# No More Filters or Substrate For Me!!!



## tomfromstlouis (Apr 2, 2012)

I read the article and it seems to me that he IS using filters.

That said, his simple approach makes some sense and reminds me of the bare bottom approach discus breeders often use. If breeding fish is your primary goal then what the tank looks like is secondary.

My goals for my tanks are different, so my approach is different. If you want calming aquatic gardens of beauty and inspiration then there is little in his approach to note.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

tomfromstlouis said:


> I read the article and it seems to me that he IS using filters.
> 
> That said, his simple approach makes some sense and reminds me of the bare bottom approach discus breeders often use. If breeding fish is your primary goal then what the tank looks like is secondary.
> 
> My goals for my tanks are different, so my approach is different. If you want calming aquatic gardens of beauty and inspiration then there is little in his approach to note.


Indeed. I am giving up the type of beauty you can only get with hard work. But, this type of beauty is on a different level. Cleaner tanks, happy fish, and I do less work! Yea! He is using a filter, I know, but the plants take over 2/3rd of the tank area, and act as a biological filter in the best way. It is very beautiful to me. Control over every variable is the name of this game. And I like the results and lack of work. The plants and fish are more beautiful to me when they aren't so much trouble and expense!


----------



## TLE041 (Jan 16, 2010)

12.5W of light in a 10 gallon tank is not ultra high light in any setup, especially with all the floaters in this one.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

TLE041 said:


> 12.5W of light in a 10 gallon tank is not ultra high light in any setup, especially with all the floaters in this one.


That is watts per gallon. So, 125 watts hanging over a 10 gallon tank. I apologize if I said that incorrectly. I believe that is ultra high at that wattage.


----------



## HDBenson (Jan 26, 2015)

That is a lot of light. How far above the tank and, why so much? Also, how long have you had this set up?

Bump: I'm interested in what you are doing here - so, perhaps some photos and more info?


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

AWolf said:


> That is watts per gallon. So, 125 watts hanging over a 10 gallon tank. I apologize if I said that incorrectly. I believe that is ultra high at that wattage.


I just edited to correct. 125 watts over a 10 gallon tank. My apologies.


----------



## Raymond S. (Dec 29, 2012)

I hope it works out for you. Lots of people go outside the box to get what they want.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

HDBenson said:


> That is a lot of light. How far above the tank and, why so much? Also, how long have you had this set up?
> 
> Bump: I'm interested in what you are doing here - so, perhaps some photos and more info?


Just two weeks now. So, ...we shall see if I remain so pleased in the coming weeks. But the changes in my fishes behaviors and lack of algae has impressed me. They are so active and bright. I have a Feliz 125 2700K about four to six inches above the tank. The floating plants are so thick, that I thought I'd need to really douse them with radiation! So far, so good. I will take some pics tomorrow and attach to my profile gallery. My daughter borrowed my camera for the fireworks tonight. Happy Independence day everyone!

Bump:


Raymond S. said:


> I hope it works out for you. Lots of people go outside the box to get what they want.


----------



## keymastr (May 25, 2015)

If it makes you happy then go for it. I personally don't see how 125 watts on a 10 gallon tank would not be an algae factory especially being a part of the spectrum that plants do not use as much.

I usually spend less than 30 minutes a week to perform maintenance chores on my tanks and it is mostly fun and relaxing but that is why there are so many types of aquarium setups. Whatever makes you happy is all that matters.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

Raymond S. said:


> I hope it works out for you. Lots of people go outside the box to get what they want.


Me too. So far, so good. But I think it is the lack of hiding for nasties and the 50% water changes that does the trick so far.

Bump:


keymastr said:


> If it makes you happy then go for it. I personally don't see how 125 watts on a 10 gallon tank would not be an algae factory especially being a part of the spectrum that plants do not use as much.
> 
> I usually spend less than 30 minutes a week to perform maintenance chores on my tanks and it is mostly fun and relaxing but that is why there are so many types of aquarium setups. Whatever makes you happy is all that matters.


I know! I think the huge amount of plant material is sucking up every bit of the algae growth. I see some algae on a rock that I use to hold down the air hose, but I just pull it out and clean when I change water. It's all new to me. But so far, so good. The article explained a similar scenario.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

HDBenson said:


> That is a lot of light. How far above the tank and, why so much? Also, how long have you had this set up?
> 
> Bump: I'm interested in what you are doing here - so, perhaps some photos and more info?


*UPDATE: I have since stopped using any air in these tanks. 

*Regarding the air pump: I have three lines. One that is held down at the bottom with a rock, (no air stone, just straight up air hose}, the other two are just 'stuck' into the mass of plants near the top at opposite ends of the tank for major surface agitation at night. They are about 2 inches from the surface, and are just straight air hose. No air stone attached in this setup at all. I like listening to the bubbles at night. For a bonus, the sound is white noise, and the world sounds as if I am under water while I sleep. Lovely. blub blub blub...


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

HDBenson said:


> That is a lot of light. How far above the tank and, why so much? Also, how long have you had this set up?
> 
> Bump: I'm interested in what you are doing here - so, perhaps some photos and more info?


Regarding the lighting:

I originally had LED's on my tanks equalling approx. 1.5 watts/gal. My crypts, anubia, and dwarf lillies and onions did just fine, but I had so much work against algae and the white bacterial outbreaks. I had moderate to heavily planted tanks on all 4 of my ten gallon tanks. I had gravel on 3 and sand on 1 tank. I used hob's rated for 20-30 gallon tanks. No Co2. Regular ferts. Most fish and plants did fine, but lost cory's constantly. Cleaned filters and substrates on reasonable time tables. Algae was mostly on my plants. I think lack of light? Plants grew fine. Still have same fish after three years in some tanks. But work to clean filters, glass, gravel, plants, grew tiresome. I didn't fail on any tank, and never had a 'kill' scenario. But I did have to work hard to keep things clean. So that is why I am trying something new. Since I went out and bought the lysimachia nummularia at the garden center, and it had been in regular sun all day, I had no issue with starting a new tank with such high watts. All of my original plants were taken outside to a quarantine tank so I could try this new system. I put the lysimachia nummularia into my old tanks for about three weeks, and then I started a clean tank. The plants now had bacteria from the old tanks, and I threw in the ball of plants, and added my fish from my other tanks. Big difference in their behavior! Much more active. I am really hoping this works long term.


----------



## HDBenson (Jan 26, 2015)

2700k is not high.. K ranges from less than 2700k to upwards of 10,000k. A lot of us running between 5000 and 6500k as mentioned these ranges are in the usable spectrum for plants. Maybe find the same light in this temp range and that algae might disappear. Also, for aesthetic purposes and for the cories sake add enough sand to completely cover the bottom with about 1/4" or less - just a suggestion..


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

HDBenson said:


> 2700k is not high.. K ranges from less than 2700k to upwards of 10,000k. A lot of us running between 5000 and 6500k as mentioned these ranges are in the usable spectrum for plants. Maybe find the same light in this temp range and that algae might disappear. Also, for aesthetic purposes and for the cories sake add enough sand to completely cover the bottom with about 1/4" or less - just a suggestion..


I'm not getting annoying algae with 2700 125w lights so far. But let's see how they do. There is so much misinformation out there, and the red to white spectrum is under great scrutiny by the experts. It seems in many experiments, that the 2700 to 6000K works fine in most instances. It's like wattage. Experts are still disagreeing with what is appropriate for each instance. So, it's up to us to experiment, and report back.


----------



## mistergreen (Dec 9, 2006)

You'll have to do more water changes more often. Lots of people who are into discus and large fish do no substrate tank. They have large filters though. 

There's nothing wrong with gunk and food bits in the filter. It provides a healthy bacterial colony that maintains a healthy tank. Your body and intestines are healthy because of bacteria. It goes bad when the good bacteria are weakened and gives the bad ones a chance.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

cl


HDBenson said:


> 2700k is not high.. K ranges from less than 2700k to upwards of 10,000k. A lot of us running between 5000 and 6500k as mentioned these ranges are in the usable spectrum for plants. Maybe find the same light in this temp range and that algae might disappear. Also, for aesthetic purposes and for the cories sake add enough sand to completely cover the bottom with about 1/4" or less - just a suggestion..


If my corys are happier than ever, why would I want to add more sand to clean? That would be against the whole point of this experiment. Sometimes more, is just more.

Bump:


mistergreen said:


> You'll have to do more water changes more often. Lots of people who are into discus and large fish do no substrate tank. They have large filters though.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with gunk and food bits in the filter. It provides a healthy bacterial colony that maintains a healthy tank. Your body and intestines are healthy because of bacteria. It goes bad when the good bacteria are weakened and gives the bad ones a chance.


I thought so too, until it just took more time to clean a nasty tank. This is a clean way to go....unheard of? I'm experimenting, and hope for the best. That so called healthy bacterial and mulmy yuk is no longer in my equation...and it is working so far. That is the whole point to posting this. I really think it can work for me.


----------



## HDBenson (Jan 26, 2015)

AWolf said:


> cl
> If my corys are happier than ever, why would I want to add more sand...


ARE the cories happier than ever? Cories are substrate sifters by nature. You are denying them of what they naturally do as a genus.. just to make it easier on YOU.. if you're okay with that awesome - if not, okay then too.


----------



## Mariostg (Sep 6, 2014)

My tanks, 3 dirted sand capped and one on gravel are so "maintenanceless" that I added HOB planters and planters above the tanks and as of today setting up a river on top of my 75 gal just so I have something to do with them.

Let me think... when did I do a water change? Hum none since I filled them up. About the same frequency for glass cleaning.

My tanks are boring. All I have to do is feed the fishes, trim the plants, top up as water evaporates and throw in some ferts not found in fish food. Oh and clean filters when not much water is coming out.


----------



## mistergreen (Dec 9, 2006)

AWolf said:


> cl
> That so called healthy bacterial and mulmy yuk is no longer in my equation....


It's not 'so called'. It is. Heard of nitrifying bacteria?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

Mariostg said:


> My tanks, 3 dirted sand capped and one on gravel are so "maintenanceless" that I added HOB planters and planters above the tanks and as of today setting up a river on top of my 75 gal just so I have something to do with them.
> 
> Let me think... when did I do a water change? Hum none since I filled them up. About the same frequency for glass cleaning.
> 
> My tanks are boring. All I have to do is feed the fishes, trim the plants, top up as water evaporates and throw in some ferts not found in fish food. Oh and clean filters when not much water is coming out.


Beautiful Tanks! I wish I could afford the large tanks. They are so much more stable than the 10 gallons I own.

Bump:


mistergreen said:


> It's not 'so called'. It is. Heard of nitrifying bacteria?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


Wow. Your sarcasm is glaring. Yes, I know what it is.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

HDBenson said:


> ARE the cories happier than ever? Cories are substrate sifters by nature. You are denying them of what they naturally do as a genus.. just to make it easier on YOU.. if you're okay with that awesome - if not, okay then too.


*UPDATE: I have removed what little sand was in the tank.
*
Cory's also live in the wild 'by nature'. So your whole premise is academic. They do have some sand. They are more active than when they had a whole 2 inches over the whole bottom of the tank. They are alive. That's a good thing.


----------



## Kubla (Jan 5, 2014)

> Bump:
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by mistergreen View Post
> It's not 'so called'. It is. Heard of nitrifying bacteria?
> ...



There is some sarcasm there but he's pointing that you're trying to throw away established science to help promote this method. I'm very neutral on what you're trying to do, but don't build it up by statements like "so called helpful bacteria"





> They are alive and seemingly well! But, if you want, I will ask them and the other fish just what I can do to make them happier. hehehhehehe...nuts



Really? That's what you post immediately after chastising someone for sarcasm?




> There is so much misinformation out there, and the red to white spectrum is under great scrutiny by the experts.


One thing that's not under scrutiny and agreed on by most experts. Talking watts per gallon is worthless.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

*This is an experiment!*

It is not harming the fish! So far, they are more active and the tank is much cleaner. I liken it to a large fish bowl. Since these tanks are only 10 gallons, I cannot have the stability of the larger tanks. Inherently, a 10 gallon can easily become unstable. I am correcting for that with this method. I am taking out the variables that can cause issue, that is all. The nitrifying bacteria that clogged my filters, the mulm that clogged my filters, the good, the bad and the yuky, are all under control with this method. I am sharing this with everyone in case there are others like me who have smallish tanks and are constantly dealing with the fluctuations of water quality due to cleaning, temp., planting, algae blooms, and over feeding. The article mentions these issues, and suggests a way to avoid them altogether with this method. 10 gallon tanks can be very beautiful, but very deadly to fish when any variable changes. It can throw the whole tank into a spin. By taking these variables out, I am able to simply do water changes and light cleaning, like on a goldfish bowl. If I over feed, no problem, it is cleaned quickly, and not sucked up into the filter or hidden down in gravel to rot. In the course of six months or so, a regularly cleaned and maintained 10 gallon tank can have nasties hiding everywhere. Not with this method. The build up of nitrifying bacteria is not an issue, and I don't have to clean any filters when they stop up due to the stuff.
*
UPDATE: I changed my mind, from my experience so far, I think this could work just fine on larger tanks. You will need a huge load of plants, however!*

Again, this is for small tanks only. I don't recommend nor does the article recommend this method for larger tanks. If I had the space, and the money, I could play with the large tanks that can handle fluctuations more easily. But alas, that is not the case with me. I hope this can help others in the same way it has helped me so far.


----------



## Desertsp (Feb 17, 2013)

AWolf said:


> I'm not getting annoying algae with 2700 125w lights so far. But let's see how they do. There is so much misinformation out there, and the red to white spectrum is under great scrutiny by the experts. It seems in many experiments, that the 2700 to 6000K works fine in most instances. It's like wattage. Experts are still disagreeing with what is appropriate for each instance. So, it's up to us to experiment, and report back.



This is what I've found too. In researching for new lights. Most seem to believe that a specific range on the Kelvin scale is best for aesthetics and/or growth. In reality, kelvin is far too simplistic of a measure to truly indicate how a light looks or grows plants. Plants respond more strongly to specific ranges of red and blue light, and kelvin is not determined directly from those specific wavelengths. For instance, you could have a low kelvin (warm looking) light because it peaks in the yellow colors, or because it peaks in the specific red that plants like, but also has some blue. The former will probably look pretty bad and grow plants poorly, and the later will grow plants well, and may look good too. And plants can use more than just red and blue light, although those produce the strongest response which is why grow lights look purple. 

The actual spectrum is what matters,. It's like saying a car is fast or slow because of its horsepower, ignoring the weight, torque, transmission, and everything else that matters just as much. 

Anyways (sorry for changing the subject) I like the whole idea you're trying! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

Kubla said:


> There is some sarcasm there but he's pointing that you're trying to throw away established science to help promote this method. I'm very neutral on what you're trying to do, but don't build it up by statements like "so called helpful bacteria"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are right, but I am getting frazzled by some comments. Many have been deleted because they were nasty. I think somehow, this topic has hit a nerve with some. I apologize for ever mentioning this method if it offends the reader's sensibilities. But I am trying to discuss and learn. People need to relax.

Bump:


Desertsp said:


> This is what I've found too. In researching for new lights. Most seem to believe that a specific range on the Kelvin scale is best for aesthetics and/or growth. In reality, kelvin is far too simplistic of a measure to truly indicate how a light looks or grows plants. Plants respond more strongly to specific ranges of red and blue light, and kelvin is not determined directly from those specific wavelengths. For instance, you could have a low kelvin (warm looking) light because it peaks in the yellow colors, or because it peaks in the specific red that plants like, but also has some blue. The former will probably look pretty bad and grow plants poorly, and the later will grow plants well, and may look good too. And plants can use more than just red and blue light, although those produce the strongest response which is why grow lights look purple.
> 
> The actual spectrum is what matters,. It's like saying a car is fast or slow because of its horsepower, ignoring the weight, torque, transmission, and everything else that matters just as much.
> 
> ...


Thanks for your comments. Lighting can be confusing. But with this method, even if my lighting is too much, or too little, or just right, it can all be corrected quickly and easily by simply cleaning out the tank and starting over. With substrates, and planted materials in that substrate, it can be a real hassle to clean up after a lighting fail.


----------



## Kalyke (Dec 1, 2014)

Hi. 
getting back to the original message. The original author dwelt on the fact of gravel trapping mulm, fish waste, etc., which it does. The trend seems to be for larger and larger stacks of media at the bottom of the tank, especially as it seems for dirted tanks. I am working on a 75 gallon tank now, and may use some of these ideas. 

I could be totally wrong, but in the llives of many fish, when born young fry, and when small and weak, they do hide in the grass and plant life, and most likely eat the "mulm" trapped in the plant life. The plants act like a sive to trap this detrius, and use it for their fertilizing needs. When a person makes a "planted tank" they are creating a debris trapping sive where many fish would not necessarily spend much of their lives. I have looked at the life of stream fish. They duck into little hides on the edge and in pools. There may be a few random plants there, but the current of the stream washes much of the "strata" away or sends it to places between the rocks. So when I was reading this article, I was thinking, not less strata, but more rocks, and where plants would sort of "edge" areas, the entire idea of a planted tank could only appeal to "swamp" fish. Looking at a go pro type underwater video of many of the natural habitats of these fish, you see wood, rocks, and not so much plants, except maybe some hair algae here and there. Algea is a plant. 

As far as light, it is again for the plants. If you try to grow full sun plants, you need full sun light. So really, one of the posters was correct in saying that he or she did it for the aesthetics, not necessarily the health of fish or plants. The other person who wrote the article was a breeder who wanted healthy fish and the ability to clean a tank quickly. That is totally different from saying he wanted a "pretty" tank. 


As an animal lover, I would say what is best for the fish, whether they cost 2.99 each or 200.99. 

I am wondering if anyone can answer if instead of polyester floss, reconstituted sphagnum moss would be a better filter media? It would be Biodegradable and could be put in the compost heap.


----------



## BruceF (Aug 5, 2011)

Greg Sage is not pretending he does not use filters. He uses them in all his tanks. He runs a central airline 24/7 with sponge filters. That is how he keeps his bacteria colonies healthy.


----------



## Kubla (Jan 5, 2014)

> You are right, but I am getting frazzled by some comments. Many have been deleted because they were nasty. I think somehow, this topic has hit a nerve with some. I apologize for ever mentioning this method if it offends the reader's sensibilities. But I am trying to discuss and learn. People need to relax.




This whole thing is going against common practices and the "norm" and some folks will always have issues with that. 

I watched the video on the website. He has some beautiful tanks and fish. If I was breeding, I would probably adopt a lot of his methods. The total appearance just isn't right for a lot of folks. Hardscape is a big deal for a lot of us. I never did find anything on the site about lighting though. How did you come about choosing the light?

Bump:


> As an animal lover, I would say what is best for the fish, whether they cost 2.99 each or 200.99



That is true...to a point. But, except for the breeding of endangered species, what would be best for the fish is to not keep them in captivity.


----------



## Nano-Nater (May 28, 2007)

Kubla said:


> _This whole thing is going against common practices and the "norm" and some folks will always have issues with that.
> _
> _ The total appearance just isn't right for a lot of folks. Hardscape is a big deal for a lot of us_


:hihi: Exactly what I wanted to Post.


----------



## mistergreen (Dec 9, 2006)

AWolf said:


> Wow. Your sarcasm is glaring. Yes, I know what it is.


I kid, I kid.


----------



## Nano-Nater (May 28, 2007)

mistergreen said:


> I kid, I kid.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHPRZARxHn0&t=0m58s
This goes so well with the situation!:hihi:

_Edit_: Lol this post also gives me 101 total posts for an Ironic bonus "LoL"


----------



## windelov (May 30, 2015)

I am interested to see how this works out in the long run. I feel like without substrate or filters for bacterial colonization, the ammonia/nitrite/nitrate would build up in the long term, without being fully converted into NO3. Increased frequency of water changes would combat this, but that would go against the idea of lower maintenance. I'm curious if what your chems would look like now, and then six months from now.

I had a 10 gallon planted tank that was borderline overstocked with Harlequin Rasboras (but also way overfiltered) and had maybe 2" of eco-complete substrate that was set up for about 1.5 years. I did a water change on that tank once a month, chems never changed. Once it was done cycling, the only times the chems changed was when I broke the tank down. It is possible to have a stable 10 gallon in the long run. 

Again, curious about the long term results


----------



## flamechica (Jan 27, 2015)

I agree with windelov. It is completely possible to have a stable 10g tank. I have 2. 

You are focusing too much on cleaning your filters and substrate. That mulm and gunk or whatever you called it, like so many people have pointed out, is helpful to good nitrifying bacteria. If you leave it well enough alone, your tank would be stable. I only do a big cleaning of my substrate every 6mo to 9mo. My filter media only gets rinsed in aquarium water (when doing a washer change, not in the tank, obviously) when the flow gets slow (maybe once a month or every other month). You were making things too hard on yourself by over cleaning, IMO. I used to over clean and make things harder on myself. I learned the hard way too. Now, I know better. And as far as algae goes, if your plants are getting the nutrients they need, they will out compete the algae everytime. If I forget a dose, I get algae. If I keep up on my ferts, never any algae and I get to enjoy a beautiful planted tank.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

windelov said:


> I am interested to see how this works out in the long run. I feel like without substrate or filters for bacterial colonization, the ammonia/nitrite/nitrate would build up in the long term, without being fully converted into NO3. Increased frequency of water changes would combat this, but that would go against the idea of lower maintenance. I'm curious if what your chems would look like now, and then six months from now.
> 
> I had a 10 gallon planted tank that was borderline overstocked with Harlequin Rasboras (but also way overfiltered) and had maybe 2" of eco-complete substrate that was set up for about 1.5 years. I did a water change on that tank once a month, chems never changed. Once it was done cycling, the only times the chems changed was when I broke the tank down. It is possible to have a stable 10 gallon in the long run.
> 
> Again, curious about the long term results


*UPDATE: I am now only changing about 35% of the water every 7-9 days. All is well.
*
You are right. This requires weekly 50% water changes so far. But for a 10g tank, that only takes a short time. The plants are loaded with the beneficial bacteria, and seem to keep the water quite clear for about 3-4 days, then I start to see the inevitable cloudiness like you would in a goldfish bowl. I haven't tested for qualities. I had four 10g heavily planted for years, but it took much more work to hold parameters in check since they are small tanks. That was my experience. This new method really takes much less time per week. I am pleased so far. This is the first time I've seen my cory's so active. That alone makes it worth it to some degree!

Bump:


Kalyke said:


> Hi.
> getting back to the original message. The original author dwelt on the fact of gravel trapping mulm, fish waste, etc., which it does. The trend seems to be for larger and larger stacks of media at the bottom of the tank, especially as it seems for dirted tanks. I am working on a 75 gallon tank now, and may use some of these ideas.
> 
> I could be totally wrong, but in the llives of many fish, when born young fry, and when small and weak, they do hide in the grass and plant life, and most likely eat the "mulm" trapped in the plant life. The plants act like a sive to trap this detrius, and use it for their fertilizing needs. When a person makes a "planted tank" they are creating a debris trapping sive where many fish would not necessarily spend much of their lives. I have looked at the life of stream fish. They duck into little hides on the edge and in pools. There may be a few random plants there, but the current of the stream washes much of the "strata" away or sends it to places between the rocks. So when I was reading this article, I was thinking, not less strata, but more rocks, and where plants would sort of "edge" areas, the entire idea of a planted tank could only appeal to "swamp" fish. Looking at a go pro type underwater video of many of the natural habitats of these fish, you see wood, rocks, and not so much plants, except maybe some hair algae here and there. Algea is a plant.
> ...


Good stuff. Thanks.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

Kubla said:


> This whole thing is going against common practices and the "norm" and some folks will always have issues with that.
> 
> I watched the video on the website. He has some beautiful tanks and fish. If I was breeding, I would probably adopt a lot of his methods. The total appearance just isn't right for a lot of folks. Hardscape is a big deal for a lot of us. I never did find anything on the site about lighting though. How did you come about choosing the light?
> 
> ...



I already have the Feliz 125 2700K for my greenhouse. So, that was the strongest light I had around the house for full sun plants like lysimachia nummularia. It really penetrates the mass of plants and stimulates growth.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

flamechica said:


> I agree with windelov. It is completely possible to have a stable 10g tank. I have 2.
> 
> You are focusing too much on cleaning your filters and substrate. That mulm and gunk or whatever you called it, like so many people have pointed out, is helpful to good nitrifying bacteria. If you leave it well enough alone, your tank would be stable. I only do a big cleaning of my substrate every 6mo to 9mo. My filter media only gets rinsed in aquarium water (when doing a washer change, not in the tank, obviously) when the flow gets slow (maybe once a month or every other month). You were making things too hard on yourself by over cleaning, IMO. I used to over clean and make things harder on myself. I learned the hard way too. Now, I know better. And as far as algae goes, if your plants are getting the nutrients they need, they will out compete the algae everytime. If I forget a dose, I get algae. If I keep up on my ferts, never any algae and I get to enjoy a beautiful planted tank.


I admit I did like to fool around too much with my tanks. OCD! I'd get bored with a tank and want to change the view every other week. But, that was fun while it lasted. I'm just trying a new thing now, because it seems like an interesting approach with much less work for the OCD in me.

Bump:


AWolf said:


> I admit I did like to fool around too much with my tanks. OCD! I'd get bored with a tank and want to change the view every other week. But, that was fun while it lasted. I'm just trying a new thing now, because it seems like an interesting approach with much less work for the OCD in me.


Your comment has me thinking....now I really can change the tank as often as I like without the upset parameters. I can add, remove, change around, all without causing issue. That makes me happy.:hihi:


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

Kubla said:


> This whole thing is going against common practices and the "norm" and some folks will always have issues with that.
> 
> I watched the video on the website. He has some beautiful tanks and fish. If I was breeding, I would probably adopt a lot of his methods. The total appearance just isn't right for a lot of folks. Hardscape is a big deal for a lot of us. I never did find anything on the site about lighting though. How did you come about choosing the light?
> 
> ...


I think you are right. But, I like changing it up!


----------



## HDBenson (Jan 26, 2015)

AWolf said:


> Cory's also live in the wild 'by nature'. So your whole premise is academic. They do have some sand. They are more active than when they had a whole 2 inches over the whole bottom of the tank. They are alive. That's a good thing.


Although my question comes from an ethical position rather than an academic premise, my question still stands. ARE your cories happier? Obviously we can't provide Nature for our fish. That being said wouldn't we want to provide them some semblance of nature(sand for your cories, wood for Ancistrus plecos, unidirectional flow for hillstream species etc.)? I think I was unclear in my comment that for me PERSONALLY both from an aesthetic and PERSONAL ethical stanpoint - more sand would be better. Not necessarily 2", just enough to cover the whole bottom but still make maintenance easy on YOU. Less than half an inch will provide the fish you CHOOSE to keep with comfort and keep detritus/mulm easily accessible for cleaning. Also, I am not against your design, that's why I expressed my interest. I agree that there is some merit in this practice. Breeding and laboratory tanks are kept like this for the same reason - low maintenance and cleanliness. As mentioned the method you are employing "goes against the norm" - we're just making suggestions that MAY help you out. Try your method out and master it by tweaking along the way. Please keep us updated on how this experiment goes for you!


----------



## someoldguy (Feb 26, 2014)

I can't see any fatal flaw in what you're doing . I looked at the website you cited and , really , there's nothing particularly new about what he's doing , save for the water change system , maybe. In regards to what's going on in your tanks , if it was me I'd consider a couple of minor alterations . I think I'd go with a bit deeper substrate , 1/4-3/8" or so . Something not so deep that you'd be concerned about an anerobic condition developing , but deep enough so your cories wouldn't get down to the glass . Rather than having a daylight period with no circulation and turning on the air at night , why not try light aeration for all 24 hours?Last , unless your fish load is pretty heavy , is it really necessary to do 50% water changes twice weekly? Cutting that in half probably wouldn't hurt anything.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

someoldguy said:


> I can't see any fatal flaw in what you're doing . I looked at the website you cited and , really , there's nothing particularly new about what he's doing , save for the water change system , maybe. In regards to what's going on in your tanks , if it was me I'd consider a couple of minor alterations . I think I'd go with a bit deeper substrate , 1/4-3/8" or so . Something not so deep that you'd be concerned about an anerobic condition developing , but deep enough so your cories wouldn't get down to the glass . Rather than having a daylight period with no circulation and turning on the air at night , why not try light aeration for all 24 hours?Last , unless your fish load is pretty heavy , is it really necessary to do 50% water changes twice weekly? Cutting that in half probably wouldn't hurt anything.


I like your thoughts. I will probably give all of your ideas a try a some point. As it turns out, the corys have begun to spread the sand around on their own, and it has gone from the corner of the tank, to cover most of the front half of the tank. So ambitious those corys are! The large amount of plant mass has me worried about oxygen for the fish at night. I don't know enough about the oxygen levels to be comfortable with light aeration during that time. But I would feel comfortable with light aeration during the day. Just to stir the water a bit. I wonder,...if I have so much plant matter, could I starve the fish of oxygen at night when the lights are off? And yes, I am overstocked at the moment, while I work on other tanks. So I am changing the water more often than I will after I move some of the fish.


----------



## HDBenson (Jan 26, 2015)

Either way(running air at night or, day) you will be off gassing a lot of CO2 and O2. You seem to understand that plants produce CO2 at night and uptake O2 instead. That being said, cories can and do "by nature" ;-) breathe atmospheric oxygen when O2 levels get too low. Sometimes they just do this. Don't know what other species you keep though.. You could put the airline on a timer to make maintenance even easier and set it to run in 2-3hr intervals when you prefer, like when you are going to sleep..


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

HDBenson said:


> Either way(running air at night or, day) you will be off gassing a lot of CO2 and O2. You seem to understand that plants produce CO2 at night and uptake O2 instead. That being said, cories can and do "by nature" ;-) breathe atmospheric oxygen when O2 levels get too low. Sometimes they just do this. Don't know what other species you keep though.. I honestly wouldn't worry about it though and just run a single line as low as possible day and night.


Hehehe :} Thanks. Makes sense. I have labyrinth breathers; dwarf Gourami's, female bettas, along with white clouds and rasboras, and of course corys. So the clouds and rasboras are the only ones to truly worry about if indeed I should run low on O2 at night. With all the plants covering the surface, it gets no movement without bubbles. I don't have a powerhead, and really like the sound of bubbles anyway. I feel like I'm underwater while I sleep.:tongue:


----------



## HDBenson (Jan 26, 2015)

Rasboras should be fine too - the white clouds would be my only concern. What temp is your tank(s)?


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

HDBenson said:


> Rasboras should be fine too - the white clouds would be my only concern. What temp is your tank(s)?


I keep a steady 72. I like staying on the low side, so in the case of any fish illness, I can raise it up quite a bit to help the healing process.

*UDPATE: I Lost the Rasboras and white clouds, presumably from the lack of oxygen and high levels of CO2 created by this method. Corys, otos, bettas, gouramis....all fine, not one death.*


----------



## HDBenson (Jan 26, 2015)

Hmmmm Bettas and gourami like MUCH warmer water.... in the top end of the seventies.. cories and WCM will like this temp though(72F). Maybe keep them in different tanks?


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

HDBenson said:


> Hmmmm Bettas and gourami like MUCH warmer water.... in the top end of the seventies.. cories and WCM will like this temp though(72F). Maybe keep them in different tanks?


The females bettas are usually in a tank at 76. I am finishing their tank tomorrow. The dwarf Gouramis, however, I have to disagree. The articles I have read say 72 is fine. I've had them for years at 72. I've breed them at that temperature as well, and raised their fry in the same. So I believe that is proof enough for me. Never had any issues with them.


----------



## Clear Water (Sep 20, 2014)

I'm a little late on this but when I was in school my teacher had a gallon jar with a live plants and guppies. She never changed water and there was never time there wasn't at least a half a dozen guppies in the jar. It got indirect lighting and the plants grew. 

Yes you can keep fish without a filter but your stocking level will be a lot less than with a filter. As far as having sand on the bottom if you have plants with roots they will absorb some of the fish waste. I rarely clean my bottom sand most of it is covered with plants.

As far as filter picking up food and other waste were else would you want it to go. For me it lot easier to change filter than hose the bottom of the tank. Also that's why I keep cory's to help keep the bottom clean.

Best of luck keep us posted on your progress.


----------



## Kalyke (Dec 1, 2014)

Another possibility is to feed your fish something other than this man-made flake. If you really think about it, the food waste comes from there. I do not know if the same goes for fish, but when dogs go on a "barf" diet (biologically appropriate) they produce less waste. The argument is that natural food (bugs etc) is not as good for them as human factory produced food, and yet with humans they cry that we should get our vitamins from varying natural food and not eating all processed manufactured industrial food. The fact is in order to bind dry foods, you need to use flour or fiber of some kind and this is often and usually some kind of insoluble and indigestible stuff that bulks their poop, and creates more waste. I am not saying that eating peas to mechanically clean a fish's bowels is a bad thing, it is just not something that needs to be daily. So, I suppose what I mean is to start a colony of wingless fruit flies or some other healthy food for fish. 

I do not know about any studies re: natural food and quantity of fish poop, but when I feed blood worms, there is no waste.


----------



## scapegoat (Jun 3, 2010)

I think the folks that have problems with tanks over complicate things and cause their own issues. By removing everything that can be over complicated, you've removed a lot of things that can go wrong. But, you're still trying to over complicate what you can.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

Kalyke said:


> Another possibility is to feed your fish something other than this man-made flake. If you really think about it, the food waste comes from there. I do not know if the same goes for fish, but when dogs go on a "barf" diet (biologically appropriate) they produce less waste. The argument is that natural food (bugs etc) is not as good for them as human factory produced food, and yet with humans they cry that we should get our vitamins from varying natural food and not eating all processed manufactured industrial food. The fact is in order to bind dry foods, you need to use flour or fiber of some kind and this is often and usually some kind of insoluble and indigestible stuff that bulks their poop, and creates more waste. I am not saying that eating peas to mechanically clean a fish's bowels is a bad thing, it is just not something that needs to be daily. So, I suppose what I mean is to start a colony of wingless fruit flies or some other healthy food for fish.
> 
> I do not know about any studies re: natural food and quantity of fish poop, but when I feed blood worms, there is no waste.


That makes so much sense. I guess frozen brine shrimp and the like would be acceptable as well. But, I feed 'freeze dried' worms.. I haven't checked the container list of ingredients today, but I am guessing it is comparable to your fresh worms. I'll look into it.

Bump:


scapegoat said:


> I think the folks that have problems with tanks over complicate things and cause their own issues. By removing everything that can be over complicated, you've removed a lot of things that can go wrong. But, you're still trying to over complicate what you can.


True. My arms are always wet up to the elbows! I can't leave my tanks alone for long before I am petting the fish, moving live plants around, worrying over the bacteria that is clogging my filters, etc. Like someone else said on this thread, if I just leave things alone, I'd be better off. Good advice. But still, with this method I can mess in the tanks all I want and not worry about a change in parameters. Plus, who like cleaning their filters anyway? I may go back to the old ways after a while with this experiment, but I would have had a good time trying new stuff. I think that's what it's all about anyway. Keeps me off the streets.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

Clear Water said:


> I'm a little late on this but when I was in school my teacher had a gallon jar with a live plants and guppies. She never changed water and there was never time there wasn't at least a half a dozen guppies in the jar. It got indirect lighting and the plants grew.
> 
> Yes you can keep fish without a filter but your stocking level will be a lot less than with a filter. As far as having sand on the bottom if you have plants with roots they will absorb some of the fish waste. I rarely clean my bottom sand most of it is covered with plants.
> 
> ...


I'll never know why I always killed corys. I had beautifully kept tanks, all other inhabitants seemingly happy. This is the first time I have kept corys over two weeks. Happy, active, puppylike corys! In my 2-3 inch substrate (sand or gravel) tanks, they would stop moving and eating, then death, usually withing a week of bringing them home. I have been able to hold on to one melini cory, and about 5 other corys over the years, but that is all.

Bump:


Clear Water said:


> I'm a little late on this but when I was in school my teacher had a gallon jar with a live plants and guppies. She never changed water and there was never time there wasn't at least a half a dozen guppies in the jar. It got indirect lighting and the plants grew.
> 
> Yes you can keep fish without a filter but your stocking level will be a lot less than with a filter. As far as having sand on the bottom if you have plants with roots they will absorb some of the fish waste. I rarely clean my bottom sand most of it is covered with plants.
> 
> ...


Thanks! I think that after about a year, my substrate would become nasty. I'd pull rooted plants up and it would sicken the tank. The article I mentioned at the start of the thread addressed this, and that is when the light bulb went off in my head. So, I would have to completely break down the tank and clean the substrate, etc. and start over so to speak. This way, I am always starting over, and getting rid of the middle man. So many plants do not need substrate in a tank with fish. I do hope this works long term.

Bump:


Clear Water said:


> I'm a little late on this but when I was in school my teacher had a gallon jar with a live plants and guppies. She never changed water and there was never time there wasn't at least a half a dozen guppies in the jar. It got indirect lighting and the plants grew.
> 
> Yes you can keep fish without a filter but your stocking level will be a lot less than with a filter. As far as having sand on the bottom if you have plants with roots they will absorb some of the fish waste. I rarely clean my bottom sand most of it is covered with plants.
> 
> ...


Oh, but you may be wrong with the over stocking issue. It isn't an issue if you stock the companion fish correctly with this method. The water changes take care of that, just like in the pet stores.


----------



## thedudeabides (Feb 29, 2012)

You keep mantioning that the fish seem more active with this set up as a sign it is working. Could it be something other than water quality that is causing this, such as the increase of floating plants reducing light penetration and or making them feel more secure? 

Also make sure the floaters don't get so think that your corries can't get to the surface.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

*I have added pictures to My Gallery*

I think I have to be a paying member to add pics to the threads. If not, let me know how and will. Nothing I've tried works.:hihi:

Bump:


thedudeabides said:


> You keep mantioning that the fish seem more active with this set up as a sign it is working. Could it be something other than water quality that is causing this, such as the increase of floating plants reducing light penetration and or making them feel more secure?
> 
> Also make sure the floaters don't get so think that your corries can't get to the surface.


Right. I am considering that as well. So far, whatever it is, is working.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

*Pictures In Gallery*

I have added my dwarf lilly by tucking the roots under a rock, and thrown the anubias in as well. They have attached to some gravel in the original planted tanks, so they sit on the bottom without problem. The pictures may look like I have regular substrate, but, in fact it is just a tiny layer of sand for now. I think it looks better, and is certainly easier to keep clean.

*UPDATE: I have woven the floating plants in vinyl fencing and pushed to bottom of tank, also added grass by sticking through fencing. It is working really well, and I am able to fold the fencing, pull it out to clean, and put it back with little trouble. Fish fit thru holes in fencing.*


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

*Cloudiness Report*

As I stated earlier in the thread, I was getting a slight whitish tinge to the water after about 3-4 days, and would do a water change. Yesterday, the cloud appeared again, but I left the tank alone, and this morning, it is clear as ever. No more whitish cloud. Plants are doing their thing!


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

AWolf said:


> You are right. This requires weekly 50% water changes so far. But for a 10g tank, that only takes a short time. The plants are loaded with the beneficial bacteria, and seem to keep the water quite clear for about 3-4 days, then I start to see the inevitable cloudiness like you would in a goldfish bowl. I haven't tested for qualities. I had four 10g heavily planted for years, but it took much more work to hold parameters in check since they are small tanks. That was my experience. This new method really takes much less time per week. I am pleased so far. This is the first time I've seen my cory's so active. That alone makes it worth it to some degree!
> 
> Bump:
> 
> Good stuff. Thanks.


In reply to the earlier post about more strata,...it might just be MORE strata, but not really help the ecosystem.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

*Over 1 Month - Still Great!*

Algae - very slight in one corner of glass. Wiped off and hasn't returned. No more algae growing on rock! 

*UPDATE: Very thin film of algae grows on all glass, very easily wiped each week. Can be seen in my new pics on my website.*

Plants - lysimachia nummularia, aubias, dwarf lily. Gowing like crazy! Never seen so much healthy growth before. I guess the high light has stepped up their photosynthesis and is not only helping them grow, but they are eating all of the nutrients in the water now. That might be what is keeping the algae away.

Fish - Happy and healthy. Much more active than before this method. New behaviors seen in cory's. They move all in and around the pennywort, landing on the leaves and spending a lot of time there as well as the sand at the bottom. (Handful of sand only.) By now, in my other planted tanks, I would have lost all the corys. My guess is that the substrate collected too much crap and the like, and they had to sit in it all the time. Making them sick. But no more!

Mechanics - The only thing I have in the tanks are air hoses and heaters. UPDATE: No MORE AIR! The air comes on when the lights go off late night, and go off when lights come back on in the morning. The lights are on 11 hrs. each day.

I'm setting up my fourth 10g tank today. The other three have done so well that I am ready to go 'all in'. Happy as a clam I am. :hihi: I'll add more pictures to my gallery asap. I also have an interesting light set up, and will show that as well. I'm using metal dish drainers on top of my tanks to hold the light fixture over the tanks. The winged reflectors I use sit perfectly on top of them. So my lights are now about 8 inches from the surface of the water. All's good under the hood.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

*Update: Pennywort and Parrot Feather*

WRONG NAME ON PLANT 'PENNYWORT', it is actually 'lysimachia nummularia'. (Not my fault completely, it is what the garden center's name tag stated!) After some time using lysimachia nummularia , and Parrot Feather as the floating plants, I am looking for other possible alternatives. The Pennywort really does the job, but, is growing so fast, and leaves some trash (dead leaves mostly) in the bottom of the tank. I have taken a load of it out, so that the light can get to all of it and maybe I won't have any litter on the bottom of the tank. The Parrot Feather I have taken out completely, as it started melting. I think it is more a 'bog' plant from what I've read, and really wants to have more surface time than the lysimachia nummularia gave it. I have it planted in a floating container in my barrel pond outside, and it looks lovely coming up out of the container. I think my dwarf lily will be a better bet at covering the surface of the tank once it has grown bigger, but I'm not sure. I have some duckweed that came as a volunteer in my pond plants, and that might really be a good alternative as well. I like having the anubias below the floating plants. They are doing very well, and it is still easy to just pull it out for cleaning, and then drop it back in where it settles on the bottom.

*UPDATE: Now that I am using vinyl fencing, the Parrot Feather is doing fine since it is woven into the fencing.*


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

*New Pictures Up 20150716*

Including the Dish Drainer Lighting Holding thingamagig.


----------



## whitepapagold (Aug 19, 2010)

To post photos you have to get a picture hosting account like at photobucket.com (free) then copy and paste the "IMG" links to your thread. Super easy.

I love a sandy bottom, as do my corys- I have 10 panda corys! But you have to have Malasian Trumpet snails to turn over the sand and aerate it. AND if you do any major changes, water change is required. But in any tank with substrate, Malaysian Trumpet Snails are required in my world LOL!

I AGREE with no substrate as a great choice- on my cichlid tank I never had substrate. And my current planted hospital tank is also no substrate! Way easier to maintain for sure.

I would agree with the poster who said the fish activity is from the added cover. Though water quality would influence that too.

I would add in the end, substrate is something to manage not necessarily do away with altogether- it has its benefits as much as it has its downsides.

Get a photobucket account and post some pics!


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

whitepapagold said:


> To post photos you have to get a picture hosting account like at photobucket.com (free) then copy and paste the "IMG" links to your thread. Super easy.
> 
> I love a sandy bottom, as do my corys- I have 10 panda corys! But you have to have Malasian Trumpet snails to turn over the sand and aerate it. AND if you do any major changes, water change is required. But in any tank with substrate, Malaysian Trumpet Snails are required in my world LOL!
> 
> ...


I will! Thanks so much. I've been putting pictures in my gallery on this forum, but it would be much easier to post them in the thread for others to see right away, without going to my gallery. Regarding your ideas, LOVE THEM. I will consider. For now, all is good, and I'll see where it goes and maybe make more changes as things progress. But for now, I'm very happy with little sand for the corys, and no substrate for the other tanks. Thanks again.

*UPDATE: I am keeping logs and updated pictures on my new website: aquariumexperiments.com*


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

*Gouramis & Nesters Not Good For This Method*

Well, after a couple of weeks of cleaning dead plant material out of the bottom of my tanks, I found the culprits. I thought that the plants were too dense, not getting enough light through to keep them healthy. WRONG! The Gouramis are tearing them up and making nests with the pieces they rip off. These pieces die and end up at the bottom of the tank. So, do not try this method with gouramis, unless you don't mind a little extra trash at the bottom of the tank, or for that matter, male bettas. The tanks without nest builders do not have this dead plant litter problem. My female betta sorority tank stays free of this litter. The Gouramis are extremely active tearing at the floating plants, so it is fun to watch, but a little extra to clean. I wonder if there isn't a plant that is much thicker skinned, that floats, and can withstand the picking?


----------



## DHElder (Apr 18, 2015)

Well according to the article, filters are used in the author's approach. I also don't want a breeding tank but a nice looking planted tank for our living room so myself, I'll stick with the low tech planted tank with substrate look.  According to articles that I have read, I should also have healthy plants and fish and a fairly clean tank with very low maintenance. My thought is about a half hour to 45 minutes a week.

Just starting so time will tell how well it works for me and my 20 gal long.  Good luck with your approach. Hope it works out for the long haul.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

DHElder said:


> Well according to the article, filters are used in the author's approach. I also don't want a breeding tank but a nice looking planted tank for our living room so myself, I'll stick with the low tech planted tank with substrate look.  According to articles that I have read, I should also have healthy plants and fish and a fairly clean tank with very low maintenance. My thought is about a half hour to 45 minutes a week.
> 
> Just starting so time will tell how well it works for me and my 20 gal long.  Good luck with your approach. Hope it works out for the long haul.


I Know the author uses filters, I just choose not to. That is what part of this experiment is about. So far, on a 10g it works out just fine not to have filters. Less to clean! I'm not copying everything he does, but I was inspired to do my own thing. :hihi:


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

*Clarification*

I am not stating that the author of the article does not use filters. I am stating that I am using some of the methods proposed by the author. So do not think I am following every detail of the author's methods. I am not. This is my own method, based on some of what the author has experienced. I was inspired by the author to try something new in my tanks. I am sorry if somehow I implied that I was doing exactly what he is doing. 

Here are the two major differences:
I am using mega amounts of plants instead of filters
I am using ultra high wattage

I hope this helps clarify my method. I am very pleased so far with my success based on his methods of no substrate. I added just a handful of sand for the corys, but that is all. It is my theory that with the amount of plant mass I have, all ammonia/ammonium is used by the leafy plants. We know that NH3-4 is lighter than water, and rises to the top of the tank, where my floating plants abide. Over 6 weeks of testing for ammonia, I have none. I posit that I do not need nitrifying bacteria at all, as the plant leaves take ammonia/ammonium gladly, as long as the pH is on the low end. Which it is. If it were high, I would add driftwood. Awesome experiment so far. I love the success. * UPDATE: I am no longer using any sand at all, and am keeping a blog with weekly pics and updates. www.aquariumexperiments.com*


----------



## Steve001 (Feb 26, 2011)

AWolf said:


> I am not stating that the author of the article does not use filters. I am stating that I am using some of the methods proposed by the author. So do not think I am following every detail of the author's methods. I am not. This is my own method, based on some of what the author has experienced. I was inspired by the author to try something new in my tanks. I am sorry if somehow I implied that I was doing exactly what he is doing.
> 
> Here are the two major differences:
> I am using mega amounts of plants instead of filters
> ...


What causes your low ph? Is it because of addtional co2? If it's not from additonal co2 (too equal the demand put upon the plants by ultrahigh light), then you'll have plant problems.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

Steve001 said:


> What causes your low ph? Is it because of addtional co2? If it's not from additonal co2 (too equal the demand put upon the plants by ultrahigh light), then you'll have plant problems.


I don't have a pH problem. But if I did, as I said, I would add driftwood to bring it down. There are other ways to stabilize pH. My preference would be driftwood since I am sticking to a natural low tech tank. So many things can cause a pH problem, including the tap water you use. You'll have to do some research to find out what causes it if you want to know. I can't list all of the causes, there are way too many. I have had no problems with it, however. So I haven't had to add driftwood.


----------



## Steve001 (Feb 26, 2011)

AWolf said:


> I don't have a pH problem. But if I did, as I said, I would add driftwood to bring it down. There are other ways to stabilize pH. My preference would be driftwood since I am sticking to a natural low tech tank. So many things can cause a pH problem, including the tap water you use. You'll have to do some research to find out what causes it if you want to know. I can't list all of the causes, there are way too many. I have had no problems with it, however. So I haven't had to add driftwood.


You're eventually going too have problems and it seems you don't know why.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

Steve001 said:


> You're eventually going too have problems and it seems you don't know why.


Thanks for your cryptic insight. I'll be sure to note that 'Steve911' said something is going to happen....you don't know how, you don't know why, you don't know when, but something for sure is going to be a problem. Is your aquarium half empty or half full?:hihi:


----------



## Audionut (Apr 24, 2015)

AWolf said:


> I posit that I do not need nitrifying bacteria at all,


_At all_, is a little overzealous. You have plenty of surface area (including the plants) for nitrifying bacteria.

I haven't run dedicated biological filtration in my well stocked tank for months. After reading that plants prefer ammonia before nitrite/nitrate, the increased surface area from planted tanks (I run a sump with plenty of surface area also), and that nitrifying bacteria consume O2, it just made sense to ditch the bio filter.


----------



## Steve001 (Feb 26, 2011)

AWolf said:


> Thanks for your cryptic insight. I'll be sure to note that 'Steve911' said something is going to happen....you don't know how, you don't know why, you don't know when, but something for sure is going to be a problem. Is your aquarium half empty or half full?:hihi:


I know what will happen and the cause. I choose not to handout info so freely when that level of knowledge is basic to keeping aquatic plants healthy. I think it benefits people to learn things on their own reading than relying upon forums exclusively. I will however assist a bit by asking you to query this: Where will plants get carbon when co2 is not adequate? And why that means is detrimental? In your situation ultrahigh light creates this problem.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

Audionut said:


> _At all_, is a little overzealous. You have plenty of surface area (including the plants) for nitrifying bacteria.
> 
> I haven't run dedicated biological filtration in my well stocked tank for months. After reading that plants prefer ammonia before nitrite/nitrate, the increased surface area from planted tanks (I run a sump with plenty of surface area also), and that nitrifying bacteria consume O2, it just made sense to ditch the bio filter.


Very good to hear. Thanks for the input. I assume that I can't get away from nitrifying bacteria colonizing on the plants and walls of the aquarium, but, since there is no substrate or biological filter, there may be much less of it, giving the plants more NH3-4 to use. Also, I do wash the plants in regular tap water with chlorine in it, so each week I am killing off quite a bit of the nitrifying bacteria. So far, no issues. I have read that if my pH were on the high side, the plants could not absorb the NH3-4 as readily. So in this experiment, along with the other parameters, I am watching my pH. So far, it remains very slightly acid. It reminds me of when I had tanks in Colorado, where I had well water that was slightly acid. My ciclids loved it, and my tanks never had issues. No water treatments at all.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

Steve001 said:


> I know what will happen and the cause. I choose not to handout info so freely when that level of knowledge is basic to keeping aquatic plants healthy. I think it benefits people to learn things on their own reading than relying upon forums exclusively. I will however assist a bit by asking you to query this: Where will plants get carbon when co2 is not adequate? And why that means is detrimental? In your situation ultrahigh light creates this problem.


A quote from the article 'Understanding Co2 for Aquariums'
http://fish-etc.com/knowledge/understanding-co²-for-planted-aquariums

'...increased light intensity can stimulate growth even at very low CO2 concentrations. Because there is more light available, the plant needs to spend less energy on using the light to photosynthesise, leaving the freed-up energy to more efficiently extract the CO² available in the water.'

Also interesting, this quote from the same article, which I may adopt; 

'...*It cannot be emphasized enough that an air pump should never be part of a planted aquarium.* The function of an air pump is to supply oxygen (O²) to fish and/or invertebrates in aquaria that have *no sustainable oxygen production from aquatic plants*. In all planted aquaria, there should be more than sufficient oxygen for both fish and invertebrates, even at night when there is no photosynthesis. When plants, fish and invertebrates respire during the night, CO² is produced and dissolves readily in the water. This CO² is then used in photosynthesis by the plants once the light is switched on the next morning. If you have a running air pump, the CO² is de-gassed to the air — in the same way carbonic acid is lost from a soda or beer can when shaken. Now, that is really counter-productive, considering we are trying to get CO² *into* the aquarium, not out!'

Considering the well being, and excellent growth rate of my plants, and lack of algae over the past month using my methods, I would have to say that if your concerns have any merit, they have yet to be seen in my tanks. (4 10g tanks). 

How long would it take before I should start to see the detrimental effects of my methods, in your opinion? 

I might also add, many people have tanks outside in the sun without any mechanical filtering or added co2, or air pumps,and their plants are growing beautifully. And that is under the SUN, not a 2700K 125w cfl!

It is my belief, at this point of my experiment, that more is just more, and when you add filters, air, substrates, and other accoutrement to your tanks, instead of keeping it simple, you are creating a highly dependant system on your synthesized parameters. If one of those systems goes down, so goes the whole tank. In my method, I don't have to worry about anything getting out of whack and taking the whole ship down. Even if I should lose power, and the lights go out for days, I can simply take the tanks to the windows for sun because they are only 10g, and are easily moved around. This is what I want. This is my experiment. This is not for everyone. I am so enjoying the new way of thinking. And I really do enjoy the banter as well as the informative discussion/learning between us on this forum.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/p...049&title=No_Substrate_Tank_20150716_006c.jpg

Bump: http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/pHosting.php?do=show&type=f&id=82049&title=No_Substrate_Tank_20150716_006c.jpg


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

*A Couple of My Tanks In This Experiment*

tried to do a photobucket img, but unable apparently. No .img file available. Also, it required personal info to get started, and I don't like that being public. It's like facebook, I don't like big brother watching over my life.


----------



## Mebbid (Sep 26, 2013)

AWolf said:


> Thanks! I think that after about a year, my substrate would become nasty. I'd pull rooted plants up and it would sicken the tank.


 This is why Aquarists do a 50% water change whenever disturbing their plants. It takes care of the stuff pulled up from the substrate. 



AWolf said:


> You are right. This requires weekly 50% water changes so far. But for a 10g tank, that only takes a short time. The plants are loaded with the beneficial bacteria, and seem to keep the water quite clear for about 3-4 days, then I start to see the inevitable cloudiness like you would in a goldfish bowl.


This is worrisome, because it's indicative of a tank that isn't stable. 




AWolf said:


> After years of trying to keep up with the algae, dying fish, nasty substrate, disgusting filters, I'm going rogue! El naturale! The filters just suck up food and such and make a sick tank,


 So turn the filters off during feeding. No sucked up food and no excess nutrients from uneaten food.



> the gravel/sand just gets contaminated with gunk


Corys die because of a dirty substrate, their barbels are prone to getting infected from minor damage and die because of this. That is why corys don't handle gravel very well. With proper flow to keep debris off the bottom and good tank maintenance a sand bottomed tank is perfectly healthy for corys. 


You have added a TON of plants by your statement and are attributing the success of your tanks to the lack of filter and no substrate. Instead, I will point out that maybe it's the plants alone that are causing the success in spite of the lack of filter. To truly make this an experiment I would say you need to run a planted tank with sand substrate and power filter with a similar amount of light, plants, and fish as the other tanks you are running.

Doing this would go a long way towards proving how good your change in setup is.

Out of curiosity, what are your levels running? Ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate?


----------



## Audionut (Apr 24, 2015)

AWolf said:


> but, since there is no substrate or biological filter, there may be much less of it,


Agreed. But this deviates significantly from none, _"at all"_. :tongue:




AWolf said:


> giving the plants more NH3-4 to use.


That was my reasoning also. If there are some number of things (nitrifying bacteria) that consume ammonia, then it makes sense that reducing the number of these things, reduces the rate at which ammonia is reduced.

In a fish only tank, we know this is not desirable. However, in a planted tank, with other things (plants) that also consume ammonia, then reducing the amount of ammonia consuming bacteria, in essence (all other things being equal), increases the ammonia supply to the plants.

Of course, those ammonia reducing bacteria have a side effect that should be considered, which is the production of nitrite. And of course the same applies to the nitrite reducing bacteria, producing nitrate. The wonderful thing about plants, being that they will consume all those forms of ions.

Having said all that, I believe a balance needs to be considered. Bacteria are useful in a planted aquarium since they will consume excess ions (whatever the plants can't consume). Plants can consume all of these ions, but their consumption rate is limited by the total number of plants, and their health. If the aquarium experiences a catalyst, with a sudden increase in one (or more) of the ions, above the consumption rate of the plants, an excess of this ion will be in the water column.

Plants are slow to multiply, so the excess ion could be available in the water column for some time, being detrimental to other living species. Bacteria on the other hand, can multiply by 2x in a reasonably short period of time. In other words, bacteria can consume double the rate of ions in a reasonably short period of time. With a reasonable bacteria colony, you may be under the maximum consumption (_uptake_ is probably a more accurate definition here?) rate of the plants. And so any excess ion is likely to be negligible, since the plants also have capacity to consume an increase of the ion.

Balance.



Mebbid said:


> This is worrisome, because it's indicative of a tank that isn't stable.


At a rough guess, I would assume the cloudiness is a result of bacteria bloom with insufficient surface area for colonization.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

Mebbid said:


> This is why Aquarists do a 50% water change whenever disturbing their plants. It takes care of the stuff pulled up from the substrate.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The cloudiness goes away after about 24 hrs, as it is the nitrifying bacteria looking for foothold, which it gets on the plants after the water changes that cause it. I don't want filters, substrate, etc.! I have spent years proving that having filters, substrate, etc., works if you keep up with it. I don't want to mess with those things. I found this works so far. 

My Metrics as of three days ago:
Ammonia 0, nitrite 0, nitrate 5ppm, pH 5.8


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

Audionut said:


> Agreed. But this deviates significantly from none, _"at all"_. :tongue:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good stuff! Thanks! I agree, there needs to be a balance. Creating that balance without the usual filters, substrates, etc., is this experiment's bottom line. Thanks for the feedback. Very informative and insightful.


----------



## scapegoat (Jun 3, 2010)

You should keep this in the journals section, and use the scientific method.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

*The Pennywort*

Is actually 
*Lysimachia Nummularia *

The garden center that grows it in ponds as well as in gardens called it pennywort, but, I have found that it may be incorrectly named.


----------



## Audionut (Apr 24, 2015)

What is the reasoning for washing the plants?


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

Audionut said:


> What is the reasoning for washing the plants?


The ball of lysimachia nummularia holds a lot of fish waste and a bit of broken off plant matter from the gouramis picking it apart to make nests. The fish spend so much time up in the floating plants, that it is inevitable that the waste is there as well as the bottom of the tank. When I wash them, bits of gunk fall out. If I didn't wash them, when I add new water, the gunk falls to the bottom of the tank, and it's dirty again.

*UPDATE: I also suspect that the bacterial slime that covers the plants is keeping them from taking up the ammonium and other nutrients as easily. So soaking them in chlorinated water twice or three times a month makes sense to me. The plants are doing much better than when in a substrate/filter/air tank.*


----------



## Audionut (Apr 24, 2015)

Personally, I wouldn't kill off all the bacteria while washing them.

Glass is fairly flat with little surface area per square meter. Plants have significantly more surface area per square meter in comparison. You're probably killing a large percentage of your bacteria.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

*White Cloud of Bacteria and Temperature*

If I raise the temperature the day after a water change, the white cloud of bacteria goes away quicker. Then I lower the temp, and all is still clear. So if you have cloudy water, try it and see! I went from 72, up to 76, and then back down to 72.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

*Testing for Co2*

You can also determine CO2 levels from accurate measurements of KH and pH and a KH/pH/CO2 chart. Lamotte makes a great narrow range pH test (6.5 to 7.5) that you can interpolate down to 0.05 pH units. The Tetra KH test kit seems about the best for use with the table and is very inexpensive. We also have a Lamotte alkalinity kit (KH) but prefer the Tetra kit. To determine the CO2 level in your water, measure KH and pH and look up CO2 in Table 1. http://aquaticconcepts.thekrib.com/Co2/co2_faq.htm#T05 

At this point, I am going to have to say, my tanks are doing much better than before when I had filters and substrate. according to my metrics. Please let me know if you can prove me wrong. My only concern is how to keep these levels at such a good amount of co2 without adding any at all. That is where changing just 25% of water may be helpful. If anyone has had this experience, let me know. I hate to be all alone out here. Someone must be finding the same to be true. I need someone with a phD in chemistry, don't I?

P.S. My plants are growing like crazy, and fish are healthy.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

*Sweet sweet Success!*

Well, after all this research and water testing, I have a final conclusion about my experiment:

It works great! 

Water changes of about 25 to 35% every 7-9 days are holding about 50-60ppm of Co2 (even 70ppm some days)! After the water change, the Co2 is lowered to about 25ppm, but only for about one day, then it moves back up again quickly.
My labyrinth fish are doing just fine with the high Co2, but...I lost the white clouds and rasboras. They just could not breath well in such an environment.
The plants are growing so incredibly fast, that I have to rip some out every week.
I am having no algae issues. A little film grows on the tank glass, but it is easily wiped away each week.

Ottos - fine
corys - fine
dwarf gouramis - fine
female bettas - fine
plants - fine

So, taking away filters, substrate, air, and adding loads of floating plants (about 2/3rds of tank top), keeping labyrinth fish only, or in the case of the ottos and corys, air breathing apparatus fish, cleaning the plants in unaltered tap water at water changes every 8 days or so, and having ultra high light, 12 watts per gallon, (125watt 2700K), and adding leaf zone or some other liquid fertilizer, is a very workable scenario. I am freaking smiling now! I'll let you know if anything goes wrong in the future, but for now................Over and Out.....:hihi:


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

*To You All*

Thanks to everyone who posed questions and helped me understand which questions I needed to answer! You guys are my heros!


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

*My New Website*

http://aquariumexperiments.com/


----------

