a month. Is this laziness? Is this pride? No. Diana Walstad gives convincing argument for the benefits of having organic dissolved solids in the water column.


Here your talking about minimum water changes and then you reference Walstad. The Walstad method only works in a very narrow band of aquariums. It sounds to me that you really don't have a lot of experience away from a dirtied tank that probably has easy to grow plants and fairly dim light. You talk about water changes being a negative thing in general, but the reality is that it's just based on what your did, which sounds limited. 



Bananableps said:


> Also, it is my experience that frequent water changes only leave an aquarium dependent on frequent water changes. It's just an unnecessary waste of water and time that leaves your tank less resilient.


Can you give me an example of how one's tank is less resilient. How does removing water on a regular basis make a tank less resilient. What are your removing with the water that the tank would need to stay resilient?


----------



## roadmaster

Bananableps said:


> So in lieu of an actual argument, you're just going to sit back and claim authority based on forum seniority? I haven't been on here for as long as you have, but I think three years is a pretty good span of time to get a sense of the typical problems people coming to this forum have. Just going through the threads of panicked aquarists with dying fish and plants *today*, I'm noticing a lot of inert substrate and pretty much no dirt.
> 
> I am familiar with all of the concepts you condescendingly listed in your post. If you want to actually incorporate some of them in a real argument, that would be neat-o. Otherwise, feel free to keep blowing smoke. It really adds authority to your argument when you add apostrophes to every word that ends in an "s".


 
I have no interest in argument for argument's sake.
The concept's/truth's/and experience of shall we say, more seasoned hobbyist's speak for themselves.
Don't/won't hear none of them say any different. 
I began caring for fishes 40 yrs ago and learned the hard way these concept's /truth's.
I command no more authority than you, but must in all honesty suggest you widen your horizon's just a tad bit more .


----------



## Tbonedawg08

This thread has caught fire!
What have I created?? :shrug:

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## roadmaster

Tbonedawg08 said:


> This thread has caught fire!
> What have I created?? :shrug:
> 
> Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


 Thirst for knowledge would be the hope.:wink2:


----------



## Tbonedawg08

roadmaster said:


> Thirst for knowledge would be the hope.:wink2:


I, for one, appreciate the conversation. I think we'd all benefit from making it less personal, but otherwise there is some good information here.

By no means am I an expert, however I have a few reasons why I believe my tank is healthy:

* I have practically zero algae of any kind.
* My ammonia, nitrite read zero and I can't seem to keep my nitrate levels high enough without adding ferts.
* I've only have 3 fish die out of the 40ish I've introduced and all three died within a week of being introduced.
* When I do introduce new fish, they don't show any additional stress and usually start eating right away.
* My RCS and Harlequin Rasbora have all been breeding.
* My plants seem to be very healthy apart from a few not getting enough light and a few with pin-holes (if anyone knows why, I'd really like to know. I dose potassium weekly)
* My TDS has remained stable in the upper 300s for months, although to be fair I think i remember it being 375 about 6 months ago and yesterday it was 390.
* I run two filters with ceramic. A smaller cannister filter and a hob filter. Both are rated for a 55g tank, but I don't remember the exact gallon per hour rating.

If anyone has any constructive suggestions, input or questions I'd be happy to reply.[emoji4] 

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## IntotheWRX

houseofcards said:


> Here your talking about minimum water changes and then you reference Walstad. The Walstad method only works in a very narrow band of aquariums. It sounds to me that you really don't have a lot of experience away from a dirtied tank that probably has easy to grow plants and fairly dim light. You talk about water changes being a negative thing in general, but the reality is that it's just based on what your did, which sounds limited.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give me an example of how one's tank is less resilient. How does removing water on a regular basis make a tank less resilient. What are your removing with the water that the tank would need to stay resilient?


humans are living things, so are plants. we need time to adjust to our new environment. maybe we moved to a new city, we need couple of days to settle in and then start growing. plants are the same way. sometimes i move my fern plants from one corner of the balcony to a sunnier side, it takes about 3-4 days to adjust and then start shooting new growth. same with our underwater plants. they need time to settle in and get comfortable. if you keep moving our underwater plants to new cities (water changes) they will never get settled and comfortable. 

people often change their water because someone online said so. listen to the tank instead.


----------



## ichy

:help:I give up:help::|


----------



## IntotheWRX

ichy said:


> :help:I give up:help::|


my cousin with 20-30 fishes never changes the water. ever. ive watch those babies grow grow grow. the plants also grow grow grow. you dont need to change water. its all in your head. dont worry about it. nature will take care of itself.

dont listen to the prideful intellectual brain of ours. listen to the tank.


----------



## houseofcards

IntotheWRX said:


> my cousin with 20-30 fishes never changes the water. ever. ive watch those babies grow grow grow. the plants also grow grow grow. you dont need to change water. its all in your head. dont worry about it. nature will take care of itself.
> 
> dont listen to the prideful intellectual brain of ours. listen to the tank.


No one ever said there aren't tanks that you don't have to change much water, but it doesn't work for all tanks. On the other hand changing water and dosing back ferts can help every tank regardless of plant mass, fish load, etc.


----------



## klibs

lol my tank would bomb within the month if I didn't change water.

I agree with others in saying that fish enjoy water changes. I currently preform multiple 50% changes a week and my fish immediately change their behavior to shoaling and are instantly more active directly after a water change. I take this as a positive sign...

While it may be 'possible' to run a tank with 0 water changes I would find it VERY hard to believe that this would be preferred for your livestock...

Also that organic matter buildup coupled with anything above low light would almost certainly lead to algae issues. Running anything but super-low-tech without somewhat frequent water changes seems totally out of the question. If someone can prove me wrong I would be interested to hear...


----------



## Tbonedawg08

klibs said:


> lol my tank would bomb within the month if I didn't change water.
> 
> I agree with others in saying that fish enjoy water changes. I currently preform multiple 50% changes a week and my fish immediately change their behavior to shoaling and are instantly more active directly after a water change. I take this as a positive sign...
> 
> While it may be 'possible' to run a tank with 0 water changes I would find it VERY hard to believe that this would be preferred for your livestock...
> 
> Also that organic matter buildup coupled with anything above low light would almost certainly lead to algae issues. Running anything but super-low-tech without somewhat frequent water changes seems totally out of the question. If someone can prove me wrong I would be interested to hear...


Well, like I said in an earlier post, I don't have ANY algae and my lighting is probably considered medium-ish. I use four 23w (100w equivalent) CFLs at 6500k. I lightly fertilize an average of 3x/month. I've never changed more than a couple cups of water at a time

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## Tbonedawg08

I have tons of fast growing plants and good filtration that I attribute to the "good" water quality 

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## houseofcards

Tbonedawg08 said:


> ...I use four 23w (100w equivalent) CFLs at 6500k. I lightly fertilize an average of 3x/month. I've never changed more than a couple cups of water at a time


Firstly I'm glad your happy with your tank and it's success. 

The lighting your using is pretty much more point. You have a low light setup and your low light-type plants are doing O.K. If you doubled/tripled your light because you want to grow other more demanding plants it probably wouldn't work. If you remove alot of your plant mass it wouldn't work. Doing regular water changes allows you this flexibility.


----------



## Tbonedawg08

houseofcards said:


> Firstly I'm glad your happy with your tank and it's success.
> 
> The lighting your using is pretty much more point. You have a low light setup and your low light-type plants are doing O.K. If you doubled/tripled your light because you want to grow other more demanding plants it probably wouldn't work. If you remove alot of your plant mass it wouldn't work. Doing regular water changes allows you this flexibility.


You'd consider it low light? I know there's a lot of controversy when it comes to lighting, but I don't have a meter to accurately judge.

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## Tbonedawg08

Btw if anyone's interested, I've started replacing the bulbs to newer ones (1 a day) and increasing my metricide from 6 to 10ml (1ml a day increase). Hopefully that doesn't throw off my balance and maybe help reduce/maintain my TDS

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## klibs

houseofcards said:


> Firstly I'm glad your happy with your tank and it's success.
> 
> The lighting your using is pretty much more point. You have a low light setup and your low light-type plants are doing O.K. If you doubled/tripled your light because you want to grow other more demanding plants it probably wouldn't work. If you remove alot of your plant mass it wouldn't work. Doing regular water changes allows you this flexibility.


This is basically what I was trying to say. I'd guess that replacing your bulbs will likely not cause you issues and increasing excel will certainly not cause you issues.

Good luck!


----------



## Clinton Parsons

The more high tech my system gets (I have this obsession with making things complicated for the sake of it), the more I feel like I am one slack off away from disaster... and then I see something like this and I'm like "You know, this doesn't look too bad. I could get used to that." 

Like the older I get, the more I see the merits of slowing down and chilling out my system. Micromanaging fertilizers and keeping co2 as high as possible and blasting my tank with light.... keeping my system "on the edge" like this is getting tiresome. I think I might do what you are doing. One day, at least. 

Maybe I have grown "bored" with it because I have never really tried "low-tech." Or maybe I have grown bored with freshwater. But I am rambling now.


----------



## micheljq

I like this tank, i see some plants there which are not typical low light plants. 4 - 23 watts CFLs over 75G it maybe closer to med light, especially with aluminium reflectors. There have been reports of people running tanks for years without water changes. This one example is far from being the first one, and surely not the last. Although i think it is much better to do some WC at one point. However the aquario is the boss of it's own tank. I am sure he will continue monitor it closely.

Michel.


----------



## houseofcards

Tbonedawg08 said:


> You'd consider it low light? I know there's a lot of controversy when it comes to lighting, but I don't have a meter to accurately judge.


Four 23w cfl bulbs on a 75G, yep that's lowlight. In the old days that would be what 1.2 WPG. It's still relevant to a certain degree. What are the bulbs housed in?


----------



## Tbonedawg08

houseofcards said:


> Four 23w cfl bulbs on a 75G, yep that's lowlight. In the old days that would be what 1.2 WPG. It's still relevant to a certain degree. What are the bulbs housed in?


They're inside the wooden top, but i lined it with mylar to get them to reflect more. The background is also mylar with blue cellophane in front, so I'm sure that helps to a degree.

Im going to thin out and move the stem plants on the far left (ID please) to try and get them more light. They used to be so pretty until they lost all their leaves

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## houseofcards

micheljq said:


> I like this tank, i see some plants there which are not typical low light plants. .


Which plants are those?


----------



## micheljq

Bacopa monnieri, center a little to the right, with a good density, the internodes not far from one other. A red plant lower left, near the substrate, i do not know which one. Limnophila aromatica center a little to the left, although not red?

Michel.


----------



## houseofcards

micheljq said:


> *Bacopa monnieri, center a little to the right, with a good density,* the internodes not far from one other. A red plant lower left, near the substrate, i do not know which one. Limnophila aromatica center a little to the left, although not red?
> 
> Michel.


The only thing I see growing very well in this pic is the Dwarf Sag and the Wisteria or Water Sprite. If L. Aromatica is in there, I can't recognize it.


----------



## natemcnutty

houseofcards said:


> The only thing I see growing very well in this pic is the Dwarf Sag and the Wisteria or Water Sprite. If L. Aromatica is in there, I can't recognize it.


House, it's just barely to the left of the middle. You're missing it because it's so green - he doesn't have enough light to turn it purple.

So much flip flopping in this thread. First few pages are borderline hateful for the sake of being right. Then a bunch of concessions that some tanks can survive without water changes with the caveat that it is limiting. I don't get it - he just wanted to show something he was proud of and ask for suggestions, and people start ripping into him and anyone who is supportive. Really makes people want to join the community...

I personally think changing 50% or more water at a time is an insane amount of change for your fish/shrimp. Half the people on here use RO water to have better control, so the thought of water changes to replace nutrients makes no sense to me since you may as well just add it directly to the tank. To clear up organics, reduce nitrates, etc. are all situational with no definitive timeline. I personally do smaller, more frequent water changes, but I'm not about to condemn someone over it.


Watch the fish? Of course they shoal and behave excited after a water change, you just disturbed their environment and potentially made dramatic changes to their water chemistry. You'd act different too if some giant stuck his hand in your house, wiped it down, and rearranged the furniture.

I'm not saying that I'm right and someone is wrong (because my wife tells me I'm always wrong), but let's get off our high horses and treat other people with dignity and respect.


----------



## micheljq

Water changes subject would deserves a thread of its own, and it would probably be a never ending discussion.

Better bring that debate in a separate thread if needed.

Michel


----------



## Tbonedawg08

houseofcards said:


> The only thing I see growing very well in this pic is the Dwarf Sag and the Wisteria or Water Sprite.


Man. And here I thought I had a pretty nice tank. Guess all I've got is a bunch of Wisteria and Dwarf Sag...

There's literally 5 other types of plants visible in this picture and only one (the stemmy looking things in the back left) isn't growing well.

Houseofcards, who hurt you bro?


Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## houseofcards

Tbonedawg08 said:


> Man. And here I thought I had a pretty nice tank. Guess all I've got is a bunch of Wisteria and Dwarf Sag...
> 
> There's literally 5 other types of plants visible in this picture and only one (the stemmy looking things in the back left) isn't growing well.
> 
> Houseofcards, who hurt you bro?
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


I"m being honest. The plants pointed out to me are not growing correctly, there's simply not enough light. You have a low light setup. Should I lie and say your L. Aromatica looks great? That's not the way the plant is suppose to look. Do a google search or I can show you mine or other members can show you. If I say it looks great, you can't learn or improve your skills. 

Your tank is nice for low light. It doesn't have what it needs for those other plants.


----------



## houseofcards

BTW This is what your first post said



Tbonedawg08 said:


> .. I can go in to more detail on what type of fish/plants I have and my fert regimen, but for now I'd like your thoughts on how much 75g low tech tanks looks..


For me to say this:



houseofcards said:


> The only thing I see growing very well in this pic is the Dwarf Sag and the Wisteria or Water Sprite. If L. Aromatica is in there, I can't recognize it.


There is nothing wrong with that. I also gave you a compliment earlier:



houseofcards said:


> Firstly I'm glad your happy with your tank and it's success..


 Your tank is successful for low light.


----------



## Tbonedawg08

Sorry there was a lot of saltiness in this thread and it rubbed off on me a little.

I do appreciate it. The L. Aromatica is what I plan to move and see if I can't get them revived somewhat. They looked fine until I planted too many together. That's when they started losing leaves and growing sideways.

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## IntotheWRX

Tbonedawg08 said:


> Sorry there was a lot of saltiness in this thread and it rubbed off on me a little.
> 
> I do appreciate it. The L. Aromatica is what I plan to move and see if I can't get them revived somewhat. They looked fine until I planted too many together. That's when they started losing leaves and growing sideways.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


there's not enough room for all of our pride on this forum. shouldn't be any room at all ideally.


----------



## Bananableps

houseofcards said:


> Here your talking about minimum water changes and then you reference Walstad. The Walstad method only works in a very narrow band of aquariums. It sounds to me that you really don't have a lot of experience away from a dirtied tank that probably has easy to grow plants and fairly dim light. You talk about water changes being a negative thing in general, but the reality is that it's just based on what your did, which sounds limited.
> 
> Can you give me an example of how one's tank is less resilient. How does removing water on a regular basis make a tank less resilient. What are your removing with the water that the tank would need to stay resilient?



I don't understand this "narrow band of aquariums" argument. I could just as easily say the same for your method: frequent water changes are only justifiable for the very narrow type of tank that _you_ want to keep. You say that frequent water changes are required in order to keep fish-farm-style bioloads and exotic plants that are, for the most part, not truly aquatic in the wild. I consider those tank-goals to be exceedingly narrow. *You simply have no right to tell people that their tanks are in poor health merely because they don't maintain outlandishly unnatural conditions. *

Before I started keeping sunfish, I had a lush glosso carpet that stayed low, tight, and bright. My blyxa japonica grows thick and bushy. Before I removed it, my ludwigia repens was red. Could I keep HC? Probably not as well as you can. Could HC survive fully submerged in the native habitats of 99% the fish we keep? No chance. So don't tell me that just because I can't keep some trendy exotic that I have an unhealthy tank and that my water change schedule is "lazy".



roadmaster said:


> I have no interest in argument for argument's sake.
> The concept's/truth's/and experience of shall we say, more seasoned hobbyist's speak for themselves.
> Don't/won't hear none of them say any different.
> I began caring for fishes 40 yrs ago and learned the hard way these concept's /truth's.
> I command no more authority than you, but must in all honesty suggest you widen your horizon's just a tad bit more .


So you yap at people for having what you consider to be poor aquarium maintenance habits and then refuse to provide any supporting argument because "I have no interest in argument for argument's sake."? Well then maybe you shouldn't go around starting arguments. I mean seriously, who do you think you are? You come into this thread about a low tech tank, post some derogatory comments, and then claim that you don't owe anyone an explanation for your criticisms?

Bump:


IntotheWRX said:


> there's not enough room for all of our pride on this forum. shouldn't be any room at all ideally.


I would call this thread "overstocked". Others might suggest it needs a water change.


----------



## AbbeysDad

Bananableps said:


> I would call this thread "overstocked". Others might suggest it needs a water change.


'More water/more ferts .... Less water/less ferts' .... 'great taste ... less filling'


----------



## Tbonedawg08

not that it adds to the topic, but I realized that the pic I posted cut off the ends of my tank so here's a better pic for anyone who's interested 

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## houseofcards

Bananableps said:


> I don't understand this "narrow band of aquariums" argument. I could just as easily say the same for your method: frequent water changes are only justifiable for the very narrow type of tank that _you_ want to keep.
> .


Yeah the only problem is a water change is beneficial in every tank as long as you dose, you can't say the same about a tank that doesn't receive water changes. Any seasoned hobbyist here knows that and for you to argue any differently simply exposes your lack of experience and your desire to simply argue for arguments sake. Thats probably the reason @roadmaster didn't want to discuss with you further.



Bananableps said:


> Also, it is my experience that frequent water changes only leave an aquarium dependent on frequent water changes. It's just an unnecessary waste of water and time that leaves your tank less resilient.


I'm still waiting for an explanation on this one. The last time I asked, you pivoted faster than D. Trump


----------



## houseofcards

Tbonedawg08 said:


> not that it adds to the topic, but I realized that the pic I posted cut off the ends of my tank so here's a better pic for anyone who's interested


What plants are in the big grouping on the right?


----------



## Tbonedawg08

houseofcards said:


> What plants are in the big grouping on the right?


Java Ferns and Java Moss in the bottom right. I can't remember the stems that are all up the right side. 

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## houseofcards

Tbonedawg08 said:


> Java Ferns and Java Moss in the bottom right. I can't remember the stems that are all up the right side.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


No I mean that big large group. is that Sprite or Wisteria and anything else.


----------



## Tbonedawg08

houseofcards said:


> No I mean that big large group. is that Sprite or Wisteria and anything else.


Oh yeah Wisteria

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## Tbonedawg08

It looks like there's more than the actually is. On my next day off in gonna move them deeper in to the manzanita branche 

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## houseofcards

What could look nice is you can some rocks and put them in front of that big group with the Wisteria and let the Sag grow all around the front of them and fill up the foreground. You could also put the moss on the rocks if you wanted to go that way. Just a suggestion.


----------



## Tbonedawg08

houseofcards said:


> What could look nice is you can some rocks and put them in front of that big group with the Wisteria and let the Sag grow all around the front of them and fill up the foreground. You could also put the moss on the rocks if you wanted to go that way. Just a suggestion.


I like your idea but I'll have to see how my branch is shaped to see if that'll work. Thanks you

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## houseofcards

Tbonedawg08 said:


> I like your idea but I'll have to see how my branch is shaped to see if that'll work. Thanks you
> 
> Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


It's always fun to tinker with it when you have the time, enjoy!


----------



## Bananableps

houseofcards said:


> Yeah the only problem is a water change is beneficial in every tank as long as you dose, you can't say the same about a tank that doesn't receive water changes. Any seasoned hobbyist here knows that and for you to argue any differently simply exposes your lack of experience and your desire to simply argue for arguments sake. Thats probably the reason @roadmaster didn't want to discuss with you further.


re: "Any seasoned hobbyist". B.S. Walstad didn't invent her method - it is in fact the more traditional way of keeping an aquarium, and a lot of old LFS folk still swear by it. People just started caring more about having water that looks super crystal clear than keeping a balanced ecosystem. 

You and roadmaster continue to just insist on dogma rather than provide real support for your arguments.

Two points:

A) Just because something "is beneficial in every tank" doesn't mean everyone has to do it. You have very specific, high end goals for your aquarium in terms of the plants you want to keep (in part, semi-aquatic plants that would not typically survive fully submerged). Asking everyone to subscribe to the same maintenance routine that you have is like a cigar aficionado turning their nose up at someone for not keeping their Marlboros in a humidifier. Sure it wouldn't _hurt_, but it's completely unnecessary.

B) As it so happens, dissolved organics are in fact beneficial. In nature, humic substances are _the_ source of carbon for aquatic plants. You might be surprised to learn that paintball canisters are very rare in the wild. There is also extensive academic research (in the wild and in aquaria) on the metal-binding benefits of dissolved organics. Finally, Diana Walstad points out that allelopathic chemicals released by plants are among the many organic compounds that accumulate in our tanks. Infrequent water changes allow these chemicals to reach levels which can strongly inhibit algae.

As for fish health, if my fish show good color and are successfully breeding, I assume I'm doing something right.



houseofcards said:


> I'm still waiting for an explanation on this one. The last time I asked, you pivoted faster than D. Trump


Sorry, there was a lot to respond to.
My explanation for this comes from having tanks that I used to change the water in as frequently as you say I should. When I started going low tech, the tanks kicked back at first: algae, bacteria blooms, etc. But once you get over that first hump, the tank adjusts to infrequent water changes and things stabilize. I assume this is a combination of many factors: more snails to break particles down smaller, more surface area for efficient decomposition; more bacteria to further decompose those particles into dissolved organic carbon and nitrates that plants can eat up; plants that are adapted to take advantage of the organics in the water column (as we know, many plants will change or even shed their leaves to adapt to an aquarium's specific parameters). But if you change the water frequently, none of those adaptations will happen because the environmental conditions for more bacteria and dissolved-organics-loving-plants will not exist (granted, conditions for more snails might exist regardless). That's why I say that people who change their water a lot might be misled by their own experience that frequent water changes are a must: because their tanks aren't adapted to infrequent water changes, so any deviation from weekly 50% change is going to cause problems.


----------



## roadmaster

Regular weekly water changes of 25 to 50% are all I have ever done and or suggested to other's.
Is this supposed to be considered too frequent? Waste of time/water?
Have also acknowledged as have other's ,that less frequent than weekly can work with some limitation's.(bio load)
My only gripe was/is/will always be with those who suggest that water changes are over rated and waste of time while caring for fishes that could they speak,,might feel otherwise.
So many things that are unwanted ,unnoticed,or waiting to happen, can easily be kept in check with weekly partial water change.
Don't recall anywhere in this thread where more frequent than weekly was mentioned.


----------



## AbbeysDad

I think it's somewhat short sighted to assume that all tanks benefit from "large water changes as long as there is [chemical fertilizer] dosing". We really can't do direct comparisons of these drastically different methods. _The fact that some can't seem to wrap their heads around the more natural approach is almost surprising to me, since it's much closer to what nature does and even a quick look around should convince anyone that it obviously works._

What I'll call the 'Nearly Natural Habitat' creates an ecosystem that mirrors nature. Fish food, fish and plant waste gets decomposed into base elements (nutrients) to feed the plants and in turn the plants purify the water. A balance is struck between the bio-load and the plant mass, so deficiencies must be accounted for. For example, if the bio-load waste is too low relative to the plant mass, the plants won't get enough nutrients. If the bio-load waste is to great, excess nutrients may build up. Another potential shortcoming is that without partial water changes, important minerals may become depleted in time as fish food alone does not supply all of the elements that fish and plants need.

I have come around to thinking that much like a rain in nature, the 'Nearly Natural Habitat' benefits from a modest partial weekly water change of say around 20%. At which time a modest amount of Trace and depending on the source water hardness, a modest amount of Equilibrium *may* be added to supply Ca and Mg along with necessary missing elements. Depending on the bio-load relative to plant mass, a modest amount of a macro *may* also be required. If the bio-load is [too] large relative to the plant mass, a slightly larger water change may be required for balance. 
I think the health of the plants will display what is necessary (lush, green and slow growing). The key here is a balance that leverages the organic nutrients to feed the plants, relying on far fewer (if any) chemical fertilizer additives. In the end, this should provide the purest water in the habitat for the fish.

So yeah, in the other world of very bright light, CO2, and a chemical fert approach (like EI), a 50% (or greater) water change and more ferts are required.

@houseofcards - you keep saying that my 'Nearly Natural Habitat' approach is "very limited". Although it's likely true I can't grow carpet plants, when I compare your high tech tank to mine, I have a far greater diversity of plants and fish. Yours seems very limited to me.


----------



## IntotheWRX

roadmaster said:


> Regular weekly water changes of 25 to 50% are all I have ever done and or suggested to other's.
> Is this supposed to be considered too frequent? Waste of time/water?
> Have also acknowledged as have other's ,that less frequent than weekly can work with some limitation's.(bio load)
> My only gripe was/is/will always be with those who suggest that water changes are over rated and waste of time while caring for fishes that could they speak,,might feel otherwise.
> So many things that are unwanted ,unnoticed,or waiting to happen, can easily be kept in check with weekly partial water change.
> Don't recall anywhere in this thread where more frequent than weekly was mentioned.


my only gripe with those who suggests water changes are necessary are people who listen to their heads and not the tank. for those who never changes the water are already proof that the tanks are balanced and doing just fine. for those who have a "rule" in their head to change a certain % every 7 days is a made up rule in their mind. let go of that mentality and worry and burden and fear. don't listen to your made up rules and relax and dont change the water. get a little lazy and less up tight and watch your tank do just fine as all of ours who never changes water. then you'll see you've just been trippin over nothing the whole time.

the most i change my water is 25% a month. my fishes just had their second set of babies in the tank. EVERYTHING IS GREAT


----------



## Tbonedawg08

IntotheWRX said:


> my only gripe with those who suggests water changes are necessary are people who listen to their heads and not the tank. for those who never changes the water are already proof that the tanks are balanced and doing just fine. for those who have a "rule" in their head to change a certain % every 7 days is a made up rule in their mind. let go of that mentality and worry and burden and fear. don't listen to your made up rules and relax and dont change the water. get a little lazy and less up tight and watch your tank do just fine as all of ours who never changes water. then you'll see you've just been trippin over nothing the whole time.
> 
> the most i change my water is 25% a month. my fishes just had their second set of babies in the tank. EVERYTHING IS GREAT


I may start doing a monthly 25% change if my TDS gets over 400, but we'll see. This morning it said 384, down from 390

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## IntotheWRX

Tbonedawg08 said:


> I may start doing a monthly 25% change if my TDS gets over 400, but we'll see. This morning it said 384, down from 390
> 
> Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


what is "TDS"?


----------



## ichy

How do you maintain proper ORP levels without water changes? Tanks quickly go towards an oxidation state without replenishing the ions such as calcium and magnesium to neutralize the oxidation. Substrate, mulm etc, can quickly tie up these ions. This makes them unavailable for ion transport in the fish and plants. 

You can add in gH booster but the free reduction ions quickly get scavenged.


----------



## IntotheWRX

ichy said:


> How do you maintain proper ORP levels without water changes? Tanks quickly go towards an oxidation state without replenishing the ions such as calcium and magnesium to neutralize the oxidation. Substrate, mulm etc, can quickly tie up these ions. This makes them unavailable for ion transport in the fish and plants.
> 
> You can add in gH booster but the free reduction ions quickly get scavenged.


I dont know what "ORP" or know what an oxidation state looks like. 

I prob don't need to know because everything is doing great. trust the tank, not our intellect.


----------



## AbbeysDad

IntotheWRX said:


> my only gripe with those who suggests water changes are necessary are people who listen to their heads and not the tank. for those who never changes the water are already proof that the tanks are balanced and doing just fine. for those who have a "rule" in their head to change a certain % every 7 days is a made up rule in their mind. let go of that mentality and worry and burden and fear. don't listen to your made up rules and relax and dont change the water. get a little lazy and less up tight and watch your tank do just fine as all of ours who never changes water. then you'll see you've just been trippin over nothing the whole time.
> 
> the most i change my water is 25% a month. my fishes just had their second set of babies in the tank. EVERYTHING IS GREAT


Maybe, and I also believe that plants are amazing filters...But you have to wonder how 'fresh', fresh water in nature would be if it never, ever rained. Surely it would get pretty foul before it was all gone.

But hey, if you routinely test your water to guard against 'old tank syndrome' you should be okay. The only trouble is I'm not sure we have the appropriate tests to best determine water quality.


----------



## Tbonedawg08

IntotheWRX said:


> what is "TDS"?


Total Dissolved Solids. Basically it's the amount of organic matter dissolved in the water.

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## AbbeysDad

IntotheWRX said:


> what is "TDS"?


Total Dissolved Solids.


----------



## Tbonedawg08

ichy said:


> How do you maintain proper ORP levels without water changes? Tanks quickly go towards an oxidation state without replenishing the ions such as calcium and magnesium to neutralize the oxidation. Substrate, mulm etc, can quickly tie up these ions. This makes them unavailable for ion transport in the fish and plants.
> 
> You can add in gH booster but the free reduction ions quickly get scavenged.


That's the first time I've heard of ORP also. Please explain

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## AbbeysDad

Tbonedawg08 said:


> That's the first time I've heard of ORP also. Please explain


Oxidation Reduction Potential or Redox


----------



## ichy

Tbonedawg08 said:


> That's the first time I've heard of ORP also. Please explain
> 
> Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


ORP is oxidation reduction potential

In a nutshell it would be the ability to transport ions. Growth and health can not occur without proper ion transport.

In planted tanks, certain substrates, biological processes, filter mulm, decay, are oxidation reactions that will sink the + ions of mostly calcium and magnesium.


----------



## Tbonedawg08

ichy said:


> ORP is oxidation reduction potential
> 
> In a nutshell it would be the ability to transport ions. Growth and health can not occur without proper ion transport.
> 
> In planted tanks, certain substrates, all biological processes, filter mulm, all decay, are oxidation reactions that will sink the + ions of mostly calcium and magnesium. That is why gH booster was invented. That is why gH starts dropping and can go to zero "old tank syndrome".


Thank you. I'll check my GH when I get home. Haven't checked it in a while 

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## houseofcards

roadmaster said:


> ...
> Don't recall anywhere in this thread where more frequent than weekly was mentioned.


Yep, that's the problem. People just make stuff up to advance an argument. So my point has been misstated. 

If you took three tanks, High, Medium, Low Light. All of these tanks would work with regular water changes. So if you need heavy dosing or no additional dosing, low stock or high stock they could all be run this way. The variance would be the amount of ferts and the amount of water changes necessary to keep the tank looking good. Many people especially new, don't know what the needs of their tanks are. So this takes the guesswork out, by removing waste and supplying ferts. 

If you took the same three tanks. High, Medium, Low, lots of plants, a small amount of plants, low stock, high stock, you can't run all three systems without water changes. You are more LIMITED to what you can do in terms of having to keep more plant mass and/or less stock. It would be exceedingly more difficult to maintain a high light tank this way. 

Again the point being water changes would work for all tanks (weather necessary or not), no water changes works for a limited type of tank. The limit being light, stock, plant mass, plant type.


----------



## tlarsen

I started a similar thread a couple weeks ago for what I think is the same reason. I maintained a 75G tank with no water changes for 2 years with no problems with algae, etc. It used medium to high light with DIY CO2, and was essentially high tech even with DIY, with 30ppm CO2. I had demanding plants like Rotala wallichii and HC. I started the thread because I wanted to better understand why water changes are necessary beyond the obvious regulation of nutrient levels from decomposing fish and plant waste.

Just like Tbonedawg08, I struck a balance between plant biomass, light, and nutrients from fish and plant waste. This was optimal - I didn't need many chemical ferts and could rely on recycled waste, and I didn't need to break my back with frequent water changes (I had back surgery already). My TDS remained constant in the upper 300s. I did not have a build up of excess macros, so I only needed to dose macros very occasionally, and micros as needed. Who would not want this scenario of tank maintenance? Furthermore, it is NOT limited to low-tech or to certain types of plants, as evidenced here, and by common sense of what it takes to balance light, nutrients and CO2.

BUT, after 2 years of consistent equilibrium in the tank, I grew lazy about testing my water parameters, and eventually I had an outbreak of thread algae followed by BGA/cyano. I believe this is because I let the phosphates creep up without testing (they did get very high once I did test them) and reducing them with water changes. So I would warn that anyone maintaining a balanced tank like this with no or few water changes make sure to check water quality regularly to ensure the balance doesn't shift, because once it has gone too far, it can be hard to fix.

What I have learned from the thread that I started recently, and what is written already in this thread, is that there is one aspect of the aquarium that water changes are necessary for, unrelated to regulating nutrients/DOCs. That is the redox potential. This seems extremely important. Other than this, I honestly do not see a single reason why water changes are necessary IF the balance of plant biomass and nutrients is maintained.



Smooch said:


> The pleco alone is adding to your TDS problem as they are big poopers regardless of their physical size.
> 
> Your plants do not make the pleco poop instantly disappear. Poop needs to be broken down which happens over time. That is more time for the TDS of your tank to increase. Shrimp contribute to your TDS as they break food bits down and leave stuff all over the place. Snails in a large numbers also contribute to TDS as like the pleco, they also poop all over the place. Mulm is adding to your numbers as is overstocking.
> 
> It's run your tank, run it as you see fit. However, as I said, I don't understand of these types of threads 'celebrating' lack of water changes. That to me says "Lazy fish keeper". From where I'm sitting, that is not something to be proud of.


I find this post quite odd. Yes, fish poop is not instantly converted into nutrients which the plants uptake. But we are not talking about a system in which we start from zero - it is a tank that is well established and balanced. Even if the waste takes 2 weeks to decompose and become useable by plants, the plants are already using the nutrients from the waste that decomposed 2 weeks prior. This is exactly why TDS does not increase in a balanced tank without water changes. It is not a matter of 'celebrating lack of water changes', but rather understanding what is actually needed. If you really enjoy doing frequent water changes in large tanks, and spending considerable time on your weekend that you could be spending with your family or friends, and possibly injuring your back, and paying for and wasting excess water, then there is no reason not to.


----------



## roadmaster

I cherish the serenity of working in my tank's when I am not fishing.
The process by which one removes and replaces the water can be less stressful with the right tool's for the job.
With a small pump attached to a hose, I can replace close to 100 gal in but two tank's in about twenty minutes with no lifting of anything but the hose.

The addition of the dry mineral salt's(fertilizer's) we add sharply increases TDS(can cause issues with some soft water species) along with anything else capable of going into solution. Combined with particulate matter trapped on/in filter material,fish waste,fish food's and frequency of feeding's,number's of fishes ,and the balance can easily get skewed to point where plant mass may or may not(need lot's of healthy plants) be able to assimilate all of the organic matter being generated on daily,weekly basis.
Weekly or Bi-weekly water changes,regular filter cleaning, can help keep the afore mentioned from tilting the balance and requires little to no testing.
Yes,if your still using bucket's to move water then it can get old fast.


----------



## joncairns

Lovely looking tank,love the fact you have shrimp cohabiting with Khulli loach and Betta Splenden .
[emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tbonedawg08

joncairns said:


> Lovely looking tank,love the fact you have shrimp cohabiting with Khulli loach and Betta Splenden .
> [emoji6]
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The betta is new, but the loaches don't bother the shrimp at all. Those rummynose tetras are bullies tho.

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## pejerrey

Google "my shrimp tank method" [emoji1417][emoji6]


----------



## Tbonedawg08

Here's after a little bit of scaping. Trying to get some more direct light to the bottom of the tank.

Afterwards my TDS was up to 401. Is that because I stirred up a bunch of stuff? Or is it actually that high today for some reason?

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## AbbeysDad

Tbonedawg08 said:


> Here's after a little bit of scaping. Trying to get some more direct light to the bottom of the tank.
> 
> Afterwards my TDS was up to 401. Is that because I stirred up a bunch of stuff? Or is it actually that high today for some reason?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


Prolly should wait a day to test after stirrin the pot. :smile2:


----------



## Smooch

Tbonedawg08 said:


> Here's after a little bit of scaping. Trying to get some more direct light to the bottom of the tank.
> 
> Afterwards my TDS was up to 401. Is that because I stirred up a bunch of stuff? Or is it actually that high today for some reason?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


Are you really surprised? You've been told that plants are not magical vacuum cleaners that clean up everything that lands on your substrate. 

Instead of ignoring this increase as it has been suggested, after you're done 'stirring the pot' of things mulm and poop, you should also watching out for ammonia spikes. Ammonia remains highly toxic whether you believe in the plant fairies or not.


----------



## houseofcards

Yes that would be another limitation of a tank that doesn't really receive water changes. Once you move things around (scape) you are releasing more nasty stuff as @Smooch referred to. Without a water change fish and/or algae issues are much more likely. 

When you think of a Walstad style tank the word scaping usually doesn't apply.


----------



## Tbonedawg08

houseofcards said:


> Yes that would be another limitation of a tank that doesn't really receive water changes. Once you move things around (scape) you are releasing more nasty stuff as @Smooch referred to. Without a water change fish and/or algae issues are much more likely.
> 
> When you think of a Walstad style tank the word scaping usually doesn't apply.


That's true in also limited in how many plants I can remove if it starts getting overcrowded. Because they grow relatively slow, the tank adapts slowly. If I take out a handful, the tank must adapt much quicker if it even can.
Btw my TDS was 381 this morning.

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## IntotheWRX

how does one measure TDS?


----------



## Tbonedawg08

I think this is what I bought https://www.amazon.com/TDS-Meter-Temperature-Carrying-Resolution/dp/B00LW7F1PY

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## AbbeysDad

TDS is a measure of organic AND inorganic particulates too small to be filtered out. It is not uncommon for some tap waters to have a TDS of 500ppm. Admittedly, this is likely due to minerals, not organics. 

I'd venture to say that if you stir the substrate IN ANY tank, you'd see a temporary increase in TDS. If @Tbonedawg08's TDS was high due to dissolved organic compounds (DOCS), the water would most likely be cloudy.
@Tbonedawg08 - Just curious, what's the TDS of your tap water relative to your tank water?
(and was that the water you originally filled the tank with? Also, do you top off with tap water, distilled or RO water?)

Explaining TDS may help.


----------



## Tbonedawg08

AbbeysDad said:


> TDS is a measure of organic AND inorganic particulates too small to be filtered out. It is not uncommon for some tap waters to have a TDS of 500ppm. Admittedly, this is likely due to minerals, not organics.
> 
> I'd venture to say that if you stir the substrate IN ANY tank, you'd see a temporary increase in TDS. If @Tbonedawg08's TDS was high due to dissolved organic compounds (DOCS), the water would most likely be cloudy.
> 
> @Tbonedawg08 - Just curious, what's the TDS of your tap water relative to your tank water?
> (and was that the water you originally filled the tank with? Also, do you top off with tap water, distilled or RO water?)
> 
> Explaining TDS may help.


I top off with store bought distilled water. I'll have to check my taps TDS and let you know. I seem to remember 325 for some reason but I'm not sure

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## AbbeysDad

Tbonedawg08 said:


> I top off with store bought distilled water. I'll have to check my taps TDS and let you know. I seem to remember 325 for some reason but I'm not sure


That's good to avoid a build-up of minerals, although I'd be concerned w/o any water changes that calcium and magnesium would get depleted over time. Are you adding something to avoid this?


----------



## Tbonedawg08

AbbeysDad said:


> That's good to avoid a build-up of minerals, although I'd be concerned w/o any water changes that calcium and magnesium would get depleted over time. Are you adding something to avoid this?


Not if my ferts don't add it. I got my dry ferts from a user on here. Can't remember his name...
Are those macro or micro?

I do leave empty snail shells to dissolve however

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## natemcnutty

Tbonedawg08 said:


> Not if my ferts don't add it. I got my dry ferts from a user on here. Can't remember his name...
> Are those macro or micro?
> 
> I do leave empty snail shells to dissolve however
> 
> Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


You probably mean nilocg, and unless you got the GH Booster with it, you are not adding any. I wouldn't think snail shells would be able to add back as much as the other snails growing their shells take back out. Do the shells of the snails you have in there look healthy? If they have a calcium deficiency, you'll definitely notice


----------



## Tbonedawg08

Here are all test results from tonight (after dosing 9ml of Metricide and feeding as well as the lights being on for about 3 hours)

TDS- 373ppm
KH- 143.2ppm (8dH)
GH- 125.3ppm (7dH)

PH- 7.5

Ammonia- 0ppm
Nitrite- 0ppm
Nitrate- 40ppm

Temp- 81*F

It seems like my TDS has continued to drop with the addition of more metricide and new CFLs (same Kelvin rating and wattage)

I'll check Nitrates again before the next time I dose ferts to decide if I should add NO3, but otherwise how does it look to you all? I know very little about KH and GH so I'm not sure if those numbers are any good or not.

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## Tbonedawg08

Any thoughts on the metricide affecting TDS? My theory is that the more carbon the plants have, the more nutrients(TDS) they can absorb. Of course, that's only true if carbon is my limiting factor.

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## mettadas

AbbeysDad said:


> Maybe, and I also believe that plants are amazing filters...But you have to wonder how 'fresh', fresh water in nature would be if it never, ever rained. Surely it would get pretty foul before it was all gone.


Rain comes from evaporated water. Evaporated water does not take any dissolved solids with it when it leaves the water column.

Frank.



Sent from my Nexus 9 using Tapatalk


----------



## AbbeysDad

mettadas said:


> Rain comes from evaporated water. Evaporated water does not take any dissolved solids with it when it leaves the water column.
> 
> Frank.


That's out of context - we were speaking of no water changes (which would be like bodies of water if there was never any rain). Besides, rain water travels through all sorts of geology as it makes it's way to streams and rivers...some of which is very rich in organics and minerals.

Bump:


Tbonedawg08 said:


> Here are all test results from tonight (after dosing 9ml of Metricide and feeding as well as the lights being on for about 3 hours)
> 
> TDS- 373ppm
> KH- 143.2ppm (8dH)
> GH- 125.3ppm (7dH)
> 
> PH- 7.5
> 
> Ammonia- 0ppm
> Nitrite- 0ppm
> Nitrate- 40ppm
> 
> Temp- 81*F
> 
> It seems like my TDS has continued to drop with the addition of more metricide and new CFLs (same Kelvin rating and wattage)
> 
> I'll check Nitrates again before the next time I dose ferts to decide if I should add NO3, but otherwise how does it look to you all? I know very little about KH and GH so I'm not sure if those numbers are any good or not.


The water is on the hard side and the nitrates @40ppm are high (be better<=20ppm). It's your call but if I was you I'd do a partial water change.


----------



## Tbonedawg08

AbbeysDad said:


> That's out of context - we were speaking of no water changes (which would be like bodies of water if there was never any rain). Besides, rain water travels through all sorts of geology as it makes it's way to streams and rivers...some of which is very rich in organics and minerals.
> 
> Bump:
> 
> The water is on the hard side and the nitrates @40ppm are high (be better<=20ppm). It's your call but if I was you I'd do a partial water change.


I've been thinking about a small one. Maybe 5g. See where that gets me. I'm gonna test my TDS here soon and see if it's continued to go down. If it has, I may leave it be.

As far as the Nitrate...i'll keep an eye on it. If it doesn't go down without dosing NO3 then I'll do a change.

Im not opposed to doing water changes. I just don't want to do them frequently. I have almost no free time and taking an hour every week is actually really tough for me. I haven't even been able to top off the water this week because I ran out and haven't had time to buy more. If my water quality can remain reasonable without them, I'll do it.

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## Tbonedawg08

Btw TDS has remained stable at 373. I will check again after I add 2g of distilled water and see what kind of an impact it makes

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Maryland Guppy said:


> Every tank needs a parameter to establish the interval of a water change.
> If NO3 is used for a high bioload, TDS used for accumulated ferts, or loss of KH etc...





Tbonedawg08 said:


> I've been thinking about a small one. Maybe 5g. See where that gets me. I'm gonna test my TDS here soon and see if it's continued to go down. If it has, I may leave it be.
> 
> As far as the Nitrate...i'll keep an eye on it. If it doesn't go down without dosing NO3 then I'll do a change.


I'll take it that you might have found a reason for a water change???


----------



## ichy

Tbonedawg08 said:


> I've been thinking about a small one. Maybe 5g. See where that gets me. I'm gonna test my TDS here soon and see if it's continued to go down. If it has, I may leave it be.
> 
> As far as the Nitrate...i'll keep an eye on it. If it doesn't go down without dosing NO3 then I'll do a change.
> 
> Im not opposed to doing water changes. I just don't want to do them frequently. I have almost no free time and taking an hour every week is actually really tough for me. I haven't even been able to top off the water this week because I ran out and haven't had time to buy more. If my water quality can remain reasonable without them, I'll do it.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk



There are ways to automate and make your life easier. My water changes take about 15 minutes for a 30 gallon water change. Then I have an auto top off system that I fill a 10 gallon brute every week. The auto top off was about $30 for a kit if I remember.
Just auto top off alone really reduces work. I hated lugging buckets every other day.

Also, get an RO unit if you really need to use distilled water to top off.
It will pay for itself pretty quick just in time saved going to the store.


----------



## Tbonedawg08

ichy said:


> There are ways to automate and make your life easier. My water changes take about 15 minutes for a 30 gallon water change. Then I have an auto top off system that I fill a 10 gallon brute every week. The auto top off was about $30 for a kit if I remember.
> Just auto top off alone really reduces work. I hated lugging buckets every other day.
> 
> Also, get an RO unit if you really need to use distilled water to top off.
> It will pay for itself pretty quick just in time saved going to the store.


I'll check out the auto top off unit. I'm not sure if I can use it because of the way my hood is. I had to cut in to it just to use a hob filter.

We've been talking about an RO system for a couple weeks now due to drinking water quality. The problem is that we rent so I'm not sure how involved it is and how my landlord would feel about it if he found it

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## ichy

Tbonedawg08 said:


> I'll check out the auto top off unit. I'm not sure if I can use it because of the way my hood is. I had to cut in to it just to use a hob filter.
> 
> We've been talking about an RO system for a couple weeks now due to drinking water quality. The problem is that we rent so I'm not sure how involved it is and how my landlord would feel about it if he found it
> 
> Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


ATO is definitely easiest in a sump, maybe someone can chime in that has done them directly into the tank?
Here is the one I did. The kit is really nothing more than about $20 worth of parts but I didn't feel like sourcing them individaully
Aquahub DIY Top-it-Off Kit Premium - Bulk Reef Supply

You can hook RO units directly to faucets with no plumbing changes other than an adapter on the fauet. I attach mine to the faucet in my utility room.


----------



## Tbonedawg08

ichy said:


> ATO is definitely easiest in a sump, maybe someone can chime in that has done them directly into the tank?
> Here is the one I did. The kit is really nothing more than about $20 worth of parts but I didn't feel like sourcing them individaully
> Aquahub DIY Top-it-Off Kit Premium - Bulk Reef Supply
> 
> You can hook RO units directly to faucets with no plumbing changes other than an adapter on the fauet. I attach mine to the faucet in my utility room.


Nice. I'll take a look at it!

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## ichy

Tbonedawg08 said:


> Nice. I'll take a look at it!
> 
> Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


search craig's list for reverse osmosis. For some reason they are a dime a dozen around here. I've seen new in the box for $40!
But if looking for used, make sure you get the ones with the standard 10" housings.


----------



## AbbeysDad

Tbonedawg08 said:


> I've been thinking about a small one. Maybe 5g. See where that gets me. I'm gonna test my TDS here soon and see if it's continued to go down. If it has, I may leave it be.
> 
> As far as the Nitrate...i'll keep an eye on it. If it doesn't go down without dosing NO3 then I'll do a change.
> 
> Im not opposed to doing water changes. I just don't want to do them frequently. I have almost no free time and taking an hour every week is actually really tough for me. I haven't even been able to top off the water this week because I ran out and haven't had time to buy more. If my water quality can remain reasonable without them, I'll do it.


Wow, I thought you weren't doing water changes to leverage organic nutrients, but now it just sounds like neglect.


----------



## Tbonedawg08

AbbeysDad said:


> Wow, I thought you weren't doing water changes to leverage organic nutrients, but now it just sounds like neglect.


Lol who would think an aquarium forum could be so pretentious and judgmental? Are my fish healthy? Yes. Beyond that, everything else is personal preference.

The point of this thread was to show that water changes can be largely avoided if you set up your tank with lots of plants and top off with distilled/RO water. If you don't agree then just look at my test results (above). The only less than ideal reading was Nitrate and after almost 1 year only 40ppm had accumulated. I'd call 1 small water change per year a success.

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## houseofcards

Tbonedawg08 said:


> ...
> The point of this thread was to show that water changes can be largely avoided if you set up your tank with lots of plants and top off with distilled/RO water.


Way too broad of a statement. You need to add, low/med light only, lean livestock. BTW just a personal opinion, but water changes are probably the easiest thing to do. On a 75G it should take you 10 minutes with a python or similar product. It's also easier to trim and spot things with the water half removed and you don't have your arm under the water making a mess. 

A big part of this hobby is aquascaping. You don't always want a tank full of fast growing plants. Sometimes it's just moss or a lean iwagumi, etc. These setups usually have more hardscape than plants and would even be more difficult to maintain without regular waterchanges.


----------



## Tbonedawg08

houseofcards said:


> Way too broad of a statement. You need to add, low/med light only, lean livestock. BTW just a personal opinion, but water changes are probably the easiest thing to do. On a 75G it should take you 10 minutes with a python or similar product. It's also easier to trim and spot things with the water half removed and you don't have your arm under the water making a mess.
> 
> A big part of this hobby is aquascaping. You don't always want a tank full of fast growing plants. Sometimes it's just moss or a lean iwagumi, etc. These setups usually have more hardscape than plants and would even be more difficult to maintain without regular waterchanges.


No I completely agree that most tanks wouldn't work. Mine could be better as well I'm sure. That's partially what this post was for too. To find out if there's anything I can do better (other than water changes) or if there's any other testing I should be doing. Not to repeatedly be told that I'm neglectful or implying that my tanks parameters must be off even tho my testing proves otherwise.

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## houseofcards

Tbonedawg08 said:


> No I completely agree that most tanks wouldn't work. Mine could be better as well I'm sure. That's partially what this post was for too. To find out if there's anything I can do better (other than water changes) or if there's any other testing I should be doing. Not to repeatedly be told that I'm neglectful or implying that my tanks parameters must be off even tho my testing proves otherwise.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


That makes sense. I don't think your being neglectful, as I stated you tank is successful doing what your doing.

As you stated and I agree it's only going to work within certain parameters and with certain plants. You might be able to grow other more difficult plants, but when they don't grow quickly or well, algae is even more determined to take hold, especially with organics left in the water for the plants to hopefully consume.


----------



## Mxx

I'm going to cross-link to a different thread which asked what water changes remove (other than potentially nitrates), - http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/8...cals-do-water-changes-actually-reduce-10.html

And to that discussion I had just added the comments below, which I hope is helpful to the discussion here as well - 


To get back to the OP's original question, of what those 'other chemicals or toxins' might be which are removed through water changes - I'd have to say that I don't exactly know. I'd spent a fair bit of time trying to research what these might be, but I hadn't managed to narrow it down. My conclusion had been that there are a list of things which collectively get lumped under the label of 'dissolved organic compounds' or 'dissolved organic carbon'. I'd seen some description of these somewhere, perhaps it was in Walstead's book - as including sugars, lipids, (so yes fats and oils), etc. And these DOC's are simply the metabolic byproducts of animals, bacteria, and I suppose plants as well when they decompose. 

It seems some of these compounds cannot be readily or easily broken down by bacteria or used by plants in the large-molecule forms they are in, so they could tend to accumulate. 

However, I do believe you can oxidize/reduce these organic molecules into more simple compounds through oxidizing action such as the use of a decent ozone reactor. (Ozone is how many utility companies treat our tap water in the first place). 

And some of the other potential contaminants that might seep into the tank can also be removed by carbon and/or purigen. 

If water changes are required to keep nitrogen (ammonia/nitrites/nitrates) from building up then that's not a very well balanced or properly filtered planted tank. 

Total dissolved solids, or 'salts' resulting from the interaction/combining of acids and bases within the aquarium system, have the potential to build up over time. So that may be something to monitor with a TDS meter which measures the water's conductivity. But some low-water change planted tanks report TDS falling to quite levels if plant cutting are regularly removed or an algae scrubber is used to export nutrients. 

The balance of fertilizers necessary for plant growth is another story, but if you for instance use a mineralized soil substrate with a cap, then your plants might have a few year's worth of nutrients to last them, and that can be added to or recharged by inserting fertilizer sticks. 

If for instance your tank gets low on some nutrient such as iron for instance, then your plants will to a certain degree stop absorbing nitrates from the water and these might build up if you don't have some other way of dealing with preventing that such as the use of a deep sand-bed of a size which is appropriate for dealing with your bioload. 

Walstead's low-tech planted tanks I believe have found a certain stability which keeps them healthy long-term, but it seems this requires maintaining a much lower bioload of fish than most aquarists are accustomed to stocking. 

I'm not quite sure why the Walstead low-tech approach might not also work with a higher bio-load, better filtration, greater light intensity - if CO2 was being dosed as well. Perhaps it takes a while for those other DOC's to oxidize naturally, which doesn't happen quickly enough in high-tech tanks. The usual argument is that a high-tech tank will deplete nutrients from the substrate too quickly, and then things will crash. But I'd still have thought with the greater feeding required by a larger bioload this would reach homeostasis as well at some point. 

PH and hardness need to be monitored as well however, as if you're not replacing those with water changes then the tank may have a pH crash if you're not dosing minerals or have some stones/crushed coral/gravel/etc in the tank which will slowly dissolve and replace those minerals if/when pH starts to drop. 

Doing water changes to manage fertilizer levels via Barr's EI method is of course a different approach altogether, and which seems to work well itself. 

In conclusion, I don't think water changes in a good planted tank should be about nitrogen/nitrates at all unless your tank has a problem, but there are various other potential toxins that potentially may need to be dealt with in other ways including filtration by ozone and carbon if not through water changes.


----------



## AbbeysDad

Tbonedawg08 said:


> No I completely agree that most tanks wouldn't work. Mine could be better as well I'm sure. That's partially what this post was for too. To find out if there's anything I can do better (other than water changes) or if there's any other testing I should be doing. Not to repeatedly be told that I'm neglectful or implying that my tanks parameters must be off even tho my testing proves otherwise.


I was way on your side as I'm also doing a nearly natural habitat by leveraging organic nutrients by limiting chemical ferts and limited water changes.
But experts agree that the lower the nitrates, the better for fish, with 10-20ppm being the upper limit to prevent long term negative health effects. Your nitrates are way to high at 40ppm and you speak of a 5g water change, when you'd need a 50% water change to get down around 20ppm!
And you say you can't find 1 hour a week to do maintenance.

So I'm with you in principal, but the data shows you need a partial water change now and as necessary to keep nitrates down*....so there's the advice you came here for. Only you can find the time.

(*maybe if you had more plants [anacharis is a good nitrate consumer] or less fish you could do a modest water change every other week or once a month or only as needed to keep nitrates down?)


----------



## Tbonedawg08

@Mxx, epic post! I'll look in to that once I get the chance.
@AbbeysDad, I actually replaced 4g today due to a filter cleaning (added BioHome to HOB filter) and evaporation. My wonder is if my Nitrates are high since I dose NO3 so I'm going to hold off on a real water change till next week and see if they're still high or not. If they haven't started to reduce I'll go ahead with a 25-35% change and see where that gets me.

Thanks for all the advice. I'll update as I get more information.

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## houseofcards

AbbeysDad said:


> I was way on your side as I'm also doing a nearly natural habitat by leveraging organic nutrients by limiting chemical ferts and limited water changes.)


It's not about taking sides. It's about educating new planted hobbyists. You seem to only want to communicate through the "ecology of the planted tank" which is fine for a limited number of setups, but there is much more to the hobby then simply stuffing a tank with plants to try and "balance" things out. 

Are you aware that there is a whole aquascaping component to the hobby which is bigger than dirtied tanks. Within aquascaping there are different styles from heavy plant mass like Dutch to extremely lean ones that are called Iwagumi. These setups can't exist without water changes and water column dosing. There are people that are in this hobby for the aesthetics only that's why they buy rimless tanks and use glass lily pipes they don't want to see equipment nor do they want to add anacharis to soak up nutrients. Then their are others that simply want to grow plants and have a different agenda. 

The entire point is you can have any setup with water changes as long as you dose, you simply can do that without water changes. It's not a debate, it's knowledge of the hobby. 

Here' an example of thanks that get regular water changes and water column dosing. Are they all wrong? 

2015 AGA Aquascaping Contest - Aquatic Garden, 200L ~ 320L


----------



## AbbeysDad

houseofcards said:


> It's not about taking sides. It's about educating new planted hobbyists. You seem to only want to communicate through the "ecology of the planted tank" which is fine for a limited number of setups, but there is much more to the hobby then simply stuffing a tank with plants to try and "balance" things out.
> 
> Are you aware that there is a whole aquascaping component to the hobby which is bigger than dirtied tanks. Within aquascaping there are different styles from heavy plant mass like Dutch to extremely lean ones that are called Iwagumi. These setups can't exist without water changes and water column dosing. There are people that are in this hobby for the aesthetics only that's why they buy rimless tanks and use glass lily pipes they don't want to see equipment nor do they want to add anacharis to soak up nutrients. Then their are others that simply want to grow plants and have a different agenda.
> 
> The entire point is you can have any setup with water changes as long as you dose, you simply can do that without water changes. It's not a debate, it's knowledge of the hobby.
> 
> Here' an example of thanks that get regular water changes and water column dosing. Are they all wrong?
> 
> 2015 AGA Aquascaping Contest - Aquatic Garden, 200L ~ 320L


I think you're in the wrong thread. It kinda became a little about sides...if you followed the thread, you'd realize that awhile back it took a left turn down ugly street debating the merits of partial water changes!

Obvously @Tbonedawg08 isn't doing your type of large water change / heavy ferts type of method that you do in your 1.5 gallon nano tank (cute btw):
( from tank Journal: Mr. Aqua 1.5G Desktop Iwagumi )

He's got a much larger tank with lots of plants and is taking the more natural approach with *limited/no water changes*....similar to (but not exactly like) a Walstad Method.

However, the education is that even with this type of method, one may need to perform varying degrees of water changes volume/frequency to maintain balance. In his case, his nitrates are high @40ppm suggesting an appropriate water change is necessary to bring them down. (But if he stops dosing KNO3, perhaps the plants can reduce enough?)

Yes I fully understand the various types of aquascaping. Frankly I think some of them are silly as they seem to mirror landscapes rather than aquascapes. I also realize that most of these setups are as far from nature as you can get with chemicals and (CO2) gas. I'm not convinced this is particularly good for fish. But then these are all about the art of the scape, rather than real, living habitats. On the up side, the tanks in these competitions are setup and torn back down in fairly short periods of time.

My tank is a fish habitat with plants. I'm using plants as filters to provide the purest possible water for the fish. You're free to do whatever method you choose. You prefer to do large water changes and dose with chemical ferts. I prefer to do modest water changes to leverage the organic nutrients and use little/no chemical ferts. I think my tank is closer to nature, making it a better habitat for the fish. But I'm not trying to sell you anything so there's really no debate.


----------



## houseofcards

AbbeysDad said:


> ...
> My tank is a fish habitat with plants. I'm using plants as filters to provide the purest possible water for the fish.


I'm last time I checked I had plants in my tank, plus I'm changing the water. If you think your tank is providing the purest possible water then you are just flat out wrong.

You can't seem to admit that the whole point is your could have any setup you want if you do water changes, but without you are limited by light and the plants you can grow which is what your tank is. The OP already realizes that, but you can't seem to admit that point.

For someone new coming into the hobby who doesn't understand things, it's much more advantageous for them to do regular water changes and not try to find the 'balance' in a tank and walk a tight rope.


----------



## roadmaster

Mxx said:


> I'm going to cross-link to a different thread which asked what water changes remove (other than potentially nitrates), - http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/8...cals-do-water-changes-actually-reduce-10.html
> 
> And to that discussion I had just added the comments below, which I hope is helpful to the discussion here as well -
> 
> 
> To get back to the OP's original question, of what those 'other chemicals or toxins' might be which are removed through water changes - I'd have to say that I don't exactly know. I'd spent a fair bit of time trying to research what these might be, but I hadn't managed to narrow it down. My conclusion had been that there are a list of things which collectively get lumped under the label of 'dissolved organic compounds' or 'dissolved organic carbon'. I'd seen some description of these somewhere, perhaps it was in Walstead's book - as including sugars, lipids, (so yes fats and oils), etc. And these DOC's are simply the metabolic byproducts of animals, bacteria, and I suppose plants as well when they decompose.
> 
> It seems some of these compounds cannot be readily or easily broken down by bacteria or used by plants in the large-molecule forms they are in, so they could tend to accumulate.
> 
> However, I do believe you can oxidize/reduce these organic molecules into more simple compounds through oxidizing action such as the use of a decent ozone reactor. (Ozone is how many utility companies treat our tap water in the first place).
> 
> And some of the other potential contaminants that might seep into the tank can also be removed by carbon and/or purigen.
> 
> If water changes are required to keep nitrogen (ammonia/nitrites/nitrates) from building up then that's not a very well balanced or properly filtered planted tank.
> 
> Total dissolved solids, or 'salts' resulting from the interaction/combining of acids and bases within the aquarium system, have the potential to build up over time. So that may be something to monitor with a TDS meter which measures the water's conductivity. But some low-water change planted tanks report TDS falling to quite levels if plant cutting are regularly removed or an algae scrubber is used to export nutrients.
> 
> The balance of fertilizers necessary for plant growth is another story, but if you for instance use a mineralized soil substrate with a cap, then your plants might have a few year's worth of nutrients to last them, and that can be added to or recharged by inserting fertilizer sticks.
> 
> If for instance your tank gets low on some nutrient such as iron for instance, then your plants will to a certain degree stop absorbing nitrates from the water and these might build up if you don't have some other way of dealing with preventing that such as the use of a deep sand-bed of a size which is appropriate for dealing with your bioload.
> 
> Walstead's low-tech planted tanks I believe have found a certain stability which keeps them healthy long-term, but it seems this requires maintaining a much lower bioload of fish than most aquarists are accustomed to stocking.
> 
> I'm not quite sure why the Walstead low-tech approach might not also work with a higher bio-load, better filtration, greater light intensity - if CO2 was being dosed as well. Perhaps it takes a while for those other DOC's to oxidize naturally, which doesn't happen quickly enough in high-tech tanks. The usual argument is that a high-tech tank will deplete nutrients from the substrate too quickly, and then things will crash. But I'd still have thought with the greater feeding required by a larger bioload this would reach homeostasis as well at some point.
> 
> PH and hardness need to be monitored as well however, as if you're not replacing those with water changes then the tank may have a pH crash if you're not dosing minerals or have some stones/crushed coral/gravel/etc in the tank which will slowly dissolve and replace those minerals if/when pH starts to drop.
> 
> Doing water changes to manage fertilizer levels via Barr's EI method is of course a different approach altogether, and which seems to work well itself.
> 
> In conclusion, I don't think water changes in a good planted tank should be about nitrogen/nitrates at all unless your tank has a problem, but there are various other potential toxins that potentially may need to be dealt with in other ways including filtration by ozone and carbon if not through water changes.


 Yes,I am on board with all of the above.:wink2:
This kind of reading is when people's eye's start bleeding:laugh2:
Suffice to say most of us came from fishkeeping side of the hobby where regular water changes are adopted early.(or should be)
No harm comes from the practice, and not much equipment or science involved.
Work's across a wide range of tank's/method's.
Recall Tom Barr once saying that he believed Miss Walstad had moved away from the no water change method since writing her treatise but it is only heresay.


----------



## AbbeysDad

houseofcards said:


> I'm last time I checked I had plants in my tank, plus I'm changing the water. If you think your tank is providing the purest possible water then you are just flat out wrong.
> 
> You can't seem to admit that the whole point is your could have any setup you want if you do water changes, but without you are limited by light and the plants you can grow which is what your tank is. The OP already realizes that, but you can't seem to admit that point.
> 
> For someone new coming into the hobby who doesn't understand things, it's much more advantageous for them to do regular water changes and not try to find the 'balance' in a tank and walk a tight rope.


LOL - Then you should be 'talking' to @Tbonedawg08 instead of me. He setup his tank 9 months ago and has never done a water change.

Have you read any of the posts in this thread?


----------



## AbbeysDad

roadmaster said:


> Suffice to say most of us came from fishkeeping side of the hobby where regular water changes are adopted early.(or should be)
> No harm comes from the practice, and not much equipment or science involved. Work's across a wide range of tank's/method's.


Agreed. I've been doing water changes in one tank or another since about 1966!
It's just with enough healthy, growing plants to aid in purifying the water, partial water changes can be lower volume and/or less frequent and still have even purer water. I dunno about no water changes at all because I still see benefit in them to a lessor degree then when I had plastic plants and fought to keep nitrates low. But leveraging the organic nutrients means I can use less (or maybe one day no) chemical additives to keep plants lush and green making for a more natural habitat. Time will tell.



roadmaster said:


> Recall Tom Barr once saying that he believed Miss Walstad had moved away from the no water change method since writing her treatise but it is only heresay.


Well at least not according to this interview in Feb 2013 where she stated she had several tanks going strong w/o water changes for 8-10 years.


----------



## IntotheWRX

Mother nature has her perfectly balanced eco system that was designed by God. Us humans try our best to our knowledge and abilities to mimic mother nature system in our homes. It may be never perfect, but there is a perfect balance system we are all trying to mimic. 

Many times, we fail at finding that balance. Can't blame us, no one is perfect. Our water settings going exponentially off balance, so we use a water change as a "reset" button. It's ok to spend every week hitting the "reset" button with water changes. but the pros have a deeper understanding of this divine balance and those who reach it will never have to change the water.

I have seen many people come close to that balance. example: no equipment, no filter, no fertz, no water change, no algae. Just a glass box of dirt, plants, fishes next to a window. It looks beautiful and lush and healthy.

if you find yourself having to change water all the time to maintain this balance, then i suggest you to figure out whats wrong and whats missing. once you get better at finding this balance, you can then start relaxing and let nature do its work without having human intervention all the time.


----------



## houseofcards

I was on Amazon reading some tidbits from D. Walstad book and I was surprised by a couple of things just in the pre-purchase information relating to some of the pictures in the book.

She had a breakout of TB in one of her tanks and describes how she used a UV to get rid of it. 

She also describes how she used the DSM in one of her setups to help acclimate delicate plants during setup. Who actually pioneered this method? I know Barr was a big advocate for this.


----------



## Tbonedawg08

houseofcards said:


> I was on Amazon reading some tidbits from D. Walstad book and I was surprised by a couple of things just in the pre-purchase information relating to some of the pictures in the book.
> 
> She had a breakout of TB in one of her tanks and describes how she used a UV to get rid of it.
> 
> She also describes how she used the DSM in one of her setups to help acclimate delicate plants during setup. Who actually pioneered this method? I know Barr was a big advocate for this.


In my book, TB stands for tuberculosis and DSM stands for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual....huh?

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## houseofcards

Tbonedawg08 said:


> In my book, TB stands for tuberculosis and DSM stands for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual....huh?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


Sorry Tbone, I should have explained. The TB she is referring to is a type of tuberculosis that she refers to as Fish TB (Mycobacteriosis.)

DSM in the planted tank world refers to Dry Start Method. Where you basically plant certain plants usually carpeting type plants and you grow them in a moist substrate without filling the tank. You keep it covered with a clear wrap so light can get to them, and keep it moist like a greenhouse. Their are both advantages/disadvantages to this method.


----------



## Tbonedawg08

houseofcards said:


> Sorry Tbone, I should have explained. The TB she is referring to is a type of tuberculosis that she refers to as Fish TB (Mycobacteriosis.)
> 
> DSM in the planted tank world refers to Dry Start Method. Where you basically plant certain plants usually carpeting type plants and you grow them in a moist substrate without filling the tank. You keep it covered with a clear wrap so light can get to them, and keep it moist like a greenhouse. Their are both advantages/disadvantages to this method.


Ahh I see. Thank you

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## roadmaster

AbbeysDad said:


> Agreed. I've been doing water changes in one tank or another since about 1966!
> It's just with enough healthy, growing plants to aid in purifying the water, partial water changes can be lower volume and/or less frequent and still have even purer water. I dunno about no water changes at all because I still see benefit in them to a lessor degree then when I had plastic plants and fought to keep nitrates low. But leveraging the organic nutrients means I can use less (or maybe one day no) chemical additives to keep plants lush and green making for a more natural habitat. Time will tell.
> 
> 
> 
> Well at least not according to this interview in Feb 2013 where she stated she had several tanks going strong w/o water changes for 8-10 years.


 Yes,Is also why I began studying how to grow pant's in the aquarium.
If I take a three day fishing trip, or a week's vacation,I am confident That my tank's can function cleanly in my absences.(near anal bout this).
Check out UKAPS.ORG planted tank forum and scroll down to El natural/low tech subforum for title of thread.."Walstad revises" which I saw yesterday or day before.
I am not skilled enough on grandpa box to provide a link.:frown2:


----------



## AbbeysDad

roadmaster said:


> Yes,Is also why I began studying how to grow pant's in the aquarium.
> If I take a three day fishing trip, or a week's vacation,I am confident That my tank's can function cleanly in my absences.(near anal bout this).
> Check out UKAPS.ORG planted tank forum and scroll down to El natural/low tech subforum for title of thread.."Walstad revises" which I saw yesterday or day before.
> I am not skilled enough on grandpa box to provide a link.:frown2:


I read through the interviews and the thread only to find that the only references to water changes were in the initial setups and following DSM, where several water changes (removing the excess 'organics' from 'organic' potting soil) might be required to stabilize the tank. After that, it's all about good circulation with pumps or filters. 
Still, I think that for all but a very low stock level in a heavily planted tank, a modest partial weekly water change will be beneficial.


----------



## roadmaster

Agreed.


----------



## houseofcards

IntotheWRX said:


> Mother nature has her perfectly balanced eco system that was designed by God. Us humans try our best to our knowledge and abilities to mimic mother nature system in our homes. It may be never perfect, but there is a perfect balance system we are all trying to mimic.
> 
> Many times, we fail at finding that balance. Can't blame us, no one is perfect. Our water settings going exponentially off balance, so we use a water change as a "reset" button. It's ok to spend every week hitting the "reset" button with water changes. but the pros have a deeper understanding of this divine balance and those who reach it will never have to change the water.
> 
> I have seen many people come close to that balance. example: no equipment, no filter, no fertz, no water change, no algae. Just a glass box of dirt, plants, fishes next to a window. It looks beautiful and lush and healthy.
> 
> if you find yourself having to change water all the time to maintain this balance, then i suggest you to figure out whats wrong and whats missing. once you get better at finding this balance, you can then start relaxing and let nature do its work without having human intervention all the time.


I hung this over my tank in case I ever get the urge to change the water.


----------



## Tbonedawg08

houseofcards said:


> I hung this over my tank in case I ever get the urge to change the water.


Lol i agree with it too. I see the merit in water changes, but "hitting the reset button" is a perfect way to describe it.

Im actually afraid that if I change much I could crash my tank. My TDS is down to 352 last night and I've started dosing 10ml of metricide. I'll check Nitrates Thursday and see if it's improved any

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## AbbeysDad

Tbonedawg08 said:


> Lol i agree with it too. I see the merit in water changes, but "hitting the reset button" is a perfect way to describe it.
> 
> Im actually afraid that if I change much I could crash my tank. My TDS is down to 352 last night and I've started dosing 10ml of metricide. I'll check Nitrates Thursday and see if it's improved any


Ah but a large water change would be sortof like a reset, while a modest water change would be like a gentle spring rain....A rain doesn't crash nature and fresh water won't crash your tank. 
For what it's worth I'm not a fan of glutaraldehyde - a toxic chemical used to sterilize medical equipment - did you know that lab personnel handle that stuff wearing hazmat suites to ensure it never touches their skin or vapors inhaled?
Do you really feel you need that in your tank?!


----------



## TwoTurtles

This discussion got me wondering what a 'natural' stocking level would be.

This study suggests a biomass density of about 6g per m2. So a 1000l cube tank could hold 6g of fish, about a dozen zebra danio. Trout fisheries in rivers manage 10x that but of course a river is constantly having it's water changed and fisheries can't really be called natural, so a lake is a better model. I couldn't find figures for a tropical lake, I suspect that they will be a little bit higher since there is more sunlight coming in but maybe not due to the lower oxygen levels and the fact that we're looking at the equilibrium not the maximum growth rate.


----------



## Tbonedawg08

Update: After no ferts for two weeks but increasing metricide from 6ml to 10ml and replacing my 9 month old CFLs, my TDS is down to 349 (previously 390 nine days ago) and my Nitrates have gone down to 20-30ppm (40ppm six days ago). 

Those numbers are prior to my weekly top off btw.

Should I dose all other ferts today (not NO3) or would you all suggest I give it another week? I know that'll increase my TDS but I'd hate to harm my plants because they're low on a nutrient.

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## houseofcards

Tbonedawg08 said:


> Update: After no ferts for two weeks but increasing metricide from 6ml to 10ml and replacing my 9 month old CFLs, my TDS is down to 349 (previously 390 nine days ago) and my Nitrates have gone down to 20-30ppm (40ppm six days ago).
> 
> Those numbers are prior to my weekly top off btw.
> 
> Should I dose all other ferts today (not NO3) or would you all suggest I give it another week? I know that'll increase my TDS but I'd hate to harm my plants because they're low on a nutrient.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


Now look at your post.


1. Your running all kinds of test on your water
2. Your TDS is high
3. Your adding metricide
4. Your wondering what/when you should dose

So your basically doing all this in a tank that doesn't really receive water changes to get it all to work. 

If you were doing regular water changes (weekly) and dosing reguarly for ferts you wouldn't have to worry about 1,2,3, or 4. 

I idea behind doing an EI type dosing routine is that you dose within a range to give you some excess so it never runs out, the by changing the water everything says within a range. A big part of this is that you really don't have to test. It's designed to make things easy and eliminate testing since your keeping things within a range every week. 

I haven't checked my water parameters in any of my tanks in at least 5 years. This includes tanks that I sell plants from and tanks that I aquascape. I have no algae and/or no deficiencies with noting.


----------



## Tbonedawg08

houseofcards said:


> Now look at your post.
> 
> 
> 1. Your running all kinds of test on your water
> 2. Your TDS is high
> 3. Your adding metricide
> 4. Your wondering what/when you should dose
> 
> So your basically doing all this in a tank that doesn't really receive water changes to get it all to work.
> 
> If you were doing regular water changes (weekly) and dosing reguarly for ferts you wouldn't have to worry about 1,2,3, or 4.
> 
> I idea behind doing an EI type dosing routine is that you dose within a range to give you some excess so it never runs out, the by changing the water everything says within a range. A big part of this is that you really don't have to test. It's designed to make things easy and eliminate testing since your keeping things within a range every week.
> 
> I haven't checked my water parameters in any of my tanks in at least 5 years. This includes tanks that I sell plants from and tanks that I aquascape. I have no algae and/or no deficiencies with noting.


First of all, I'm only running tests because I want to prove (to myself and others on this forum) that my tank is healthy. I didn't do any testing for 9 months apart from initially setting the tank up.

I don't think my TDS is too high for what I have in there. It's pretty much as low as it's ever been and everything had been doing fine up to this point.

I don't think I'll ever stop adding metricide. For one, the additional plant growth is important for water quality and two it's anti-algae properties is an added benefit.

Also I think it's important to understand how much I fertilize. I only dose 1/8tsp of each of nicolg's(sp?) dry ferts. Very little considering the size of the tank.

Once I get my Nitrates down to 20ppm and my TDS stays below 350 I'll probably quit testing unless I need to.

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## micheljq

Diana Walstad does water changes in her tanks. I have her book and she speaks about 10% WC each month or each 2 months, something like that, in her book.

Michel.


----------



## IntotheWRX

micheljq said:


> Diana Walstad does water changes in her tanks. I have her book and she speaks about 10% WC each month or each 2 months, something like that, in her book.
> 
> Michel.


how come so many people are suggesting to change the water every week? are they wasting their time and efforts?


----------



## houseofcards

IntotheWRX said:


> how come so many people are suggesting to change the water every week? are they wasting their time and efforts?


Don't know about everyone else here, but I'm invested heavily in water. So ya know the more you use up the better for me. I would be suggesting 100% water changes, but then someone might have gotten suspicious.


----------



## TwoTurtles

IntotheWRX said:


> how come so many people are suggesting to change the water every week? are they wasting their time and efforts?


They are changing water more often because their tanks are not like her tanks. Either through design (eg heavily stocked planted for decoration only) or through lack of talent in balancing the tank (as in my case!)


----------



## micheljq

This thread should be closed, it is off-track.

Another one can be opened for discussion on water changes.


----------



## AbbeysDad

micheljq said:


> This thread should be closed, it is off-track.
> 
> Another one can be opened for discussion on water changes.


I dunno, a planted tank was setup 9 months ago, he doses ferts and Metricide and has never done a water change. The OP asked "what do you think..."
It seems to me that it stands to reason that the merit of water changes is right on-track.


----------



## IntotheWRX

For those who don't change water are already proof that you don't need to change water. everyone who still thinks they need to change water regardless of what's going on in the tank is simply following a made up rule in their head and wasting efforts.


----------



## houseofcards

@AbbeysDad



IntotheWRX said:


> For those who don't change water are already proof that you don't need to change water. everyone who still thinks they need to change water regardless of what's going on in the tank is simply following a made up rule in their head and wasting efforts.


I'm glad this guy is on your 'team.' You should make him your DH


----------



## AbbeysDad

houseofcards said:


> @AbbeysDad
> 
> I'm glad this guy is on your 'team.' You should make him your DH


You've really got to work on your reading comprehension. I've told you repeatedly that I do modest weekly water changes to leverage the organic nutrients - I just don't do your large water changes with extra EI ferts.

Bump:


IntotheWRX said:


> For those who don't change water are already proof that you don't need to change water. everyone who still thinks they need to change water regardless of what's going on in the tank is simply following a made up rule in their head and wasting efforts.


If it please the court, first lets look at nature. Fresh water only exists in nature because of rain and snow melt runoff and such. Bodies of water are constantly replenished with fresh(er) water.In the aquarium old tank syndrome CAN develop. Perhaps this article will help explain it all.

So it's not a made up rule, especially when you can see how well fish respond following even a modest water change. Now I'll grant you that a more modest water change has merit in a planted tank than a fish only tank. It's a means to leverage the organic nutrients to feed the plants. But there's a benefit none the less. There is especially merit if the bio-load is inappropriate to the plant mass such that nutrients are more than the plants can use and border on pollutants.

I think some get confused about the need for water changes because it can take a long time before old tank syndrone starts to show signs...(as it did for me in my fish only tank before I realized I had way high nitrates in my well water)....but w/o any water changes, sooner or later it will most likely happen...unless you have perfect balance and/or magic.


----------



## houseofcards

AbbeysDad said:


> You've really got to work on your reading comprehension. I've told you repeatedly that I do modest weekly water changes to leverage the organic nutrients - I just don't do your large water changes with extra EI ferts.


That's weird because I teach English Is A Second Language. Anyway I thought you'd want someone on your team that practices Walstad Type Water Changes.


----------



## AbbeysDad

houseofcards said:


> That's weird because I teach English Is A Second Language. Anyway I thought you'd want someone on your team that practices Walstad Type Water Changes.


So English is not your first language....maybe that explains it. :wink2:

footnote: I've tried to convince Tbone to put the Metricide away and do a modest water change...but he says he just doesn't have time for any water changes.


----------



## sfshrimp

The last I heard she had retired from the hobby all together and became a writer of children's books out in Wisconsin. I don't think much of her work was proven as fact, it's basically a lazy person's approach to keeping an aquarium that doesn't work at all, so totally agree.












Smooch said:


> I'm not a fan of Diana Walstad, or I should say I'm not a fan of how her 'teachings' have been twisted around to point of low tech tanks are 'hands off'. Plop in some plants with some fish and a person is done. All person has to do is feed the fish and leave the tank to fend for itself.
> 
> The collective we see the outcome of this 'hands off' approach around here all the time. Sick fish, algae problems, nitrate levels through the roof, ect... One of the few things I recall from the Diana Walstad method is lightly stocking a tank. So clearly she does have a understanding that heavily stocking a tank using her method is going to cause problems. Nobody talks about that part of it though.
> 
> I'm not tearing into anybody unless pointing out what is reality is tearing into somebody. *shrugs*


----------



## IntotheWRX

houseofcards said:


> @AbbeysDad
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad this guy is on your 'team.' You should make him your DH


thats right, we are on different team. the question comes down to "how often should we change our water?"

What is the maximum and minimum range?
maximum: everyday/weekly
minimum: 2 years - never

the answer to the question is very broad range but both answers are justified. It will be up to the aquarium tank master to decide how often they should change the water. i just want to be the voice that represents the opposite end of the spectrum because so many type of people in this hobby are people who love data, science, proof, pride in intelligence, rules which can be called anal. but this hobby doesn't have to be so uptight. I come from the bay area and here we represent a free spirit.

im the type of person that peeled off my ADA sticker on my tank


----------



## houseofcards

sfshrimp said:


> The last I heard she had retired from the hobby all together and became a writer of children's books out in Wisconsin. I don't think much of her work was proven as fact, it's basically a lazy person's approach to keeping an aquarium that doesn't work at all, so totally agree.



True, the ironic thing is though I feel totally liberated once I started dosing EI and doing regular water changes. I don't test, it's a very simple approach and it works on ALL tanks. That's the key difference. When you first start out you really don't understand the parameters this takes alot of guess work away by just making sure there's enough of everything.


----------



## sfshrimp

houseofcards said:


> True, the ironic thing is though I feel totally liberated once I started dosing EI and doing regular water changes. I don't test, it's a very simple approach and it works on ALL tanks. That's the key difference. When you first start out you really don't understand the parameters this takes alot of guess work away by just making sure there's enough of everything.


I'm with you on this. I don't really measure anything either except the fertilizers and the GH/KH because of the shrimp, and also am using EI. I think we can chalk up the Walsted method to the old addage "if it sounds too good to be true, it most likely is." I also change water. Letting water sit in a tank is not something that would occur in nature, some of these fish and shrimp even come from fast moving river streams. The only way I could see not doing a water change is if you were able to evaporate enough water and then continually replacing it. There's also the issue of surface agitation and current - a fish tank has almost none of this versus what someone would encounter in an amazonian river bed.

If someone put a glass of rain water that was sitting out for two weeks or one that was freshly rained in, I would choose the fresh one.


Key advantages of Walsted method:

No fertilizers are needed
No expensive substrates - just generic potting soil
No c02 is needed
No filter is needed
No water changes
No need to ever clean the tank
Stunning plant growth without any algae


----------



## AbbeysDad

A bunch of extremists if you ask me! 0


----------



## sfshrimp

There's a wonderful audio interview on Youtube of Diana talking about her experiences on a dairy farm as a 8 year old child collecting live bearers from canals and housing them in 2 gallon bowls. She goes on to talk about her guppys which apparently had a plague so bad that she got out of the hobby, and then on how to grow plants using manure as substrate - this was the golden "A-HA" moment of her method.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVtF6pXBirc

I wonder what her moral fabric is like. Do you think she sleeps at night knowing how many fish she has encouraged killing with her books?

The whole method is not based in any kind of science, it's mostly based on empirical data. She also says herself that this method is not used for "aqua scaping", nor "river fish."


----------



## houseofcards

sfshrimp said:


> ...
> The whole method is not based in any kind of science, it's mostly based on empirical data. She also says herself that this method is not used for "aqua scaping", nor "river fish."


Well, you could tell by some of her tanks that the placement and aesthetics are definitely an after thought or not even a consideration, since all the goodies are in the substrate and disturbing it (which you do when aquascaping for fine-tuning, etc.) is a no-no. You also don't have as much space for hardscape since you need to maximize the plants doing the job on their own. 

A couple of pics from her book:



















With all due respect to Walstad and the niche she carved out. To me this is purely for someone who simply enjoys the "Ecology of the Planted Tank" (Pun intended) and not really inspirational to the bulk of planted tank hobbyists.


----------



## sfshrimp

Yea, totally agree. In that audio interview she even says her method isn't a turn key solution, or even appropriate for someone with the willingness to grow a variety of plants or even house exotic animal species. It's maybe decent solution for some lazy person or child who wants to have some crap in a jar on a window without really committing a lot of time.




houseofcards said:


> Well, you could tell by some of her tanks that the placement and aesthetics are definitely an after thought or not even a consideration, since all the goodies are in the substrate and disturbing it (which you do when aquascaping for fine-tuning, etc.) is a no-no. You also don't have as much space for hardscape since you need to maximize the plants doing the job on their own.
> 
> A couple of pics from her book:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All due respect, these are examples in her book. To me this is purely for someone who simply enjoys the "Ecology of the Planted Tank" (Pun intended) and not really inspirational to the bulk of planted tank hobbyists.


----------



## houseofcards

Yep and that's part of the reason there's a lot of salt in this thread. 

You have a lot of extremes interacting here. You have one side that likes the ecology of the tank and they're just happy when the plants grow from a natural system inside the tank and then on the other side those that are in this for the aesthetics. Whether you do hi or low-tech I think the vast majority of people arrange (scape) their tanks to a certain degree and part of this group are those that need the equipment to look good so it doesn't get in the way of the 'look', like rimless tanks, suspending lights, lily pipes, etc. and of course the people that dot every T and cross every I and enter contests. The ladder group depending on what they're creating simply isn't possible without regular dosing and large regular water changes. 

If you want true inspiration in a book buy Amano's Nature Aquarium World (Of course now you could look on the internet) and see what's possible inside a glass container. These books inspired planted of people to get into the hobby that would not have been here otherwise. 

..And every tank in that book get's a huge weekly water change.


----------



## AbbeysDad

I'm not sure I understand the point in trying to tear the Walstad method down. 

_"Why do ya have to tear her down? What are ya so afraid of? What have you got to lose? She wasn't selling anything (except a book)! She didn't want anything from anybody! She wanted nothing from nobody! Nothing! (except to buy the book) And you people have to tear her down so you can sleep better tonight! So ya can prove that the world is flat and ya can sleep better tonite! Am I right? Am I right?... I'm right... The Heck with all of ya. The Heck with everyone of ya."
Doc from Phenomenon (edited for prime time)
_ :laugh2:

It's just on the natural side of the extreme. I guess one could just as easily chuck rocks at blasting a tank with bright light, gas, and all sorts of chemical fertilizers and then changing half or more of the water every time you turn around only to add a whole bunch more chemicals....but I won't..._maybe_.

I'm a fishkeeper since the mid 60's. I'm keeping it simple and ask myself, what does mother nature do. In my Nearly Natural Habitat, lots of plants, modest water changes to leverage the organic nutrients, minimum chemical additives only as absolutely necessary. Happy, healthy fish and plants.


----------



## sfshrimp

houseofcards said:


> Well, you could tell by some of her tanks that the placement and aesthetics are definitely an after thought or not even a consideration, since all the goodies are in the substrate and disturbing it (which you do when aquascaping for fine-tuning, etc.) is a no-no. You also don't have as much space for hardscape since you need to maximize the plants doing the job on their own.
> 
> A couple of pics from her book:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect to Walstad and the niche she carved out. To me this is purely for someone who simply enjoys the "Ecology of the Planted Tank" (Pun intended) and not really inspirational to the bulk of planted tank hobbyists.





AbbeysDad said:


> I'm not sure I understand the point in trying to tear the Walstad method down.
> 
> _"Why do ya have to tear her down? What are ya so afraid of? What have you got to lose? She wasn't selling anything (except a book)! She didn't want anything from anybody! She wanted nothing from nobody! Nothing! (except to buy the book) And you people have to tear her down so you can sleep better tonight! So ya can prove that the world is flat and ya can sleep better tonite! Am I right? Am I right?... I'm right... The Heck with all of ya. The Heck with everyone of ya."
> Doc from Phenomenon (edited for prime time)
> _ :laugh2:
> 
> It's just on the natural side of the extreme. I guess one could just as easily chuck rocks at blasting a tank with bright light, gas, and all sorts of chemical fertilizers and then changing half or more of the water every time you turn around only to add a whole bunch more chemicals....but I won't..._maybe_.
> 
> I'm a fishkeeper since the mid 60's. I'm keeping it simple and ask myself, what does mother nature do. In my Nearly Natural Habitat, lots of plants, modest water changes to leverage the organic nutrients, minimum chemical additives only as absolutely necessary. Happy, healthy fish and plants.



I think people should follow the path that works for them and is enjoyable, but Walsted method does not work if you are trying to do an aqua scape that requires a lot of different plants or if you want to keep certain types of fish, and she says that herself.


----------



## micheljq

Google Walstad method, she has made plenty of beautiful tanks. This thread is becoming a bitching session. The quality of this forum did go down a lot as of late.

Just saying that those who make less WC are lazy people is an easy and harsh argument, not really convincing myself. It is a lazy argument.

Michel.


----------



## KayakJimW

sfshrimp said:


> The last I heard she had retired from the hobby all together and became a writer of children's books out in Wisconsin. I don't think much of her work was proven as fact, it's basically a lazy person's approach to keeping an aquarium that doesn't work at all, so totally agree.


She's still active in the hobby. Nov 16th she's speaking at the monthly James River Aquarium Society meeting here in Richmond. Topic is, “Planted Tanks are Good for Fish”. I'm kinda interested in hearing her current ideas


----------



## IntotheWRX

the real question i had was how long can someone go without doing water changes? people say 50% weekly, but that is the maximum, ideal way. If i want to go lazy, I want to know HOW LAZY can i go. kinda like the limbo dance. how low can you go, how low can you go, how low can you go.

how long can you go without a water change? Some people are afraid to not change their water past a week or two, but some pros are able to change their water only couple times a year and maintain that balance. I want to be lazy. i dont want to waste efforts maintaining my tank. i want to do the least possible while having a beautiful tank. so how long can I hold out a beautiful tank without water changes? well im testing that out and its been months. proof to everyone that they dont need to do the 50% weekly water changes that seems to be a commandment given out to all the newbies like me. i refuse to listen to this rule made up by you guys and find my own answer.


----------



## Tbonedawg08

IntotheWRX said:


> the real question i had was how long can someone go without doing water changes? people say 50% weekly, but that is the maximum, ideal way. If i want to go lazy, I want to know HOW LAZY can i go. kinda like the limbo dance. how low can you go, how low can you go, how low can you go.
> 
> how long can you go without a water change? Some people are afraid to not change their water past a week or two, but some pros are able to change their water only couple times a year and maintain that balance. I want to be lazy. i dont want to waste efforts maintaining my tank. i want to do the least possible while having a beautiful tank. so how long can I hold out a beautiful tank without water changes? well im testing that out and its been months. proof to everyone that they dont need to do the 50% weekly water changes that seems to be a commandment given out to all the newbies like me. i refuse to listen to this rule made up by you guys and find my own answer.


In a lot of ways, we're on the same mission. So far, I don't really have any evidence of my tank needing a water change once a week, or once a month for that matter.

Even if I had more demanding fish/plants, all I'd need to do is lower my TDS and Nitrates a bit (by a WC probably) and keep them there by topping off with distilled water and dosing NO3 as needed. Eventually I'll run out of nutrients not found in the ferts, but they can be added without a water change as well.

I decided against ferts again this week. I will probably add them next Thursday however my TDS was higher again this morning. 375 if memory serves. Just yesterday it was 349 before top off...why would that be? I added the gallon of distilled last night and all I've done is feed them this morning. Maybe it was detecting the food bits in the water?

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## sfshrimp

TDS doesn't detect food particles, it's measuring charged ions in the water.

Hard to say why it's rising. It might be from a temperature or ph swing which could occur if you are running c02, or if the tank swings in temp.

There's a good article here:
What is TDS? by Randy Holmes-Farley - Reefkeeping.com



Tbonedawg08 said:


> In a lot of ways, we're on the same mission. So far, I don't really have any evidence of my tank needing a water change once a week, or once a month for that matter.
> 
> Even if I had more demanding fish/plants, all I'd need to do is lower my TDS and Nitrates a bit (by a WC probably) and keep them there by topping off with distilled water and dosing NO3 as needed. Eventually I'll run out of nutrients not found in the ferts, but they can be added without a water change as well.
> 
> I decided against ferts again this week. I will probably add them next Thursday however my TDS was higher again this morning. 375 if memory serves. Just yesterday it was 349 before top off...why would that be? I added the gallon of distilled last night and all I've done is feed them this morning. Maybe it was detecting the food bits in the water?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## Tbonedawg08

sfshrimp said:


> TDS doesn't detect food particles, it's measuring charged ions in the water.
> 
> Hard to say why it's rising. It might be from a temperature or ph swing which could occur if you are running c02, or if the tank swings in temp.
> 
> There's a good article here:
> What is TDS? by Randy Holmes-Farley - Reefkeeping.com


The temp shouldn't have changed by more than a degree but I didn't actually check this morning and I'm not running CO2. Maybe my meter just sucks? 

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## sfshrimp

IntotheWRX said:


> the real question i had was how long can someone go without doing water changes? people say 50% weekly, but that is the maximum, ideal way. If i want to go lazy, I want to know HOW LAZY can i go. kinda like the limbo dance. how low can you go, how low can you go, how low can you go.
> 
> how long can you go without a water change? Some people are afraid to not change their water past a week or two, but some pros are able to change their water only couple times a year and maintain that balance. I want to be lazy. i dont want to waste efforts maintaining my tank. i want to do the least possible while having a beautiful tank. so how long can I hold out a beautiful tank without water changes? well im testing that out and its been months. proof to everyone that they dont need to do the 50% weekly water changes that seems to be a commandment given out to all the newbies like me. i refuse to listen to this rule made up by you guys and find my own answer.



What are you using for a filter?

My friend and I started an outdoor tank which is in really bright light, running nothing but a airstone. Our theory we came up with drunk is that the sun will evaporate the water, so we only need to add new water. We are going to measure how much water gets evaporated in a one week time frame and then adjust dosing according to that. 

I think some of the problem with not doing a water change is that some of the ingredients in the chemicals being added to the tank will start to build up over time which might have an adverse consequence.

Bump:


Tbonedawg08 said:


> The temp shouldn't have changed by more than a degree but I didn't actually check this morning and I'm not running CO2. Maybe my meter just sucks?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


Hard to say. Did you add anything to the tank? It sounds like you add distilled water - did you check the TDS of that? 

Maybe start a log and take the TDS a few times a day and see if you can figure out what is causing it. I also think that the TDS is probably inconsequential with a spread like that. Is there a reason you want to keep it at 350?


----------



## Tbonedawg08

sfshrimp said:


> What are you using for a filter?
> 
> My friend and I started an outdoor tank which is in really bright light, running nothing but a airstone. Our theory we came up with drunk is that the sun will evaporate the water, so we only need to add new water. We are going to measure how much water gets evaporated in a one week time frame and then adjust dosing according to that.
> 
> I think some of the problem with not doing a water change is that some of the ingredients in the chemicals being added to the tank will start to build up over time which might have an adverse consequence.


Right, which is why I'm sure I'll eventually need to do a WC. I wish there were better ways to test for these things tho

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## houseofcards

micheljq said:


> Google Walstad method, she has made plenty of beautiful tanks. This thread is becoming a bitching session. The quality of this forum did go down a lot as of late.


The only point I was trying to make was that tanks that don't receive water changes can only work in a narrow band of parameters. There is really no disputing this. As far as Walstad is concerned. You can make any tank look good it's just that a tank under Walstad is much less conducive to aquascaping since you might have less plants, light demanding carpets and the soil substrate doesn't take kindly to being messed with.


----------



## IntotheWRX

sfshrimp said:


> What are you using for a filter?
> 
> My friend and I started an outdoor tank which is in really bright light, running nothing but a airstone. Our theory we came up with drunk is that the sun will evaporate the water, so we only need to add new water. We are going to measure how much water gets evaporated in a one week time frame and then adjust dosing according to that.
> 
> I think some of the problem with not doing a water change is that some of the ingredients in the chemicals being added to the tank will start to build up over time which might have an adverse consequence.


im using a eheim 2011 with the media package that came with it. I'm going to add purgien and some sechem white media rocks thing next time i clean out my filter. 

i dont have a lid on my 9 gallon and i will have to top it off adding about 1.5 gallons of tap water each week. 

i see everyone's theory about how it is good for the tank to change the water. i agree with that. but im lazy. i still have the question of "how long can i wait until i have to change my water?" I only started this hobby 6 months ago. I'm still testing and observing to find out my own answer. but reading the 50% weekly changes seems like a waste of time to me. I only see the need for weekly changes if your water is in super bad shape and you need to hit a reset button. but for those who changes their water because of a "rule" is following a made up schedule in their minds. because i have gone weeks and weeks and weeks without water changes and see no reason to. 

so how do we know how often to change the water? 
do we look at our calendars or our tanks?


----------



## KayakJimW

IntotheWRX said:


> so how do we know how often to change the water?
> do we look at our calendars or our tanks?


I respect your testing and observing to find your own answer.
"To defy the laws of tradition is a crusade only of the brave" -Les Claypool

So, what if we use an analogy like how often should we change the oil in our vehicle. Most say every 3 or 5K miles, but our aquariums do not have odometers so we use time.
I may run 3K miles in a month or two, while grandma doesn't see 3K miles in a year. Are my driving habits like high tech and EI dosing and need more maintenance compared to granny who is low tech and hardly puts any "miles" on her tank? For the record, I'm totally granny in my tank keeping. Lower tech, change my oil, err I mean water a couple times a year. My tank purrs like a kitten. If I was frequenting the track and hammering down for speed, could I get away with my lax maintenance schedule? If I wait for my vehicle to tell me something's not right, will I be too late to make easy repairs? Most folks drive somewhere between granny and I, and may take their cars in every other month for oil changes just for the peace of mind of having fresh oil. 
Sorry if this is a wacked out analogy, its just what comes to mind with the "frequency of water change" debate. There's lots of variables that effect the answer and I believe there's more than one right way to do it. Especially when you factor in your mileage


----------



## AbbeysDad

Water changes (or lack thereof) were one of the ways I feel Walstad was somewhat wrong. 

On the one hand, in the nearly natural habitat, it makes good sense to minimize water changes in order to take advantage of the organic nutrients in the water to feed the plants that purify the water. However, it overlooks what happens in nature - that is the simple fact that fresh water is nearly constantly refreshed by rain and runoff.

Even though we might have the best filtration, DOC's and other elements the plants don't or can't handle, can slowly build up in the water to become toxic elements. This is not an opinion, but science.

In a fish only tank it's a simple matter for us to monitor nitrates and perform water changes to keep these low, while at the same time, removing/diluting negatives. But it's more complicated in a planted tank because we actually want [some] nitrates to feed plants (and we may dose with KNO3 throwing any measurement way off). 
Still there are all sorts of 'noseeum' negatives that can build up to dangerous levels w/o water changes. 

I feel that it's somewhat foolish for us to experiment by not doing any water changes and fly in the face of experts and scientific proof. 

But still, it stands to reason that the minimum volume/frequency of necessary water changes is very arbitrary and must be based on the tank size, stock load, feeding regime, plant mass, etc. I have no idea how to calculate this to any finite amount. But better to err on the side of a bit more is better than too little.

I also see the merit in routine frequent smaller water changes vs. infrequent larger ones in order to keep the water chemistry more consistent. With this in mind, in my heavily planted 60g, I continue to do a 20-25% weekly water change with minimal (only as absolutely necessary) dosing of any chemical additives.

The analogy of the oil change doesn't work because engine and oil mfg's have done exhaustive studies on engine oil use life relative to engine wear to develop the recommendations for oil changes based on mileage. 
_Unless of course you're the Crazy Russian who claims he's never changed the oil in his 100,000 mile car and it runs just fine!_

I was gonna use a cat liter pan analogy (as in not changing the litter until the cat pees on the furniture), but since the fish can't normally get out of the tank, it just doesn't work.

The fact is that old tank syndrome tells us that fish can somewhat adapt and survive for a long period and the fishkeeper might believe everything is just fine....when it's really not.

Finally, frankly, if you don't have time, or are too lazy to spend 30 minutes or an hour per week on tank maintenance for the health of your fish, maybe this is not the hobby for you? Perhaps a rock, stamp, or coin collection would be better?

References


----------



## Mxx

In regards to DOC's building up without water changes let me use the example of reef tanks for comparison. My reef tank runs quite well with minimal maintenance - replacing evaporation with distilled water, and dosing 3 types of minerals to replace those that are taken up by the corals. Food is the nutrient input into the system. And for the output the protein skimmer provides a cupful of gunk to empty out each week. So it is basically a system with balanced inputs and outputs, and nitrates remain minimal and presumably are processed in the sand bed or live rock by anaerobic bacteria. 

However, I added an ozone unit which doses ozone into the protein skimmer, and now the water seems clearer. And the protein skimmer stopped producing skimmate while everything else seems to have remained the same. So those 'proteins' that were getting skimmed out now seem to be getting oxidized in order to be broken down instead. In a freshwater tank a protein skimmer doesn't work, and so PERHAPS (to speculate) those 'proteins' and other dissolved organic compounds will keep circulating and building up to detrimental levels if nutrients (food and subsequent fish waste) are being produced too quickly to be broken down by whatever natural means break that stuff down in our tanks. (That is what I'd worry about at least). 

To put that all into perspective, freshwater fish get 'water changes' through rain and springs flowing through their rivers or lakes (aside from the million fish living upstream). And as that 'soft' distilled rainwater flows through or over rocks it dissolves the rocks and limestone and picks up various minerals which 'remineralize' the water. And then it all flows back into the sea, which after billions of years of collecting this waste from fish and others is - clearly - far too toxic for any fish to be able to survive in. At least not until it is distilled again and sprinkled afresh across the lands.

So although that water might have been circulating the earth for the past five billion years, once it has been in your tank for a week or two it is ruined and is never again fit to properly sustain life! ; )

I suspect that you could run a no water-change tank which is perfectly healthy and vibrant, although you at least have to be contentious of monitoring and/or adjusting certain parameters such as hardness/TDS. (It has already been proven to have been done successfully by Walstad for one). 

Old tank syndrome is just a matter of hardness getting depleted, so Walstad puts a bit of dolomite under the soil layer to prevent that, although there are other means of achieving the same thing. 

According to Walstad, fish food contains nutrients of the various types in the same proportions that plants need. So any food you put in the system should be providing the correct levels of nutrients. And the plants will have some limiting factor, be it light, CO2, or nutrients (or all of the above) which will limit their growth. (Preferably light I presume, assuming you wish to deter algae growth). But in a closed system the system balance might swing back and forth to some degree, which is what water changes often helpfully prevent for the majority of aquarists.

If however nutrients are in either oversupply or undersupply relative to the plant load then the system will suffer. Plants may stress and 'bleach' if overlit but lacking in nutrients. And fish and plants may suffer if certain nutrients are not used up as quickly as they are produced, such as nitrates.

So you may not be quite happy perhaps with the aesthetic look if you have plants that look unhealthy. 

I am curious whether adding CO2 might help a Walstad tank to run even better, so long as you didn't have your lights turned up so high that your plants run out of nutrients. 

I'd expect adding CO2 might help a Walstad 

A 'deep sand bed' - (with the depth relative to whether that includes soil or not), a properly composed mineralized soil under-layer, dosing CO2, using carbon in a filter, and running an ozone reactor I expect would all help a no-water-change tank be more healthy and attractive, and that is my plan for my next tanks. 

Surely the hobby (and reality) has room for more than one appropriate philosophy for healthy aquarium-keeping practices.


----------



## Mxx

Bother when a response of mine kills what had been an interesting discussion!... and that one had started out as just a brief comment no less...


----------



## AbbeysDad

Mxx said:


> Bother when a response of mine kills what had been an interesting discussion!... and that one had started out as just a brief comment no less...


I was wondering that too on my last post, but two days later you bounced in with SW book 2. Perhaps the thread has run it's course. What's more to say? Some just don't think water changes are beneficial (I guess they never change the oil in their car either<g>), Some think you should change a lot and dose a lot, and some think modest changes and modest dosing is where it's at. 
'Mama always said, life is like a box of chocolates....you never know what yer gonna get.'


----------



## Greggz

Finally got around to reading this thread. Thought I would throw my 2 cents in.

I’ve been keeping aquariums for decades. In my experience, without question, the number one best thing you can do for your fish and plants is regular water changes. I can’t recommend them highly enough for the average fish keeper. It will provide you much more room for error in so many ways. In my planted Rainbow tank, I change about 75% every week, and the fish are decidedly more active and colorful right after the change. 

If I didn’t perform water changes, I’m sure my tank would crash in a hurry.

That being said, I have no doubt the OP is finding success with his methodology. He may have found a sweet spot, which is working with his particular set of circumstances. That’s great and I enjoyed reading about it. I’m sure if you look hard enough, you can find others with similar success. But my guess is that they are few and far between. 

My concern with threads like this is that new or less experienced people will try to replicate it. I would guess the vast majority will fail. And most of what has been discussed here applies to a very small percentage of tanks out there. Someone applying this to a tank with EI ferts and high light will likely create a disaster. 

So I find it interesting, and enjoy reading about it, but I doubt many will enjoy the success of the OP. I firmly believe that the vast majority of tanks can only benefit from regular water changes, and to suggest otherwise does a disservice to most out there. 

Again, just my unscientific opinion based solely on my own personal experience.


----------



## Mxx

Yes, I'd better throw in a 'kids, don't try this at home' comment as well. ; ) 

And add that water changes are quite important for keeping 99% of aquariums healthy. 

I'd have to consider not doing water changes a highly advanced practice, and that the guidelines Walstad set out in Ecology of the Planted Aquarium should be strictly adhered to - under a low-tech approach. 

My own aim is to experiment with a high-tech reinterpretation of that, but that's not something I've ever seen done or should therefore really be condoning at this point certainly.


----------



## etane

i agree. wc are for wusses which 99% of us are. creating a self sustaining ecosphere takes real talent, skill and patience.


----------



## roadmaster

etane said:


> i agree. wc are for wusses which 99% of us are. creating a self sustaining ecosphere takes real talent, skill and patience.


 Could have made excellent point without the reference to "wusses"
I fear if you were close enough to touch ,that you might not like/survive the response of the 99 % that you reference as wusses.
Least in my neck of the wood's.>


----------



## houseofcards

etane said:


> i agree. wc are for wusses which 99% of us are. creating a self sustaining ecosphere takes real talent, skill and patience.


I'm no wuss, you should see the muscles I've developed over the years of doing water changes with buckets. Many times I would carry the buckets into the yard and then get even more exercise tending to the garden. You brought out another good poiint, water changes aren't only good for your tanks they're good for you as well.


----------



## Greggz

houseofcards said:


> I'm no wuss, you should see the muscles I've developed over the years of doing water changes with buckets. Many times I would carry the buckets into the yard and then get even more exercise tending to the garden. You brought out another good poiint, water changes aren't only good for your tanks they're good for you as well.


You bring up an interesting point. I would guess many fear/loathe water changes as the thought of buckets/siphons etc seem like a lot of work to them.

I would suggest taking a few minutes to set up a reliable easy system, so that water changes are simple and not too time consuming. 

I use a pump to send the water to my laundry room sink. I then hook up the same hose to the sink to refill. While it's draining, I vacuum the substrate, clean the glass, measure new weekly ferts, calibrate ph probe, clean one of three filters, test water parameters, trim plants, etc. Even then I usually sit around and read the paper for awhile watching it fill. I change out about 75% of a 120 Gallon tank every week, and it takes less than an hour for the whole process. 

I think the easier you make it on yourself, with the least amount of hassle, the more likely you are keep to a regular schedule. And for you "wusses" who still perform water changes (me included), your fish and fauna will thank you for it.


----------



## IntotheWRX

i first believed in the 50% weekly water change from this forum. I did one water change and found how much of a hassle it was. So I got lazy and did it every two weeks, then every month, now never. I will let you guys know how long I can hold out with no water change. at least i dont have the fear of not changing the water. ill do the exploring for you guys. you guys can wish me luck, or you can wish me to f*** off because it seems like people on this forum dont like me because I dont agree with you. at the end of the day, the tank speaks for the tank master. but no one should be bashing on my style.


----------



## etane

roadmaster said:


> Could have made excellent point without the reference to "wusses"
> I fear if you were close enough to touch ,that you might not like/survive the response of the 99 % that you reference as wusses.
> Least in my neck of the wood's.>


You act hard but I bet your tank water is soft like you. :grin2:


----------



## Mxx

The flip side however is that I don't think it's about laziness, and I can think of a hundred other things I could spend an hour each weekend very productively doing instead including spending precious time with my family. 

But the crux of the matter and what is most interesting to me is what is the best-practice and science behind it in terms of how to set up our contained systems to ensure the water quality remains as good as possible regardless of the matter of changing water.

And if water-quality happens to be continuously degrading over the course of a week or a month, then I think that's a flaw in the system design which I wouldn't personally be happy about.

Others can and will feel differently, but might still agree that it might make sense to seek a balance in our planted tanks where the system is not dependent upon water changes to keep it from poisoning itself. And I want to understand all that much better, if possible. 

On the marine side of the hobby the aquarists using the 'Triton Method' do not do water changes 
despite keeping much more delicate organisms than we do. (| Triton GmbH) That system relies on sending tank water samples to be regularly lab-tested for 36 different compounds so you know exactly what is going on in your tank water. And if any levels are off you can either dose those specific reagents to bring them back into the correct range, or then change water or use chemical filtration media if something needs to be removed. Generally the Triton method relies on no water changes, regularly dosing macro and trace elements (as-needed, instead of by guesswork), and incorporates an algae refugium and protein skimmer. (But of course we don't have such testing services on the freshwater side). 

For those few hobbyists interested in this, here is the detailed description of their method, (which I'll be utilizing as soon as I finish my own reef tank upgrade). | Products & Services TRITON Method | Triton GmbH


----------



## houseofcards

Greggz said:


> ...I think the easier you make it on yourself, with the least amount of hassle, the more likely you are keep to a regular schedule. And for you "wusses" who still perform water changes (me included), your fish and fauna will thank you for it.


Yeah I totally agree. I've always used a python on my tanks, especially anything bigger than a 20G. It's one of the easiest things to do and the benefits are wide ranging for any tank. 

The ironic thing if you running an EI type dosed tank and water change method is that there's nothing else really to do. It's an estimative approach that's really designed to not require testing. But the real beauty of it is that it's a preventive approach not reactive after a condition starts to exist.


----------



## LopezTheHero

*IntotheWRX*, the reason you're recieving so much flack is becuase you are admittedly new to the craft, and, by your own accord, lazy. Lazy isn't a reason to not do something. In fact, it's the most apathetic and entitled mindset to have. Just because it's a hassle?

The hobby you got into is a hassle. You don't get the beauty and lively fish you see on these forums by just buy a ton of equipment and letting it run. You have to tend to your tank and be mindful of the variation and evolution that happens within it. 6 months in? Talk to me in 2 years and let's see if you haven't had an algae bloom of some sort or lost fish in some way. Let's see if you still think Water Changes are the hassle and not the trimming of your plants.

You very well don't have to do water changes at 50% every week. It's a recommended starting point for beginners like you to dial in what works best for your tank. I do 25% water change every month and replace the water evaporated from my lights every two weeks.

It's your contemptuous attitude that people are responding to. And honestly, the people in here are extremely open and understanding and trying to help you out. You're like a 17 year old who thinks they've figured the world out. Don't get into a hobby where you play God if you're going to be lazy, and don't throw the advice of others, who are only trying to help, back in their face.

Good luck.


----------



## Greggz

LopezTheHero said:


> You're like a 17 year old who thinks they've figured the world out.


I had to laugh when I read this. I was just going to post to ask how old intotheWRX is. And I'm not hating, but being very young might explain some things.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

IntotheWRX said:


> rules which can be called anal. but this hobby doesn't have to be so uptight. I come from the bay area and here we represent a free spirit.





IntotheWRX said:


> I want to know HOW LAZY can i go. kinda like the limbo dance. how low can you go, how low can you go, how low can you go.
> 
> I want to be lazy. i dont want to waste efforts maintaining my tank. i want to do the least possible while having a beautiful tank. so how long can I hold out a beautiful tank without water changes?





IntotheWRX said:


> I'm going to add purgien and some sechem white media rocks thing next time i clean out my filter.
> 
> but im lazy. i still have the question of "how long can i wait until i have to change my water?" I only started this hobby 6 months ago.
> I only see the need for weekly changes if your water is in super bad shape and you need to hit a reset button.





IntotheWRX said:


> i first believed in the 50% weekly water change from this forum. I did one water change and found how much of a hassle it was. So I got lazy and did it every two weeks, then every month, now never.
> 
> ill do the exploring for you guys. you guys can wish me luck, or you can wish me to f*** off because


Sometimes, the path of enlightenment is a long journey.


----------



## redavalanche

IntotheWRX said:


> i still have the question of "how long can i wait until i have to change my water?"


If you have a decent fish load, a few more months till the nitrates reach 160+ algae is out of control and plants dead all over.
Speaking from some of my experiences. Otherwise, hope I'm wrong for your benefit.


----------



## roadmaster

etane said:


> You act hard but I bet your tank water is soft like you. :grin2:


 My tank's are hard,alkaline like me, but thanks for the laugh.Been called a lot a thing's over the year's,but soft ain't one of em.:grin2:
An apt description of me by most who know me, is perhaps the scene from Movie "The Cowboy's" with John Wayne ",Even on my worst Day"


----------



## houseofcards

Now this thread has gone completely off the rails I'll leave you with this:


To water change, or not to water change, that is the question: 
Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind for fish to suffer the Slings and Arrows of outrageous waste,
or to take buckets against a Sea of troubles and purify their existence…​


----------



## IntotheWRX

Maryland Guppy said:


> Sometimes, the path of enlightenment is a long journey.


thanks


----------



## Fish Em

IntotheWRX said:


> the real question i had was how long can someone go without doing water changes? people say 50% weekly, but that is the maximum, ideal way. If i want to go lazy, I want to know HOW LAZY can i go. kinda like the limbo dance. how low can you go, how low can you go, how low can you go.
> 
> how long can you go without a water change? Some people are afraid to not change their water past a week or two, but some pros are able to change their water only couple times a year and maintain that balance. I want to be lazy. i dont want to waste efforts maintaining my tank. i want to do the least possible while having a beautiful tank. so how long can I hold out a beautiful tank without water changes? well im testing that out and its been months. proof to everyone that they dont need to do the 50% weekly water changes that seems to be a commandment given out to all the newbies like me. i refuse to listen to this rule made up by you guys and find my own answer.


The people in this hobby don't take kindly to people who are lazy about taking care of tanks. Say, aren't you the person who admitted they purposely killed a cory cat just because you didn't want it? Yes, I am judging you.


----------



## AbbeysDad

@TBone - when you do decide to do a partial water change (hopefully before the crash), remember that your fish have slowly acclimated to some pretty bad water. You should do several small water changes (10-15%) over days rather than a large one so as not to shock them too badly. 
Usually old tank syndrome can be identified with low pH, high nitrates, and high phosphates. However, it can be more difficult in the heavily planted tank that's being dosed with chemical additives.

Note: Just my $.02, but I feel you would be wise to do modest weekly water changes of 10-25% to maintain a consistent water chemistry, dose ferts only as necessary to keep plants happy, and stop using toxic Metricide.

Good luck.


----------



## RWaters

Fish Em said:


> The people in this hobby don't take kindly to people who are lazy about taking care of tanks. Say, aren't you the person who admitted they purposely killed a cory cat just because you didn't want it? Yes, I am judging you.


That's him. He also suggests that acclimation is unnecessary. So let's recap his method of fishkeeping: don't do water changes, don't acclimate new fish and if you don't like your fish anymore, throw them in the neighbor's yard. IMO, none of this is acceptable behavior in our hobby.


----------



## nakeeta

i'm just going to point out... planet earth = fishbowl with zero water changes.

low tech tanks are pretty much on par with the analogy. low tech societies bioloads' are in balance with their biotopes. high tech societies have huge bioloads' that their biotopes cannot process. guess which one has to artificially augment the natural biotope or die.

ditto the fish tank.

self-sustaining microbiotopes are a common niche in many diverse fields that incorporate biology.. bonsai to ultra sustainable farms... it's all the same principles of balance.

Biotope in my study, a low-tech natural aquarium « tuncalik.com ? Natural Aquariums and Sustainable Life

and this one has been around the internet for so long, it's probably new all over again
http://www.boredpanda.com/sealed-bottle-garden-david-latimer/


----------



## SpaceLord

Monrankim said:


> The Tapatalk app makes posting pics very easy if you are using your phone. Hope that helps.
> 
> You don't want to do water changes at all? What are you using for a substrate? Water changes aren't always about removing nitrate but to reduce dissolved organics or adding minerals back into the water depending on your tanks needs.


Why does this website not let you upload cool pictures? They are still using rules from the late 90's in 2016. 

Google photos lets you upload all the pictures you want yet this site won't let you upload a single cell phone picture of your tank. 

Is there a way to make a feature request to the owner of the site?

Thanks.


----------



## houseofcards

nakeeta said:


> i'm just going to point out... planet earth = fishbowl with zero water changes.
> 
> low tech tanks are pretty much on par with the analogy. low tech societies bioloads' are in balance with their biotopes. high tech societies have huge bioloads' that their biotopes cannot process. guess which one has to artificially augment the natural biotope or die.
> 
> ditto the fish tank.
> 
> self-sustaining microbiotopes are a common niche in many diverse fields that incorporate biology.. bonsai to ultra sustainable farms... it's all the same principles of balance.
> 
> Biotope in my study, a low-tech natural aquarium « tuncalik.com ? Natural Aquariums and Sustainable Life
> 
> and this one has been around the internet for so long, it's probably new all over again
> 80-Year-Old Man Hasn?t Watered This Sealed Bottle Garden Since 1972 And It?s Still Alive | Bored Panda


I don't think either one of those examples you linked is what people here aspire to achieve in an aquarium so I'm not sure what your point is. The only thing attractive about the first one is what's above the water line the other well isn't even an aquarium. 

None of the information is usable to 99% of the aquariums people strive to maintain here.


----------



## nakeeta

houseofcards said:


> None of the information is usable to 99% of the aquariums people strive to maintain here.


correct.

and as has been pointed out already, it's the 1% you're not considering who are relevant both to the thread and the information i was discussing.


----------



## Tbonedawg08

AbbeysDad said:


> remember that your fish have slowly acclimated to some pretty bad water.


I still haven't seen quantifiable evidence that my tank's water is dirty or bad or whatever. My TDS has steadily stayed between 300 and 350 since starting this thread and my Nitrates have lowered to acceptable levels as well. I don't have a test specifically for phosphate...should I be testing for that?

I actually plan on a modest water change soon. Maybe 15g or so just in case, but my point is that no tests that I've run have given me objective evidence towards needing a WC

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## mistergreen

nakeeta said:


> i'm just going to point out... planet earth = fishbowl with zero water changes.
> 
> low tech tanks are pretty much on par with the analogy. low tech societies bioloads' are in balance with their biotopes. high tech societies have huge bioloads' that their biotopes cannot process. guess which one has to artificially augment the natural biotope or die.
> 
> ditto the fish tank.


There's one problem with your logic. The ocean is how many gallons? A lake is how many gallons?

Not that a fish tank couldn't be self sustaining like a lake but you need to add way less fish and more plants.

A man made pond hardly need a water change but it's usually 200+ gallons with a few goldfish.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## nakeeta

mistergreen said:


> There's one problem with your logic. The ocean is how many gallons? A lake is how many gallons?
> 
> Not that a fish tank couldn't be self sustaining like a lake but you need to add way less fish and more plants.


you seem to have solved the logic all on your own first try 


posts like the ones in this thread attacking an idea outside of canon, like what Tbonedawg08 is doing, always boggle me. i can't decide if they come from willful obstinance that no one could possibly desire a version of a hobby to be different from their own version of a hobby, or if they're actually paid members from the companies who's very business model is dependent upon guaranteed product turnover ...something individuals like Tbonedawg08 remove from their power to control. It happens way too often and is pretty much why I have been a lurker on this forum for years rather than a member -challenging the accepted norm is vigorously belittled.

yes, he might fail. i don't think he minds that potential. does the potential for failure mean he shouldn't try? ...

what he's trying to do is hard. it's not lazy in the slightest. lazy is offloading the responsibility and knowledge foundation necessary to maintain an aquarium well to a company that tells you what to buy and when to buy it. that's easy. anyone with money to spend can do that. many people choose to do that, and that doesn't make what they're doing less, anymore than it makes what Tbonedawg08 is doing less. they're completely separate approaches to a hobby, a hobby that has a multitude of methodologies. a hobby that is something we do for the pleasure of it. if this is what makes Tbonedawg08 happy, then why not support him with as much knoweldge as possible to succeed rather than challenging him for attempting to do something different than what "everyone else" is doing.

/shrug


----------



## philipraposo1982

The biggest issue I have with the no water change or the lack there of water changes is this.

The newer hobbyist reads this sort of information and decides not to do water changes as well. The only problem is the main reason is due to being lazy and wanting to minimize maintenance. A new hobbyist doesn't have the know-how of how an underwater ecosystem works. Anyone attempting to run a water change free tank should be well versed in the hobby.

Another concern I have is the Op keeps starting that the plan to perform a water change is in the works. Well why exactly? Second guessing the methodology? Feeling peer pressure? Why the need to perform any water change now?

The actual fact is that for someone who is performing any amount of water changes regularly is ensuring that the tank parameters do not stray very much from that of the tap water aka the source.

Anyone doing water change free tank or minimal water changes should be careful when finally doing one. Old tank water will become more and more acidic. pH levels will change as well as other parameters. By now changing the water you will shock the system and could end up with less than ideal results.


Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## houseofcards

nakeeta said:


> correct.
> 
> and as has been pointed out already, it's the 1% you're not considering who are relevant both to the thread and the information i was discussing.


You said low-tech. Low-tech is far more than 1%. 



nakeeta said:


> i'm just going to point out... planet earth = fishbowl with zero water changes.
> low tech tanks are pretty much on par with the analogy.


Your analogy is zero-tech and it's not applicable to the thread or what the OP is doing. This is from your link "Like natural garden ponds this aquarium has no filter, no heater, no artificial light, no electrical equipment at all." Doesn't sound at all like low-tech or what the OP is doing.


----------



## nakeeta

houseofcards said:


> You said low-tech. Low-tech is far more than 1%.
> 
> Your analogy is zero-tech and it's not applicable to the thread or what the OP is doing. This is from your link "Like natural garden ponds this aquarium has no filter, no heater, no artificial light, no electrical equipment at all." Doesn't sound at all like low-tech or what the OP is doing.


ah, of course, why didn't i see it before. there's no room for interpretation at all of what qualifies as low-tech, there's one definition and one definition only, and that's your definition. obviously if my application of a word doesn't 100% meet your application of the word, it's wrong. which is why new words are never made up and old words are never redefined. thank you for letting me know my failure, it was considerate of you to come here and educate me thusly, so few are willing to really stick their neck out there and correct ignorance these days.

fair point though. I mean, ultimately, we have as a culture decide to trust a single source for the definition of our words, just to ensure that we at least have some potential for common understanding. let's see what old Merriam and Webster have to say about it shall we?



> Simple Definition of low–tech
> : not using new electronic devices and technology
> 
> Full Definition of low–tech
> : technologically simple or unsophisticated


huh. so actually, all "low-tech" tanks that use electric lighting, heaters, air pumps, and anything else of the last century are high tech. who knew! ...well, obviously, Merriam and Webster knew. Those clever fellows.


out of curiosity, what would you call this one?
This family live in a completely self-sustaining biodome - Techly


am i required to google search all possible applications of an idea and post them here to ensure i cover all potential angles or am i allowed to pull the one i think might provide the most useful pieces of information for Tbonedawg08 and motivate him to seek out more answers himself. no, that's not a question. Maybe he'll read that "no-tech" tank and it will give him insights into what might help make his tank succeed, or give early warning of potential problems so he can address them before he experiences them. it might prompt him to seek out other web blogs of longer running successs, they're certainly out there. the possibilities are endless. this could be the first day of the rest of his life! ...oh wait. it is. heck. i hate self fulfilling prophecies. okay, how about the answers Tbonedawg08 seeks will be in the last place he looks?! doh. i did it again.


i really don't understand what motivates people to argue on the internet. is life really that boring? apparently so, 'cause here i am. shameful. time to go make the donuts!


----------



## Tbonedawg08

philipraposo1982 said:


> Another concern I have is the Op keeps starting that the plan to perform a water change is in the works. Well why exactly? Second guessing the methodology? Feeling peer pressure? Why the need to perform any water change now?
> 
> The actual fact is that for someone who is performing any amount of water changes regularly is ensuring that the tank parameters do not stray very much from that of the tap water aka the source.
> 
> Anyone doing water change free tank or minimal water changes should be careful when finally doing one. Old tank water will become more and more acidic. pH levels will change as well as other parameters. By now changing the water you will shock the system and could end up with less than ideal results.
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


I'm planning on a future small water change due to nutrients/waste that I can't or do not already test for. Phosphate as an example.

My tank's PH is slightly above neutral and has been since it's birth. Could that change? Sure, but until it does it seems like my parameters are just fine.

I'm still waiting on that objective evidence stating that my water is "bad". I've asked three times now and no one has given me anything that I couldn't immediately fix (TDS, Nitrate) 

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## houseofcards

nakeeta said:


> huh. so actually, all "low-tech" tanks that use electric lighting, heaters, air pumps, and anything else of the last century are high tech. who knew! ...well, obviously, Merriam and Webster knew. Those clever fellows.


Where did I say that? Please quote me. 



nakeeta said:


> *i really don't understand what motivates people to argue on the internet. is life really that boring? *apparently so, 'cause here i am. shameful. time to go make the donuts!


Yes, here you are arguing for your 1%. 

I'm discussing water changes for the 99% and newbies that come into the hobby. BTW do you have any of your "Planet Earth" style setups to show or are you too busy. I don't want to exclude this 1% in the discussion.


----------



## philipraposo1982

Phosphate levels are not something to worry about. Unless they don't exist you won't have issues.

You mention waiting for someone to disprove your method. But here is the thing, noone here will be able to.

An ecosystem such as an aquarium with all that lives in it is far more diverse than most of us truly know. Many of the living things we cannot see or test for. Many of the test we use in the hobby are guesstimate at best.

Fact:. Assuming your tap water is of good quality and you change a reasonable amount often (weekly etc) you tank parameters are not likely to stray from those base values of your tap water. Why is this important?

Well we know that fish and other aquatic life do not do well with constantly fluctuating changes. Which is avoided completely by doing regular water changes. 

Real work application of this is found in river systems. The water running in is constant, always keeping a fresh supply. Providing this water source is of good quality for aquatic life you will never have build ups or depletions of anything. Assuming the water source is constant as most tap water is controlled by municipalities our tap water doesn't very much at all.

So you can obviously see the reason for changing water regularly and at a good amount will keep aquarium parameters solid and similar to that of the tap water. Ensuring no major swings and a constant replenishment of the minerals and oxygen found in tap water.

Now with no water changes the problem or potential issues is that hobbyist can't ensure that everything in the water is remaining constant. Another issue is old tank syndrome to worry about. Also problems can easily arise from adding new tap water that will be different from the tank parameters and could shock the life inside the aquarium.

My entire point is leading up to the simple fact that why risk it. The unknown vs the known.

Option one: change water often and of a large portion of the tank to ensure stable parameters that will also be close to tap water, ensuring stable condition for plants and fish.

Option two:. Don't change the water, have no way of truly knowing what is changing and how it's effecting the life inside the tank. Also risking old tank syndrome and depletions or build up of certain types of organic materials minerals etc. Risk of swings in parameters when adding a new source of water as it will differ greatly to that of the existing aquarium's water.

Simply hoping that the ecosystem that you put together is balanced and will continue to be without water changes is too much risk for very little reward. 

Personally I look at the options and i like the first one, it ensures stability that is far more certain in my tank than yours. For the 10-20 min a week I spend changing water, this is well worth it IMO.

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## nakeeta

umm...

see above?

i don't know what to tell you there bro. there's a quote of you already, several in fact. there's a link to a family bio-dome -it's hardly the first of its kind, i even asked your opinion on its tech qualification. certainly, i can give you more of what i have already given you if you really want it, but it seems to me you really don't and if you don't want it you don't want it so why would i provide it. seems like a whole lot of Cognitive dissonance going on. it's neither my intention nor my job to change your mind, you can keep your aquariums any way you want to keep them.

there seems to be a break down here that isn't getting through. why do i have to only talk about your 99%. i didn't come in and pick you out of the thread. you came in and picked me out while stating the obvious, that what i was discussing wasn't relevant to you or even to most yet some how the "most" seem so threatened by this thread that they have to come in and reply to every single addition to the thread that threatens to contribute meaningfully to the actual purpose of the thread. /boggle. if what i'm discussing isn't relevant to you, why do you feel so threatened by what i'm posting? you can let it go, knowledge can't attack you, only people can.


eh, what the heck. information vomit incoming! who knows, someone out there might actually benefit from one of them. if nothing else, i highly recommend the space'tope, super fun.

first few results on page one of a 622000 result google search. nope, haven't read them all, can't vouch for their relevance to the 99% or the 1% or the 0%.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Aquariums/comments/1z7emb/absolutley_no_water_changes/ (google analytics stepping in, high five google! you are always watching aren't you. <3 my google bot.)
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1993813 "i tried doing a similar post a long time ago and people cut me up left and right lol." -gosh that sounds familiar.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-to-create-a-self-sustaining-ecosystem-in-an-aquarium
http://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-Closed-Aquatic-Ecosystem
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/9/aafeature3
http://www.theecologycenter.org/resources/build-a-terrarium



random other

http://aquabella4aquariums.com/blog/
http://www.aquatic-eden.com/2007/03/dos-and-donts-of-water-changes-in.html
http://www.flyparsons.org/CTSiMecologyresources.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psh9Ufx_kHw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Mjlu2xAugk
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/1...cket-o-mud-semi-self-sustaining-aquarium.html
https://pethelpful.com/fish-aquariums/sustainableaquarium
http://www.instructables.com/id/A-low-maintenanceself-sustaining-ecosystem-and-aq/
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-m...nteract-with-each-other-to-be-self-sustaining
http://www.justluxe.com/lifestyle/house-and-home/feature-1928086.php  holy fresh fish batman.


and one of my absolute favorites

SPACE'TOPE 1998!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11543160


----------



## houseofcards

philipraposo1982 said:


> Phosphate levels are not something to worry about. Unless they don't exist you won't have issues.
> 
> You mention waiting for someone to disprove your method. But here is the thing, noone here will be able to.
> 
> An ecosystem such as an aquarium with all that lives in it is far more diverse than most of us truly know. Many of the living things we cannot see or test for. Many of the test we use in the hobby are guesstimate at best.
> 
> Fact:. Assuming your tap water is of good quality and you change a reasonable amount often (weekly etc) you tank parameters are not likely to stray from those base values of your tap water. Why is this important?
> 
> Well we know that fish and other aquatic life do not do well with constantly fluctuating changes. Which is avoided completely by doing regular water changes.
> 
> Real work application of this is found in river systems. The water running in is constant, always keeping a fresh supply. Providing this water source is of good quality for aquatic life you will never have build ups or depletions of anything. Assuming the water source is constant as most tap water is controlled by municipalities our tap water doesn't very much at all.
> 
> So you can obviously see the reason for changing water regularly and at a good amount will keep aquarium parameters solid and similar to that of the tap water. Ensuring no major swings and a constant replenishment of the minerals and oxygen found in tap water.
> 
> Now with no water changes the problem or potential issues is that hobbyist can't ensure that everything in the water is remaining constant. Another issue is old tank syndrome to worry about. Also problems can easily arise from adding new tap water that will be different from the tank parameters and could shock the life inside the aquarium.
> 
> My entire point is leading up to the simple fact that why risk it. The unknown vs the known.
> 
> Option one: change water often and of a large portion of the tank to ensure stable parameters that will also be close to tap water, ensuring stable condition for plants and fish.
> 
> Option two:. Don't change the water, have no way of truly knowing what is changing and how it's effecting the life inside the tank. Also risking old tank syndrome and depletions or build up of certain types of organic materials minerals etc. Risk of swings in parameters when adding a new source of water as it will differ greatly to that of the existing aquarium's water.
> 
> Simply hoping that the ecosystem that you put together is balanced and will continue to be without water changes is too much risk for very little reward.
> 
> Personally I look at the options and i like the first one, it ensures stability that is far more certain in my tank than yours. For the 10-20 min a week I spend changing water, this is well worth it IMO.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


Great post, very well said!


----------



## philipraposo1982

houseofcards said:


> Great post, very well said!


Thank you 😀

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## houseofcards

houseofcards said:


> Where did I say that? Please quote me.
> 
> BTW do you have any of your "Planet Earth" style setups to show or are you too busy. I don't want to exclude this 1% in the discussion.


Still waiting for you to show my thread quote were I stated this:



nakeeta said:


> huh. so actually, all "low-tech" tanks that use electric lighting, heaters, air pumps, and anything else of the last century are high tech. who knew! ...well, obviously, Merriam and Webster knew. Those clever fellows.


...and love to see some of your 'Planet Earth' setups that you seem to be advocating for. Surely you have some with such a strong position. Show me the quote and your 'Planet Earth' setups and stop linking to tanks like biospheres, Emersed Setups and a Plant in a bowl. 

If you don't include these in your next post then your just side steeping and simply going against the grain just to argue.


----------



## etane

houseofcards said:


> ...and love to see some of your 'Planet Earth' setups that you seem to be advocating for.


state where he advocated for a planet earth setup.


----------



## AbbeysDad

Tbonedawg08 said:


> I still haven't seen quantifiable evidence that my tank's water is dirty or bad or whatever. My TDS has steadily stayed between 300 and 350 since starting this thread and my Nitrates have lowered to acceptable levels as well. I don't have a test specifically for phosphate...should I be testing for that?
> I actually plan on a modest water change soon. Maybe 15g or so just in case, but my point is that no tests that I've run have given me objective evidence towards needing a WC


You (we) simply don't have the tools to analyze true water quality. A TDS meter can't tell you that. You're routinely dosing with chemical ferts and glutaraldehyde - a toxic chemical used to sterilize heat sensitive medical/dental instruments. Since it kills algae, we have to wonder what it does to the biology that decomposes waste to convert it into plant usable nutrients. Like EI, your method practically requires water changes.
I would think that your plants can't neutralize all of the potential negative elements building up in your tank. Modest (or greater) routine partial water changes would better ensure a long term, consistent water chemistry, resulting in a healthy environment for your fish.

But it's your tank and your risk.

Note: Even if you weren't using any chemical additives, I would still see benefit in modest routine partial water changes. In the natural aquarium, we would slightly minimize partial water change volumes to preserve organic nutrients to feed the plants, but just like nature, modest water changes are very beneficial.

footnote: I see the thread has taken another turn down ugly street! :wink2:


----------



## etane

i agree that dosing so much chemicals sort of defeat the purpose of achieving that mythical bio balance.


----------



## ichy

IntotheWRX said:


> i just want to be the voice that represents the opposite end of the spectrum because so many type of people in this hobby are people who love data, science, proof, pride in intelligence, rules which can be called anal. but this hobby doesn't have to be so uptight. I come from the bay area and here we represent a free spirit.
> 
> im the type of person that peeled off my ADA sticker on my tank


Ya that data, science, proof is some crazy chit....its all witchcraft!>


----------



## AbbeysDad

nakeeta said:


> i'm just going to point out... planet earth = fishbowl with zero water changes.


Not true weedhopper. Planet Earth (nature) recycles water through evaporation purification and rain. As such, water is being changed all the time. In the aquarium, WE do this with water changes. Oh I suppose we could remove some water, purify it somehow and put it back....or just replace the water with fresh water and let the planet purify the old, used water.




nakeeta said:


> low tech tanks are pretty much on par with the analogy. low tech societies bioloads' are in balance with their biotopes. high tech societies have huge bioloads' that their biotopes cannot process. guess which one has to artificially augment the natural biotope or die.
> ditto the fish tank.


Again, not true. Low tech developing societies are not in balance and have a huge problem with water borne illness due to pollution of their own unsanitary making. It is well documented that 80% of hospital beds world wide are filled with patients suffering from water related illnesses.
"Your focus needs more focus".

Although I believe it's possible to have a nearly natural aquarium habitat for fish, I feel this must include modest partial water changes to ensure a more consistent water chemistry. Without modest water changes, the necessary balance would be very difficult and the bio-load would likely be much, much lower than most aquariums would ever see. And even then, routine modest water changes would be beneficial.


----------



## houseofcards

etane said:


> state where he advocated for a planet earth setup.


It's there in several posts go find it. Here is your contribution to the water change discussion going on here and I will quote you:



etane said:


> ...You act hard but I bet your tank water is soft like you





etane said:


> -i agree. wc are for wusses which 99% of us are. creating a self sustaining ecosphere takes real talent, skill and patience.


Great contribution, that's really valuable to the thread. 

At the end of the day, the whole point is it's better to do water changes then not to do them, especially for someone new to the hobby and doesn't have a grasp on things yet. You can't reverse it and say it's better not to do water changes. 

Water changes can only help every setup, not doing water changes doesn't. This is not debatable by anyone with experience.


----------



## burr740

Wow, what a thread



houseofcards said:


> At the end of the day, the whole point is it's better to do water changes then not to do them, especially for someone new to the hobby and doesn't have a grasp on things yet. You can't reverse it and say it's better not to do water changes.
> 
> Water changes can only help every setup, not doing water changes doesn't. This is not debatable by anyone with experience.


This sums it up pretty well


----------



## DennisSingh

Hoc is spot on regard wc. Even top offs are beneficial since adding new water
Take a California lake or river, which do u think has more algae...


----------



## etane

houseofcards said:


> It's there in several posts go find it.


flake response.



houseofcards said:


> Here is your contribution to the water change discussion going on here and I will quote you:


don't confuse light hearted commentary with contribution. which, btw, you've done nothing to help the OP's endeavor but to put up stumbling blocks. if you have no knowledge or desire to recreate what OP is looking for, then why are you even here?

i think there's more than an iota of self importance that you need to inject your own way of thinking and derailing someone else's learning process. 

when someone asks how to do less or no wc, your response is to do more wc. and, your cop out reasoning is you're afraid a newbie will learn incorrectly. face it, you're just interjecting your way of thinking over others.



houseofcards said:


> At the end of the day, the whole point is it's better to do water changes then not to do them, especially for someone new to the hobby and doesn't have a grasp on things yet.


No one ever said it's better not to do wc. You're the hero of your own made up argument.


----------



## ichy

Get an orp/redox meter and watch your water turn to crap right before your eyes! Then you can watch a water change restore it! Magic!


----------



## philipraposo1982

Since many of us know the benefits to doing water changes, what are some of the benefits to NOT doing water changes. Please explain.

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tbonedawg08

philipraposo1982 said:


> Since many of us know the benefits to doing water changes, what are some of the benefits to NOT doing water changes. Please explain.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


- Less need for ferts
- More substantial amounts of BB
- More stable water parameters
- More time
- Less of a chance of destroying decorations or uprooting plants
- Less stress on fauna

These are all assuming you strike some sort of balance in your tank.

That's all I can think of right now.

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## etane

philipraposo1982 said:


> Since many of us know the benefits to doing water changes, what are some of the benefits to NOT doing water changes. Please explain.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


Cuz it's fun, challenging and, for many, aesthetically pleasing.

Exhibit A: Tom's bucket ole mud.

Again, why are people derailing OP's request for information?


----------



## houseofcards

etane said:


> flake response.
> 
> don't confuse light hearted commentary with contribution. which, btw, you've done nothing to help the OP's endeavor but to put up stumbling blocks. if you have no knowledge or desire to recreate what OP is looking for, then why are you even here?
> 
> i think there's more than an iota of self importance that you need to inject your own way of thinking and derailing someone else's learning process.
> 
> No one ever said it's better not to do wc. You're the hero of your own made up argument.


You caught me, it's all about my ego and making sure other members here submit to my will. Nothing to do with my experience and what I know works which other experienced members have echoed. You have no substance to add so the personal attacks come out. How typical. That's all you've done is post this type of stuff and biosphere nonsense. 

By your post you obviously didn't really read the thread, because there were several members who several times stated "water changes are a waste", "fish are better off without heavy water changes and adding in ferts", "tanks are more stable and balanced without WC." So nothing you stated is accurate. 

I can't speak for them, but I feel confident that most experienced members here will think my water change posts are helpful regardless of the setup. Any one new will have more success with regular water changes, doesn't matter what tank they are setting up. They don't need to learn by walking a tight rope and killing their fish and plants which apparently you have done plenty of by overstocking and not following any type of guideline. 

Get some more success in the hobby and then you can add something worthwhile instead of your worthless silly comments.


----------



## etane

houseofcards said:


> You caught me, it's all about my ego and making sure other members here submit to my will. Nothing to do with my experience and what I know works which other experienced members have echoed. You have no substance to add so the personal attacks come out. How typical. That's all you've done is post this type of stuff and biosphere nonsense.
> 
> .


Your personal experience are relevant only to what you do and what your priorities are which are aquascaping, *EI dosing and 50% wc*. That's not the same as what the OP wants nor what many other hobbyist here want to adhere to and hence you're input on this thread has not only been irrelevant, unwanted but also insulting.

Stop assuming your "contributions" are one size fits all. And, stop it with your personal attacks insinuating you're the only one proffering good advice and everyone who doesn't adhere to your EI regimen as neophytes.


----------



## houseofcards

etane said:


> Your personal experience are relevant only to what you do and what your priorities are which are aquascaping, *EI dosing and 50% wc*. That's not the same as what the OP wants nor what many other hobbyist here want to adhere to and hence you're input on this thread has not only been irrelevant, unwanted but also insulting.
> 
> Stop assuming your "contributions" are one size fits all. And, stop it with your personal attacks insinuating you're the only one proffering good advice and everyone who doesn't adhere to your EI regimen as neophytes.


I've setup all kinds of tanks not only EI. What makes you think that. I've done filterless tanks, low-tech, etc. they all benefit from WC. BTW EI isn't all about 50% WC, you could dose EI and do 10% WC depending upon other parameters so your post indicates very clearly your lack of knowledge. You just don't understand that WC are beneficial to all tanks. Can I see some of your tanks that don't receive regular WC.


----------



## houseofcards

Tbonedawg08 said:


> - Less need for ferts
> - More substantial amounts of BB
> - More stable water parameters
> - More time
> - Less of a chance of destroying decorations or uprooting plants
> - Less stress on fauna
> 
> These are all assuming you strike some sort of balance in your tank.
> 
> That's all I can think of right now.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


 @etane

Since you want to help the OP so much, why don't you respond to this list and let him know which one's are correct and which aren't. I would do it but I don't want to pad my ego any further.:grin2:


----------



## Rare

My 2 cents.

If you think it's ok NOT TO CHANGE WATER, your buggin....

You must change water. If you dose ei or not...

You must change water for a healthy tank.

I'm not gonna argue with anyone... 

Do as you wish...... I change my water every week, at least 70+ %.

^___^;;


----------



## DennisSingh

OP your plants look like crud to be honest. What you need to do resisting water change is to actually not rescape, but trim. Get rid of plants like limnophila that are more demanding and such. You can easily do this who ecosphere thing whatever that is, with the plants you choose, keep in mind tds with keep climbing if you don't keep with the matricide which has no co2 value but sterilizing algae. Trim your wisteria, trim and replant your runners for what was it dwarf sag? Get rid of higher demanding plants. Even with water change your limno will still look like s* but a little better, the lower the light the better as that what you have right now. Sorry I skimmed through this entire thread. This tank could easily look better with a little more maintenance, plant choices and groupage, your fish and top offs cause you do need to top off right? can amount to your fertilization...You can do the whole not water changing thing, but your fish aren't going to be as healthy as can be, but they're meant to thrive in most all conditions given fish choice i saw. I mean they go through bags and bags of transferring with ammonia and been put through hell to get to you and so on....

or you can
water change
ditch the metricide (this is a chemical, fish do not like it)
either way you gotta trim

forgive me if this is incomplete. I really did enjoy the battle which got me in this thread to begin with.


----------



## philipraposo1982

Also, let's make note that the op didn't ask anything other than how does my tank look. 

But went on to turn the attention onto his no water change practices. Which is what started this. So as far as the Op goes he wants this conversation more than most.

Now to address the list of benefits to no water changes.

1. I will agree less frets are required but it's not a pro. Ferts are dirt cheap and dosing doesn't need to very much at all even in.a high tech tank.

IMO is not something to consider.

2. Have no idea about the BB but maybe can someone can prove this to be true or not. What I do know about BB is that good flow and a good source of oxygen are key. How does a water change hurt BB? 

Very little BB lives in the water column, this is a fact.

3. Stable water parameters. Not changing water doesn't promote stable water conditions, this is just wrong. 

Changing water regularly keeps parameters stable. Look at the kingofdiy and his constant water change system. His parameters never change because it's also the same source of water flowing in at the same rate.

Not changing water will in most cases increase TDs, lower kh and pH values, increase in nitrates. And deplete nutrients. If you adding to the tank to maintain or decrease anything then your keeping g it stable. The tank is not stable without you adding to it.

4. Time... Unless you got a huge aquarium or tons of them everywhere changing water on an aquarium is literally one of the least time consuming things in the hobby other than feeding and dropping some ferts in. Can't spare a few min a week for a wc?

5. Maybe don't destroy plants and decor by not being careless in the tank when changing water. This has never once been an issue for me.

6. If a water change is stressing your livestock it's because your not doing it often enough and the parameters of the tank has change too much from that of your tap. This is exactly why is best to do large frequent water changes.

My fish never react different before or after a water change. It's like nothing has change, because very little actually has.

Striking some magical balance in an aquarium is far more difficult than changing water and yields no benefits from where I stand.

Clearly a self sustaining ecosystem is one that you don't have to do anything too. If one does exist in the hobby I have yet to see it. Toping off water is still adding to an ecosystem and therefore is not self sustaining.



Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## DennisSingh

philipraposo1982 said:


> Striking some magical balance in an aquarium is far more difficult than changing water and yields no benefits from where I stand.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


Striking the balance low tech is easier said than done with lighting.

Striking the balance high tech is well only Tom Barr can do that....period. so far...


----------



## philipraposo1982

I don't mean balance in the general term, I mentioned it more in the walk of actually creating a living ecosystem that doesn't need for you to add anything addition to it. Including water or food or ferts or anything.

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## DennisSingh

philipraposo1982 said:


> I don't mean balance in the general term, I mentioned it more in the walk of actually creating a living ecosystem that doesn't need for you to add anything addition to it. Including water or food or ferts or anything.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


Ya i can do that or had done it low tech...Not high tech though


----------



## Bobbybills

StrungOut said:


> Ya i can do that or had done it low tech...Not high tech though


Not entirely true. From personal experience, I stopped doing regularly scheduled water changes after stopping dosing PPS-PRO. Same concepts apply to EI and PPS, adding micros and macros in varying amounts. I am not a plant or biology major but have kept fish for nearly 50 years. My current 90 has 200 watts of LED and injected CO2, so is considered "high tech".

From reading most of this thread, a few constants became apparent for me at least.

When dosing micro and macro above what the plants can use, water changes a must especially with a large fish load.

When dosing just what the plants can use, factoring in the fish load, optional but no real advantage.

When not dosing and having a large fish load fed with a variety of foods, with a sufficient plant load to consume the waste and bi products, water changes optional but beneficial.

When not dosing and having a large fish load and small plant load, water changes a must.

When not dosing and not having a plant load that match the fish load, optional but beneficial.

When having plastic plants and too many fish, start over.


----------



## proper.noun

A very well regarded lfs in my area (San Francisco Bay Area) hasn't changed their tank water since 1978. The owner tells new hobbyists not to change their water as well but I get the feeling the majority of pple are skeptical of this advice and ignore it. I know I personally can't strike the "no water change" balance.


In any case- the quality of his fish stock is fantastic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## philipraposo1982

I call bs, no way to prove or disprove it but I still call bs on that. 

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tbonedawg08

philipraposo1982 said:


> Also, let's make note that the op didn't ask anything other than how does my tank look.
> 
> But went on to turn the attention onto his no water change practices. Which is what started this. So as far as the Op goes he wants this conversation more than most.
> 
> Now to address the list of benefits to no water changes.
> 
> 1. I will agree less frets are required but it's not a pro. Ferts are dirt cheap and dosing doesn't need to very much at all even in.a high tech tank.
> 
> IMO is not something to consider.
> 
> 2. Have no idea about the BB but maybe can someone can prove this to be true or not. What I do know about BB is that good flow and a good source of oxygen are key. How does a water change hurt BB?
> 
> Very little BB lives in the water column, this is a fact.
> 
> 3. Stable water parameters. Not changing water doesn't promote stable water conditions, this is just wrong.
> 
> Changing water regularly keeps parameters stable. Look at the kingofdiy and his constant water change system. His parameters never change because it's also the same source of water flowing in at the same rate.
> 
> Not changing water will in most cases increase TDs, lower kh and pH values, increase in nitrates. And deplete nutrients. If you adding to the tank to maintain or decrease anything then your keeping g it stable. The tank is not stable without you adding to it.
> 
> 4. Time... Unless you got a huge aquarium or tons of them everywhere changing water on an aquarium is literally one of the least time consuming things in the hobby other than feeding and dropping some ferts in. Can't spare a few min a week for a wc?
> 
> 5. Maybe don't destroy plants and decor by not being careless in the tank when changing water. This has never once been an issue for me.
> 
> 6. If a water change is stressing your livestock it's because your not doing it often enough and the parameters of the tank has change too much from that of your tap. This is exactly why is best to do large frequent water changes.
> 
> My fish never react different before or after a water change. It's like nothing has change, because very little actually has.
> 
> Striking some magical balance in an aquarium is far more difficult than changing water and yields no benefits from where I stand.
> 
> Clearly a self sustaining ecosystem is one that you don't have to do anything too. If one does exist in the hobby I have yet to see it. Toping off water is still adding to an ecosystem and therefore is not self sustaining.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


I have a few problems with your comment so I'll try to organize it in a way that makes sense...

On the topic of my tank's esthetics, you're right. It has nothing to do with this thread. I wanted to go for a more natural look. This means dead leaves, leftover snail shells etc. 

1. I agree that it's a small benefit, but a benefit nonetheless. 
2. My thinking about BB is specifically the kind that eats Nitrates. Nitrates are especially important when you're trying to limit WC. They require anaerobic conditions and water changes disrupt the substrate while adding oxygen.
Another point is that more waste = more ammonia/nitrite/nitrate = more BB. The less its cleaned, the more BB can colonize and grow.
3. This is absolutely not wrong. I have proven several times in this thread that my water conditions have remained stable for many months now.
Picture a line graph describing toxins, TDS etc. Right before a WC they're at their highest. Then after, they drop. It's always up and down.
Without water changes, (again, only if you've struck some sort of balance) everything in the water remains steady or gradually increases until an inevitable modest WC. The fluctuations occur very rarely in my tank vs frequently in your tank.
4. Time. I know many people on this forum have much better tanks than I do, but it was free and not too bad. The biggest problem is the way the hood is set up. I cannot get in to my tank without completely taking off my wooden hood (which means working in the dark because my lights are disconnected) then taking off the plexiglass that separates the water and my CFLs. Then I have to put it all back together. If i end up moving a stem plant so that it's caught up on something else (happens almost every time) I won't really know until I put the whole hood back together because the lights are on it. It's a huge pain. I'm sure it's easier on your tank so just believe me when I say that I want to limit this activity as much as possible.
5. That brings me to the actual destruction from dumping water in my tank...i have a ton of plants as you can tell. I have tried several methods to slow down the incoming water from disturbing my arrangement, but there's really no good way to stop from getting stems twisted on themselves, dislodging Wisteria, or uprooting Java Ferns. Sometimes I get lucky, but typically it involves putting the hood back together, seeing the aftermath once the lights are on, then taking it back off and working in the dark hoping I got everything back like it was.
It's not a matter of being careless. Ive been doing this for 10 months. I know my tank and I think it's more than a little rude to imply otherwise.
6. The stress comes from the physical disruption of their habitat. Hands reaching in to their home, water currents coming from multiple new directions, mulm/substrate getting kicked up in to the water column, releasing of ammonia pockets. All these things cause stress. Imagine if these things happened to your home?


I never said my tank was self-sustaining. In fact, i only ever said that the goal was to do as little WC as possible. There's no reason to bring up redundant topics like a self-sustaining ecosystem when this thread has never been about that.

Its about how flora and BB can equal out fish waste.

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## philipraposo1982

Tbonedawg08 said:


> I have a few problems with your comment so I'll try to organize it in a way that makes sense...
> 
> On the topic of my tank's esthetics, you're right. It has nothing to do with this thread. I wanted to go for a more natural look. This means dead leaves, leftover snail shells etc.
> 
> 1. I agree that it's a small benefit, but a benefit nonetheless.
> 2. My thinking about BB is specifically the kind that eats Nitrates. Nitrates are especially important when you're trying to limit WC. They require anaerobic conditions and water changes disrupt the substrate while adding oxygen.
> Another point is that more waste = more ammonia/nitrite/nitrate = more BB. The less its cleaned, the more BB can colonize and grow.
> 3. This is absolutely not wrong. I have proven several times in this thread that my water conditions have remained stable for many months now.
> Picture a line graph describing toxins, TDS etc. Right before a WC they're at their highest. Then after, they drop. It's always up and down.
> Without water changes, (again, only if you've struck some sort of balance) everything in the water remains steady or gradually increases until an inevitable modest WC. The fluctuations occur very rarely in my tank vs frequently in your tank.
> 4. Time. I know many people on this forum have much better tanks than I do, but it was free and not too bad. The biggest problem is the way the hood is set up. I cannot get in to my tank without completely taking off my wooden hood (which means working in the dark because my lights are disconnected) then taking off the plexiglass that separates the water and my CFLs. Then I have to put it all back together. If i end up moving a stem plant so that it's caught up on something else (happens almost every time) I won't really know until I put the whole hood back together because the lights are on it. It's a huge pain. I'm sure it's easier on your tank so just believe me when I say that I want to limit this activity as much as possible.
> 5. That brings me to the actual destruction from dumping water in my tank...i have a ton of plants as you can tell. I have tried several methods to slow down the incoming water from disturbing my arrangement, but there's really no good way to stop from getting stems twisted on themselves, dislodging Wisteria, or uprooting Java Ferns. Sometimes I get lucky, but typically it involves putting the hood back together, seeing the aftermath once the lights are on, then taking it back off and working in the dark hoping I got everything back like it was.
> It's not a matter of being careless. Ive been doing this for 10 months. I know my tank and I think it's more than a little rude to imply otherwise.
> 6. The stress comes from the physical disruption of their habitat. Hands reaching in to their home, water currents coming from multiple new directions, mulm/substrate getting kicked up in to the water column, releasing of ammonia pockets. All these things cause stress. Imagine if these things happened to your home?
> 
> 
> I never said my tank was self-sustaining. In fact, i only ever said that the goal was to do as little WC as possible. There's no reason to bring up redundant topics like a self-sustaining ecosystem when this thread has never been about that.
> 
> Its about how flora and BB can equal out fish waste.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


2. All the BB your tank requires lives in the filter. Anything in the tank is just a bonus. They don't require anaerobic conditions.

Proof: take a bare bottom tank with no decor, the kingofdiy has his arowana in this exact setup. No anaerobic conditions because there is no substrate. He has a sump that's where the BB live. 

So you water changes are not harming your BB colony.

3. My TDs fluctuate between water changes but it's such a small amount because I change water often and large. I have a light bio load as well. 

Also you can't test every level in your water. Maybe the ones you do are relatively constant but there is far more going on outside of what your testing that is in fact changing.. 

Your kh and gh levels don't change at all? Testing for minerals?
Oxygen levels?

You get the point.

The rest seems to be based on your setup. Unfortunately it seems like you struggle with water changes due to the setup. In your case I do agree it's alot of disturbance but in most cases this is not true.



Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## DennisSingh

> Not entirely true. From personal experience, I stopped doing regularly scheduled water changes after stopping dosing PPS-PRO. Same concepts apply to EI and PPS, adding micros and macros in varying amounts. I am not a plant or biology major but have kept fish for nearly 50 years. My current 90 has 200 watts of LED and injected CO2, so is considered "high tech".


Whats not entirely true, just stating what i did or could not do, not what other people can or cannot do.


----------



## Bobbybills

Is it possible to agree that some cannot do massive water changes on large tanks unless the tap water parameters are either below or equal to the target?

Even if EI or PPS is the optimal method for plant health and plant growth, making 40 to 90 gallons of RO water each week for a large tanks may be too much effort for those who have super hard water, elevated levels of copper or iron, etc.

I keep reading about changes in dosing regiments based on accumulation of micros, but unless the water used for both top off and water changes is RO, wouldn't be impossible to have 1 size fits all?


----------



## Tbonedawg08

philipraposo1982 said:


> 2. All the BB your tank requires lives in the filter. Anything in the tank is just a bonus. They don't require anaerobic conditions.
> 
> Proof: take a bare bottom tank with no decor, the kingofdiy has his arowana in this exact setup. No anaerobic conditions because there is no substrate. He has a sump that's where the BB live.
> 
> So you water changes are not harming your BB colony.
> 
> 3. My TDs fluctuate between water changes but it's such a small amount because I change water often and large. I have a light bio load as well.
> 
> Also you can't test every level in your water. Maybe the ones you do are relatively constant but there is far more going on outside of what your testing that is in fact changing..
> 
> Your kh and gh levels don't change at all? Testing for minerals?
> Oxygen levels?
> 
> You get the point.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


BB bacteria is in a higher demand for a tank without WC. I need as much as I can get and whether or not you believe that anaerobic bacteria breaks downs Nitrate or not, cleaning out the fish waste and dead leaves would lower my BB count.

I agree that I can't test for EVERY possible thing. That was a main focus of this post. To find out what else I should be testing for.

My KH and GH haven't changed hardly at all since the beginning. Same as my TDS. I assume oxygen levels are very consistent since I don't do WC. I have a heavily planted tank with surface movement and a HOB filter that pushes air in to the water. 

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## philipraposo1982

OK I am done, you clearly don't want to listen to facts.

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tbonedawg08

philipraposo1982 said:


> OK I am done, you clearly don't want to listen to facts.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


 

Funny thing about facts. They're only called that when they support your opinion. I haven't said anything that isn't factual and can't be backed up by research or personal experience. I'd be glad to post the research if you'll find it beneficial.
Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## IntotheWRX

proper.noun said:


> A very well regarded lfs in my area (San Francisco Bay Area) hasn't changed their tank water since 1978. The owner tells new hobbyists not to change their water as well but I get the feeling the majority of pple are skeptical of this advice and ignore it. I know I personally can't strike the "no water change" balance.
> 
> 
> In any case- the quality of his fish stock is fantastic.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yes, the way we do it out here in the Bay is that we come from earth quake city home of the sucka free where we master the balance of a planted tank. finding that zone of perfect balance, we have super understanding of the nature system and don't need to change our water. find your balance everyone. stop hitting the reset button to correct your mistakes.


----------



## houseofcards

IntotheWRX said:


> Yes, the way we do it out here in the Bay is that we come from earth quake city home of the sucka free where we master the balance of a planted tank. finding that zone of perfect balance, we have super understanding of the nature system and don't need to change our water. find your balance everyone. stop hitting the reset button to correct your mistakes.


You do the non-water change advocates proud :thumbsup:


----------



## IntotheWRX

derp!:nerd:

you do you (change water every 7 days)
I do me (change water when it needs it)


----------



## houseofcards

IntotheWRX said:


> derp!:nerd:
> 
> you do you (change water every 7 days)
> I do me (change water when it needs it)


Cool, I never once said in this thread that you HAVE to do weekly, it just works for all setups and you have more flexibility. 

Anyway dude do you prefer to be known as IntotheWRX or MacDre2016


----------



## etane

houseofcards said:


> Cool, I never once said in this thread that you HAVE to do weekly, it just works for all setups and you have more flexibility.
> 
> Anyway dude do you prefer to be known as IntotheWRX or MacDre2016


you don't have to state it in THIS thread. do you deny you do your EI dose and weekly 50% wcs?

(inadvertently trying to get back to topic and away from personal attacks)



houseofcards said:


> You do the non-water change advocates proud


----------



## Kubla

Tbonedawg08 said:


> BB bacteria is in a higher demand for a tank without WC. I need as much as I can get and whether or not you believe that anaerobic bacteria breaks downs Nitrate or not, cleaning out the fish waste and dead leaves would lower my BB count.
> 
> I agree that I can't test for EVERY possible thing. That was a main focus of this post. To find out what else I should be testing for.
> 
> My KH and GH haven't changed hardly at all since the beginning. Same as my TDS. I assume oxygen levels are very consistent since I don't do WC. I have a heavily planted tank with surface movement and a HOB filter that pushes air in to the water.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk





Tbonedawg08 said:


> Funny thing about facts. They're only called that when they support your opinion. I haven't said anything that isn't factual and can't be backed up by research or personal experience. I'd be glad to post the research if you'll find it beneficial.
> Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


Just because it's factual doesn't mean it pertinent. Cleaning out fish waste and dead leaves would lower your BB count. It would also mean you would need less BB.



IntotheWRX said:


> derp!:nerd:
> 
> you do you (change water every 7 days)
> I do me (change water when it needs it)


No, sorry, you change your water when you think it needs it.


----------



## IntotheWRX

houseofcards said:


> Cool, I never once said in this thread that you HAVE to do weekly, it just works for all setups and you have more flexibility.
> 
> Anyway dude do you prefer to be known as IntotheWRX or MacDre2016


Have you heard of the Thizzle dance? 

Watch some Treal TV

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v4Fa39thvY


----------



## houseofcards

IntotheWRX said:


> Have you heard of the Thizzle dance?
> 
> Watch some Treal TV
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v4Fa39thvY


I don't think you can have two aliases here.


----------



## IntotheWRX

houseofcards said:


> I don't think you can have two aliases here.


Mac Dre is not me. I do I, Mac does the thizzle dance. You do you. We are not a trinity here.


----------



## AbbeysDad

I see at least three distinct and different methods here - all of which can work.

1) The 50% (or more) WWC with dependent chemical dosing...including the EI Method and variants. Does not have dirt. Somewhat inorganic, uses ferts to feed plants. Works in low or high tech. Any degree of plant mass.

2) No WWC. Limited or no chemical dosing....including the Walstad Method. May or may not have dirt. Primarily uses organics to feed plants. Heavily planted. Requires a fine balance between bio-load and plant mass. (probably a light bio-load, but enough to feed the plants. Perhaps limited to low tech. May promote old tank syndrome long term since there's no dilution/removal of any 'pollution' that the plants can't absorb.

3) Modest (~20%) WWC. Limited or no chemical dosing. A 'Nearly Natural Habitat'. May or may not have dirt. Primarily uses organics to feed plants. Heavily planted. Requires a near balance of bio-load to plant mass, but more flexible than #2. Perhaps limited to low tech.

Any of these can be successful, but all require some management effort to maintain the environment.


----------



## IntotheWRX

AbbeysDad said:


> I see at least three distinct and different methods here - all of which can work.
> 
> 1) The 50% (or more) WWC with dependent chemical dosing...including the EI Method and variants. Does not have dirt. Somewhat inorganic, uses ferts to feed plants. Works in low or high tech. Any degree of plant mass.
> 
> 2) No WWC. Limited or no chemical dosing....including the Walstad Method. May or may not have dirt. Primarily uses organics to feed plants. Heavily planted. Requires a fine balance between bio-load and plant mass. (probably a light bio-load, but enough to feed the plants. Perhaps limited to low tech. May promote old tank syndrome long term since there's no dilution/removal of any 'pollution' that the plants can't absorb.
> 
> 3) Modest (~20%) WWC. Limited or no chemical dosing. A 'Nearly Natural Habitat'. May or may not have dirt. Primarily uses organics to feed plants. Heavily planted. Requires a near balance of bio-load to plant mass, but more flexible than #2. Perhaps limited to low tech.
> 
> Any of these can be successful, but all require some management effort to maintain the environment.


im satisfied with this answer as it covers the full spectrum of water changes.


----------



## etane

Tbonedawg08 said:


> I never said my tank was self-sustaining. In fact, i only ever said that the goal was to do as little WC as possible. There's no reason to bring up redundant topics like a self-sustaining ecosystem when this thread has never been about that.
> 
> Its about how flora and BB can equal out fish waste.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


It might be semantics but wanting to minimize water change means it's better to look to self or at least semi self sustaining tanks for cues.


----------



## houseofcards

I have to give credit to the OP @Tbonedawg08 He's put up with a lot in this thread. It started innocently enough but turned into a lightening rod for the whole water change debate.

These were my first three posts in this thread.



houseofcards said:


> There's not a lot of things you have to do. It's more a matter of what your goals are and how much limitation your willing to accept.





houseofcards said:


> Did someone say limitation. Of course, whenever you have a tank with no water changes, your limited to the amount of light, the amount and types of plants you can grow. It's pretty tough to argue with that. If the plants are doing the lions share of the filtering then removing many of those will cause serious issue both with algae and fish.
> 
> Finding this 'balance' requires a much tighter range then a tank that receives regular water changes and is dosed regularly. If you don't have enough plants/uptake then your nitrates, etc might get too high and if you don't have enough nitrates then your plants will run short and algae creeps in. It's easier to hit an outer ring of a dart board than the bullseye. :wink2:


Never said you HAVE to do water changes, you are simply more limited by the things I mentioned above. I think you know that. There's nothing wrong with continuing what you are doing (I even congratulated you on your tanks success), but at the same time I brought out some of these limitations. I've had plenty of tanks over the years and when I started doing regular water changes and dosing there was less to think about and more time to just enjoy the tank.


----------



## Tbonedawg08

houseofcards said:


> I have to give credit to the OP @Tbonedawg08 He's put up with a lot in this thread. It started innocently enough but turned into a lightening rod for the whole water change debate.


Lol I've enjoyed it mostly. It's good info. I just wish there was a little more objective information instead of the opinions that I've mostly seen.

Question about metricide...
From my research, metricide is largely nontoxic to fauna and only has a half-life of 12 hours. Eventually the entire amount of metricide will be broken down in 24 hours. So my thinking is that there should be no long term build up. Is there actual EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that disproves this? 

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## AbbeysDad

I can't find any documentation about a 12 hour half life in water or any kindof 'breaking down in 24 hours'. As a biocide, it seems unlikely. If you were doing routine large water changes it would likely not be an issue, but since you're not, I'm not sure it's something you want or need. Again, your tank - your risk.
For what it's worth, I don't think you want anything that's going to kill the bacteria you absolutely need to break down organic waste into plant usable nutrients....just saying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glutaraldehyde

CDC - Glutaraldehyde - NIOSH Workplace Safety and Health Topic

https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/hospital/hazards/glutaraldehyde/glut.html

http://msdssearch.dow.com/PublishedLiteratureDOWCOM/dh_049c/0901b8038049cb2b.pdf?filepath=biocides/pdfs/noreg/253-01817.pdf&fromPage=GetDoc


----------



## etane

half life of 12 hours doesn't mean dispersal after 12 hours.


----------



## houseofcards

Tbonedawg08 said:


> Lol I've enjoyed it mostly. It's good info. I just wish there was a little more objective information instead of the opinions that I've mostly seen.


Well it's kinda like the Wild West. Anyone can show up and start firing away there's no qualifier. You have to do your own due diligence to see if it makes sense. Usually looking at someone's other posts and their Tank Journals will reveal whether they actually know what they're talking about or just stirring the pot. Personal attacks with no substance and posting irrelevant links and not their own experience is a dead give away that they want to just go against the grain. 

Most of the evidence for things that work is andecotal since it is a hobby and the tank is not in a lab, but in one's home where just the difference in husbandry skills/attention will make a difference even if two tanks are seemingly identical.


----------



## burr740

I used metricide for a couple of years on a few different tanks, dosing daily at 1.5x - 2x the recommended Seachem dose. Had very good results and never caused any problems with livestock. Didnt have any shrimp at the time though, so not sure how it is for them.


----------



## AbbeysDad

burr740 said:


> I used metricide for a couple of years on a few different tanks, dosing daily at 1.5x - 2x the recommended Seachem dose. Had very good results and never caused any problems with livestock. Didnt have any shrimp at the time though, so not sure how it is for them.


Isn't Metricide 2x more concentrated than Excel....which means you dosed 4x the Seachem Excel recommendation?! That should have killed more than just algae.

Did you ever do water changes?


----------



## Nlewis

AbbeysDad said:


> Isn't Metricide 2x more concentrated than Excel....which means you dosed 4x the Seachem Excel recommendation?! That should have killed more than just algae.
> 
> Did you ever do water changes?


Not when you dilute it down to match the percentage of glut found in Excel.


----------



## AbbeysDad

Nlewis said:


> Not when you dilute it down to match the percentage of glut found in Excel.


It didn't read that way. I'm also curious about the continued use of Metricide without any water changes. Again for late comers, @TBone setup this tank 9 months ago, has been regularly dosing with ferts and Metricide and has never done a partial water change. Perhaps impressive, but it surprises me that the plants could neutralize regular dosing of a toxic chemical with never any water changes.


----------



## burr740

AbbeysDad said:


> Isn't Metricide 2x more concentrated than Excel....which means you dosed 4x the Seachem Excel recommendation?! That should have killed more than just algae.
> 
> Did you ever do water changes?


Best I remember approximately 6ml Metricide = 10ml Excel. Actually think it's in the low 6.something ml but I dont remember the exact number.

I did not dilute it to match Excel, you read that right. Always dosed it straight following Seachem's instructions. So when I say 1.5x, that is ml for ml using a stronger concentration.

It's purpose for me was a CO2 supplement, not so much the algaecide factor, for which I found it works great (even at the standard dose)

Had upper medium range light in the 60s PAR range and was dosing ferts. Water changes once a week 50-60%.

It doesnt build up. Pretty sure there's an article on the Seachem site explaining how/why.

Also I know from past discussions many others around here overdose it as well. @Hoppy I believe has, or does.

Im not recommending either way, just saying I did it for quite a while with only good results and no problems.


----------



## AbbeysDad

I don't see how we could compare your amped up Metricide use with 50%-60% WWC's, to @TBone's use with no water changes over 9 months. Then again, (maybe I missed it) but he didn't indicate any fish health problems or losses - ????

At this point, I'll step out. I don't use glutaraldehyde and don't plan to.


----------



## s2man

Wow. I was looking for a forum to share my new dirt-planted tank and hopefully learn a few tricks. I came to the low-tech forum and found all of this bickering, CO2, dosing, blah blah blah. 

Sorry guys, I'll have to look elsewhere. Yes, I read the entire thread.


----------



## Mxx

I was hoping this discussion might end up being a bit more about the science, alas... 

So being that this is nevertheless in the Low Tech Forum, does anyone know if there are actually many aquarists using a low-maintenance Walstead-type approach, (either strictly in accordance with her guidelines or not)?


----------



## IntotheWRX

Mxx said:


> I was hoping this discussion might end up being a bit more about the science, alas...
> 
> So being that this is nevertheless in the Low Tech Forum, does anyone know if there are actually many aquarists using a low-maintenance Walstead-type approach, (either strictly in accordance with her guidelines or not)?


look up instagram user "akwaskape"

zero/no tech tank. 1 water change a year. fishes lush healthy plants. natural light.


----------



## Econde

Take a look at this. 75 Gallon no water change maybe you'll find some good pointers there.


----------



## houseofcards

Econde said:


> Take a look at this. 75 Gallon no water change maybe you'll find some good pointers there.


You do realize your link is the 1st page of this thread.


----------



## Econde

houseofcards said:


> You do realize your link is the 1st page of this thread.


Leads me to right link on my phone. And on my computer. Hmm.

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk


----------



## bbroush

Mxx said:


> I was hoping this discussion might end up being a bit more about the science, alas...
> 
> 
> 
> So being that this is nevertheless in the Low Tech Forum, does anyone know if there are actually many aquarists using a low-maintenance Walstead-type approach, (either strictly in accordance with her guidelines or not)?




Over in APC there is a sub forum called El Natural. All based off of the Walstad approach for the most part.


----------



## Econde

houseofcards said:


> You do realize your link is the 1st page of this thread.


Ah I see what I did there [emoji16] 

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk


----------



## houseofcards

The thread that wouldn't die comes alive again by someone mistakenly bumping it to the very first post. :hihi:


----------



## Tbonedawg08

Lololol here she is now. I rearranged a few plants because they weren't getting enough light









Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## bbroush

Tbonedawg08 said:


> Lololol here she is now. I rearranged a few plants because they weren't getting enough light
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk




Tell me about your pothos up top? Funny thing is I did a similar thing for 18 months but with probably not enough vegetation in the tank because of lower lighting but great growth from a couple riparium plants. I currently did some serious planting in my 20 gallon and I'm hoping that helps. I have been doing WCs right now hoping that everything will balance out once the 12 new plants I put in start picking up. 

Also my apologies to all those that wanted this thread to die. :/


----------



## Econde

houseofcards said:


> The thread that wouldn't die comes alive again by someone mistakenly bumping it to the very first post. :hihi:


Man such a brain fart I swear haha.

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk


----------



## BettaBettas

houseofcards said:


> You said low-tech. Low-tech is far more than 1%.
> 
> 
> 
> Your analogy is zero-tech and it's not applicable to the thread or what the OP is doing. This is from your link "Like natural garden ponds this aquarium has no filter, no heater, no artificial light, no electrical equipment at all." Doesn't sound at all like low-tech or what the OP is doing.





houseofcards said:


> Where did I say that? Please quote me.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, here you are arguing for your 1%.
> 
> I'm discussing water changes for the 99% and newbies that come into the hobby. BTW do you have any of your "Planet Earth" style setups to show or are you too busy. I don't want to exclude this 1% in the discussion.





houseofcards said:


> Still waiting for you to show my thread quote were I stated this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and love to see some of your 'Planet Earth' setups that you seem to be advocating for. Surely you have some with such a strong position. Show me the quote and your 'Planet Earth' setups and stop linking to tanks like biospheres, Emersed Setups and a Plant in a bowl.
> 
> If you don't include these in your next post then your just side steeping and simply going against the grain just to argue.





AbbeysDad said:


> Not true weedhopper. Planet Earth (nature) recycles water through evaporation purification and rain. As such, water is being changed all the time. In the aquarium, WE do this with water changes. Oh I suppose we could remove some water, purify it somehow and put it back....or just replace the water with fresh water and let the planet purify the old, used water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, not true. Low tech developing societies are not in balance and have a huge problem with water borne illness due to pollution of their own unsanitary making. It is well documented that 80% of hospital beds world wide are filled with patients suffering from water related illnesses.
> "Your focus needs more focus".
> 
> Although I believe it's possible to have a nearly natural aquarium habitat for fish, I feel this must include modest partial water changes to ensure a more consistent water chemistry. Without modest water changes, the necessary balance would be very difficult and the bio-load would likely be much, much lower than most aquariums would ever see. And even then, routine modest water changes would be beneficial.





houseofcards said:


> It's there in several posts go find it. Here is your contribution to the water change discussion going on here and I will quote you:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great contribution, that's really valuable to the thread.
> 
> At the end of the day, the whole point is it's better to do water changes then not to do them, especially for someone new to the hobby and doesn't have a grasp on things yet. You can't reverse it and say it's better not to do water changes.
> 
> Water changes can only help every setup, not doing water changes doesn't. This is not debatable by anyone with experience.





houseofcards said:


> You caught me, it's all about my ego and making sure other members here submit to my will. Nothing to do with my experience and what I know works which other experienced members have echoed. You have no substance to add so the personal attacks come out. How typical. That's all you've done is post this type of stuff and biosphere nonsense.
> 
> By your post you obviously didn't really read the thread, because there were several members who several times stated "water changes are a waste", "fish are better off without heavy water changes and adding in ferts", "tanks are more stable and balanced without WC." So nothing you stated is accurate.
> 
> I can't speak for them, but I feel confident that most experienced members here will think my water change posts are helpful regardless of the setup. Any one new will have more success with regular water changes, doesn't matter what tank they are setting up. They don't need to learn by walking a tight rope and killing their fish and plants which apparently you have done plenty of by overstocking and not following any type of guideline.
> 
> Get some more success in the hobby and then you can add something worthwhile instead of your worthless silly comments.





houseofcards said:


> I've setup all kinds of tanks not only EI. What makes you think that. I've done filterless tanks, low-tech, etc. they all benefit from WC. BTW EI isn't all about 50% WC, you could dose EI and do 10% WC depending upon other parameters so your post indicates very clearly your lack of knowledge. You just don't understand that WC are beneficial to all tanks. Can I see some of your tanks that don't receive regular WC.





houseofcards said:


> @*etane*
> 
> Since you want to help the OP so much, why don't you respond to this list and let him know which one's are correct and which aren't. I would do it but I don't want to pad my ego any further.:grin2:





houseofcards said:


> You do the non-water change advocates proud :thumbsup:





houseofcards said:


> Cool, I never once said in this thread that you HAVE to do weekly, it just works for all setups and you have more flexibility.
> 
> Anyway dude do you prefer to be known as IntotheWRX or MacDre2016





houseofcards said:


> I don't think you can have two aliases here.





houseofcards said:


> The thread that wouldn't die comes alive again by someone mistakenly bumping it to the very first post. :hihi:





Econde said:


> Man such a brain fart I swear haha.
> 
> Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk


Seriously :l im glad all of you had enough time here to personally insult each other, HOF you mostly came to this thread to either spam or insult. not taking sides, you insulted me in that other thread to and you never responded to my question..
there is good facts and science in this thread but people like you who come here to ruin it really are disappointing. :frown2:
As for the Op, good looking tank. I do water changes once a week 25%, I've heard of tanks with zero water changes and they would be the most beautiful thing out there, so it obviously can work its just a matter of what you want / and/or what your into.


----------



## Econde

Mine was a mistake I promise you I was not attacking anybody. I apologize if I had offended anyone. I had no intentions of doing so. I posted the link thinking this was another post. Again I apologize.

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk


----------



## somewhatshocked

What the heck is wrong with you people going insane in a TANK JOURNAL?

Stop attacking each other. This is beyond silly. Any further nonsense will result in lengthy suspensions and bans - some of which have already been handed out.

This is a plant forum, not life or death. If you can't treat people with respect and enjoy the forum for the wonderful source of information that it is, that's on you and you probably ought to find another hobby. Unreal.

We're not locking this thread, as it's essentially a tank journal. If anyone continues the ongoing nasty conversation or decides to make cutesy remarks in retaliation, you're gone. Do not test the moderation team on this one.


----------



## RWaters

somewhatshocked said:


> What the heck is wrong with you people going insane in a TANK JOURNAL?
> 
> Stop attacking each other. This is beyond silly. Any further nonsense will result in lengthy suspensions and bans - some of which have already been handed out.
> 
> This is a plant forum, not life or death. If you can't treat people with respect and enjoy the forum for the wonderful source of information that it is, that's on you and you probably ought to find another hobby. Unreal.
> 
> We're not locking this thread, as it's essentially a tank journal. If anyone continues the ongoing nasty conversation or decides to make cutesy remarks in retaliation, you're gone. Do not test the moderation team on this one.


Thank you!!


----------



## Tbonedawg08

bbroush said:


> Tell me about your pothos up top? Funny thing is I did a similar thing for 18 months but with probably not enough vegetation in the tank because of lower lighting but great growth from a couple riparium plants. I currently did some serious planting in my 20 gallon and I'm hoping that helps. I have been doing WCs right now hoping that everything will balance out once the 12 new plants I put in start picking up.
> 
> Also my apologies to all those that wanted this thread to die. :/


I really like it. It was maybe a 5th of its current size when I got it probably around 9 months ago. I also have a sweet potato vine under the cover and another type of philodendron all growing out of my tank. I did it to provide the shrimp more hiding places mostly but I'm sure they help clean the water tremendously as well. 


Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## Econde

Tbonedawg08 said:


> I really like it. It was maybe a 5th of its current size when I got it probably around 9 months ago. I also have a sweet potato vine under the cover and another type of philodendron all growing out of my tank. I did it to provide the shrimp more hiding places mostly but I'm sure they help clean the water tremendously as well.
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk



I got a buddy that uses hydroponics with his overstocked cichlid tank. He tells me that his nitrates always test 0PPM or close to it. He grows cherry tomatoes and a lot of different herbs.


----------



## Tbonedawg08

Econde said:


> I got a buddy that uses hydroponics with his overstocked cichlid tank. He tells me that his nitrates always test 0PPM or close to it. He grows cherry tomatoes and a lot of different herbs.


That's why I'm not terribly concerned with my Nitrates. I need to test them soon to see if they're still with acceptable parameters 

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


----------



## Econde

Tbonedawg08 said:


> That's why I'm not terribly concerned with my Nitrates. I need to test them soon to see if they're still with acceptable parameters
> 
> Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


I've got ideas for a sump that will use hydroponics. It won't be til later down the road. My sister has an old 40 gallon tank that has the drilled holes for the overflow. Says she will hold onto it for me til I can come get it . Sadly I know it won't be til later next year before I will even begin to work up plans on that 40 gallon. But I have something to look forward to!

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk


----------



## bbroush

Econde said:


> I got a buddy that uses hydroponics with his overstocked cichlid tank. He tells me that his nitrates always test 0PPM or close to it. He grows cherry tomatoes and a lot of different herbs.




I tried basil directly out of my tank and it did NOT do well. It actually grew for 3 months and then died :/


----------



## BettaBettas

bbroush said:


> I tried basil directly out of my tank and it did NOT do well. It actually grew for 3 months and then died :/


I tried growing parsley in my HOB filter with some clay pebs. worked fine, thing got huge so I planted it in my real garden XD (real garden: imagine rows and rows of plants on 30 acres)

Bump: also a current pic of the tank?  would luv 2 see!


----------



## bbroush

BettaBettas said:


> I tried growing parsley in my HOB filter with some clay pebs. worked fine, thing got huge so I planted it in my real garden XD (real garden: imagine rows and rows of plants on 30 acres)
> 
> Bump: also a current pic of the tank?  would luv 2 see!




I'm actually moving it to another room in the house tomorrow and adding another planter with purple waffle and a palm. We'll see how it goes! I'll likely post a picture on Sunday


----------



## maxhrbal

Have to admit, I couldn't read this entire post! But after reading the initial arguments (battles ,) here's my two cents...

I think few situations would warrant a no water change philosophy. Everyone talks about ammonia nitrates, TDS, pH, etc etc etc etc.....but no one mentions all the other crap you may not think about... fish hormones/pheromones etc and who knows what else the fish themselves give off or produce that can be building up in a system (there are more biological processes involved in living things than just consumption and waste, they excrete things, etc.). Oils and other pollutants in the air that get into the system (cooking actually gives off a lot of "stuff" particularly suspended oil particles.). There are countless other contaminants/chemicals/and matter that finds its way into a tank from the air or living organisms. Plants and soils don't magically suck up everything and anything....everything is a process which takes time. Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, simply "changed." Just like a water softener doesn't magically remove anything, or how your dechlorinator doesn't remove chlorine. All of this "stuff" which may be inert or harmless, is still building up which fish may not like or thrive in, or may shorten their lives, or not. I agree with others who have said their fish enjoy water changes(enough reason to do a change, it's amusing to watch them as I add fresh water, anything to increase happiness and comfort) they really do like it especially cooler water which mimics rainfall. Aquariums are CLOSED systems. The closest things to closed systems in nature, I can assure you, are not thriving with your typical life like that of in an aquarium. My point is obviously pretty complex and I'm no expert, and I doubt anyone on here knows everything about this stuff. Life is wonderful and complex!

I do believe a no water change tank is possible, and perfectly fine if you do it right... I mean like some people have pointed out, many have had success....but then again terrestrial animals like humans "survive" less than ideal environments....ugh, this is a debate that will always and forever be just that, a debate. I think your tank will do just fine, maybe phenomenally. 
I personally just think that if you can handle SMALL water changes, keeping parameters steady and prevent any big changes (obv. Rapid changes are bad,) then WHY NOT? It would only improve the living conditions. (Ex. I change about 1-2 US gallons a week in my 30 gallon... usually a gallon one day, and another gallon the next or something like that.) 

Good luck, I just wanted to supply a different idea that I don't think anyone else covered, but I'm sure you're aware. People are pretty strong headed. (THIS works for me...so something different won't work for YOU..... nonsense) 

EDIT: just realized this post is dead and old, and of the trouble it caused towards the end. Apologies if I added to anything. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## KwhyLE

Truthfully, I found this thread to be helpful to me. I have a 20 gal high tech, 55g cichlid, 20g cichlid nursey and a 55g low tech. 

My usual water change schedules.
20g- once a week - once every other week - heavily planted, low fauna.
55g cichlid - every week. Its overstocked and hardly any plants though I added a stem of pothos to help with nitrates.
20g cichlid - every week. Its fed heavily, and has fry. 
55g planted - when it was outside big water changes because it was too hot and plant growth was not taking up extra nutrients. When I brought it inside, just top offs so far. 

I believe its the direction the aquaro wants the tank to end up. I have both worlds. I want fast growth I can SEE in 12 hours. Thats where the 20gHT comes in. I want to see a balanced system that will sustain life with minimal maintenance. 55g low tech. I want a second source of income to support the hobby.... cichlids. 

When setting up a tank, you must have a plan/goal for it. Will it be a beautifully aquascaped/maintained tank with 1-2+hrs of work a week or will it be a low maintenance tank with minimal wc if any. If a tank and regiment works out for one person, the one has to take that with a grain of salt and realise it might not work out for them. There are hundreds of factors that we have to take into account. Everyone's water source is different. If one way works for me in Southern California, it might not work the same way with the same equipment, dosing schedules, flora, and fauna in Florida. This forum is to provide a record for what has worked and failed in an individual's situation. 

25-50% weekly WCs might be the norm for you, it might be overkill, but if its working out for you, GREAT! Little to no WCs and just topoffs might work for you as well, GREAT! As long and you know what you are doing and realise how it effects to your system, its all fine and dandy! When reading this, it was like reading a political party debate. Everyone's tank is different and everyone has different goals for each tank they may have. 

TO OP:
- this is a very interesting tank. I am trying to keep my 55g planted low tech as possible and find this as a prime example if how I might be able to do that. I think arial plants such as pothos or sweet potatoes helps A LOT with nitrate levels. I have a large ball in the 55g and I have a steady reading of 20ppm after 3 weeks of no water changes. I also have x20 neon tetras, 10 mollies, 1 platy, 3 angels, and 300+ RCS. As long as you can maintain the balance you have, I think the tank will survive. You testing the water is your form of maintenance. Other's is water changes.

To my potential critics: This is my experience, it may change, but I will keep tabs on the tank to see how it goes. After all, this is what we are all doing in some form or another.


----------



## sharambil

Wow that picture looks 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Freder Frederson

How's the tank doing?


----------



## BettaBettas

^^^^^


----------



## IntotheWRX

i think this thread made history on this forum and hobby


----------



## SininStyle

Just finished reading this start to finish.

to the OP, I would suggest altering your hood by removing the wiring in the middle of it, cutting it slightly less then in half, an adding a piano hinge. Replacing the wire with longer wire if needed. Now you can simply flip the front 2/5ths up and lay it down on the back. Full access WITH lighting. If you need more detailed explanation happy to help, just ask.

To the rest of the majority of you. Really should be ashamed honestly. How many months of this cult like pressuring? Just because it isn't your way does not make it wrong. I can't help but wonder if the maker of the first HOB saw this much grief. Or the first person to run a sump...oh my god its not IN the tank, witchcraft!
Why are you not on a constant drip method? Obviously this is the only way to truly guarantee constant chemistry and clean water. How come 75% WC is ok massively changing the chemistry? The logic is one sided and severely flawed. 
I have read a lot about oceans and lakes in this thread. How they get water changes every time it rains and run off. ok, I can agree with this for the most part. What about landlocked ponds? Anyone go fishing here? You have a secret spot tucked away in the woods don't you? That pond is not getting water changes. It is evap and refilled by rain or run off. Another thing any decent fisherman can tell you is the BEST places to go fishing are ponds covered in lilly pads and other plant life. The more plant coverage the better. Is it because fish love the cover and stick around? No, it is because the more plants on a pond the more fish it can handle.

Don't understand how so many people can say the only way to keep an aquarium is one way. You don't think plants can remove the worst case scenarios of waste and make the water clean? Human waste is flooded into huge catching areas with water lettuce, it is cleaned by the plant, then pumped out and repeated. No chemicals, no artificial lighting, just plants. 

Nature has proved time and time again she can balance things if its let to balance. Where is the line drawn for water changes? If I have a 50g tank full of plants and I dose regularly everything that is needed and tested for. Starting with a steady drip system, ok 50% a day, a week, 25% a week, 25% a month? What if I add a single fish? If a line can be drawn then a line can be moved. There are reasons for such lines , you just need to find them and meet them, then you can adjust that line to meet the need.

Anyway, few hours of reading this thread front to back lead to some serious disappointment, not in the information provided, but the way people were treated for not falling in line and reciting the cults mantra. Open your minds a little and see there is more then a single road to the same result.

"The more I learn, the more I realize I don't know." — Albert Einstein 
"He who knows everything, learns nothing."


----------



## Tom Barr

FYI, I have higher tech tanks out in the garage that get no water changes or dosing, they do get good light and rich cO2, I use aeration driven sponge filters as well. 
Not stocked heavy, packed with plants. I do add water for evaporation. I also have ADA AS which has a lot of ferts in it. Over time, these tanks are Nitrogen limited. 

Ferts can be over a very wide range(20-30X ranges easily) and my tanks show you can really neglect things and still do very well, even with the touchiest of species.
Plants definitely grow slower. About 3-4x slower, a few are able to beat up on other species and out compete them for limiting nutrients. Others are pretty good at hacking it out. 

I do feed the tanks for the shrimp, pleco and a few other fish. 
So that is some dosing.

These tanks will work even better if I had MORE fish and feeding, and I used LOWER light and easier plant species. 
But........still used the rich CO2 gas.

This is precisely what Tropica recommends and a research paper shows back in 2001(Troels, Ole and Claus from Tropica).
They did not do limiting nutrients or a range of ferts...........they just did it for light and CO2. You do get a lot more growth and light use efficacy by adding CO2. 
Still, doing frequent large water changes allows more wiggle room for most folks and if you garden a lot, not a bad idea, particularly in the start up phase. 
Both methods work well however. 

Then there's non CO2, no gas or water changes.


----------



## Tom Barr

SininStyle said:


> Don't understand how so many people can say the only way to keep an aquarium is one way. You don't think plants can remove the worst case scenarios of waste and make the water clean? Human waste is flooded into huge catching areas with water lettuce, it is cleaned by the plant, then pumped out and repeated. No chemicals, no artificial lighting, just plants.
> 
> Nature has proved time and time again she can balance things if its let to balance. Where is the line drawn for water changes? If I have a 50g tank full of plants and I dose regularly everything that is needed and tested for. Starting with a steady drip system, ok 50% a day, a week, 25% a week, 25% a month? What if I add a single fish? If a line can be drawn then a line can be moved. There are reasons for such lines , you just need to find them and meet them, then you can adjust that line to meet the need.
> 
> Anyway, few hours of reading this thread front to back lead to some serious disappointment, not in the information provided, but the way people were treated for not falling in line and reciting the cults mantra. Open your minds a little and see there is more then a single road to the same result.


One point I make when address the best management practice for a person is THEIR goal. Not my own. 
I do not WANT more "mini me"'s. I want to help them get to their goal with the minimal amount of pain. 
So...if I want to help[ more people get involved in planted systems, I must also know each method. And be able to do it myself to a high level. No?
Otherwise I am only a one method helper.....and I lack a global understanding of the other methods. It also means I have more to learn if I can only do one method.
I strongly advocate folks trying non CO2 if they have only done the gas, and if they are non CO2? I try and get them to try the dope, the CO2 gas. See what works best for their habits. 

Most signed up for water changes when they got into this hobby, it something we accept. 
Most do not test.

These are not method issues, nor is the goal.
Those are human/social factors. 

No one method will be all things to all goals hobbyists might have. 
So the OP needs to define their goal and go from there. Posters need to take that into account. 
threads can take some tangents and all, but as long as they get back to the OP's theme, a little of that is okay. 

Folks can also attack an idea with passion, but..............they should not ever attack the person, simple on line rule going back to the 1990's. 
Still, it's less about attacks and more about what trade offs are incurred when the OP's method changes to a method like this. Some successes, if not most are often dumb luck, rather than ant virtue of the method itself. A nice scape is almost never dumb luck. 

Ponder that for a bit. 

I tend to try and make a method's aqua scape look very nice. That seems to promote and benefit it a great deal. 
Or if your goal is to sell plants? Same thing, a nice scape and nice plants= more plant sales.
Perhaps the goal is little input and work and stability? Same thing again, a nice scape can be done for each of these methods chosen. 
And as above, that's a social or human aesthetics issue, the method per se.


----------



## jeffkrol

@Tom Barr, a side question:
Seems "the worst" times I've had to fight back algae is if CO2 injection fluctuates..
Even a couple of days of say zero injection appears to really shift a balance.
Now I don't believe in max CO2 either so my injection rates are relatively low 
Normally small periodic fluctuations are fairly common (at least in my mind) but w/ CO2 seems to be a big no no..

Your thoughts on this are appreciated..


----------



## DigityDog70

Tbonedawg08 said:


> My bioload seems to be pretty high from what I can tell, but I would also consider my tank to be "heavily planted". I'm considering fertilizing only every two weeks instead, but I don't have any algae of any kind and haven't really since day one. Maybe I'm lucky, but I like to think the plants are the main reason. I also have probably 50 or more RCS and God knows how many snails. I even have an Amano Shrimp in there.
> Overall, I'm very pleased with my tank and I hope people use it as an example how to have a no-water-change tank that actually works.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk


Nice Tank Tbonedawg08, way to go! Did you originally intend to "not" do water changes, or is that just how it worked out? 

Something to take into consideration is that what's working now, won't work if you continue to let your plants grow, don't cut them, some plants won't get as much light as they will grow over other plants, fish will get larger, thus your bioload will increase. If and when you trim, you will have a "different playing field", so, I think you should consider a water change at least once a month. The tank will not always be "exactly" as it is today, so you have to change when it changes and that's wherein the challenge realistically lies. The fish will like a nice fresh addition of water and the removal of old water.

Do a lot of people use "metricide" I have never tried it? What's the main reason you use it in this tank? 

What type of lights are you using and what does the top of your tank look like? Are you using any airstones at all and what type of filter are you using. I read through the post and didn't see any mention of a filter, so I don't think I missed it? Also, with a 75 gallon tank, you certainly have a lot more control over your tank with that much water, so I would think you could go for a longer period without a water change vs many people smaller to Nano sized tanks. Just taking water out to feed plants and adding water back in makes a difference, however subtle it may be.


----------



## Tbonedawg08

DigityDog70 said:


> Nice Tank Tbonedawg08, way to go! Did you originally intend to "not" do water changes, or is that just how it worked out?
> 
> Something to take into consideration is that what's working now, won't work if you continue to let your plants grow, don't cut them, some plants won't get as much light as they will grow over other plants, fish will get larger, thus your bioload will increase. If and when you trim, you will have a "different playing field", so, I think you should consider a water change at least once a month. The tank will not always be "exactly" as it is today, so you have to change when it changes and that's wherein the challenge realistically lies. The fish will like a nice fresh addition of water and the removal of old water, unless
> 
> Do a lot of people use "metricide" I have never tried it. What's the main reason you use it in this tank?
> 
> What type of lights are you using and what does the top of your tank look like? Are you using any airstones at all and what type of filter are you using. I read through the post and didn't see any mention of a filter, so I don't think I missed it? Also, with a 75 gallon tank, you certainly have a lot more control over your tank with that much water, so I would think you could go for a long while without a water change. Just taking water out to feed plants and adding water back in makes a difference, however subtle it may be.


First of all, I have noticed that my tank's needs have changed some like you said. I've removed some plants that weren't growing well and let some others grow out more to compensate. I'm going to be moving in May/June and I'll have to think long and hard about how to transport the majority of my water as to not change my ecosystem too drastically.

I use metricide in order to grow my plants faster thus reducing Nitrates. A side effect is that i believe it helps keep algae under control and largely non-existent.

My lighting is VERY simple. 4 100w replacement CFLs (can't exactly remember the Kelvin but it's as high as I could find locally). It makes my tank plenty bright (visually) but probably only amounts to a low-medium light set up.

I have two filters. One is a Filstar XP-S (rated at 55g I believe) and the other is a HOB (rated at 55g as well). The HOB is primarily used for surface agitation and to force air in to the tank since I do not use an air stone.

Hopefully that answers all your questions!

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tom Barr

jeffkrol said:


> @Tom Barr, a side question:
> Seems "the worst" times I've had to fight back algae is if CO2 injection fluctuates..
> Even a couple of days of say zero injection appears to really shift a balance.
> Now I don't believe in max CO2 either so my injection rates are relatively low
> Normally small periodic fluctuations are fairly common (at least in my mind) but w/ CO2 seems to be a big no no..
> 
> Your thoughts on this are appreciated..


Why do something half Donkey?
Plants still grow without adding CO2 gas injection. 
Why not advocate that? 
If you want less/slower growth, use LESS light. 

Still, if your goal includes lower temps, less light and easier plant species....then sure.
You get more wiggle room as you add easier species, lower light and cooler temps. 

Light is a key point since that is where all growth rates start, and that leads to CO2 demand(Temp is another factor). 
More light, warmer temps= more CO2 demand.

Flux changes in non CO2 tanks move over 500-1000% daily. 
So stability really does not cover all the bases either. 

Likely more an issue for the temp/light intensity, since those are the main drivers. 
Also, some species are far more aggressive and able to get the little CO2 vs other species. 
I can likely predict your tank cannot grow many of the touchier species together.
We observe tanks where there's some nagging issues with algae, BBA, and some plants do well, others do not. Red pantanal does real well even if other species are doing poorly if the CO2 is off(moderate). With richer CO2, the other plants do well, no changes to nutrients or light. 

But you need to be able to grow all the species well to begin with, otherwise you lack the control to test these issues. 
Most that advocate lower CO2 enrichment have some issues using CO2, measuring it or other factors. 

If you have more modest plant species goals, sure, you can use less CO2, but why not simply use moderate light instead? Then CO2 is easier to add. 
Light limiting or moderation. Make sense if you look at how plants grow.

My Buce tank uses much less light than my Dutch tank. Buce are easy, they can be grown without CO2, but I use less light ALSO. So the CO2 is less critical in that tank........than say the Dutch style tank. And it is more robust and has fewer issues. But the CO2 is rich relative to light/species chose and scape style. So it is not an issue of CO2 management in my case, rather a choice to use lower light, cooler temps, easier species, and the CO2 is still rich............but the resilience of the Buce tank is far more than that of the Dutch tank.

If I lower the CO2 in the Buce, it's not critical........but it is in the Dutch tank. 
Still, I get better growth and health, more robust method with the Buce tank with rich cO2. 
Fish? shrimp? They breed well in both tanks. Client tanks as well, Discus have bred in every tank I've set up for them with plants.


----------



## BettaBettas

update on the tank?


----------



## KrypleBerry

This thread reminded me of a conversation an old friend told me about years ago while discussing coral propagation and conscientious aquarium husbandry. Someone had told him protein skimmers are not needed for saltwater aquariums. His response was to pull the collection cup from one that needed dumping and ask "care to drink this?". Seeing first hand the filth that cup collected was all it took to make a believer. Haha. I can appreciate minimalism but good husbandry practices are vital to the long term health and success of any aquarium.


----------



## MultiTankGuy

nate mc...

How is your "no water change" tank running? If you're still out there, let me know. I've been into these tanks for several years and run several of them with a house plant as the only filter. No water changes in my tanks, just top offs using distilled water.

M


----------



## natemcnutty

MultiTankGuy said:


> nate mc...
> 
> How is your "no water change" tank running? If you're still out there, let me know. I've been into these tanks for several years and run several of them with a house plant as the only filter. No water changes in my tanks, just top offs using distilled water.
> 
> M


I feel like you are asking me... but I'm not running a no water change tank. I personally don't like the limitations that would come along with maintaining a tank like that.


----------



## MultiTankGuy

nate...

Apologies. Thought you'd posted something about the subject. If you had, I was just curious how you were doing with it.

M

Bump: Tbone...

Are still keeping these "no water change" tanks? Would like to get your opinion on them. I've been working with this type of tank for some years. Hopefully, you're still on this forum.

M


----------



## natemcnutty

MultiTankGuy said:


> nate...
> 
> Apologies. Thought you'd posted something about the subject. If you had, I was just curious how you were doing with it.
> 
> M
> 
> Bump: Tbone...
> 
> Are still keeping these "no water change" tanks? Would like to get your opinion on them. I've been working with this type of tank for some years. Hopefully, you're still on this forum.
> 
> M


I've tried in the past, but the mulm buildup got so bad that I ended up having to do water changes every few months anyway trying to keep things clean. Definitely low maintenance, but definitely not "no water change" either


----------



## MultiTankGuy

*No Water Change Tanks*

nate...
I understand. When you don't change the water, the organic waste, decaying plant matter and uneaten fish food collects in the bottom material. But, this is really what I want if I'm going to keep house plants healthy. The plants need a constant source of nutrients in order to grow and remain healthy. When the mulm dissolves in the tank water, the nutrients feed the immersed house plants. I'm keeping some Chinese evergreens in the fish tanks and the root systems are removing all this dissolved waste from the water. The ammonia produced by the dissolving waste is removed by the plants so quickly, there's no trace of nitrite or nitrate in the water.
There is evaporation to deal with, but I use distilled water, to keep mineral levels normal.
Was just curious how others were dealing with similar setups.
Thanks,
M


----------

