# Low tech tank maintenance



## fishkeeper01 (Oct 2, 2012)

I have been reading around as far as how to run maintenance on low tech tanks and that you actually shouldn't be changing water as often?. I currently have a low tech 10g but I will admit I have been doing large weekly water changes (about 35-40%). To get to my question. I wanted to setup some nano low tech tanks. I know I want to use ADA amazonia aquasoil. My question is what would be the water change schedule for these tanks, as well as if a finnex stingray fixture won't be too much light? I wanted to setup a shelf of a few 2.5g tanks and maybe do some nice beta tanks. I do plan on doing pps-pro dosing as that is what I do with my other planted tanks.


----------



## NickAu (Feb 24, 2017)

> I have been doing large weekly water changes (about 35-40%).


Perfect, keep doing that and don't let anybody tell you different, If the tank is new you may need more water changes.

Do you have a test kit for Ammonia Nitrite and Nitrate?


----------



## fishkeeper01 (Oct 2, 2012)

NickAu said:


> Perfect, keep doing that and don't let anybody tell you different, If the tank is new you may need more water changes.
> 
> Do you have a test kit for Ammonia Nitrite and Nitrate?


I've just been reading articles that have been stating otherwis. Specifically one by Tom Barr.


----------



## Couesfanatic (Sep 28, 2009)

I have read articles pushing both things. I've always gotten BBA with weekly water changes on low tech tanks. I usually do once every 4-8 weeks.


----------



## Krispyplants (Apr 15, 2014)

Couesfanatic said:


> I have read articles pushing both things. I've always gotten BBA with weekly water changes on low tech tanks. I usually do once every 4-8 weeks.


To add to this. water change is always beneficial but for a low tech tank, there's nothing that can really be benefited from doing so much water changes. If you're using ADA Amazonia soil, there's really no need to dose any fertilizer in a low tech. The soil contains nearly everything that plants need to sufficiently grow lush. To each their own.


----------



## Smooch (May 14, 2016)

Weekly water changes are a must in 2.5 gallon tanks. When a person is done adding substrate, stone, ect... there is 2 gallons or less of water. The less amount of water means things can go 'toxic' in these small tanks much faster than a larger one. Aqua soil is full of ammonia and needs to be cycled before being used. 

I have yet to read a article by Tom that says don't do water changes on a tiny tank. That is not what he is talking in those said articles.


----------



## Krispyplants (Apr 15, 2014)

Smooch said:


> Weekly water changes are a must in 2.5 gallon tanks. When a person is done adding substrate, stone, ect... there is 2 gallons or less of water. The less amount of water means things can go 'toxic' in these small tanks much faster than a larger one. Aqua soil is full of ammonia and needs to be cycled before being used.


I agree that for the first few weeks, yes once a week is ideal. I'm speaking of a scenario where the small tank has a sufficient amount of plants, you don't need to keep doing weekly water changes after the initial cycle unless you overstock the small tank or don't have a filter.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Although we might 'get away' with less frequent or lower volume partial water changes in a heavily planted tank, it can be a weak theory. Plants do serve as a degree of filtration for impurities that could negatively affect stock. However, their 'powers' are limited.
The fact is there are many variables in any tank that affects the pollution level of the water. 

I guess one could say that in a well maintained low tech tank that is very lightly stocked, one could easily push out and/or reduce the volume of the partial water change and still have a good quality water. Dianna Walstad felt that in some regards, partial water changes were counter productive as they flushed out nutrients that the plants could otherwise use. HOWEVER, this was in a very lightly stocked tank.

Of course there are exceptions to nearly every rule, but on the flip side, there is no better way to improve tank water quality than by routine partial water changes as they are the absolute best method of pollution reduction. If one is to err, more frequent and/or larger water changes are better than the opposite which could threaten healthy inhabitants.


----------



## Krispyplants (Apr 15, 2014)

AbbeysDad said:


> Of course there are exceptions to nearly every rule, but on the flip side, there is no better way to improve tank water quality than by routine partial water changes as they are the absolute best method of pollution reduction. If one is to err, more frequent and/or larger water changes are better than the opposite which could threaten healthy inhabitants.


The more important question is why wouldn't you test you water? This has become the main reason why people recommend water changes. To negate the doubt of people being unable to test their water quality. I in particular like to test my water so i can estimate on the duration of doing the next water change. If you don't test your water, how would you know that you need a water change?


----------



## Couesfanatic (Sep 28, 2009)

Smooch said:


> Weekly water changes are a must in 2.5 gallon tanks. When a person is done adding substrate, stone, ect... there is 2 gallons or less of water. The less amount of water means things can go 'toxic' in these small tanks much faster than a larger one. Aqua soil is full of ammonia and needs to be cycled before being used.
> 
> I have yet to read a article by Tom that says don't do water changes on a tiny tank. That is not what he is talking in those said articles.


I disagree. I've run many 2.5 gallon tanks with water changes every 4-8 weeks. All of these with Aquasoil. I do water changes every week or so until its cycled. After that every 4-8 weeks has been working for me. I've never bought the smaller tanks get more toxic more easily. If the ammonia raises to 2,3,4 even 5 ppm what difference does it make on water volume? I've left 2.5 gallon tanks months and months without water changes and they were algae free healthy tanks. 

I believe the Tom Barr Article being referred to is this one: Non CO2 methods - Aquarium Plants - Barr Report

Bump:


Krispyplants said:


> The more important question is why wouldn't you test you water? This has become the main reason why people recommend water changes. To negate the doubt of people being unable to test their water quality. I in particular like to test my water so i can estimate on the duration of doing the next water change. If you don't test your water, how would you know that you need a water change?


Some toxins don't have specific tests for them.


----------



## Krispyplants (Apr 15, 2014)

Couesfanatic said:


> Bump:
> 
> Some toxins don't have specific tests for them.


Like what?


----------



## Couesfanatic (Sep 28, 2009)

Bugspray, lotion, hairspray, carpet cleaner, metals/particles from the air, hand soap, dish soap, food, soda, etc. Anything that can get in the tank from our hands, kids, the air etc.


----------



## Krispyplants (Apr 15, 2014)

Couesfanatic said:


> Bugspray, lotion, hairspray, carpet cleaner, metals/particles from the air, hand soap, dish soap, food, soda, etc. Anything that can get in the tank from our hands, kids, the air etc.


You're contradicting yourself here. This information supports the consistency of doing water changes.


----------



## Couesfanatic (Sep 28, 2009)

Krispyplants said:


> You're contradicting yourself here. This information supports the consistency of doing water changes.


Contradicting what? I never said don't have consistent water changes. 

I said testing does not cover every toxin, thus water changes are important. I don't believe that 50% weekly changes are necessary.


----------



## Krispyplants (Apr 15, 2014)

Couesfanatic said:


> Contradicting what? I never said don't have consistent water changes.
> 
> I said testing does not cover every toxin, thus water changes are important. I don't believe that 50% weekly changes are necessary.


You said 4-8 weeks. There's nothing consistent about this. Im done >


----------



## Couesfanatic (Sep 28, 2009)

Ok, I'm not trying to argue with you. We all have our opinion. It is possible to be consistent with water changes every 4-8 weeks.


----------



## NickAu (Feb 24, 2017)

> After that every 4-8 weeks has been working for me.


4 to 8 weeks, what about taking care of the fish in the tank?


This is one of the reasons I do not like the attitude of some members here everything centers around plants dam the live stock. Seriously some of you people shouldnt be allowed to own fish.


----------



## Couesfanatic (Sep 28, 2009)

You honestly believe doing water changes every 4 weeks is harming the fish?


----------



## Krispyplants (Apr 15, 2014)

NickAu said:


> 4 to 8 weeks, what about taking care of the fish in the tank?
> 
> 
> This is one of the reasons I do not like the attitude of some members here everything centers around plants dam the live stock. Seriously some of you people shouldnt be allowed to own fish.


You have no idea about what you're implying. The last duration that I have on my current low tech tank (that is in my signature) is around 3 months without a water change. Still have the same amount of fish and shrimp. In fact they reproduced. Even though the value number of my plants out weigh my fish, I can assure you that they're in paradise.


----------



## fishkeeper01 (Oct 2, 2012)

I'd like to end this discussion. If you two are just going to keep butting heads please just do not engage with eachother as it will not go anywhere. Thanks


----------



## Couesfanatic (Sep 28, 2009)

Sorry about jumping your thread fishkeeper01. I have the finnex stingray and have had good luck with that light for low tech with Aquasoil.

I do believe we can have a good discussion without argument. I think we can discuss tank parameters and specifics as long as people don't get offended or heated. It will have to be on another thread though.


----------



## Krispyplants (Apr 15, 2014)

fishkeeper01 said:


> I'd like to end this discussion. If you two are just going to keep butting heads please just do not engage with eachother as it will not go anywhere. Thanks


Nobody was bumping heads, we was just exchanging opinions and somebody jumped in with an accusation that we as fellow hobbiest can't accept.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Krispyplants said:


> The more important question is why wouldn't you test you water? This has become the main reason why people recommend water changes. To negate the doubt of people being unable to test their water quality. I in particular like to test my water so i can estimate on the duration of doing the next water change. If you don't test your water, how would you know that you need a water change?


And what do you test for?
To my knowledge there are no available hobbyist test kits that ensures high water quality as testing for ammonia, nitrites, and nitrates does little to measure overall water quality.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

You may be the exception to the rule of the nitrogen cycle in the FW tank. What are your nitrate test results?
Even in the [heavily] planted [low tech] tank, nitrates tend to build up over time. Although not as toxic as ammonia and nitrites, long term exposure to high nitrates has been proven to be unhealthy for fish, reducing their immune system and shortening life spans. The claim that one doesn't do partial water changes for months or forever and the fish are fine is like ignoring that second hand smoke is harmful. Fish can survive in unhealthy water, but surviving is not thriving.
With the right plants and substrate one could dramatically reduce nitrates to a point, but elimination is less likely in the average aquarium. Admittedly, in some rare cases, with the right plants and light stock load, low nitrates with minimal water changes is possible. It's just not the rule for most tanks...
And frankly routine dilution is the solution to pollution in the aquarium!

footnote: I have a nephew with a SW tank (It's not reef - he doesn't do corals). He has a refugium with deep sand and never does partial water changes, just top offs with RO water. His nitrates consistently tested so low he's stopped testing altogether. His water is crystal clear and his fish and anemones are gorgeous. It can be done and if it can be done in SW, why not FW, but it may be more the exception than the rule. :smile2:




Krispyplants said:


> You have no idea about what you're implying. The last duration that I have on my current low tech tank (that is in my signature) is around 3 months without a water change. Still have the same amount of fish and shrimp. In fact they reproduced. Even though the value number of my plants out weigh my fish, I can assure you that they're in paradise.


----------



## Krispyplants (Apr 15, 2014)

AbbeysDad said:


> You may be the exception to the rule of the nitrogen cycle in the FW tank. What are your nitrate test results?
> Even in the [heavily] planted [low tech] tank, nitrates tend to build up over time. Although not as toxic as ammonia and nitrites, long term exposure to high nitrates has been proven to be unhealthy for fish, reducing their immune system and shortening life spans. The claim that one doesn't do partial water changes for months or forever and the fish are fine is like ignoring that second hand smoke is harmful. Fish can survive in unhealthy water, but surviving is not thriving.
> With the right plants and substrate one could dramatically reduce nitrates to a point, but elimination is less likely in the average aquarium. Admittedly, in some rare cases, with the right plants and light stock load, low nitrates with minimal water changes is possible. It's just not the rule for most tanks...
> And frankly routine dilution is the solution to pollution in the aquarium!
> ...


I don't fertilize my low tech tank. Everything that the plants need are in the substrate and water column. Most of my plants are above substrate which may explain why i'm able to procrastinate. I was testing initially but since nothing has changed in terms of feeding schedule or anything major, i don't test anymore. The plants were utilizing everything and anything in the water column the last time that i remember testing my water.


----------



## aquaBender (Aug 18, 2016)

Man, people can't seem to believe that any other method than their specific water change schedule will work. I have three 10 gallon Walstad-style tanks and one 5 gallon Walstad and it's taken me over a year to get my water changes on a schedule which is really easy for me and seems to work well for my plants and fish, yet I don't think that ONLY my schedule will work, just that it does and I'm happy with it.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

@Krispyplants - it prolly wouldn't hurt to check nitrates as they can ever so slowly build up over time. As I mentioned, with a relatively heavily planted low tech tank and minimal stock levels, it is possible for nitrates to stay low...just most often not the case due to plant mix/growth rates, stock levels, maintenance, feeding levels...

I've been in the hobby for about 50 years. I built my home in the country about 38 years ago and it just happens to be across the road from a 95 acre farmers field that gets all sorts of organic and chemical ferts.....which results in high nitrates in my well water. I filter water (through API Nitra-Zorb) for modest weekly water changes, but I also fight the good fight to keep nitrates low in my 60g. 
Assuming your nitrates have stayed low, I'd be curious to know your tank details, plant types and mass, stock level etc.


----------



## Krispyplants (Apr 15, 2014)

AbbeysDad said:


> @*Krispyplants* - it prolly wouldn't hurt to check nitrates as they can ever so slowly build up over time. As I mentioned, with a relatively heavily planted low tech tank and minimal stock levels, it is possible for nitrates to stay low...just most often not the case due to plant mix/growth rates, stock levels, maintenance, feeding levels...
> 
> I've been in the hobby for about 50 years. I built my home in the country about 38 years ago and it just happens to be across the road from a 95 acre farmers field that gets all sorts of organic and chemical ferts.....which results in high nitrates in my well water. I filter water (through API Nitra-Zorb) for modest weekly water changes, but I also fight the good fight to keep nitrates low in my 60g.
> Assuming your nitrates have stayed low, I'd be curious to know your tank details, plant types and mass, stock level etc.


will test and be back. I gotta go dig the test junks from my old closet. Not sure if you'll accept old test kits as being plausible but i did do a 60% water change not too long ago. I assume that you want the results from the 3 month mark?


----------



## Krispyplants (Apr 15, 2014)

AbbeysDad said:


> @Krispyplants - it prolly wouldn't hurt to check nitrates as they can ever so slowly build up over time. As I mentioned, with a relatively heavily planted low tech tank and minimal stock levels, it is possible for nitrates to stay low...just most often not the case due to plant mix/growth rates, stock levels, maintenance, feeding levels...
> 
> I've been in the hobby for about 50 years. I built my home in the country about 38 years ago and it just happens to be across the road from a 95 acre farmers field that gets all sorts of organic and chemical ferts.....which results in high nitrates in my well water. I filter water (through API Nitra-Zorb) for modest weekly water changes, but I also fight the good fight to keep nitrates low in my 60g.
> Assuming your nitrates have stayed low, I'd be curious to know your tank details, plant types and mass, stock level etc.


I could not for the life of me, find the dam API color table or my tds meter. If anyone can post a chart up. No bottles expired yet. Gh is 15, kh is 4


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Basically for nitrates, yellow to pale orange is okay, dark orange to deep red not so good! .... hear's a link:

https://www.google.com/search?q=api+test+chart&tbm=isch&imgil=vj0JPm8YoRB4CM%253A%253BX47APmTzJgLcQM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.myaquariumclub.com%25252Flost-your-api-freshwater-master-test-kit-color-chart-8633.html&source=iu&pf=m&fir=vj0JPm8YoRB4CM%253A%252CX47APmTzJgLcQM%252C_&usg=__tXKc4en7wBE2KxMOJqMvSz4PhdA%3D&biw=1093&bih=519&ved=0ahUKEwj-p9q1lf_TAhVMOyYKHT6yB14QyjcIVA&ei=w5MgWb66Mcz2mAG-5J7wBQ#imgrc=vj0JPm8YoRB4CM:


----------



## Krispyplants (Apr 15, 2014)

AbbeysDad said:


> Basically for nitrates, yellow to pale orange is okay, dark orange to deep red not so good! .... hear's a link:
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=api+test+chart&tbm=isch&imgil=vj0JPm8YoRB4CM%253A%253BX47APmTzJgLcQM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.myaquariumclub.com%25252Flost-your-api-freshwater-master-test-kit-color-chart-8633.html&source=iu&pf=m&fir=vj0JPm8YoRB4CM%253A%252CX47APmTzJgLcQM%252C_&usg=__tXKc4en7wBE2KxMOJqMvSz4PhdA%3D&biw=1093&bih=519&ved=0ahUKEwj-p9q1lf_TAhVMOyYKHT6yB14QyjcIVA&ei=w5MgWb66Mcz2mAG-5J7wBQ#imgrc=vj0JPm8YoRB4CM:


Yellow means 0 ppm or extremely close to it. The plants that I do have are bucephalandras, fissidens fontanus, Anubias stardust, Anubias white, mini pellia and Monte carlos, I have a dozen cpd, 2 dozen+ PRL CRS, 3 otocinclus, many ramshorn and Malaysian trumpet snails, 3 assassin snails and 2 small xenotoca variata Jesus Maria fry.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Ahh....little to no ammonia means little/no nitrates.


----------



## Krispyplants (Apr 15, 2014)

AbbeysDad said:


> Ahh....little to no ammonia means little/no nitrates.


It's a 22 gallon long. I favor plants more but if you really want to know my perspective, I'm maxed out on livestock. You can only have a true ecosystem and get away with water changes from depending on your plants if you stock your tank right.


----------



## AngeltheGypsy (May 2, 2017)

Krispyplants said:


> I could not for the life of me, find the dam API color table or my tds meter. If anyone can post a chart up. No bottles expired yet. Gh is 15, kh is 4




I notice your ammonia test is clear and the nitrate test is bright yellow. Did you use both reagent bottles for these tests? The ammonia test should be yellow for 0 ammonia, never clear. It's clear if you only use one bottle, you must use two. 

The nitrate test will show bright yellow if it reads 0 or if the test was performed incorrectly. 

I've run into these issues before helping to teach people how to use the test kit. If it's been a while and you don't have the booklet, it's understandable if you didn't do the tests correctly.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

It does look like the tests may have been flawed.
But, what's important to note (and you might mention when posting about your non regular partial water changes) is that you have very little stock. Except for primarily plant only tanks, I think most hobbyists would have far more fish which w/could result in high(er) nitrates. And then there's the high tech method that doses ferts on the heavy side and does 50% weekly water changes.



Krispyplants said:


> It's a 22 gallon long. I favor plants more but if you really want to know my perspective, I'm maxed out on livestock. You can only have a true ecosystem and get away with water changes from depending on your plants if you stock your tank right.


----------



## Krispyplants (Apr 15, 2014)

AbbeysDad said:


> It does look like the tests may have been flawed.
> But, what's important to note (and you might mention when posting about your non regular partial water changes) is that you have very little stock. Except for primarily plant only tanks, I think most hobbyists would have far more fish which w/could result in high(er) nitrates. And then there's the high tech method that doses ferts on the heavy side and does 50% weekly water changes.


I don't think anyone is still really following the original ei method water change schedule. For smaller tanks maybe but for large tanks, 50% is really unnecessary if you know how to tune the fertilizers to your water. Plus it's a burden.

Bump:


AngeltheGypsy said:


> I notice your ammonia test is clear and the nitrate test is bright yellow. Did you use both reagent bottles for these tests? The ammonia test should be yellow for 0 ammonia, never clear. It's clear if you only use one bottle, you must use two.
> 
> The nitrate test will show bright yellow if it reads 0 or if the test was performed incorrectly.
> 
> I've run into these issues before helping to teach people how to use the test kit. If it's been a while and you don't have the booklet, it's understandable if you didn't do the tests correctly.


I couldn't find the other bottle and yes it has been quite some time since the last time that I checked my water parameters. The nitrate was "performed" correctly. I can assure you


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

My take is that many still follow EI and from other forums I know of many hobbyists (planted or fish only) that do 50% weekly water changes. Many larger fishrooms rely on large water changes rather than more sophisticated filtration systems....and then there's discus owners/breeders that swear by 50% water changes two or more times a week. It is prolly a minority of hobbyists like yourself that have such a high plant mass to such a low stock level allowing them to 'get away' with low volume and/or infrequent partial water changes. As mentioned, the typical solution to pollution is dilution.
As far as a partial water change being a burden....if you're setup properly to do any water change, volume is almost incidental.



Krispyplants said:


> I don't think anyone is still really following the original ei method water change schedule. For smaller tanks maybe but for large tanks, 50% is really unnecessary if you know how to tune the fertilizers to your water. Plus it's a burden.
> 
> Bump:
> 
> I couldn't find the other bottle and yes it has been quite some time since the last time that I checked my water parameters. The nitrate was "performed" correctly. I can assure you


----------



## Krispyplants (Apr 15, 2014)

AbbeysDad said:


> My take is that many still follow EI and from other forums I know of many hobbyists (planted or fish only) that do 50% weekly water changes. Many larger fishrooms rely on large water changes rather than more sophisticated filtration systems....and then there's discus owners/breeders that swear by 50% water changes two or more times a week. It is prolly a minority of hobbyists like yourself that have such a high plant mass to such a low stock level allowing them to 'get away' with low volume and/or infrequent partial water changes. As mentioned, the typical solution to pollution is dilution.
> As far as a partial water change being a burden....if you're setup properly to do any water change, volume is almost incidental.


The pps fertilizing method seems to be favored over the ei method more because of the burden of doing hundreds of gallons of water changing when it comes to discus tanks. In my opinion the ei method pales to a true balanced system. You don't have to enslave yourself to your tank in order to have a healthy tank. If I kept a school of discus in a tank devoted to low tech(maintenance) which this thread was about, I would not change my style one bit because I will have the proper setup to compensate for the detritus. Whether it be volume in plants or filtration. There's no sense of going tons of water changes in a low maintenance tank. That just defeats the purpose of the category of the tank (low tech) and the purpose of what plants do. I guess not everyone likes to think about a balanced ecosystem, when referring to the words low tech.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

@Krispyplants - You have no way of knowing the quality of the water in your tank. You assume balance because it's planted and you have very little stock....and you're probably right. However, if you were to add 2 - 4 adult discus or any other larger fish (or 10 or so smaller fish), I believe that your plants (even in a heavier planted tank) would not be able to sufficiently purify the water. And when I speak of purification, it's not simply nitrates. We might use nitrates and/or TDS as guides, but they really don't tell the whole story of water purification. Like mechanical filters, Plants can only do so much.

In any case, routine partial water changes better ENSURES high(er) water quality by replacing polluted water with fresh, clean water. The benefits can/should not be debated.
Even in a low tech and/or low maintenance tank, spending 1 hour a week to clean the glass, filter(s), and do a partial water change is well worth the investment....even in a planted tank, regardless of stock level!

I have a friend (Byron) that swears by 50% weekly water changes in his many (6-8) medium-large planted tanks... and his planted tanks makes most of ours just look sad!

*Bottom line: Can we 'get away' with reduced volume and/or increased duration between partial water changes in the planted tank? YES, but the risk of failure goes up with the stock level.*


----------



## Krispyplants (Apr 15, 2014)

AbbeysDad said:


> @Krispyplants - You have no way of knowing the quality of the water in your tank. You assume balance because it's planted and you have very little stock....and you're probably right. However, if you were to add 2 - 4 adult discus or any other larger fish (or 10 or so smaller fish), I believe that your plants (even in a heavier planted tank) would not be able to sufficiently purify the water. And when I speak of purification, it's not simply nitrates. We might use nitrates and/or TDS as guides, but they really don't tell the whole story of water purification. Like mechanical filters, Plants can only do so much.
> 
> In any case, routine partial water changes better ENSURES high(er) water quality by replacing polluted water with fresh, clean water. The benefits can/should not be debated.
> Even in a low tech and/or low maintenance tank, spending 1 hour a week to clean the glass, filter(s), and do a partial water change is well worth the investment....even in a planted tank, regardless of stock level!
> ...


I never said that my 22 gallon long was going to be used if I was going to get some discus did I? :grin2: this convo is getting funny because You misunderstood. You said that my tank is lightly stock, imagine a scenario where 1 dozen discus would be considered lightly stock. You have no way of knowing my water quality either so unless my fish told you that my water is polluted, partially assuming the worst is ludicrous. If you want me to, I can send you my water when it reaches the 3rd month mark. I did mentioned that I was initially testing my tank. Weekly 50% for a low tech(maintenance) tank amuses me.


----------



## Bunsen Honeydew (Feb 21, 2017)

Oh boy, not another one of these "debates".


----------



## Dman911 (Nov 24, 2016)

Bunsen Honeydew said:


> Oh boy, not another one of these "debates".


Have to say though these debates are healthy and promote great info for readers. Personally I think each tank is different and there is no right answer. It all depends on individual circumstances and I think testing is the only way to get a good idea of what each tank needs. With that said after you know your tank well the need for testing drops substantially in my opinion and at that point you should have a schedule for dosing, water changes etc. that suit that individual tank. I have had tanks that have required water changes anywhere from daily to monthly. There are to many variables to take guidelines and opinions of others as rules. They are helpful at giving starting points and an idea of what you may encounter but are far from rules. As far as I'm concerned this even goes for EI dosing as a heavily stocked tank with slower growing or less plants can lead to toxic levels of nitrates in 1 week depending on how many different variables. So my words of advice is advice and opinions are just that, they are not rules and each tank has its own needs. The key to figuring out each tank is testing in my opinion (for those more experienced it also has a lot to do with reading the signs of fish and plants). It does NOT rule out everything but it should get you close enough to be successful. 

Again I don't feel there is a right answer to this topic.

Dan


----------



## Bunsen Honeydew (Feb 21, 2017)

Dman911 said:


> Have to say though these debates are healthy and promote great info for readers. Personally I think each tank is different and there is no right answer. It all depends on individual circumstances and I think testing is the only way to get a good idea of what each tank needs. With that said after you know your tank well the need for testing drops substantially in my opinion and at that point you should have a schedule for dosing, water changes etc. that suit that individual tank. I have had tanks that have required water changes anywhere from daily to monthly. There are to many variables to take guidelines and opinions of others as rules. They are helpful at giving starting points and an idea of what you may encounter but are far from rules. As far as I'm concerned this even goes for EI dosing as a heavily stocked tank with slower growing or less plants can lead to toxic levels of nitrates in 1 week depending on how many different variables. So my words of advice is advice and opinions are just that, they are not rules and each tank has its own needs. The key to figuring out each tank is testing in my opinion (for those more experienced it also has a lot to do with reading the signs of fish and plants). It does NOT rule out everything but it should get you close enough to be successful.
> 
> Again I don't feel there is a right answer to this topic.
> 
> Dan


I was referring more to the response of folks assuming that because their experience is different that the other person must be inept.


----------



## Dman911 (Nov 24, 2016)

Bunsen Honeydew said:


> I was referring more to the response of folks assuming that because their experience is different that the other person must be inept.


Yeah I know but that is one of the important aspects of a debate I feel, and the drive to be right brings out the best info. I see it as a necessary evil personally but again that's just my opinion. The best information I have found comes from heated debates and usually all is settled in the end with respect for all views.

Dan


----------



## Bunsen Honeydew (Feb 21, 2017)

Dman911 said:


> Yeah I know but that is one of the important aspects of a debate I feel, and the drive to be right brings out the best info. I see it as a necessary evil personally but again that's just my opinion. The best information I have found comes from heated debates and usually all is settled in the end with respect for all views.
> 
> Dan


I disagree. The best information comes from the drive to discover what is correct, not trying to prove one's own position correct. There is a difference, and this is exactly why I put debate in quotation marks in my previous post.


----------



## Dman911 (Nov 24, 2016)

Bunsen Honeydew said:


> I disagree. The best information comes from the drive to discover what is correct, not trying to prove one's own position correct. There is a difference, and this is exactly why I put debate in quotation marks in my previous post.


For example this debate arises from a disagreement of where the best info comes from. When one believes they are correct they are not trying to discover the correct answer they are trying to prove they are correct and this leads to differing views of what correct is which usually leads to debate and finding the correct answer or consensus. If everyone had the drive to find what is correct nobody would debate, debates stem from people who thing think are correct and have differing views. Questions stem from those seeking the correct information.

Sorry to the OP for the derail  seems to happen in debates. 

Dan


----------



## Krispyplants (Apr 15, 2014)

Bunsen Honeydew said:


> Oh boy, not another one of these "debates".


The irony, to start a debate about debating :grin2:


----------



## Bunsen Honeydew (Feb 21, 2017)

Krispyplants said:


> The irony, to start a debate about debating :grin2:


"Debate" about "debates". :wink2:


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

I thought it was just another discussion of the merits of routine partial water changes.


----------



## Krispyplants (Apr 15, 2014)

AbbeysDad said:


> I thought it was just another discussion of the merits of routine partial water changes.


In a "low tech"


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Krispyplants said:


> In a "low tech"


Ah, I reread the thread to realize that you feel low tech means low maintenance....and that applies to water changes. 

I feel low tech merely means lower light, less ferts, and no CO2...and has nothing to do with cleaning the glass, servicing filter(s), and doing routine partial water changes. If low tech is low maintenance, it's indirect.

I believe that the frequency and volume of necessary routine partial water changes has little to do with low, med, or high tech, but rather will vary from tank to tank based on the plant mass, fert dosing, stock level, feeding (amount and type), tank/filter maintenance, etc.
Having plants is like having a slightly better filter. But plants can only help a little to purify the water. (assuming we lay off the ferts and force the plants to 'scavenge' the water column for 'nutrients' [aka pollutants]).

Experts tend to agree that a modest weekly partial water change of at least 20 - 25% can only be beneficial as it better ensures a consistent supply of fresh water while removing old [polluted] tank water. I think this recommendation is simply because we do not have the tools to adequately test for true water quality. 

Actually, instead of weekly water changes, what would be even better is an automated drip/overflow system where fresh water was added all the time.

Footnote: Even those that only grow plants suggest that routine partial water changes are beneficial for plants likely due to the refreshing of calcium and magnesium from fresh water.


----------



## Krispyplants (Apr 15, 2014)

AbbeysDad said:


> Ah, I reread the thread to realize that you feel low tech means low maintenance....and that applies to water changes.
> 
> I feel low tech merely means lower light, less ferts, and no CO2...and has nothing to do with cleaning the glass, servicing filter(s), and doing routine partial water changes. If low tech is low maintenance, it's indirect.
> 
> ...


Everyone has there own category and what they would include per category. Some say co2 decides the border line between high tech and medium tech. Some say light strips determine the borderline between low and medium tech regardless of co2. High tech for you can translate into mid tech for the next person because you're not dosing all the necessary fertilizers and/or have a strong enough light strip. I've always enjoyed the less frequent water changes that comes with low tech tanks. Not half way planted, not two thirds planted but fully planted. Have you ever had a "fully" matured and planted low tech aquarium without any additional fertilizing and monitored the water weekly for six months straight? If you think that plants can't purify water enough to sustain an ecosystem by themselves even without an aquarium filter, you need to do some experimenting. Don't under estimate what plants can do and instead of incorporating some of my former experience into this conversation(which would probably just seem like jargon), I suggest you read Diana Walstad's ecology of the planted aquarium book. Though i would like to add to that thought that aquatic plants have been around for who knows how long. Most are highly adaptable and are always struggling to become the supreme species in their environment. They don't play around with what little nutrients that they have available. The reason why people are crazy for aquatic plants is no joke, they do what people say that they do. You have to know what you're doing to avoid water changes and still have a nice, healthy, lush and vibrant looking tank. Believe me, I'm not just getting by with procrastination. My plants love me so much that they show me. Maybe this statement will conclude this water change/pollution debate. "I don't dose any fertilizers, just straight up aquasoil and fish waste." If you're coming from a "I'm speaking for the beginners that have two or three anubias with two oscars in a twenty gallon," you can amuse me some more with strict weekly water change theories.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

The Walstad method (of which I'm very familiar) succeeds ONLY because of a very large plant mass AND very light bio-load. Dianna was convinced that partial water changes were somewhat counter productive because they removed nutrients the plants would otherwise use. It's my understanding that she ALSO realized that less frequent partial water changes were/are beneficial.

Like rain in nature, water in an aquarium is kept fresh by partial water changes. This removes and replaces some of the pollutants that plants don't use and there are minerals in fresh water needed and used by both plants and fish. Minerals that will become depleted w/o routine partial water changes.
@Krispyplants organic approach is admirable, but may miss the key component of a healthy FW environment. Imagine FW in nature if there was little/no rain. And then we have to ask, what is the downside to replacing old tank water with fresh water? 
From my perspective, the only real questions would be how much and how often is correct?....and the answer varies due to tank variables.

Old Tank Syndrome is real, even in the planted tank!


----------

