# Zero Water Change Planted Discus Tank Proposal???



## Mxx (Dec 29, 2010)

From reading through these forums I don't doubt that the premise of my proposed discus tank may leave you speechless, especially as it's heresy for anyone that has committed so much of their lives to the orthodox discus keeping practices. In any case, I'm at the start of planning and researching a tank set-up which I'm afraid intentionally breaks practically every one of the normally accepted rules of discus keeping. And what I'd like to know is if anyone else has done something similar this and under what parameters? 

What I'm looking to achieve is a spectacularly beautiful densely planted display tank with many beautiful healthy discus combined with a few other select species, (yeah, sure like seeing the Holy Grail, right?). And I'm looking to achieve this via an inexpensive high-tech low -maintenance over-filtered automated set-up with a fair stocking load yet ZERO water changes apart from topping off the tank occasionally with RO water and NO gravel vacuuming, as I have neither the time nor inclination to do regular water changes. I appreciate this is a contentious proposal to this group, but am hoping this can be considered with an open mind and doesn't rile everybody up unnecessarily. 

I'm thinking a 78"Lx24"Dx30"W 185 gallon tank, though possibly even the 108" long 280 gallon tank instead which is hardly more costly for the tank itself. Filtration would be one (or two, as need sees fit) generic Sun Sun canister filters, which filter 530 gph and have a filter volume of 4.4 gallons. I'd have two small corner sumps at either end, one as a screened overflow intake with the other returning water along its height through vertical slots and containing the heater, and possibly a return bar with holes drilled across its length running along the bottom back edge as well to ensure some, though low current throughout the tank and the plant beds and water surface. I'd have a DIY pressurized CO2 system connected to the light timer which is run by a digital Ph controller. Lighting would be via a highly energy efficient DIY LED hood with high powered warm-white (which I think provides the most natural looking light) waterproof LED strips, as many as are needed, which are currently sold quite inexpensively in 5 metre spools. 

The substrate would be black flourite (or black flourite sand) mixed 50/50 with small grain inert black gravel. The entire bottom would be densely planted, with the likes of large Swordplants, Giant Vallisneria, and a foreground of Dwarf Hairgrass, (temperature range permitting). I may plant the rear wall as well, in case I don't opt for the 3D background which seems a bit pricey. And I'd have branching vertical tree roots extending down through the entire tank depth if I can find a decent source for such wood. I intend to dose liquid fertilizer as necessary, but I'm hoping I can get away without having to dose root tabs at all once the fish and the tank bed is well established. 

As for fish I'd intend to start with 12-18 juvenile captive bred natural colour discus some of which I'd sell off as necessary as they grow, perhaps 10-15 Congo Tetras, a few African Butterflyfish, a group of Rams or Bolivian Rams, several Synodontis Angelicus or as shoal of Panda Corys or Brochis, and numerous Bristlenose and Siamese Algae Eaters. For the discus's initial 9 month grow-out period I'm considering possibly holding off on the Tetras, Rams, and Butterflyfish to be able to concentrate on being able to feed the discus heavily without compromising on water quality. I could feed once or twice a day with frozen food, though I may avoid beefheart if it causes water problems, but I could set up an automatic feeder for additional dry feedings during the day. For temperature I'd target 82 degrees to try to balance the discus's requirements with the upper limit for the other species and the plants. 

As a kid I'd kept, bred, and reared mainly South American Cichlids, despite the customary sub-par set-ups of a decade or two ago, and with regular weekly water changes. However, the more I look into it now the more I've been discovering that throwing out all the perfectly good well-conditioned water seems altogether unnecessary. Currently I'm running a small test tank with which I'm trying out some of these ideas and to see if I can maintain stable high water quality with 2-3X overstocked tank, a canister filter for a tank 15x larger, and generous feedings, albeit with dosing with Excel for now. That's still in early stages and I'm still modifying the set-up, but water conditions seem great so far with limited algae (after I added phosphate absorber to the filter). 

For the benefit of my fish and to reduce their stress (as well as to minimize the triggers for algae growth, the primary goal with water chemistry would be to achieve balanced stability, (to which water changes would actually be detrimental). With a biological filtration volume of the size I'm proposing, I believe that even with moderate stockings and generous feedings, Ammonia and Nitrites should stay near zero. With dense planting and moderate supplemental CO2, dosing liquid fertilizer occasionally, and medium-high lighting levels, I believe the plants should be able to absorb all the Nitrates (or the ammonia directly which is what plants actually prefer), and possibly all the Phosphates as well. I'd have to carefully monitor Nitrate and Phosphate levels at first, and possibly add a Denitrator filter or Denitrate blocks, and Phosphate Absorber to the canister filter should that prove necessary. 

The automated CO2 system would be able to maintain the Ph at a fixed acidity, (although it may prove necessary to add a small bag of gasp! crushed coral to the filter which would dissolve slowly enough to react appropriately with and neutralize the organic acids and carbonic acid produced, thereby preventing the Ph from dropping too far while nevertheless fixing the GH and KH at the desirable soft level for discus. 

I would also maintain some fast growing floating plants, which I could easily net out as necessary in order to be able to easily take some nutrients back out of the tank, so while this is still not a closed-system, it should basically equate to food and light in/plants out. And I could control the floating plant quantity in order to shade the other plants and slow down their growth later on so that I don't have to be trimming them constantly. 

I wouldn't introduce the discus until the plants were firmly rooted and growing well, at which point I'd dial down the CO2 to a moderate level due to the high water temperatures discus require with its accompanying lower O2 levels. I'm sure some careful monitoring, and fine-tuning of the set-up will be necessary at first, but firm stability should be achievable in time. 

Thus, with Ammonia, Nitrites, Nitrates, and Phosphates well under control, and supplemental trace elements and minerals added as necessary, as far as I'm aware at this stage in my research and unless I've thus far missed something, that should perhaps make water changes pointless, shouldn't it? And if that is the case, then shouldn't I be able to keep discus and the other species very happy and healthy in very stable good water conditions, while being able to feed them appropriately to achieve decent growth, with limited maintenance and minor monitoring required once the tank is well established? I’ve seen some mention of potential build-up of vaguely described dissolved organic compounds in addition to nitrates, as well as the suggestion that discus secrete growth inhibiting hormones. I haven’t bottomed out this issue, but surely there must be other ways that this can be taken care of, activated carbon added to the filter weekly? I suppose if it proved absolutely necessary then I could do weekly water changes during the grow-out phase. I could install a separate sump tank underneath, with a plumbed faucet, direct drain, and build a utility sink into the downstairs bathroom as I may do anyway then it might be viable in terms of time if I can simply flick a switch to do so, (but NO gravel vacuuming, especially as the tank bed would be fully covered with plants). What by the way would worst-case scenario be? That I end up with a school of a dozen 2/3 grown discus instead? Not ideal perhaps, but not the end of the world I guess as far as experiments go, and that’d still look spectacular. 

I still need to delve into some of the finer points in water chemistry in greater depth and have ordered some books to do so, but I thought I'd put my plan out to the experienced aquarists in this forum as well. I have some time to plan out my tank set-up still, as I'm just now about to embark upon remodeling and extending the living room which will eventually house this display tank, and would appreciate your informed opinions and experience meanwhile. In any case, I'm not looking to breed discus, which I don't really have the time to attend to anyway, I'm just looking to be able to achieve a beautiful natural tank with beautiful fish which I can enjoy without excessive hassle, which to me seems a perfectly reasonable goal to try and attain. Pending success, I may later on also try a similar approach with a small-mid-size marine tank with a trickle filter sump in which I'd be cultivating live rock and Caulerpa algae.


----------



## Powchekny (Jan 25, 2010)

Well, it certainly sounds interesting. I don't have much to add because I've never kept discus, but I do have one thing to mention.

In my 40 gallon long medium light, pH 6.5, no CO2 tank, I've noticed that the bacteria colony in my HOB was actually very weak, despite consistently excellent water quality tests. How do I know this? I took the filter media out of it (which had been in there for months) and placed it in a HOB filter on my 10 gallon quarantine tank in preparation for some new arrivals. The ammonia spiked up to .25 ppm for almost a week when I got fish in the quarantine tank. I'm just guessing, but I think the heavy planting in the 40 gallon, along with a healthy population of floating Salvinia, just sucks so much ammonia , in the form of ammonium ion, out of the water that the bacteria just don't get much food. The Salvinia minima really does propagate itself very rapidly, and it must be sucking tons of nutrients out of the water. Might be a good choice for a floating plant for you.

I might be able to get by with no filters at all on my 40 gallon, and just powerheads for water circulation. I haven't been bold enough to do any experimentation.

Anyway, thought this might be relevant.

Tom

edit: for what it's worth, I would hold off on the discus for a while until you're sure your new tank maintenance model is working acceptably. Maybe the Congo tetras would be better able to handle water quality issues?


----------



## jwm5 (May 9, 2010)

interesting concept. I have to say I didnt read the whole thing, I stopped after your mention of the filters, you said one or two of the sun suns... In your initial premise you said it was to be over filtered, One o two small canisters is hardly over filtered for a 180-280 gallon tank. I have a 360 GPH filter on my 55g and I don't consider that over filtered by any means. 

I dont know much about discus so I cant comment on that side of your idea, but just for a basic tank that size I would say you need a lot more filtration planning.


----------



## fishykid1 (Apr 5, 2010)

On that sized tank I would even consider a sump, especially if it's a low tech. You could easily seal off a sump, with a tight fitting glass lid and have a pump output of 1000GPH. with it densly planted you'd probably only be seeing a circulatory GPH around 600.

A 30-40 gallon sump with a the water coming in as a grid of drips, into a fine mesh, then next through bioballs, and the last layer have a fine mesh, with the pump sitting in the bottom of the sump, pumping water back into the tank. You could probably even find a ready made sump or look up on DIY sumps to figure the rest out...

Sump would give better filtering power over 2 small SunSuns. 1060GPH for a 280 gallon tank isn't enough IMO. Especially once the plants knock it down.


----------



## Solid (Jul 19, 2009)

There has been alot of threads on no water change tanks recently. I think they can work great, if you find a perfect balance. However, my tank loves its water changes. The fish and plants all perk up and look better after water changes. Also when I don't do water changes algae seems to thrive, perhaps because my tank isn't balanced properly but thats my experience. Water changes take 20-30 minutes once a week (on my 86g tank), and I don't really want a hobby that takes less time than that...

I also think growing out discus In this style tank will make your job much harder. I'm sure you've read about to properly feed young discus, so they grow to their potential, you must over feed them. Most people at Simplydiscus.com forums strongly recommend a bare bottom tank for easy cleaning with 2-3 waterchanges a week to remove growth stunting hormones. I think this is very overstated, and you can have discus in a planted tank no problem In fact it helps with the water quality greatly, but with zero water changes, i think its going to be pretty tough to get the right balance for a clean, clear, algae-free display tank. It certainly isn't impossible though.

It sounds like you have done a good amount of research and planning, but for some advice on your equipment: I don't think a string of LEDs is going to give you the light you will need. Most of the LEDs on strings (I've seen anyway) are low power and wont give you near enough light for a tank that big or tall. You want LEDs that are 3+ watts each.
Also for filters, i would recommended more/larger filters, maybe the cf500 filters (http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/equipment/117191-my-review-odyssea-cfs-500-filter-10.html) or some fluval FX5s. You will probably need 2-3 of these as well on a tank that size.

Please do not be discouraged by my advice! Just giving you some advise on things you might want to look into more. I hope you prove me wrong.


----------



## Derelique (Nov 28, 2010)

Fascinating concept, and do let us know how that turns out once you get there! It sounds as if you've done a fair bit of homework already on this. Ozonisers might be worth looking into as I'd heard they are very good for breaking down any organic solids into inert forms or ones that would be utilized by plants, with or without a protein skimmer. So that might hold the key you need to unlocking any remaining water quality issues. You may need to monitor fertilizer and mineral levels as well though if you're not doing water changes. 

Quite an involved and bold venture if it is as you say, an experiment! Hopefully you'll get other helpful responses which speak from experience rather than the usual superstitious and prejudiced views based simply upon uninformed following of 'the herd'. But prepare to be flamed by the crowd of the the biased! Logic would in any case seem to dictate that regularly chucking large volumes of pristine filtered tank water down the drain and replacing it with crappy city tap water full of hardness, chemicals, and phosphates makes no sense, and that there must be an easier way of doing this as a hobby if you're prepared to invest in the right equipment. Viva la Revolution! Good luck with that.


----------



## A Hill (Jul 25, 2005)

I think you're better off doing an automated system similar to what Scolley did with his big clear kahuna tank. That way once everything is set up correctly you don't have to do much yourself besides watch it, dust off the algae, and make sure everything is running correctly. He uses aquacontrollers and everything is automated even the water changes. He keeps discus as well.

Another thing you may look into is using Daphnia to help filter the aquarium, although since you'll have fish they may just eat them all.

Good luck,
-Andrew


----------



## nonconductive (Jan 29, 2010)

I just have to say i have been keeping discus on and off for around 5 years. and have gone nearly a year w/o water changes before with no ill effects. DONT OVERFEED THEM and you will be fine, dont feed beefheart, it fouls water fast. Get them to eat dry foods.

They do not REQUIRE the warmer temps. Don't believe all the myths & BS from previous generations.


----------



## Mxx (Dec 29, 2010)

Thanks very much for the comments, in response, I had also considered an in-tank sump by partitioning off the back 4-6 inches for the length of the tank, and putting vertical dividers within that to create a veritable maze which the return water would need to wind all the way through before returning to the tank. And I'd fill the lot with nylon pot scrubbers purchased wholesale, (which are cheaper and have greater surface area than anything else on the market). Some Denitrator/pumice blocks placed there would also be able to host the necessary anaerobic bacteria for converting nitrates directly into nitrogen gas if a deep substrate doesn't sufficiently take care of that already. That sort of a sump would therefore have between 25 and 37 gallons of biologically active medium, which is vast compared to most any other set-ups though the Sun Suns seem easier and I wouldn't be losing tank volume. 

Basically I'm more concerned with biological filter volume than simply water current. If 530 GPH isn't cutting it and is creating dead spots then it'd be easy to plug in another Sun Sun to double that, or just to add a simple additional water pump, and I'd have the tank plumbed in advance ready for that if need be. Discus like very calm of current in any case. As the large Sun Suns do have 4.4 GALLONS of filtering volume, that's by no means a small canister filter and much more than any other canister filters I've seen, and at a fraction of the cost no less, (they're also sold as garden pond filters). 

The current generation of LED lighting is well beyond anything seen previously, and with the help of a residential lighting designer I know I'll be lighting my entire several hundred square foot renovated Living/Dining Room with them, so I know they're up to the task. I just don't yet know how may spools of LED tape would be required, whether that'd be 10 metres, 30 metres or more of the stuff. I have a 1.2 metre LED strip working on my small proof of concept tank, and the lighting level there is brilliant.


----------



## LilGreenPuffer (Sep 23, 2010)

Fish put out more than just poop. They also put out hormones, which can't be removed by plants, and other forms of "waste." My vote is "doomed to fail."


----------



## barbarossa4122 (Jan 16, 2010)

"Doomed to fail."


----------



## nonconductive (Jan 29, 2010)

LilGreenPuffer said:


> Fish put out more than just poop. They also put out hormones, which can't be removed by plants, and other forms of "waste." My vote is "doomed to fail."


 
do you have proof that discus put out a growth stunting hormone? if so i would like to see it. Or are you just repeating what everyone else says.


----------



## Derelique (Nov 28, 2010)

Fascinating concept, and do let us know how that turns out once you get there! It sounds as if you've done a fair bit of homework already on this. Ozonisers might be worth looking into as I'd heard they are very good for breaking down any organic solids into inert forms or ones that would be utilized by plants, with or without a protein skimmer. So that might hold the key you need to unlocking any remaining water quality issues. You may need to monitor fertilizer and mineral levels as well though if you're not doing water changes. 

Quite an involved and bold venture if it is as you say, an experiment! Hopefully you'll get other helpful responses which speak from experience rather than the usual superstitious and prejudiced views based simply upon uninformed following of 'the herd'. But prepare to be flamed by the crowd of the the biased! Logic would in any case seem to dictate that regularly chucking large volumes of pristine filtered tank water down the drain and replacing it with crappy city tap water full of hardness, chemicals, and phosphates makes no sense, and that there must be an easier way of doing this as a hobby if you're prepared to invest in the right equipment. Viva la Revolution! Good luck with that.

(There seem to be two paralled threads on this topic, one with the poll and the other without. So I'm copying my quote here as well now)


----------



## LilGreenPuffer (Sep 23, 2010)

nonconductive said:


> do you have proof that discus put out a growth stunting hormone? if so i would like to see it. Or are you just repeating what everyone else says.


All fish do this. :icon_roll I don't have a source on hand, so just take it or leave it.


----------



## mistergreen (Dec 9, 2006)

In a large tank, no problem. I've heard it done before as well... Put in a lot of plants to help make your tank healthy. A UV sterilizer couldn't hurt.


I do no water changes to my little 10G tank but there are only shrimps and snails in there. I'll add a betta soon.


----------



## theblondskeleton (Aug 28, 2009)

You can feed your juvies much cleaner food than beefheart. They just need a high protein diet to get the kind of growth that produces show quality discus.

Im assuming you are going for the juvies because they are cheaper. I would rethink this. If what you want is what you describe then either grow them out seperately in a BB or just buy adults. Its not that nice fish arent possible but discus are expensive. If you are new to their needs its wisest not to start with juvies. Ive seen many start this way and fail miserably - and expensively. Its been proven through many years of developing breeding and rearing techniques that discus do much better when raised in BB conditions. Maintenance and medication are much easier this way, and when raising juvies, you will likely need both.

As for temps, I keep mine at 82 and they are fine. This is also fine for most plants.

With a thick carpet you will have trouble. Food and detritus will get caught in the carpet if it is not vacuumed once in a while. Discus are big fish. So are their feces. With no water changes, you risk turning the tank into a toilet with fish in it. Plants and inverts alone cant hanldle this kind of load. Again - discus are expensive. Your choice.

That said, i dont think you can't achieve a great tank with a reasonable maintenance schedule. If you go the low - tech route you may be closer to your goal (less to juggle), simply because discus are a high-maintenance fish. Moreso than most, anyhow. Mistakes with guppies cost a couple bucks. Mistakes with discus cost hundreds.

This is indeed the holy grail, but you saw what it took Indiana Jones to find that thing. He wasn't a part-timer.


----------



## kuni (May 7, 2010)

I'd do it as a discus biotope - white sand, floating plants only, and big branching pieces of driftwood producing lots of tannins.

Instead of water changes, have a large sump full of emersed plants (hydrocotyle, pothos vine) and a UV sterilizer. The plants will take up aerial CO2 and consume the fish wastes/hormones. If you use plants with roots that form one big network, you can put fertilizer in a separate container that never enters the actual fish system.


----------



## Powchekny (Jan 25, 2010)

Just thought I'd post here as well as the parallel thread. I'm eager to see how this experiment turns out.

(from the other thread)

Well, it certainly sounds interesting. I don't have much to add because I've never kept discus, but I do have one thing to mention.

In my 40 gallon long medium light, pH 6.5, no CO2 tank, I've noticed that the bacteria colony in my HOB was actually very weak, despite consistently excellent water quality tests. How do I know this? I took the filter media out of it (which had been in there for months) and placed it in a HOB filter on my 10 gallon quarantine tank in preparation for some new arrivals. The ammonia spiked up to .25 ppm for almost a week when I got fish in the quarantine tank. I'm just guessing, but I think the heavy planting in the 40 gallon, along with a healthy population of floating Salvinia, just sucks so much ammonia , in the form of ammonium ion, out of the water that the bacteria just don't get much food. The Salvinia minima really does propagate itself very rapidly, and it must be sucking tons of nutrients out of the water. Might be a good choice for a floating plant for you.

I might be able to get by with no filters at all on my 40 gallon, and just powerheads for water circulation. I haven't been bold enough to do any experimentation.

Anyway, thought this might be relevant.

Tom

edit: for what it's worth, I would hold off on the discus for a while until you're sure your new tank maintenance model is working acceptably. Maybe the Congo tetras would be better able to handle water quality issues?


----------



## Mxx (Dec 29, 2010)

Thanks for all the comments everyone, and I wanted to touch upon a few of those topics further. Many have had success with the keeping of discus in bare-bottom tanks with daily water changes techniques, which volume breeders have pioneered and popularized. However, to control nitrates there are more ways than just that one (as well as potentially easier and less wasteful of ways than throwing out several hundred of gallons of water per week by hand. If you enjoy doing several WC’s per week then you’re welcome to it, but personally I’d rather be extracting my own teeth. And doesn’t the constant instability of new water of different chemistry being introduced each day put a stressful toll on fish as well?

If fish are in a bare tank with aerobic bio filters and limited plants then of course there are going to be nitrate problems requiring WC’s. However, the nitrate problems I believe seem to stem primarily from the fundamental flaw of the bare tank rearing technique itself. There are two other ways to control nitrates - proper filtration and/or live plants. The use of an anaerobic filter or anaerobic filter medium of denitrator blocks/pumice/volcanic rock will absorb and eliminate nitrates, as will anaerobic activity in for example a tank’s deep substrate. This, and the anaerobic activity within ‘live rock’ is how marine aquarists keep their nitrates at the undetectable levels necessary for their invertebrates. (If you’re smelling Hydrogen Sulfide then that simply means that the anaerobic bacteria need slightly more water flow). 

Healthy live plants will absorb ammonia directly before it is even broken down into nitrites and nitrates, and they also absorb nitrates although they can’t utilize it as effectively as ammonia. Many planted fish tank enthusiasts find that they actually have to dose nitrates to maintain levels at the desired 5-10 ppm. Personally I’m not sure quite how much planting would be required to maintain optimal water quality and nitrates for a well-stocked discus tank, so to try and maintain a healthy margin of error I’d want to look at utilizing both methodologies. And those techniques seem a saner approach for me to enjoy this hobby then constantly juggling instable water conditions in a bare-bottom tank which has no outlet for the perpetually escalating nitrate levels. 

In my vastly overstocked small pilot tank I was getting some slight blue-green algae growth, which actually flourishes when nitrates are lacking. (The BGA cleared up as soon as I fixed my broken filter return to reintroduce water current and once I got my DIY CO2 brew going which brought down the alkalinity). 

So nitrates aside, which can be quite easy to control, it’s these other dissolved organic solids that I’ve heard vague mention of which I’m more concerned about, that is if they do exist and are detrimental, such as ‘growth-retarding hormones’, of which I have yet to see any conclusive evidence for the existence of. And if they are a problem then perhaps further research would reveal that an ozonizer (with or without a freshwater protein skimmer) or UV sterilizer will oxidize those elements into an inert harmless form or one which plants can utilize. Or perhaps an RO unit filtering the tank can eliminate any remaining problematic organic compounds instead?

Moreover, wouldn’t properly filtering the water with aerobic bacteria, anaerobic bacteria, and plants more closely operates in the manner of mother nature and provides higher water quality than going against nature by artificially doing water changes constantly?

I appreciate that apart from my pilot tank this isn’t beyond a theoretical discussion at the moment, albeit a necessary discussion to have before I actually attempt this. Perhaps years down the road I will be able to successfully report back that there were other easier alternative to the constant water changes so many discus keepers were doing all the meanwhile. I must admit that I’m surpised if no one here has actually tried any such approach as this with discus, as the science of it seems sound as far as I’ve heard thus far. But then again, our flat earth theory took a long time to disprove and remained quite resilient in the eyes of the public for centuries as well! ; )


----------



## snafuspyramid (May 27, 2010)

A little extra filtration wouldn't hurt, but I'm not sure it would be essential either. I've had an experience very similar to Powchekny's. A heavily planted tank seems to do a fine job of chemically filtering your water for you. You really want canisters for water movement and mechanical filtration. But then, I'm hardly an expert.

I'd also question your plan to get juveniles. Not the saving that you might expect. Hormone production / growth rates aside for a moment, they just are much weaker than the adults - like all fish. I'd probably grit my teeth and buy some nice-looking adults.

I think your concern should be the colour, not really the size, of the fish. Fish raised with frequent, large water changes tend to have much brighter, sharper colours. But if raised properly, they should retain those colours in adulthood even with much smaller water changes - at least this seems to be the experience of the importer down the road, who has some amazing adult discus that have lived in his care on weekly 15% water changes (if they're lucky) for years.

I'd also suggest you stock more lightly, at least initially. Sure, it's a big tank, but if you want zero water changes you just can't keep many fish.

I'd suggest growing duckweed. With or without CO2, it grows crazily and really soaks up nitrates and phosphates. Of course it would require weekly removal - and if you wanted weekly maintenance I guess you'd just change the water 

I'm not sure a phosphate absorber would be necessary with very heavy planting.

The important question (though I might be doubling up posts a little here) is:

Do plants absorb discus hormones? Does carbon? Does anyone actually have any proof of any of this?


----------



## snafuspyramid (May 27, 2010)

Oh, and consider sandwiching some Java or Flame moss between two sheets of fly wire and sticking it to the sides with suction cups. It's surprisingly difficult to see, eventually fills out beautifully, and will absorb abominable amount of pollutants.


----------



## kuni (May 7, 2010)

As has been mentioned already, Salvinia minima makes a great duckweed substitute - it gets atmospheric CO2 and really eliminates nitrates quickly. Plus, it's an easy size for quick removal, and has nice looking feathery roots that only dangle about 2 inches down maximum (as opposed to frogsbit which can hang down 16+ inches).


----------



## Mxx (Dec 29, 2010)

theblondskeleton said:


> You can feed your juvies much cleaner food than beefheart. They just need a high protein diet to get the kind of growth that produces show quality discus.
> 
> Im assuming you are going for the juvies because they are cheaper. I would rethink this. If what you want is what you describe then either grow them out seperately in a BB or just buy adults. Its not that nice fish arent possible but discus are expensive. If you are new to their needs its wisest not to start with juvies. Ive seen many start this way and fail miserably - and expensively. Its been proven through many years of developing breeding and rearing techniques that discus do much better when raised in BB conditions. Maintenance and medication are much easier this way, and when raising juvies, you will likely need both.
> 
> ...


Good comments. The low tech approach is tempting, but I do like the idea of the stability of dial in Ph. And I don't mind a bit of maintenance and monitoring, apart from the fact that I see water changes as potentially needless. And I'd prefer to try and play it safer if possible with high filtration for the proposed moderate fish loads, so that I don't need to worry so much if there is a little uneaten food. The possibility of equipment malfunction does give me cause for concern though, but perhaps there are certain technical safeguards I could try and incorporate into the system. 

I'm at peace with the idea of the carpet looking a bit messy, similar to a forest floor with a bit of mulm and decaying leaves. Perhaps it wouldn't be as tidy as it ideally could look, but I'm drawn still to the idea of a naturalistic approach where the surface of the substrate becomes enriched with organic matter. So yes, perhaps a toilet in some sense, such as in the sense that bears do crap in the woods, and in the way that manure is used to fertilize our own food crops. I wouldn't be relying merely upon plants though, I'd have comprehensive filtration as well to supplement the water quality improvement provided by plants. (And hopefully the filters will manage to suck some of the detritus out of the tank, and I could always resort to stirring it up now for the filters to suck up should that prove aesthetically desirable. Getting a strong current across the carpet would help as well, but I'll have to think about how that could be achieved in a visually discrete way. 

Do you think it'd be a better bet for me then if I were to start with mid-size discus instead of juveniles? Pending the results of further research I'd still like to try and see if I can maintain the right water parameters without water changes, but more for the sake of seeking out the truth of the matter than simply stubbornness of course! I know that others do this with other species, so it should be able to work with discus as well if treated carefully. Water changes could always be a back-up measure in any case, if water quality starts to go off track.


----------



## Centromochlus (May 19, 2008)

Sorry... i voted "May survive, but will not thrive", but after reading further, i think i'm leaning towards "Doomed to fail". It's obvious that you've done plenty of research, but i'm still unsure whether you understand how expensive and how difficult it will be to keep a setup like this maintainence free/water-change free. You said you were hoping to make this a beautiful, inexpensive tank, but nothing about your proposed project is cheap. Don't take me wrong, i'm all for new techniques-- but i think this will be much more trouble than it'll be worth.

Like Solid said, i don't think that DIY-LED's will produce nearly enough light to grow much... you're likely gonna have to get some metal halides. Also, you're going to need tons of filtration... i'd recommend a few Fluval FX5's.

Anyway, don't mean to sound harsh, but i think this is a bigger project than you may think. For now, i'm going to be a doubter. But if you do decide to start a project like this, please do keep us updated and maybe you can change my mind.


----------



## theblondskeleton (Aug 28, 2009)

Mxx said:


> Good comments. The low tech approach is tempting, but I do like the idea of the stability of dial in Ph. And I don't mind a bit of maintenance and monitoring, apart from the fact that I see water changes as potentially needless. And I'd prefer to try and play it safer if possible with high filtration for the proposed moderate fish loads, so that I don't need to worry so much if there is a little uneaten food. The possibility of equipment malfunction does give me cause for concern though, but perhaps there are certain technical safeguards I could try and incorporate into the system.
> 
> I'm at peace with the idea of the carpet looking a bit messy, similar to a forest floor with a bit of mulm and decaying leaves. Perhaps it wouldn't be as tidy as it ideally could look, but I'm drawn still to the idea of a naturalistic approach where the surface of the substrate becomes enriched with organic matter. So yes, perhaps a toilet in some sense, such as in the sense that bears do crap in the woods, and in the way that manure is used to fertilize our own food crops. I wouldn't be relying merely upon plants though, I'd have comprehensive filtration as well to supplement the water quality improvement provided by plants. (And hopefully the filters will manage to suck some of the detritus out of the tank, and I could always resort to stirring it up now for the filters to suck up should that prove aesthetically desirable. Getting a strong current across the carpet would help as well, but I'll have to think about how that could be achieved in a visually discrete way.
> 
> Do you think it'd be a better bet for me then if I were to start with mid-size discus instead of juveniles? Pending the results of further research I'd still like to try and see if I can maintain the right water parameters without water changes, but more for the sake of seeking out the truth of the matter than simply stubbornness of course! I know that others do this with other species, so it should be able to work with discus as well if treated carefully. Water changes could always be a back-up measure in any case, if water quality starts to go off track.


I'd recommend juvies at least 4". They still have some growing to do but not so much that it could do a lot of damage with less than perfect water. You could certainly go from there with this plan. 

Sounds like you have given this some thought! Typical BB rearing utilizes sponge filters for the bacteria colonization (similar to the pumice blocks you propose) so i imagine the theory behind massive daily (i never did this) water changes is dissolved organic solids. Not sure about the hormones... Sounds like metascience to me.


----------



## theblondskeleton (Aug 28, 2009)

Btw - the biggest thing to remember is to get all of your discus from the same reputable supplier and always qt new fish. Horror stories. Horror!


----------



## OverStocked (May 26, 2007)

nonconductive said:


> do you have proof that discus put out a growth stunting hormone? if so i would like to see it. Or are you just repeating what everyone else says.


The same can be said for just saying the opposite of what everyone else says. 

I will let the health of my fish and the reputation of nearly every breeder in the world do the talking when it comes to water changes. More is better. Cleaner water is BETTER for fish. There is no way you can argue this with any common sense. 

There is a huge difference between fish surviving and thriving. It seems once a month you post in threads about this and tell everyone they are wrong and that water changes are not needed, but the simple matter is this: why NOT do something that WILL help?


----------



## OverStocked (May 26, 2007)

This is not all to say that this can not be done, but remembering to be slow about changes and understock your tank while overfiltering will give the best results. IN a zero change tank, using RO water is really a must. 

It sounds as though this is well thought out though.


----------



## Mxx (Dec 29, 2010)

AzFishKid said:


> Sorry... i voted "May survive, but will not thrive", but after reading further, i think i'm leaning towards "Doomed to fail". It's obvious that you've done plenty of research, but i'm still unsure whether you understand how expensive and how difficult it will be to keep a setup like this maintainence free/water-change free. You said you were hoping to make this a beautiful, inexpensive tank, but nothing about your proposed project is cheap. Don't take me wrong, i'm all for new techniques-- but i think this will be much more trouble than it'll be worth.
> 
> Like Solid said, i don't think that DIY-LED's will produce nearly enough light to grow much... you're likely gonna have to get some metal halides. Also, you're going to need tons of filtration... i'd recommend a few Fluval FX5's.
> 
> Anyway, don't mean to sound harsh, but i think this is a bigger project than you may think. For now, i'm going to be a doubter. But if you do decide to start a project like this, please do keep us updated and maybe you can change my mind.


I'm certainly enjoying this discussion and learning a fair amount, although not every opinion seems based in quantified fact rather than parroted dogma. 

Azfishkid, I didn't suggest this project would be cheap, but I'm willing to invest some decent funds into it and fortunately I'm no longer on a high-schooler's budget. But I think there are ways to save still. For instance, to achieve the filter medium volume of the two large Sun suns costing $170 which I'd suggested, I'd need seven of the Fluval FX5's which you suggested, which would cost $2500. 

The latest Reef tank lighting coming out is powered by only a few ultra-high output LED diodes, and that's at far greater intensity than is required for a planted tank. Those LED's as well as CREE's are still at quite a premium though, so I'd stick with what is currently the SMD 5050 LED's which on Ebay costs $12.80 per metre with 60 LED's per metre. I've yet to work out how many LED's would be required, but I think that's probably cheaper still than flourescent fixtures for the same quantity of light, lasts longer, uses less energy, doesn't suffer intensity degradation, and doesn't need to be changed as often as flourescent bulbs. If I can light my house with them then I can surely light my tank with them. 

Can't wait to try this, but I'm going to have to wait to complete my house renovation first...


----------



## Centromochlus (May 19, 2008)

Mxx said:


> I'm certainly enjoying this discussion and learning a fair amount, although not every opinion seems based in quantified fact rather than parroted dogma.
> 
> Azfishkid, I didn't suggest this project would be cheap, but I'm willing to invest some decent funds into it and fortunately I'm no longer on a high-schooler's budget. But I think there are ways to save still. For instance, to achieve the filter medium volume of the two large Sun suns costing $170 which I'd suggested, I'd need seven of the Fluval FX5's which you suggested, which would cost $2500.
> 
> ...


Wow... alright then.

First post:
"And I'm looking to achieve this via an inexpensive high-tech low -maintenance over-filtered automated set-up with a fair stocking load yet ZERO water changes apart from topping off the tank occasionally with RO water and NO gravel vacuuming, as I have neither the time nor inclination to do regular water changes."

I was assuming that you meant you were interested in keeping the whole set up inexpensive. Correct me if i'm wrong?

I'm aware that you are not on a high-schooler's budget, but dropping a few grand on a setup is not exactly considered cheap by most people, not just by teens... you just came off as very inexperienced, since you said that you kept cichlids as a kid and never really mentioned anything else... and it seemed like a huge jump from keeping cichlids as a kid to a massive, planted discus tank years later... unless i missed something that you said afterwards?

I didn't mean to come off as rude, if that's how you interpreted it. Sorry if you did.
I think this is an interesting project and i'd love to see it happen, but i honestly just don't think it'll turn out like you are hoping it will.


----------



## Da Plant Man (Apr 7, 2010)

I agree with Azfishkid, it is most likely doomed to fail.


-Caton


----------



## Mxx (Dec 29, 2010)

theblondskeleton said:


> I'd recommend juvies at least 4". They still have some growing to do but not so much that it could do a lot of damage with less than perfect water. You could certainly go from there with this plan.
> 
> Sounds like you have given this some thought! Typical BB rearing utilizes sponge filters for the bacteria colonization (similar to the pumice blocks you propose) so i imagine the theory behind massive daily (i never did this) water changes is dissolved organic solids. Not sure about the hormones... Sounds like metascience to me.


Thanks, 4" juveniles are still quite decently priced so that wouldn't be a problem. Some thought given to this subject, but not an enormous amount. Just began researching this during the weekend basically, but the internet is quite a vast trove of information, as well as a vast backwater of hokum if you don't look very carefully!

The most informed looking opinion I've been able to find on growth limiting/inhibiting hormones (GIS) thus far is that they do actually exist though not at all in the manner that most people believe, and can be mediated by: carbon or zeolite filtering, protein skimmers with or without ozone, water changes, and with the use of live plants and live rock. So I could in that case cover four out of five easily! Nitrates are also described as a growth limiting factor, but those can certainly be dealt with in better ways than water changes. 

The pumice and other denitrators supposedly actually support (beneficial) anaerobic bacteria colonies deep within them, unlike sponge filters. The idea is that the medium has tiny pores which only let water trickle through slowly enough that the oxygen is stripped by the outer aerobic bacteria thereby allowing the anaerobic bacteria to survive and thrive. And the anaerobic bacteria are the only bacteria that are able to break down nitrates into nitrogen, but they need an absence of oxygen to survive. Simple solution, eh?

Apart from the aforementioned parameters, I'm still not sure what Dissolved Organic Compounds (DOC) are, or why they'd be detrimental. I note that Tom Barr suggests in another thread that activated carbon will take care of these if you need to. 

So if the GIS compounds such as "ammonia salts" are taken care of by usual aquarist practices such as using activated carbon, and keeping plants, if ammonia/nitrites/nitrates are kept in check with plants and appropriate filtration, and if activated carbon is used weekly to remove whatever other D.O.C. people speak of then is there still any reason to do water changes people?


----------



## RipariumGuy (Aug 6, 2009)

I agree that it is "Doomed To Fail", but with some changes, I think that you could pull this off. The "Changes" are as follows: Less fish and less feeding. You have a lot of fishes in your current plan. Take some out, feed a little less, and I would say you have a shot at success!

Another option would be an automatic water change system.
Regards,
Jake


----------



## Mxx (Dec 29, 2010)

AzFishKid said:


> Wow... alright then.
> 
> First post:
> "And I'm looking to achieve this via an inexpensive high-tech low -maintenance over-filtered automated set-up with a fair stocking load yet ZERO water changes apart from topping off the tank occasionally with RO water and NO gravel vacuuming, as I have neither the time nor inclination to do regular water changes."
> ...


AzFishKid - No worries, and no offence of course. I appreciate a healthy critical debate, the thoughts of other, as well as a thorough fact-finding mission for topics critical to hobbyists such as ourselves. 

I guess I was suggesting that I'd be trying to do it inexpensively for a 200-300 gallon high-tech planted discus display tank with comprehensive filtering. A good set-up that size would never be cheap, but if done carefully and intelligently including some DIY, then you can certainly save a significant sum in certain areas compared to off-the-shelf set-ups. And even if it's a grand or so then that'd still be worth it for me. I had about four or five tanks including some rearing tanks running previously, with the largest being a 55. So this would nevertheless be a big jump for me. And that's why I'm trying to do my ground work first.


----------



## Centromochlus (May 19, 2008)

Mxx said:


> AzFishKid - No worries, and no offence of course. I appreciate a healthy critical debate, the thoughts of other, as well as a thorough fact-finding mission for topics critical to hobbyists such as ourselves.
> 
> I guess I was suggesting that I'd be trying to do it inexpensively for a 200-300 gallon high-tech planted discus display tank with comprehensive filtering. A good set-up that size would never be cheap, but if done carefully and intelligently including some DIY, then you can certainly save a significant sum in certain areas compared to off-the-shelf set-ups. And even if it's a grand or so then that'd still be worth it for me. I had about four or five tanks including some rearing tanks running previously, with the largest being a 55. So this would nevertheless be a big jump for me. And that's why I'm trying to do my ground work first.


Oh alright, that makes a lot more sense. Thanks for the clarification.

My vote is now moved up to "May work, but not as easily, beautifully, or as stable as pictured." :smile: I still think it will be very challenging, but if you're up for it, then do it! Best of luck to you.


----------



## BradH (May 15, 2008)

If I were doing this I'd skip all the fancy stuff. No need for ph controllers and co2 for what you described you wanted in the first post. Use tap water, unless you have some crazy parameters to your tap. Get some lights that put you in the medium light bracket and then add a bunch of floaters, like frogbit and red root floater to cut it back some. The floaters will aid in keeping things from building up along with your other plants. Plant heavy and keep it low tech and simple. Get a bunch of Vals for the background, different kind of swords for the middle, crypts and stuff like that, unless your trying to do a biotope, in that case you can leave out the crypts. Add the discuss, do a huge school of some kind of tetras, some Bolivian rams, perhaps some hatchet fish for the top water, add some bristlenose plecs, a few nerites and some amano shrimp. Set back and watch it grow.


----------



## mistergreen (Dec 9, 2006)

here you go,
you're not the first one to do this

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/t...bum/50456-zero-water-change-20-75-update.html


----------



## Mxx (Dec 29, 2010)

BradH said:


> If I were doing this I'd skip all the fancy stuff. No need for ph controllers and co2 for what you described you wanted in the first post. Use tap water, unless you have some crazy parameters to your tap. Get some lights that put you in the medium light bracket and then add a bunch of floaters, like frogbit and red root floater to cut it back some. The floaters will aid in keeping things from building up along with your other plants. Plant heavy and keep it low tech and simple. Get a bunch of Vals for the background, different kind of swords for the middle, crypts and stuff like that, unless your trying to do a biotope, in that case you can leave out the crypts. Add the discuss, do a huge school of some kind of tetras, some Bolivian rams, perhaps some hatchet fish for the top water, add some bristlenose plecs, a few nerites and some amano shrimp. Set back and watch it grow.


Very helpful view there. The municipal water here is very hard, which is far less than ideal, although if I have an RO unit on the drinking water as planned then that'd be a moot point. I'd like to be able to buffer Kh and subsequently Ph with a small bag of crushed coral, to prevent the Ph from drifting too far downwards in time, as it otherwise would. And the automated CO2 would in concert be able to hold the Ph down at the desired level, thus achieving the perfect balance in perpetuity, at least in theory.Or is it just my fondness for gadgets speaking there?... And I thought intensive plant growth with the high lighting, particularly with fast growing floating plants would help me to remove a greater quantity of organic matter each week to better balance the food in, plants out scenario, although if floating plants can use atmospheric CO2 then that's perhaps a different matter. (Scooping some floating plants out each week is certainly a lot easier than doing water changes still). I suppose hatchets would be a more lively replacement to butterflyfish, so that's certainly all something to carefully consider.


----------



## Solid (Jul 19, 2009)

Again, I don't think your LEDs will be sufficient. I Currently have 2 48" LED strips that have 76 LEDs in each, combined they put off about 3/4 of the light 1 t5ho bulb does. I have researched it quite a bit and the consensus (and my personal experience) is unless using them on very small tanks, you need high powered LEDs at least 1 watt each or above. I am currently building a DIY LED light with Cree LEDs.

Also i would recommend using a GH booster instead of crushed coral in the filter, it will give a more well rounded amount of buffer rather than just alot of kH.

I haven't seen a Sunsun filter that has more filter material as a FX5 but am very curious to find one.

I'm not going to argue about the benefits of water changes as you obviously have your mind made up. Good Luck.


----------



## Madfish (Sep 9, 2007)

I can speek first hand on the discus subject. I use to breed discus and I use to keep two tanks from the same batch. One was my cull tank(cull tank for me was keep them and give them for free to people that wanted to try there hand at keeping discus) and the other was my grow out tank. My cull tank I would only clean it out maybe once every couple of weeks. But my grow out tanks would get almost a 100% water change everyday. They were being feed the same thing. But the the size from the two different tanks would make your jaw drop. All of the fry were from the same batch and in the cull tank they would only get to around 4 inches around fully grown. But in my grow out tank they would always get 7+ inches and look great. 
I know I should have read this whole thread but I just could bring myself to it after reading how you were going to keep them.


----------



## BradH (May 15, 2008)

Mxx said:


> Very helpful view there. The municipal water here is very hard, which is far less than ideal, although if I have an RO unit on the drinking water as planned then that'd be a moot point. I'd like to be able to buffer Kh and subsequently Ph with a small bag of crushed coral, to prevent the Ph from drifting too far downwards in time, as it otherwise would. And the automated CO2 would in concert be able to hold the Ph down at the desired level, thus achieving the perfect balance in perpetuity, at least in theory.Or is it just my fondness for gadgets speaking there?... And I thought intensive plant growth with the high lighting, particularly with fast growing floating plants would help me to remove a greater quantity of organic matter each week to better balance the food in, plants out scenario, although if floating plants can use atmospheric CO2 then that's perhaps a different matter. (Scooping some floating plants out each week is certainly a lot easier than doing water changes still). I suppose hatchets would be a more lively replacement to butterflyfish, so that's certainly all something to carefully consider.


How hard is the water there? What is the KH and GH? You shouldn't have to worry about the ph drifting down. If your topping off with tap water, then you'll be adding back Ca and Mg and other minerals. Unless you have no kh to keep the water buffered. But if you have harder water, then I"m sure you do have enough kh. As for the lights, you don't want high light and CO2 for what your stating as how you want the tank to run. KEEP IT SIMPLE If you add high light and CO2 then your going to have to dose more ferts and do the water changes. IF you have less light= less dosing of ferts and less need for CO2. The only reason I suggested medium light was so that you could have lots of floaters for nutrient export, plus it looks good and you'll be in the "low light" category then.


----------



## boringname (Nov 11, 2010)

over_stocked said:


> This is not all to say that this can not be done, but remembering to be slow about changes and understock your tank while overfiltering will give the best results. *IN a zero change tank, using RO water is really a must. *
> 
> It sounds as though this is well thought out though.


Do you mean for the water used to replace evaporation or for all the water?


----------



## Mxx (Dec 29, 2010)

boringname said:


> Do you mean for the water used to replace evaporation or for all the water?


The municipal water is about 8.0 - 8.2 here with very little lead or chlorine. Nevertheless, I'm not sure I trust it completely, so I'd probably prefer to fill and top off the tank with RO water, and then add a bit of bottled minerals, such as GH booster which was suggested here, to reconstitute the water and bring it back up to the desired range. I'd heard bottled spring water recommended for this as well, but that certainly seems like an inordinate amount of work and needless expense. 

I guess there is not way, nor would it be desirable, to run an RO filter on the aquarium itself, would it? 

When I did regular water changes on my previous tanks with my Python or Automatic Aquarium Water Change, I was always paranoid about the fact that the water being added in was of a different temperature, a considerably different PH, had chlorine and chloramine which I couldn't exactly dechlorinate before it was already in my tank, and in cold weather had loads of dissolved nitrogen which then formed loads of bubbles which would be gassing out. So it persistently felt as if the water changes were potentially doing some actual damage to the stability of my system. 

Therefore, at first with this proposed new tank set-up, I was thinking of having an extra tank in the stand which I could prefill, prefilter, and preheat, and then have as an automated system that I could operate as simply as using a flush handle to initiate it. But that would still cause yo-yo fluctuations in Ph if I didn't control for that, and there would be the potential for different components to fail and cause flooding. But then the more I started to think about it and read into it, the more I began to wonder what exactly the water changes would be accomplishing that couldn't be accomplished already by the natural means by the plants and filtration. And that was the premise of my question to you all here.


----------



## Mxx (Dec 29, 2010)

Madfish said:


> I can speek first hand on the discus subject. I use to breed discus and I use to keep two tanks from the same batch. One was my cull tank(cull tank for me was keep them and give them for free to people that wanted to try there hand at keeping discus) and the other was my grow out tank. My cull tank I would only clean it out maybe once every couple of weeks. But my grow out tanks would get almost a 100% water change everyday. They were being feed the same thing. But the the size from the two different tanks would make your jaw drop. All of the fry were from the same batch and in the cull tank they would only get to around 4 inches around fully grown. But in my grow out tank they would always get 7+ inches and look great.
> I know I should have read this whole thread but I just could bring myself to it after reading how you were going to keep them.


Madfish, okay, now that seems like informed advice and perhaps we're getting somewhere. Can you explain that in further detail though? Was your unfortunate 'cull tank' an intensively planted tank or a bare tank by the way? And do you know what you nitrate levels and Ph levels typically were by chance? If they were both at healthy stable levels, which I expect your nitrates would not typically be, then that would lend credence to the growth inhibiting hormones argument. And can you recall whether you might have used activated carbon to your filters on a weekly basis?


----------



## Mxx (Dec 29, 2010)

Solid said:


> Again, I don't think your LEDs will be sufficient. I Currently have 2 48" LED strips that have 76 LEDs in each, combined they put off about 3/4 of the light 1 t5ho bulb does. I have researched it quite a bit and the consensus (and my personal experience) is unless using them on very small tanks, you need high powered LEDs at least 1 watt each or above. I am currently building a DIY LED light with Cree LEDs.
> 
> Also i would recommend using a GH booster instead of crushed coral in the filter, it will give a more well rounded amount of buffer rather than just alot of kH.
> 
> ...


Hi Solid, actually I don't yet have my mind at all made up on WC's. I'm simply trying to question what the water changes are supposed to accomplish and whether that can't be done more easily through other means, which I'm yet to be definitively convinced about either way, and collecting as much info on the matter as I can meanwhile. It seems I'd in any case need to monitor trace element levels carefully if I'm dosing them and not doing WC's, which I'm in any case okay with. 

Wouldn't using GH booster cause stress inducing yo-yo instability in hardness though, compared to letting a bit of coral dissolve slowly?

For the large Sun sun's, you can search Ebay for Canister Filter 530 GPH and it comes up with a buy-it-now price of $84 and says it's for up to a 200 gallon tank, although for a tank that size I'd probably prefer to double them up, which would provide a back-up as well. 

If you again search Ebay for LED strip white 5050 you will pull up the types of LED's I'd looked at. Some of them are listed at producing 400-450 lumens per metre (or 7 lumens per diode), and consuming 14.4 watts per metre. So if you were aiming for just as an example - 2 LED watts per gallon for a 185 gallon tank then that could be achieved with 25 metres of LED strip, (or five 5 metre spools), set in 13 rows. And at 60 LED's per metre that of course works out to 1500 individual quarter-watt diodes. Minus the transformers the LED's would cost about $300, but with far lower operating costs than metal halides or fluorescents. I'm just not sure what sort of watts per gallon figure to use for LED lights, as they are more efficient than flourescents. Anyone??? Unfortunately I see only warm white and cool white LED's at economical prices like this, and not natural whites anywhere. So I guess I'd potentially look at mixing three spools of warm white with two spools of cool white. I could throw in a spool of Red-Green-Blues, but I'm really not sure whether or not that would help the plants and appearance of the tank and fish? Can you tell me how all of that compares to the CREE setup you are looking at using though? The spools are waterproof, don't require heat sinks, and are much easier to wire than individual CREE's as it's just two wires to connect to a transformer with each one. 

As I'm still not 100% confident about my own skills in being able to achieve lush planting with a large low-tech tank like this, I'd rather err on the side of higher light and C02, at least until things get started quickly. I could unplug alternate spools of the LED's in due course if I didn't need as much lighting, as well as turn off the CO2, but would have it available still as a back-up if or when need be.


----------



## Mxx (Dec 29, 2010)

mistergreen said:


> here you go,
> you're not the first one to do this
> 
> http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/t...bum/50456-zero-water-change-20-75-update.html


I did recall seeing that somewhere, either here or elsewhere, although there were some discus enthusiasts suggesting his discus didn't look happy. If I'm to attempt this then and beautiful plant growth such as his. I guess that would mean that I'd have to be able to find a way to stop the mysterious growth-inhibiting-hormones, which might be as simple as adding activated carbon weekly, despite that that would soak up some of my plant's trace elements as well, or if that wouldn't work then supposedly an ozonizer with protein skimmer. I wonder if his plants were able to neutralize all the nitrates though?...

The Sun sun canisters comes standard with a UV sterilizer. Does anyone know if that would be destroying either any of the compounds beneficial to plants, or oxidizing the detrimental organic acids and G.I.H.s such as 'ammonia salts'?


----------



## Solid (Jul 19, 2009)

Lets see if i can answer some of your questions:
GH booster would give you somewhat of the yo-yo effect you were speaking of but I think it would be more effective and cause much less problems than crushed coral which will continue to build kH.

Those Sunsun canisters are a great filter and a great value (from everywhere I've read, no personal experience) but the 200g tank rating is extremely high. On a 200 gallon tank i would recommended 3-4. FX5 are MUCH larger and are rated for a 400g tank, but again i would probably recommend more than 1 for even a 200g tank. I am a overfiltration fan so maybe its just me.

Those LED strips are low power LEDs. And the problem with them is that they just don't put out enough light. Even with a whole lot of them the light does not penetrate very far. Like I said I have 2 x 74 LED light strips (22.5w each strip) and they are not even close to 1 t5 florescent. Many people have also tried 225 LED panels (look on ebay) and they work ok for a really small tank (<12 inch depth) but any thing deeper and their light just doesn't cut it. I also wish there was a cheaper option and I really hope you find one and share it with all of us, but I'm not sure that even 1500 of those will work even for a low light set-up. It might work for you but, I spent a fair amount of money on the crap LEDs that I have now and regret it. As far as colors go, for my Cree LED lights that I'm building I have bought 12 Cool White and 12 Warm Whites. Ive read that this color combo looks good for freshwater but i have yet to test it. 

The problem with adding carbon on a weekly basis in a planted tank is that it will absorb a lot of the nutrients that the plants need to grow. If your plants are lacking a certain nutrient this leads to algae. On small tanks algae is easy to handle, on a big tank you may find yourself spending more time scraping and removing algae than it would take to do a waterchange. Also there is some BS about carbon causes hole in the head disease in discus and all cichlids but this is probably another myth. Probably...


----------



## Solid (Jul 19, 2009)

Mxx said:


> When I did regular water changes on my previous tanks with my Python or Automatic Aquarium Water Change, I was always paranoid about the fact that the water being added in was of a different temperature, a considerably different PH, had chlorine and chloramine which I couldn't exactly dechlorinate before it was already in my tank, and in cold weather had loads of dissolved nitrogen which then formed loads of bubbles which would be gassing out. So it persistently felt as if the water changes were potentially doing some actual damage to the stability of my system.


This is a problem with waterchanges, but Temperature is very easy to manage using the mixer on your faucet to get the temp correct just like you would before getting in the shower. This is very important. As far as the ph/hardness/dissolved gasses It is recommended (especially for discus) to use a RO/DI System and add back gh booster to correct the ph/gh and to let the water "age" or sit there for a day or two to let the dissolved gases like chlorine/nitrogen/Co2 escape. If you are really paranoid about these issues I would recommend setting up a RO/DI system with a large barrel. Of course back to your main point, RO/DI systems waste even more water, something like 4 gallons are wasted for every 1 gallon produced so this may be a dilemma for you.


----------



## nonconductive (Jan 29, 2010)

over_stocked said:


> The same can be said for just saying the opposite of what everyone else says.
> 
> I will let the health of my fish and the reputation of nearly every breeder in the world do the talking when it comes to water changes. More is better. Cleaner water is BETTER for fish. There is no way you can argue this with any common sense.
> 
> There is a huge difference between fish surviving and thriving. It seems once a month you post in threads about this and tell everyone they are wrong and that water changes are not needed, but the simple matter is this: why NOT do something that WILL help?


 
i dont ever recall posting about water changes not being needed besides this thread.

breeders are ummm breeding fish and doing heavy feeding. that is why they do more water changes than normal.


----------



## nonconductive (Jan 29, 2010)

over_stocked said:


> The same can be said for just saying the opposite of what everyone else says.
> 
> I will let the health of my fish and the reputation of nearly every breeder in the world do the talking when it comes to water changes. More is better. Cleaner water is BETTER for fish. There is no way you can argue this with any common sense.
> 
> There is a huge difference between fish surviving and thriving. It seems once a month you post in threads about this and tell everyone they are wrong and that water changes are not needed, but the simple matter is this: why NOT do something that WILL help?


 
the arguement is that plants & a massive bio- filter eases the need for large water changes. have you tried it? if not then don't comment.

as far as hormones go, yea everything has hormones, but do they stunt growth? NO. its called big fish eat all the food, little fish hide in corner. Big fish stress little fish.

as far as telling everybody they are wrong. that is far fetched. i encourage people to question everything & not to believe some dribble thought up in the 1950's like a mindless drone. think for yourself man.


----------



## Solid (Jul 19, 2009)

nonconductive said:


> breeders are ummm breeding fish and doing heavy feeding. that is why they do more water changes than normal.


They do water changes to add clean water. Clean water is better for growth and health of fish. It might not be the only way to get clean water though.



nonconductive said:


> as far as telling everybody they are wrong. that is far fetched. i encourage people to question everything & not to believe some dribble thought up in the 1950's like a mindless drone. think for yourself man.


I think experimenting and questioning established thought is great. Lord knows theres a ton of BS rumors and old wives tales associated with this hobby. It doesn't mean you have to reinvent the wheel. IMO its a good idea to research tank set-ups that you like, and know work. You can base your set-up off of that, then you can change things and tweak things to make it work for you.


----------



## wkndracer (Mar 14, 2009)

mistergreen said:


> here you go,
> you're not the first one to do this
> http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/t...bum/50456-zero-water-change-20-75-update.html


I hope someone other than myself reviewed this linked thread. Thanks Mr. Greenroud:



Madfish said:


> I can speak first hand on the discus subject. I use to breed discus and I use to keep two tanks from the same batch. One was my cull tank(cull tank for me was keep them and give them for free to people that wanted to try there hand at keeping discus) and the other was my grow out tank. My cull tank I would only clean it out maybe once every couple of weeks. But my grow out tanks would get almost a 100% water change everyday. They were being feed the same thing. But the the size from the two different tanks would make your jaw drop. All of the fry were from the same batch and in the cull tank they would only get to around 4 inches around fully grown. But in my grow out tank they would always get 7+ inches and look great.
> I know I should have read this whole thread but I just could bring myself to it after reading how you were going to keep them.


Comparing culls and keepers really doesn't entirely quantify / verify the growth hormone or clean water question.
Culls are culls for a reason. Recent gift from my wife acquired from an Angel breeder included not only the strain (cross I wanted) but also a bag buddy or two including a true genetic plug of a Frankenstein fish. 









I've let him stay for now. The fish landed in my tank on 12/18. Sorry for the pic quality. I tried to catch him close to another for reference. While some size difference was evident upon arrival it's now nearly triple with his stunted growth rate.

























And another tank. Not a discus tank but a lowly low tech soil substrate tank used for overflow fry go out. This tank rarely sees a water change and yes growth is slower but who can prove the fish don't live longer for it or get just as large later? This dirt based tank lives with only a sponge equipped power head,,, that's it ever, just the PH and a heater and the heater is set to start at 65°F 










It's an established system that now receives rare water changes. Why not think outside the box and be surprised?
While being another topic off center to this thread who here would think you could keep Angel fish healthy at tank temperatures of 65-70°F? Even grow them larger and having them live longer?
Steve Rybicki Founding TAS Member
Let me explain my experience with temperature regulation. 

I experiment all the time and have discovered some very interesting things. First, angelfish will do wonderfully well at quite low temps. I've had spawns from fish being kept at 68. This is rare, but can happen. I've had tanks of very healthy angelfish as low as 65. From what I can see the immune system is not suppressed in any significant way if at all. 

The key is feeding properly. Almost everyone feeds way too much when the temperature is lowered. A 4 degree drop in temperature lowers a fish's metabolism to such a degree that only about 50% of the food is required at the higher temp. Drop it from 82 to 68 and they need less than 10% of the amount at 82. Almost everyone feeds way too much and then blames the sick or dead fish on the temperature. When cold, they will not stunt from the lower food amounts and they age much slower. I've kept bettas in the 60's that live to over 10 years, when the average is about 2-3 years old. I've had many angelfish in the 12-15 years range because they were kept cool. These have been mostly wilds kept for backups. I do not want to turn over the generations on my wilds and this is the best way to do it. 

Another benefit is that when you warm them up, they spawn very nicely. I've had 10-12 year old wilds still spawning when warmed up and I don't think they're done yet. If I have two superb pairs of the same strain, I can only use so many eggs at one time. My technique is to keep one cool while I'm breeding the other. Then, if I need it I can warm it up years later and they will act like a young pair. 

You can do the same with juveniles. The key is to feed properly for temperature they're kept in. This can be tricky and takes some experience to get it right. The fish will not stunt, loose color and will not get sick if you do it right. Their life is simply slowed down. 

I've done this many hundreds of time. It can work well with practice. 

http://www.angelsplus.com/ArticleAquariumTemp.htm

My vote is that if the OP does his research this can work.
I hope you try your proposed method/experiment. I'd like to subscribe in advance to the thread.


----------



## Solid (Jul 19, 2009)

Yes tropical fish do great, even better in fact, in zero waterchange, 65 degree, no maintenance tanks with no filters. Don't listen to all the rubbish out there telling you otherwise!


----------



## nonconductive (Jan 29, 2010)

Solid said:


> They do water changes to add clean water. Clean water is better for growth and health of fish. It might not be the only way to get clean water though.
> 
> 
> I think experimenting and questioning established thought is great. Lord knows theres a ton of BS rumors and old wives tales associated with this hobby. It doesn't mean you have to reinvent the wheel. IMO its a good idea to research tank set-ups that you like, and know work. You can base your set-up off of that, then you can change things and tweak things to make it work for you.


I agree! the new clean water is very much needed due to insane feedings which produces insane waste & also the high fish loads. this does not neccassarily transfer over to a display tank with a LARGE bacteria colony and healthy plants.


----------



## nonconductive (Jan 29, 2010)

Solid said:


> Yes tropical fish do great, even better in fact, in zero waterchange, 65 degree, no maintenance tanks with no filters. Don't listen to all the rubbish out there telling you otherwise!


agree.


----------



## nonconductive (Jan 29, 2010)

i have multiple apisto tanks that havent seen a water change in over a year & a 1/2. They breed like clock work.

Is there algae? yes.
are the plants healthy? yes
are the fish suffering from no water changes? NO


----------



## nonconductive (Jan 29, 2010)

i think zero water changes might be pushing it a little for discus, but there is absolutely no reason that minimal changes will not work. Once every month to every few months or so should be fine.

Not everyone wants to raise show quaility fish. some people are happy with your everyday run of the mill fish if it means lower maintenance & i would fall into that category. Maybe after my son grows up a little that will change but for now it works. and if it works dont fix it.


----------



## Solid (Jul 19, 2009)

^ this.


----------



## Mxx (Dec 29, 2010)

mistergreen said:


> here you go,
> you're not the first one to do this
> 
> http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/t...bum/50456-zero-water-change-20-75-update.html


I found the thread I was talking about (below), it was cross-referenced to this site from the Simply Discus forum, which judging from their comments, they seem to not be very open-minded at about this topic! Without more information and specs to go on it's tough to form an opinion based upon just that guy's comments and pictures about his own tank though. But clearly it can work to at least some extent, which shouldn't really come as a surprise to anyone. 

http://forum.simplydiscus.com/showt...er-changes-in-a-discus-tank&highlight=planted


----------



## Mxx (Dec 29, 2010)

*Testing trace elements?*

Does anyone happen to know which water parameters would be most critical to test for in this sort of a set-up, such as individual trace elements? Or how often I would need to test for those?


----------



## mrchach (Sep 8, 2010)

Well... I hope it works for you...

Why so much low maitnance though?
Lazy
or
Just not going to spend that much time around the tank.

With all the automated things their is alot of room for mechanical error that could open your tank up to a world of problems if not kept in check.

I know youve got big ambitions and god bless you, I hope it works.

Also have you took into account how much all this is going to weigh in the end, with everything your probably going to be pushing 1500+ lbs on a small surface area, should probably be on a ground level concrete slab or a VERY strong floor


----------



## Mxx (Dec 29, 2010)

mrchach said:


> Well... I hope it works for you...
> 
> Why so much low maitnance though?
> Lazy
> ...


This certainly hadn't stemmed out of any sense of laziness, practically the opposite. The query is actually rooted in trying to have absolutely the healthiest tank I can. I looked at what most of the successful discus guys were doing, which is massive water changes DAILY in order to control nitrates. But their tanks had no other means to control nitrates, so they'd be daily experiencing spiking and plunging nitrates/ph/etc, though it also takes quite an immense amount of work. So I began looking into what other techniques would work for maintaining very low nitrates/ammonia naturally - which is massive planting and adequate bio-filtration including a denitrate filter or filter medium. But after having been researching that to some depth, I began to wonder if I couldn't actually maintain higher water quality and more stable of conditions through just those techniques than through doing those techniques AND performing water changes. From everything I've heard so far and prior to further research the jury is still out in my own mind on that question. My tap water isn't brilliant, so I though a decent filter's return water quality may very well be able to best that (without RO, dechlorination salts, mineral reconstituting, temperature, and Ph adjustment required). And I've yet to have any provide a scientific explanation of anything that the tank water which filtration would not be able to take care of. It might take a lot of planting and large bio-filters, but that's not a problem as nitrates shouldn't be as big of a problem as they all make it out to be if you have a proper system and plants. I was actually worried that I might end up providing TOO much bio-filtration which could potentially out-compete the plants for ammonia/nitrite/nitrate, and then I'd find myself having to dose nitrates instead, thus ending up with small daily/weekly nitrate spikes instead of fine-tuned stability. That's one thing that will need to be monitored and balanced somehow, but is certainly do-able, and seems to beat the alternative of daily WC's still. 

I do occasionally need to be abroad for or two weeks at a time, so I would need a system that can nevertheless keep itself stable and use an automatic pellet feeder. I'd been reading up previously on whether many people had disasters with pressurized Co2 systems failing or getting stuck with an open solenoid, but that was sounding extremely rare. Any moderately stocked tank is going to be at some risk of disasters such as a filter failure, and I don't think mine would be generally at more risk than others, as the lights and filtration are the most critical components there for the tank to work biologically, especially as I'd already suggested having dual filters which already gives me a back-up. IT'd always make me a little nervous still, but I feel a bit more confident with digital control of things like Ph then I would without. 

My new living room extension will have a concrete ground slab, and I'll make sure that my engineer is aware that I may be putting a ton or two of weight right there. 

Thanks again


----------



## scolley (Apr 4, 2004)

IMO having a densely planted discus tank with a high fish load is the pinnacle of planted tank I-need-a-challenge pursuits. That's why I did it myself. And here's what I've found...

I've been all over the boards with plant density, water change frequency, and quantity of adult discus. And after years of chasing a state of equilibrium, having achieved a totally stable environment for 12 months, I think I've hit a stable point. The implication is - of course - is that others can achieve the same. So what are those parameters?

Tank: 180, total volume, no sump
Fish: 6 adult discus, 4 sub-adults, 6 biota striata, 6 Cory cats
Inverts: 20 Amano shrimp, 20 ghost/glass, 500+ cherry
Plants: 10 cubic feet Taiwan moss, all other pants considered purely cosmetic.

I hope that helps. Works for me. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

If you do a larger scale version of this:










No CO2 is needed, thus less risk, it also adds a very nice unique approach.
I think a water change is not a bad idea for automation.
This can reduce risk via redundancy and if you set it up right from the start, then it is well worth the effort. I use semi automation mostly, but if the client wants a full automated system, not an issue.

Still, you can get around the issue of a water change/dosing etc a couple of ways.

I think Discus are rather easy personally, big old cichlids.
Never saw the big deal.
But that's just me.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

Were it me,, I would introduce Adult Discus who don't need the numerous feedings and or protein levels derived from same that juvenile discus thrive on during early growth period.
Have seen lovely planted tanks with with substandard Discus. Is to me, like putting lipstick on a pig.


----------



## mountaindew (Dec 10, 2008)

Mxx said:


> And I'm looking to achieve this via an inexpensive high-tech low -maintenance over-filtered automated set-up .


 
In my experience, inexpensive and high-tech will never happen on the same system.
md


----------



## x2h (Dec 23, 2008)

scolley said:


> IMO having a densely planted discus tank with a high fish load is the pinnacle of planted tank I-need-a-challenge pursuits. That's why I did it myself. And here's what I've found...
> 
> I've been all over the boards with plant density, water change frequency, and quantity of adult discus. And after years of chasing a state of equilibrium, having achieved a totally stable environment for 12 months, I think I've hit a stable point. The implication is - of course - is that others can achieve the same. So what are those parameters?
> 
> ...


you have an amazing tank! plus, it's the first time i see someone successfully grows amano shrimps and cherry shrimps in a discus tank. what's the trick?


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

roadmaster said:


> Were it me,, I would introduce Adult Discus who don't need the numerous feedings and or protein levels derived from same that juvenile discus thrive on during early growth period.
> Have seen lovely planted tanks with with substandard Discus. Is to me, like putting lipstick on a pig.


Or putting nice Dsicus into a ratty planted tank

Same thing, other side of the coin.


----------



## DaveK (Jul 10, 2010)

In looking at with the OP wants to do, I ask, what do you want out of the system?

If your goal is the best possible discus in a planted tank, then go with more conventional discus keeping. High temp for the discus, no other species, except maybe a few cats for clean up duty, large partial water changes, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera...

If your goal is an experimental system to see if what you propose can be done successfully, the go with it. This would certainly be an interesting tank, especially with the multiple fish species. I would also recommend that you have an alternative plan, in case your original plan doesn't work out.

Personally, I don't know anyone that has what I'd consider to be a excellent tank that doesn't do at least some partial water changes.


----------



## mmelnick (Mar 5, 2010)

If you don't want to be troubled by water changes you could hook up a drain in place of one of the sumps (I'm assuming the tank is already drilled and fitted with an overflow. Then you could just turn on the RO/DI unit and as the new water comes in the water level would rise and just go down the drain. This would make doing water changes as easy as turning a knob.

This is what I'll be doing with my 54 gal tank. Except for insead of plumbing it into the house drain I'll just run a hose out the door. I can't get to any plumbing since it's on the first floor which happens to be a concrete slab.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

DaveK said:


> In looking at with the OP wants to do, I ask, what do you want out of the system?
> 
> If your goal is the best possible discus in a planted tank, then go with more conventional discus keeping. High temp for the discus, no other species, except maybe a few cats for clean up duty, large partial water changes, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera...
> 
> ...


Well, this seems to be a decent SEA biotpe:
No water changes:


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

nonconductive said:


> I just have to say i have been keeping discus on and off for around 5 years. and have gone nearly a year w/o water changes before with no ill effects. DONT OVERFEED THEM and you will be fine, dont feed beefheart, it fouls water fast. Get them to eat dry foods.
> 
> They do not REQUIRE the warmer temps. Don't believe all the myths & BS from previous generations.


 
This post sounds more like wishful thinking. Agree however with Beefheart fouling the water quickly.roud:


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

wkndracer said:


> I hope someone other than myself reviewed this linked thread. Thanks Mr. Greenroud:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Do not know how long the fishes in photos have been in the tank pictured but judging from swordplant leaves and other photos ,,the fish all look like runts.
Tropical fish as the name implies,will always fair better in tropical temps. 
Is ok I guess to expieriment with fishes, (your fish,)but I would be hesitant to suggest that other's do likewise.
I have kept both Discus and Angelfish that did exceptional at tropical temps 80 to 84 degrees F and lived ten plus years in some instances ,a couple three,,even longer.


----------



## wkndracer (Mar 14, 2009)

roadmaster said:


> Do not know how long the fishes in photos have been in the tank pictured but judging from swordplant leaves and other photos ,,the fish all look like runts.
> Tropical fish as the name implies,will always fair better in tropical temps.
> Is ok I guess to expieriment with fishes, (your fish,)but I would be hesitant to suggest that other's do likewise.
> I have kept both Discus and Angelfish that did exceptional at tropical temps 80 to 84 degrees F and lived ten plus years in some instances ,a couple three,,even longer.



*"Do not know how long the fishes in photos have been in the tank pictured but the fish all look like runts." *The original quoted post states the fish were received on 12/18, the post is dated 12/30,,, sooooo why don't you know how long the fish have been in the tank? Reading helps, let me help with the math too,,, 12 days!

IT'S A GROW OUT TANK! All the fish in the photo's are dime to nickel size youngsters both tanks. GEEZ babies look like runts yeah right, :angryfire if my fish could read they'd be offended too LOL. 

The posted information regarding temperature came directly from the website of one of the most successful breeders in the country. I don't know your background but have serious doubts that your knowledge exceeds that of the man I quoted in my post. Owner operator of AngelsPlus.
Steve Rybicki Founding TAS Member. http://www.angelsplus.com/


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

Go for the 280 gal tank is my 2 cents. Keep plantload as high as possible and bioload low. The larger a volume of water you can work with, the more chance you have to find and maintain stability.

The "traditional" reason discus are such "high maintenance" fish is that they are relatively large fish with very high metabolisms- so represent a high bioload in proportion to their size.

You understand already that you need to plan to remove nitrates from the system you're creating. To maintain good water quality in the tank in proportion to your high bioload fish, you'll probably need lots of fast growing stem plants. However, fast-growing stem plants will require lots of ferts and pruning to keep them healthy, looking nice, and from choking each other out. If you neglect the tank, dying plant matter will lead to deteriorating water quality the same as raw fish waste would. Your choice really boils down to- do you want to maintain the this closed system by removing water or by removing plant mass? Either way, in the end it's going to require work on your end. 

The problem with this scenerio that I see is that maintaining a planted tank this large is not going to be a low maintenance endeavor. Hours of weekly maintenance to keep all those plants in good shape. At that point, you might as well do a water change at the same time. (Actually, from a sheer time and ease standpoint, the water change won't take as long or be as difficult and messy as the pruning will... you may have to go swimming to reach some of the plants in a tank this big! lol)


Personally, if you're putting this much work and expense in the setup, I'd go ahead and plan a water autotopoff system too. IMO $200 for an RO unit dedicated to this tank would be a great investment on a tank this big. Save $$ instead on the filtration setup, and do a big DIY sump (refugium with more live plants!) under the tank.

Since the water changes would allow you to incorporate more slow-growing plants into your setup, this will significantly reduce the amount of time you need to spend maintaining the tank on a weekly basis. 

Do I think it would be possible to set up a no water change discus tank? Yes. Do I think it would be low maintenance? No.

Pursue your goal if that's what interests you about this project. It's your hobby after all! LOL 

But my own opinion is that it would be much less hassle and you'd get much more long-term enjoyment from this tank to change your focus to "low maintenance" rather than chase the goal of "no water changes."


----------



## wearsbunnyslippers (Dec 6, 2007)

check out the tank in my signature...

started with regular weekly water changes, then every two weeks then once a month. 

this can work perfectly, especially if you buy larger tank bred fish as already mentioned.

all living organisms that produce hormones will excrete some in their waste products, as well as plants excreting waste metabolites, these will stay in the water for ages, so you will need to do some water changes or use carbon in your filter to remove these.


----------



## houstonhobby (Dec 12, 2008)

How about, instead of water changes, add a decent-sized RO filter to the filtration system that takes tank water as input and dumps the flush water and the treated water both back into the tank?

This would get rid of anything and everything, including fish hormones and any protein waste. I am sure that with enough filtration we could load the fish tank on a space craft and send it to Mars and back without water changes. It won't be low-tech, and it won't be inexpensive, but it will work and it won't require water changes.


----------



## Solid (Jul 19, 2009)

houstonhobby said:


> How about, instead of water changes, add a decent-sized RO filter to the filtration system that takes tank water as input and dumps the flush water and the treated water both back into the tank?


The problem i think you would run into is that then the water would become way too soft and you would have to add GH booster, which is something he also said he doesn't want to do.


----------



## houstonhobby (Dec 12, 2008)

I just realized that if you are going to dump the flush water into the tank then there is no need to do the RO membrane either. You are not removing anything from the water. But I still think that all we need is the right filtration. I'm just not sure what it is at this point.

Definitely use a ton of Purigen. Nothing better than that IME for clarifying water.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

wkndracer said:


> *"Do not know how long the fishes in photos have been in the tank pictured but the fish all look like runts." *The original quoted post states the fish were received on 12/18, the post is dated 12/30,,, sooooo why don't you know how long the fish have been in the tank? Reading helps, let me help with the math too,,, 12 days!
> 
> IT'S A GROW OUT TANK! All the fish in the photo's are dime to nickel size youngsters both tanks. GEEZ babies look like runts yeah right, :angryfire if my fish could read they'd be offended too LOL.
> 
> ...


My apolgies, OP said (Fish) landed in tank on 12/18 as opposed to( Fishes)landed in tank(plural). But upon re-reading, (my bad) is indication that others indeed arrived also.Again my apologies.
In any event ,,It is unclear to me what benefits Tropical fishes derive from being kept in sub-tropical temps. (with exception of inducing spawning in some species or curbing aggression in others)
For myself..I have been keeping,breeding,raising, fishes for going on four decades, and never anywhere other than (yesterday) heard, or witnessed anyone suggest keeping tropicals at temps mentioned for extended periods. Am doubtful that the runt mentioned achieved growth mentioned in as you say..12 days cold,or tropical temps.
Will stand by the statement that tropicals will ALWAYS fair better in tropical temps. Never claimed to be more knowldgeable,smarter that anyone,Don't need to.

P.S. The person or person's also stated... " I have let "HIM " stay for now. " "I tried to get a picture of "HIM" next to others" in reference to the small (runt). I have yet to see anyone who could accurately determine sex of such a small Angelfish.Even large adult fish of this species are hard to sex by eyeballing, not withstanding those who claim to be able to do so.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

Solid said:


> The problem i think you would run into is that then the water would become way too soft and you would have to add GH booster, which is something he also said he doesn't want to do.


I agree with this,,crushed coral placed in filter(s) as mentioned by OP, will become less effective as it becomes coated with mulm ,detritus,bacteria, dirt,etc.(quickly or slowly)
GH booster added to pre-change water would produce better results long term.
Also agree that With CO2 ,if plant's are not pruned,trimmed,regularly then they will begin to suffer as light and flow of nutrients, along with CO2 distribution becomes restricted.


----------



## Mxx (Dec 29, 2010)

DaveK said:


> In looking at with the OP wants to do, I ask, what do you want out of the system?
> 
> If your goal is the best possible discus in a planted tank, then go with more conventional discus keeping. High temp for the discus, no other species, except maybe a few cats for clean up duty, large partial water changes, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera...
> 
> ...


Great comments, insight, and examples everyone!

The alternative plan would of course be to do water changes if the set-up is unable to maintain an optimal balance. Apart from the usual such as PH and Nitrates, and Phosphates, I'm not sure what other measures would be the most indicative in demonstrating whether the biochemistry was working as necessary in an absence of or with just minimal water changes. I need try and to delve much deeper into this subject to try and figure that out still.

As far as I can tell thus far, keeping healthy discus and healthy plants should not be mutually exclusive endeavors, and should actually complement one another quite nicely as long as the system has been designed out well enough and it works as planned.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

wearsbunnyslippers said:


> all living organisms that produce hormones will excrete some in their waste products, as well as plants excreting waste metabolites, these will stay in the water for ages, so you will need to do some water changes or use carbon in your filter to remove these.


How do you know this?
Have you tested and separated these out using something like HPLC and can you also go back and add these chemicals back and produce the hypothesized response to the discus?

How many hobbyists test for hormones?

Plants leach tannins etc, but why do these tannins just keep building up in natural systems then? They do not actually, they level off.

Carbon will remove these, but IMO/IME, it is simpler and easier to do a water change. But.........why do we place such a different standard to discus as we do for any fish or livestock???

Why do they deserve any more/less than any other fish?

Where are these bad results also?
There needs to be some more evidence that there is a real issue here in the planted tank context that lacks water changes.

If the fish end up being 5-6" vs say 8-9" in diameter, is it because they did not feed them as well? Or was it from the build up?

We can falsify many things fairly easily, all we have to do is show it can be done. Showing real cause is a much harder standard to show.

Seems much easier to try and see vs belief.
I need more than this to buy that this is the reason for not doing water changes. From what I've seen, there's far more evidence against these claims and than for it.

Show I am wrong.


----------



## DaveK (Jul 10, 2010)

One other item I would like to add about water changes. 

Having been in this hobby many years, I have heard countless claims of "never change your water again". I remember them with "balanced" aquariums, undergravel filters, large outside power filters, trickle filters (in SW), refugiums (in SW), algae scrubbers, skimmers (in SW), and so on and so on.

While most of those are or were good filtration systems, none of then were really able to free us from the bondage of water changes. I have heard of a few systems where people have claimed that they never did a water change in 20 years, and all they did was add top off water. While the tank may have survived, I suspect that if we looked at the tank, it's not going to be anything we'd want to own.


----------



## Mxx (Dec 29, 2010)

DaveK said:


> One other item I would like to add about water changes.
> 
> Having been in this hobby many years, I have heard countless claims of "never change your water again". I remember them with "balanced" aquariums, undergravel filters, large outside power filters, trickle filters (in SW), refugiums (in SW), algae scrubbers, skimmers (in SW), and so on and so on.
> 
> While most of those are or were good filtration systems, none of then were really able to free us from the bondage of water changes. I have heard of a few systems where people have claimed that they never did a water change in 20 years, and all they did was add top off water. While the tank may have survived, I suspect that if we looked at the tank, it's not going to be anything we'd want to own.


Tom, once again I very much agree with what you so eloquently explained in your statement preceding these two. 

And Dave, I think that much of the problem that we're having with this issue is demonstrated by the key word in your statement - "suspect". Instead of trying to get to the sorting out fact from fiction so many of us are instead simply working according to our prejudices and that which we've been told. And as what you suggested isn't borne of proof, with all due respect, it's merely guesswork. 

Obviously water changes work, and that is one safe way to do this hobby, but water changes can also have potentially detrimental effects on what might be an otherwise balanced system with equalized inputs and outputs. 

And not to say that balancing an attractive no-water-change system would be easy, but that in itself doesn't mean that it can't be done either. 

By the way, is a no-water change approach compatible with a mineralized soil underlay to the substrate?


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

plantbrain said:


> How do you know this?
> Have you tested and separated these out using something like HPLC and can you also go back and add these chemicals back and produce the hypothesized response to the discus?
> 
> How many hobbyists test for hormones?
> ...


 
I can only speak for myself though I suspect other's feel the same way. I make no distinction between Discus and their general care,and other species I care for.
Juvenile fish receive three or four small feedings per day,(to encourage desired growth) and twice weekly 50 percent water changes ,maybe three if tank is holding numerous fry(Bristlenose for example 50+fry per spawn).
The standard I choose, is directly tied to the water paramter's I desire and that have produced the desired result's after much trial and error.
I am not interested in raising ,caring for substandard fishes that I would not sell,give away,or trade for store credit.
I believe the OP's result's will be as pleasing as the effort put forth in researching.(both planted method chosen, and discus care ).
As you have said in the past,,choose a method of growing plant's and learn it well. Sound advice.
Would be what I would do with respect to raising juvenile Discus as well, or Angelfish,or guppies.
I have kept Discus and raised them from Quarter size to adult's. The care given is ,will be, all about ones expectations.
When I was young and dumb, I was pleased with Bug eyed,oblong shaped,beaky looking Discus. Not so much any more,and extra care can make all the difference.
I suspect the same for planted aquariums too?


----------



## wearsbunnyslippers (Dec 6, 2007)

plantbrain said:


> How do you know this?
> Have you tested and separated these out using something like HPLC and can you also go back and add these chemicals back and produce the hypothesized response to the discus?
> 
> How many hobbyists test for hormones?


i am not saying there is a discus growth regulating hormone, i mean hormones in general. female fish will excrete estrogen, male fish will excrete testosterone etc. etc. these will build up over time.

there have been studies done on the increasing amount of hormones found in drinking water due to the water being recycled is that proof enough?

in terrestrial plants, wastes are stored in vacuoles, thickened cell walls or lignified or dropped in the leaves in autumn, aquatic plants do not need to do this and will excrete their wastes directly into the water, these will also build up over time without water changes.

keeping fish in a tank is very unnatural. i am not of the opinion that doing no water changes is the best way to keep any fish, especially if the reason is because you are lazy to do water changes. i am just saying that if you are going to go this route than to mitigate some of the organic compounds that *will* build up, then filter with carbon.


----------



## Solid (Jul 19, 2009)

plantbrain said:


> why do we place such a different standard to discus as we do for any fish or livestock???
> 
> Why do they deserve any more/less than any other fish?


A few reasons I think. One they are large peaceful fish with bright colors that a lot of people find to be the most attractive freshwater fish. They are also IME smarter than any other freshwater fish being able to recognize people. (My fish knows I am the food source and can distinguish between me and other people) And probably most importantly they are very expensive. 10+ times as expensive as most other freshwater fish, so people put more care into keeping them. Same way you might put more effort/care into taking care of a $1000 zebra pleco colony vs some common bristle nose plecos.


----------



## wkndracer (Mar 14, 2009)

plantbrain said:


> Why do we place such a different standard to discus as we do for any fish or livestock???
> 
> Why do they deserve any more/less than any other fish?


Why does the stated opinion of most reef keepers lean toward the keeping of a planted aquarium being just an easy to keep bucket of dirt and weeds?

As with some feeling that high light and CO2 enriched systems are the only way to go the discus has been raised to God like status among freshwater fish







:fishbut not by me :icon_roll)
Ugh! The sheer volume of life's important questions are giving me a headache.


----------



## Betta Maniac (Dec 3, 2010)

Solid said:


> They are also IME smarter than any other freshwater fish being able to recognize people. (My fish knows I am the food source and can distinguish between me and other people)


 
I'll grant you the size and cost, but betta also recognize people and mine certainly know when it's *me* and when it's a stranger. Strangers don't get the "feed me" dance. And cuttlefish and koi come when called and let you pet them.

That said, I'm excited to see how this goes and am really enjoying following the discussion (and can I just say how nice it is to see people having an actual adult _discussion_ as opposed to the hissy-fit arguments that seem to be so common on the web!).


----------



## Mxx (Dec 29, 2010)

I suppose that much of the cult status discus keepers regard them with stems primarily from their earlier legacy of being incredibly delicate and picky fish to keep and successfully spawn. Now that they're extensively captive bred, (domesticated), instead of being wild caught specimens shipped under severe duress that's no longer quite so true though. They're still regarded as a significant challenge, and that aspect in itself of being a challenge must drive much of the aura as well for many. (Not without saying that they don't have an undeniable beauty though). 

Another facet of that challenge though is that the majority of discus enthusiasts seem to have committed to trying to emulate the rearing methods of commercial discus hatcheries, i.e. keeping them in bare sterile tanks with massive frequent water changes. That method might be feasible in a greenhouse, but is quite a challenging commitment to maintain of course if your tank is in the middle of your living room. And to keep a very nitrate sensitive fish in a set-up with no plants or denitrifying filters perhaps doesn't seem like the most logical thing to do. So the pain and suffering endured by keepers struggling to maintain their stock in what I suggest are not ideal set-ups may very well reinforce their own cult reverence for discus. Classical Stockholm Syndrome, right?


----------



## Betta Maniac (Dec 3, 2010)

mxx said:


> another facet of that challenge though is that the majority of discus enthusiasts seem to have committed to trying to emulate the rearing methods of commercial discus hatcheries . . . So the pain and suffering endured by keepers struggling to maintain their stock in what i suggest are not ideal set-ups may very well reinforce their own cult reverence for discus. Classical stockholm syndrome, right?


lol!


----------



## Solid (Jul 19, 2009)

Mxx said:


> Another facet of that challenge though is that the majority of discus enthusiasts seem to have committed to trying to emulate the rearing methods of commercial discus hatcheries, i.e. keeping them in bare sterile tanks with massive frequent water changes. That method might be feasible in a greenhouse, but is quite a challenging commitment to maintain of course if your tank is in the middle of your living room. And to keep a very nitrate sensitive fish in a set-up with no plants or denitrifying filters perhaps doesn't seem like the most logical thing to do. So the pain and suffering endured by keepers struggling to maintain their stock in what I suggest are not ideal set-ups may very well reinforce their own cult reverence for discus. Classical Stockholm Syndrome, right?


It is foolish to ignore the experiences of people who have traveled the road before you. I wish you the best, but i really think you should try and learn as much as you can from these "enthusiasts". Some of them might be ignorant people following a "cult reverence" but just like many people on this forum most have learned by trial and error, not just trying to emulate breeders or following some cult.


----------



## Reaper Keeper (Oct 5, 2009)

Mxx
I don’t get it, Why would you even care what everyone else thought. Rather than ask what everyone else thinks, just do it, then if it works brag your azz off. If it doesn’t you would not have had to endured all the "negative” comments from people who think you are doomed to fail.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Mxx said:


> I suppose that much of the cult status discus keepers regard them with stems primarily from their earlier legacy of being incredibly delicate and picky fish to keep and successfully spawn. Now that they're extensively captive bred, (domesticated), instead of being wild caught specimens shipped under severe duress that's no longer quite so true though. They're still regarded as a significant challenge, and that aspect in itself of being a challenge must drive much of the aura as well for many. (Not without saying that they don't have an undeniable beauty though).
> 
> Another facet of that challenge though is that the majority of discus enthusiasts seem to have committed to trying to emulate the rearing methods of commercial discus hatcheries, i.e. keeping them in bare sterile tanks with massive frequent water changes. That method might be feasible in a greenhouse, but is quite a challenging commitment to maintain of course if your tank is in the middle of your living room. And to keep a very nitrate sensitive fish in a set-up with no plants or denitrifying filters perhaps doesn't seem like the most logical thing to do. So the pain and suffering endured by keepers struggling to maintain their stock in what I suggest are not ideal set-ups may very well reinforce their own cult reverence for discus. Classical Stockholm Syndrome, right?


Big old cichlids, nothing more, nothing less.
I've not treated them any different and have bred them.

My client's have also breed them and Angels in the same tank and have for the last few years. They do large water changes, but the water quality is still very high, just like the a well run non CO2 planted tank, the environmentals are still the same.

*I just do not buy the BS since another client bred them without any water changes for 2 years. Sort of brings into the question the validity of the claim of hormones and other potential issues, there's no dang controls in these folks claims, none. And without a control, there's no factual basis for a good conclusion, it is simple as that.

No one can worm and weasel their way around that issue.
No one can attack the person that raises the issue of the lack of logic in the argument.
No one can talk their way out of the issue.
No smoke screen will avoid the issue of a control in any test.

Still, the question really is, why avoid water changes if you have them freely available and can make things easier as far as management goes? Curiosity?
Perhaps for some folks. But few fall into that group.

You can set up semi and automated water changes if the labor is such a horrid thing. Then that issue goes away. Cost? Water is pretty cheap, you could save far more by usign high grade lighting and dial in the loight correctly and add CO2, this will maximize the light energy yield vs plant growth.

Good plant growth = plant trimmings which = plant sales in the UK.
So your aquarium energy cost should be recouped and certainly would be for the water bill.

I honestly like a sustainable balanced non CO2 tank, see supercolely's tank on UKAPS, he did a nice tank without CO2. a larger version of something like that should work, or like the emergent growth I suggested prior.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

wearsbunnyslippers said:


> i am not saying there is a discus growth regulating hormone, i mean hormones in general. female fish will excrete estrogen, male fish will excrete testosterone etc. etc. these will build up over time.
> 
> there have been studies done on the increasing amount of hormones found in drinking water due to the water being recycled is that proof enough?


No, that is not good enough, it does not answer the question, exogenous hormones have a very different effect than endogenous produced hormones, the same is true for any animal and any plant for that matter. The second issue is that water filtration in drinking water is different due to site specifics of the source of the water, the sierra snow melt I get here is very different than say the Thames river. Drinking water filtration is much different than aquatic plant wetland removal. 

Plants have many different enzymes than can cleave and break many bonds, including hormones, same with bacteria. They have to repair and regulate their own levels in a tightly controlled manner. 

Perhaps I am wrong, but the lion's share of the evidence is on the person making the claim, not on myself. Hobbyist have a very long track record of myths and fear. discus folks are certainly included here, when it comes to NO3, CO2, light etc........

Each one of these claims have been falsified.
They are not hyper sensitive critters.

Same can be said for many of the Shrimps.



> in terrestrial plants, wastes are stored in vacuoles, thickened cell walls or lignified or dropped in the leaves in autumn, aquatic plants do not need to do this and will excrete their wastes directly into the water, these will also build up over time without water changes.


Waste are not stored.

They are cut up into new materials and denatured, then reassimilated, or excreted out. Some drop leaves if not happy.
So what happens in natural systems where there are also plants?
Do these waste just build up to infinite levels?

Even recalcitrant materials such as tannins biodegrade over time and do not increase higher and higher. Mere presence of these chemical hormones also does not imply they have an effect on the growth of the fish.

This is an unknown.



> keeping fish in a tank is very unnatural. i am not of the opinion that doing no water changes is the best way to keep any fish, especially if the reason is because you are lazy to do water changes.


No one is I think in this discussion, the management question remains though.



> i am just saying that if you are going to go this route than to mitigate some of the organic compounds that *will* build up, then filter with carbon.


That can be done or a water change, but I question it has anything to do with the organic build.


I simply have not seen any evidence that sugegst this ina non cO2 no water chaneg planted tank, of which I have a fair amount of *Successful* experience with.

Since I have this experience and have provided a *reference control* for these tanks, it falsifies and raises question the validity of the claims that these organics really are of any significant concern specifically in a planted tank without water changes. Simply because someone else cannot do it, or listens to myths, does not invalidate my results.

Fish stunt and die for many reason unrelated to plants or water changes.
Unless there is some control, some reference, we cannot conclude anything based on such "test".

If some one is able to grow fish, breed them and have them look nice and dandy, nice looking tank etc, then it falsifies the claim. If many have tried to do it and n one was able, then perhaps, but all it takes is one or two folks that have demonstrated otherwise to falsify the grandest hypothesis.

I have falsified this with many other species directly, and know a few that have done it with discus whom I consulted prior. If what you claim is true, why have I been successful and how is it that others where as well?
How is it that I can reproduce this and other folks can and have as well?

Just because you or some Discus breeder cannot do it, does not imply the method is the problem. The method does indeed work.


Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Solid said:


> A few reasons I think. One they are large peaceful fish with bright colors that a lot of people find to be the most attractive freshwater fish. They are also IME smarter than any other freshwater fish being able to recognize people. (My fish knows I am the food source and can distinguish between me and other people) And probably most importantly they are very expensive. 10+ times as expensive as most other freshwater fish, so people put more care into keeping them. Same way you might put more effort/care into taking care of a $1000 zebra pleco colony vs some common bristle nose plecos.


I think the point is why place one critter's life as morally better than another. There's the cost, but I paid 5$ for all my discus from left overs from breeders.
I do not see much value in having such rigid parameters particularly for a species that is highly bred and common in the hobby, perhaps with wild fish coming in, but not tank bred discus. Zebras are fairly tolerant, I set up any and every tank with some care, redundancy. Really does not matter, life is life.

My Zebras are actually in a non CO2 tank. It also holds a couple of species and has massive Fire shrimp breeding and Red whip tail farowellas that have breed 2 dozen times now. Just pulled out some eggs today again.

Water is a bit yellow from the wood, but it is an easy tank and many folks like it.



Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Mxx (Dec 29, 2010)

Reaper Keeper said:


> Mxx
> I don’t get it, Why would you even care what everyone else thought. Rather than ask what everyone else thinks, just do it, then if it works brag your azz off. If it doesn’t you would not have had to endured all the "negative” comments from people who think you are doomed to fail.


The negative comments without a basis in either science or experience are certainly easy enough to brush off. Nevertheless, to give myself the best chance for success I was hoping some here might be able to offer specific advice on what we can do to best make a set-up work with as minimal of water changes as possible, as well as potential pit-falls to watch out for or reasons why this approach would not work. 

It seems that many actually have accomplished this approach with considerable success, so perhaps we can move beyond debating that point into specifics. 

Accordingly, what would be required to make it work though? Would heavy planting itself with simply standard filtration be enough to keep up with the ammonia/nitrates and phosphates produced by moderate stocking densities and generous feedings? (I suspect not)

What sort of bio-filter in relation to tank size would give a set-up the greatest chance for success without compromising plant growth by mopping up all the ammonia too quickly? And I suppose a denitrifying filter would result in having to bother with dosing nitrates rather than letting that balance naturally?

I expect that an ozonizer and reaction chamber would suffice in breaking down any other (potential?) organic compounds into basic compounds which the plants and bacteria can then utilize and eliminate? (I hear that a good UV sterilizer oxidizes organic compounds too, but not as well). 

Would carbon help or be detrimental? (It's supposedly implicated in contributing to hole-in-the-head disease by stripping out trace elements necessary for fish). To filter the ozone output a denitrifying filter can better eliminate the resultant byproducts such as bromine better than carbon can (and doesn't need to be replaced regularly, so perhaps a small denitrifying filter might nevertheless be a good addition. (Some chemical filtration with phosphate absorber might nevertheless prove necessary).

Upon advice received elsewhere, I'm potentially using a mineralized soil underlay to the sand substrate to prevent the need for dosing many compounds for the plants. 

And I suppose I'd have to look at adding some trace elements for the fish, such as those used in reconstituting RO water for discus, as those may be depleted in time without water changes. 

(I apologize for not having read everything out there including Ecology of the Planted Tank prior to asking these things, as perhaps some of these answers are already out there if I looked enough). 

In any, as you'd already have your tank water at the correct ph, cleanliness, temperature, hardness, and everything, it seems like quite a shame to constantly throw much of that water out and have to replace it with water which you've had to carefully adjust to the exact same parameters, if doing so is simply unnecessary and in case there is a better way.


----------



## avandss (Dec 15, 2010)

why try to go from one extreme to another? i dont get it, you have the compulsive water changers and the water changer haters lol..... both i think are exagerated

why not do a water change once every 4-6 months? 2-3 times a year.....


----------



## Mxx (Dec 29, 2010)

avandss said:


> why try to go from one extreme to another? i dont get it, you have the compulsive water changers and the water changer haters lol..... both i think are exagerated
> 
> why not do a water change once every 4-6 months? 2-3 times a year.....


Why not? Well if it doesn't accomplish anything to the benefit of your system then I think that's a fair reason in itself.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

avandss said:


> why try to go from one extreme to another? i dont get it, you have the compulsive water changers and the water changer haters lol..... both i think are exagerated
> 
> why not do a water change once every 4-6 months? 2-3 times a year.....


True


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

IME, IMO, I think activate carbon, as well as purigen does nothing but benefit the aquarium.

Clearer water, less yellow is more my personal preference.
Some might think the carbon remove some DOC's that inhibit plant growth.

However, I used carbon to test another idea: allelopathy.

If allelopathy is the potential cause for reduced algae, then adding AC that would remove the allelopathic chemicals would induce algae, since we have now removed the repression/chemical inhibitor.

But that's not the case with any one that's used AC.

O3 is a poor option since the return water would also need scrubbed, typically with AC, to remove residual O3. UV does little.

You can try these, I did many years ago.
I found nothing supportive but falsified many of these claims.

So.........

I think using techy solution often complicates the aquarium.
I think just my common sense approaches works far better, are superior.
Things like reasonable stocking solution to volume of plant biomass.
Use some floating or emergent plants(these can be placed in the sump as well). Do not freak out too much if you do do a water change.
Do not expect/demand max growth/feeding, but instead have long term happy livestock that can still breed and be happy over many years.

Do I also demand/require max growth rates from plants?
No, I honestly do not wan that, I'd rather have smaller adult discus truthfully since I could keep more of those vs the max sized fish.

The fish are still nice and frisky etc, just not quite as large, is that "bad"??
I think that's a very open question.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

I truly believe that the suttle suggestion of Non CO2, low maint ,low tech, and once tank is planted, and plant's are thriving, introducing Adult Discus ,is the way forward for OP's stated goal.
Can't help but return to the first post where OP states"I have neither the time,or inclination to perform regular water changes" and the person want's high tech,low maint tank. With CO2 and all of the equip mentioned thus far, (ie) UV sterilizer,and or ozonizer(sp), carbon,RO,crushed coral or Buffering powder's ,chemical media,Phosphate removers, Testing,etc,, I believe this to be anything but a low maint endeavor. Add to this, the care needed in my view to raise decent looking juvenile Discus, and the whole thing to me ,,looks like a train wreck waiting to happen.
A Non CO2 ,low tech,low maint approach where plant's define the system,very few water changes,maybe periodic dosing of tiny amount of fertilizer (no more difficult than feeding fishes),, will in my view have best chance of success with stated goals that OP has expressed.
If adult fish are chosen rather than juveniles, and are captive bred locally,then there is very good chance that they have adapted to the local water and thus things become even easier with respect to water and perhaps RO becomes moot point.
Would not expect fishes to successfully breed in stated hard water, but then this was not indicated as desire for endeavor chosen.
Plenty of folks with opinions, and measured opinion's are a good thing. My own opinion is just that,an opinion.
I wish the OP much success and look forward to the outcome.


----------



## wkndracer (Mar 14, 2009)

/\ roadmaster /\ summed it up very well, great post to an interesting thread.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

OP was honest about their desire and habits, not easy for some to admit to:tongue:


----------



## Mxx (Dec 29, 2010)

Some very fair points certainly. To be honest, I very much enjoy the technological approach and don't mind the aspects of tinkering with those. But I'd be doing that as well as the testing/monitoring/dosing regardless of whether I was doing regular water changes, so the work of water changes would still be atop that and of course I have some time to put into this hobby.

I'm using carbon in my current trial tank to remove the tannins from the bogwood currently. But I believe O3 can play in part a similar role, in keeping the water crystal clear and free of DOC and tannins. The O3 return water can be scrubbed through a nitrate filter it seems instead of through carbon which would seem preferable to me if I knew it was always scrubbing it 100% instead of fading after a few days. Unfortunately I found out that a CO2 PH controller doesn't work in quite the way I thought and isn't as effective on those aspects of PH that are of the most relevance it seems, so I may need to rethink that. The canister filters I'm looking at come standard with UV sterilizers, but I'm not sure if they're any good and I'd heard that UV destroys some organic compounds that are actually beneficial to plants, so I'd wondered if it'd be better to yank the bulbs from it if I was to use those filters. Is a TDS meter helpful in any way in determining water quality and whether a WC is needed by the way? 

If I started with sub-adult discus in a large tank and fed them as heavily as maintaining high water quality allows for a year before adding other fish then that perhaps might enable me to raise them to a decent size still myself. (As I said, as far as results allow, and I'm not entirely sure how that would pan out). 

I could use chemical filtration to be on the safe side, but if the tank is looking good, if water quality is high, and the plants are doing there job then I'd prefer to steer clear of things such as carbon, phosphate remover, other chemical media, and UV. However the quality of my tap water is really poor here, so I'd have to use RO, or at least filter it through peat beforehand in order for it to be acceptable to use in the tank, and I don't think any local breeders would be using straight tap here. 

And as I'd said, if some water changes proved necessary then fine. When I referred to regular water changes I was in part referring to the WC regimens that most discus keepers seem to do, of at least several large water changes per week, if not daily. And several water changes a week is a far cry from a water change every several weeks, which I wouldn't have so much of a problem with (as long as I didn't have to try to siphon every scrap off the bottom of a tank that is completely planted) and could automate it more to just throwing a switch. Even so I'd want to know for sure whether that was doing any good or was just wasting water, but perhaps the only way to actually find out is to test that myself and see if it can actually be done with discus, (while hoping any one of the other variables that many people have disrupting their own systems wouldn't disrupt my own 'trial' if that's what I was to think of it as.

I must read more into the high-tech versus low-tech debate and what impact CO2 might have. Initially I though it would have increased plant growth, (requiring more trimming perhaps, but allowing one to use up more metabolic byproducts and also serving as a path for nutrient export out of the system. If I followed the suggestion I'd had of using mineralized soil in the substrate then fertilizing and dosing become a moot point perhaps, and the high lighting required would give me some additional choices in which plant species could thrive in my system.


----------



## Mxx (Dec 29, 2010)

To add to that, I checked what the current thinking seems to be in keeping marine reef tanks according to one of the more recent books. Reef tanks of course have fish and invertebrates that are much more sensitive typically to poor water quality and changes than freshwater fish are, but the systems work much the same othewise, apart from the fact that they use porous rock to biologically eliminate nitrates, use protein skimmers which are effective in saltwater, and don't typically have plants to use up the ammonia/nitrates/phosphates. I thought a book would err on the conservative side, but they suggest the following which seems so minor that it'd be on the verge of having hardly any impact at all. 

_The New Marine Aquarium (2001)_ book states -
There has been much debate as to whether water changes are necessary or not, as well as how often and how much should be changed. After experimenting with just about every water-change scenario, I now employ the routine of a 5% change every other week. I've seen visible improvements in my tanks with this water-change plan. 
(Other equally successful aquarists have different schedules: weekly changes of 5%, biweekly changes of 10%, or even a very small daily water change-in the order of 1/2 to 1% of the tank's volume. Old-school hobbyists often practices large water changes of 25-30%, but these tend to be more stressful on the livestock and are not recommended for typical marine aquariums except in emergencies or major rescue efforts). If in doubt about how much water to change, the nitrate level and alkalinity of the system are good indicators of overall water quality.


----------



## avandss (Dec 15, 2010)

well i REALLY hope this works out.... your obviously on to something....


----------



## Betta Maniac (Dec 3, 2010)

Mxx said:


> Reef tanks of course have fish and invertebrates that are much more sensitive typically to poor water quality and changes than freshwater fish are,


I thought it was the higher pH of reef tanks that caused this? The higher pH means that changes in water quality are far more severe for the fish, whereas in a normal planted tank, the pH keeps most of the ammonia locked in its harmless ammonium form.


----------



## Mxx (Dec 29, 2010)

avandss said:


> well i REALLY hope this works out.... your obviously on to something....


Not something I can claim credit for certainly. It's been done successfully by many others with different species, and discus are just the same really as any other fish as had been said. But thanks for the encouragement nevertheless!


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Mxx said:


> To add to that, I checked what the current thinking seems to be in keeping marine reef tanks according to one of the more recent books. Reef tanks of course have fish and invertebrates that are much more sensitive typically to poor water quality and changes than freshwater fish are, but the systems work much the same othewise, apart from the fact that they use porous rock to biologically eliminate nitrates, use protein skimmers which are effective in saltwater, and don't typically have plants to use up the ammonia/nitrates/phosphates. I thought a book would err on the conservative side, but they suggest the following which seems so minor that it'd be on the verge of having hardly any impact at all.
> 
> _The New Marine Aquarium (2001)_ book states -
> There has been much debate as to whether water changes are necessary or not, as well as how often and how much should be changed. After experimenting with just about every water-change scenario, I now employ the routine of a 5% change every other week. I've seen visible improvements in my tanks with this water-change plan.
> (Other equally successful aquarists have different schedules: weekly changes of 5%, biweekly changes of 10%, or even a very small daily water change-in the order of 1/2 to 1% of the tank's volume. Old-school hobbyists often practices large water changes of 25-30%, but these tend to be more stressful on the livestock and are not recommended for typical marine aquariums except in emergencies or major rescue efforts). If in doubt about how much water to change, the nitrate level and alkalinity of the system are good indicators of overall water quality.


Marine folks have a much more financial incentative: the cost of pre mixed salt. It's also a hassle to pre mix the water etc.

FW?
Cheap and easy.

The labor is really a non issue.

The O3? That requires monitoring and careful use and it's not cheap.
Some folks wing it, I know......but I think if you buy into the techy approach and are more careful, this ends up being a 100-400$ expense, and a simple semi or fully automated water change + water cost will take a long long time to make up this expense difference.

Perhaps you might want to really look into automated water change schemes???

I'm not trying to dissuade, but given the trade offs, this might be a strong consideration. You will not break new ground either way here, so it's really more what will make it easier for you given the input you are willing to do.

More techy stuff?
More manure that will break and need to learn about and fix and maintain.
There's a trade off there going too far.

I've got clients like this, they wanna do it all, but then cannot learn about all the issues and calibrations to keep up on it all:icon_roll
Automation has its trade offs.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Mxx said:


> Is a TDS meter helpful in any way in determining water quality and whether a WC is needed by the way?


No, not really.



> And as I'd said, if some water changes proved necessary then fine. When I referred to regular water changes I was in part referring to the WC regimens that most discus keepers seem to do, of at least several large water changes per week, if not daily. And several water changes a week is a far cry from a water change every several weeks, which I wouldn't have so much of a problem with (as long as I didn't have to try to siphon every scrap off the bottom of a tank that is completely planted) and could automate it more to just throwing a switch. Even so I'd want to know for sure whether that was doing any good or was just wasting water, but perhaps the only way to actually find out is to test that myself and see if it can actually be done with discus, (while hoping any one of the other variables that many people have disrupting their own systems wouldn't disrupt my own 'trial' if that's what I was to think of it as.


Few do more than 2x a week anyway.



> I must read more into the high-tech versus low-tech debate and what impact CO2 might have. Initially I though it would have increased plant growth, (requiring more trimming perhaps, but allowing one to use up more metabolic byproducts and also serving as a path for nutrient export out of the system. If I followed the suggestion I'd had of using mineralized soil in the substrate then fertilizing and dosing become a moot point perhaps, and the high lighting required would give me some additional choices in which plant species could thrive in my system.


Depends on which species you chose for more trimming requirements, well thought out, the java ferns, the Anubias, the hair grass etc can work wonders without little care.

Then CO2 makes a lot of sense.
Then you are using the natural processes of plants at an amplified rate to match the amplified bioloading.

Why waste $, labor and complexity when plants will do most of the work?
Isn't that the point?

Sediment ferts + light water column dosing is the best easiest management
done correctly, you are looking at dosing 1-2x a week with low light + CO2 gas with a decent sediment. Water change say once a month.

Here's an example:










But since you seem to have the aversion to dosing........like as if it some horrid chore or labor.......how do you plan to dose the fish food?
Fully automated there as well?

Why not just put the dry ferts into the dosing for the food as well for the fish and the plants?
Simple solution.

If you plan on manually dosing the fish food, then it's only another 15 sec of time to add food for the plants.
Either way, it is not a chore.

So then you can come back to the water change issue and automate or not, and the same is true for CO2 and plant choices.
Lighting in all cases should be at the 1w/gal to 1.5w/gal max for any T5's systems available in the UK.


----------



## Mxx (Dec 29, 2010)

Hi Tom, interesting how you so often seem to have the definitive last word on these threads! And certainly helpful to have an expert opinion, so thanks. 

In any case, following extensive discussion by many here as well as on the _Why do water changes?_ thread, I'm having to conclude that water changes are not necessary for all tanks, (dependent upon plant growth, filtration, bio-loading, resultant water quality, etc). They may certainly be beneficial to most systems which are not balanced and which therefore experiences build-ups of one type or another, but of course many people have success without water changes as well in properly planted and stocked tanks. 

And despite all the hypothesises to the contrary offered here, nobody seems to have any firm idea (or evidence for that matter), on why water might become 'broken' and have to be replaced in time. I'm just going to have to go way way out on a limb here, and suggest that unless water has its molecular bonds between H and O atoms wearing out in time in our tanks for some peculiar reason, then it can continue to be re-used indefinitely.  Of course proper filtration/planting, and treatment including some remineralization, buffering, etc would continue to be necessary. But those treatments and remineralization would be even more necessary for the RO water I'd have to use for water changes here anyway. 

I was at first certainly of the mindset to use CO2 to produce amplified plant growth to match the amplified bioloading. But then it had also been suggested that certain floating plants utilize atmospheric CO2. Therefore, I could instead harvest fast growing floating plants to cycle nutrients out of the tank, without even requiring the use of C02 to achieve intensive growth from them, (I believe). I already have a digital PH controlled CO2 system now, so I wouldn't mind using it at first to get the plants to a quick start and then using just a little bit as seems appropriate to keep the decorative plants looking good but without excessive growth. 

I'd be truly delighted if the plants did all the work and I didn't need any complex equipment, but so far as I'm aware I believe that low bio-loads and low feeding are required for that to work. So I'd like to have the safety net of a bio-filtration system with an extensive capacity as well to appropriately sustain a decent amount of bio-loading. And especially so if I'm to pursue aggressive growth rates for discus with numerous generous feedings daily. As they'd reach adult size then the filtration might be able to be pared back though as seems appropriate, in case the filtration was competing excessively with the plants for nutrients.

I don't have any aversion to dosing itself, but I was concerned that if I'm not monitoring the levels of each trace element then some of those could build up excessively in time if I wasn't careful. And it seems that for that reason others have suggested mineralized topsoil under the sand, which it seems takes the concern of dosing build-ups entirely out of the pictures. MTS apparently ensures the plants have everything they need without those elements being in the water column, which apparently helps to minimize algae growth. If I didn't go with the MTS then I would be dosing myself though, which would be fine. 

And to be honest, I would probably be automating the dosing of food to some extent. With discus I'd want to still do at least one or two feedings of frozen food a day, but with an automatic feeder I could add an additional two feedings a day to give them a better chance of obtaining their proper size. 

I'll have to think about it carefully, but I suppose that if I set up a 29 gallon tank in the stand then I could use that to automate whatever water changes were necessary, as well as use it as the quarantine tank in case I didn't require its constant use for frequent water changes.


----------



## apro (Jan 25, 2006)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqdrtVYBQDY&context=C3bd6ccdADOEgsToPDskKgIpulEWDcf3a26y9LVJBc


----------

