# Which 'other chemicals' do water changes actually reduce?



## Kubla (Jan 5, 2014)

The air in your home is polluted with loads of different chemicals, VOC's etc. Since it is in contact, and in some cases pumped through the water, they can get transferred to the water. When water evaporates it leaves the chemicals and minerals behind. Topping off the water concentrates these levels.
Water changes take care of both issues.

As far as a list, way to many things to list, way to many variables.


----------



## tlarsen (Feb 6, 2014)

Some interesting and relatively recent studies show that houseplants rapidly absorb pollutants like VOCs, especially fast growers. Would be interesting to know whether aquatic plants do the same.

Perhaps there are too many to exhaustively list, but I still wonder which are the primary contaminants that would typically and most rapidly impact the aquarium without frequent water changes. I'm surprised to have not seen any discussion of this anywhere, but I'm probably missing something


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

The Water Change removes organics before they break down. That's the main reason to do a water change in addition to resetting the fert levels with dosing.


----------



## theatermusic87 (Jun 22, 2014)

houseofcards said:


> The Water Change removes organics before they break down. That's the main reason to do a water change in addition to resetting the fert levels with dosing.


You wouldn't happen to know what processes or timeframe it takes for this break down to occur would you? Links to threads papers etc would be awesome


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

theatermusic87 said:


> You wouldn't happen to know what processes or timeframe it takes for this break down to occur would you? Links to threads papers etc would be awesome


Aren't we basically talking about removing waste before nitrogen cycle starts.


----------



## GrampsGrunge (Jun 18, 2012)

Then why add nitrates?


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

GrampsGrunge said:


> Then why add nitrates?


You mean why add instead of using what's "naturally" in the tank?


----------



## Remmy (Jan 10, 2007)

houseofcards said:


> The Water Change removes organics before they break down. That's the main reason to do a water change in addition to resetting the fert levels with dosing.


What are these organics and why do we want to remove them?


----------



## lksdrinker (Feb 12, 2014)

Remmy said:


> What are these organics and why do we want to remove them?


Mostly fish poop and uneaten fish food. Would you want to hang out in your kitchen if you threw your scraps on the floor and did your business right there instead of using the toilet? Now if you did throw your scraps on the floor and crapped right where you eat; wouldn't you want someone to come in every so often and remove all that? The other alternative is you live like some of those people on the show hoarders....the piles (food, excrement, etc) keep growing until you're overwhelmed and you start getting sick. Now add water and imagine you're a fish and you've pretty much got the same situation!


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Remmy said:


> What are these organics and why do we want to remove them?


Actually in the planted tank, you really don't....or don't need to. I guess it all depends on ones mindset as many here seem to feel the organics are bad and must be removed and replaced with chemical additives (ferts)....and perhaps this is true in the high tech EI type methods (w/high light and CO2).
Now this is fine, but I'm leaning towards a low tech 'nearly natural biotope' method that leverages the organic fish/plant waste to feed the plants while purifying the water (and using Malaysian Trumpet Snails to assist in fertilizing rooted plants in the sand substrate). I may need small amounts of trace depending on the ratio of bio-load to plant mass - only time will tell.
(Note: this might also be called a Walstad Inspired method - just don't have 1" of washed out potting soil).


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

lksdrinker said:


> Mostly fish poop and uneaten fish food. Would you want to hang out in your kitchen if you threw your scraps on the floor and did your business right there instead of using the toilet? Now if you did throw your scraps on the floor and crapped right where you eat; wouldn't you want someone to come in every so often and remove all that? The other alternative is you live like some of those people on the show hoarders....the piles (food, excrement, etc) keep growing until you're overwhelmed and you start getting sick. Now add water and imagine you're a fish and you've pretty much got the same situation!


That's another great way to get the point across :grin2:

Bump:


AbbeysDad said:


> Actually in the planted tank, you really don't....or don't need to. I guess it all depends on ones mindset as many here seem to feel the organics are bad and must be removed and replaced with chemical additives (ferts)....and perhaps this is true in the high tech EI type methods (w/high light and CO2).


Removing organics before they break down into ammonia, etc. by doing water changes is not reserved for just high-tech. Your always better off with 'clean' water and adding back in the inorganic salts for the plants. It's better for the fish, the plants and controlling algae. 



AbbeysDad said:


> Now this is fine, but I'm leaning towards a low tech 'nearly natural biotope' method that leverages the organic fish/plant waste to feed the plants while purifying the water (and using Malaysian Trumpet Snails to assist in fertilizing rooted plants in the sand substrate). I may need small amounts of trace depending on the ratio of bio-load to plant mass - only time will tell.
> (Note: this might also be called a Walstad Inspired method - just don't have 1" of washed out potting soil).


That's all great, but that's a niche of the planted tank world and does not represent most setups. It's very restricting and limited to usually low, low/mid light. Because of this you can only grow certain plants and it's usually harder to alter the setup because of what's in the substrate and water column.


----------



## tlarsen (Feb 6, 2014)

I can't really believe that the two main end products of decomposing fish waste and food waste - nitrates and phosphates - are the only reason water changes contribute so much to better water quality. As mentioned already, these are used by plants, and they can be easily kept within acceptable ranges and at the right ratio without water changes. Ferts can be dosed without needing to reset with water changes.

Yet experience shows that water changes still make a difference to most people in the health of their aquarium - preventing algae, disease, etc. I want to know the specific mechanism behind this, beyond just nitrates, phosphates (and their precursors), and dosed ferts.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

tlarsen said:


> I can't really believe that the two main end products of decomposing fish waste and food waste - nitrates and phosphates -.


So when a fish does his/her business it's pooping Nitrates?


----------



## IntotheWRX (May 13, 2016)

i havent done water changes in months and my tank still looks ok. At what point should I change the water? I would change up to 20% when i did my water changes. shouldnt our tanks be a eco system on it's own? are water changes necessary?


----------



## tlarsen (Feb 6, 2014)

houseofcards said:


> So when a fish does his/her business it's pooping Nitrates?


Of course not - I said the precursors of nitrates and phosphates. In any cycled tank, these will quite rapidly be digested and produce the nitrates and phosphates. Fish waste also produces small amounts of Ca and Mg. The rest is mostly bacteria, with a few proteins and carbs from any vegetable matter that was eaten. None of these are harmful at the right levels.

What else? What exactly are these unknown rogue contaminants that build up in the tank?


----------



## lksdrinker (Feb 12, 2014)

tlarsen said:


> Ferts can be dosed without needing to reset with water changes


Thats not really correct. Water changes are usually required to "reset" when dosing most ferts. Some methods suggest doing more frequent water changes than others; but its still usually a good idea to do so. There are those out there who have kept planted tanks for years and years and claim they never do water changes. So its not impossible. There is definitely that sweet spot of perfect balance between the bioload/number of fish and how much waste they produce and how much of that waste the plants can consume and use. Finding it can be difficult.




tlarsen said:


> Yet experience shows that water changes still make a difference to most people in the health of their aquarium - preventing algae, disease, etc. I want to know the specific mechanism behind this, beyond just nitrates, phosphates (and their precursors), and dosed ferts



I'm not sure there is any further specific mechanism to it (but honestly cant say for sure). algae is typically the result of high nitrates (coupled with other factors like lighting, etc). (although, I'm sure you could still have algae growing in a tank where you do 100% water changes daily). If your plants cant consume all the nitrate in the tank then something else will and thats usually algae. Fish get stressed out by high levels of nitrate (some species are much more susceptible than others). Stressed fish often lead to sick fish which often lead to dead fish. Perhaps there is some better biological explanation about how a fish's system is handling that higher level of nitrate and therefore cant defend against other diseases and other problems. Its like living in a city with a lot of smog. Whether or not the smog itself is making you sick is somewhat questionable; but your body is now busy dealing with things it doesnt typically have to deal with which now leaves you susceptible to other problems.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

tlarsen said:


> In any cycled tank, these will quite rapidly be digested and produce the nitrates and phosphates. Fish waste also produces small amounts of Ca and Mg.


This is not true, What's rapidly? We are talking about algae spores/algae. Just because you test kit didn't detect it or your fish aren't worse for wear doesn't mean that spores/algae aren't consuming ammonia. The cycled tank doesn't necessasary handle all of this, the water change assist the bio-filter in reducing ammonia. Look what happens when we over-fed, over-stock. You remove dead leaves, uneaten food, fish waste, etc. your changes of issues go way down. This is basically a water change.


----------



## tlarsen (Feb 6, 2014)

Rapidly means in a matter of hours. I can add drops of pure ammonia to one of my tanks to a level of 5 ppm, and using a test kit, which of course lacks tremendous precision, monitor the level dropping to zero within hours. If you have 0.001 ppm ammonia which doesn't show up on the test kit, all a 50% WC does is lower that to 0.0005 - that difference is negligible and irrelevant to the plants, algae, etc.

I still believe that water changes are beneficial beyond the reduction of well known organics, but I don't know the mechanism. Perhaps it is related to fats/oils that go rancid in the tank after a while.


----------



## tlarsen (Feb 6, 2014)

Actually, my tapwater has 1.0 ppm of ammonia, so water changes actually increase ammonia levels in my tanks


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

tlarsen said:


> Rapidly means in a matter of hours. I can add drops of pure ammonia to one of my tanks to a level of 5 ppm, and using a test kit, which of course lacks tremendous precision, monitor the level dropping to zero within hours. If you have 0.001 ppm ammonia which doesn't show up on the test kit, all a 50% WC does is lower that to 0.0005 - t*hat difference is negligible and irrelevant to the plants, algae, etc.*


Did an algae spore tell you that? How do you know some of the Ammonia wasn't consumed by algae. An algae spore couldn't care less about what your API (or worse) test kit is telling you.


----------



## tlarsen (Feb 6, 2014)

It's negligible compared to the qty of ammonia that is produced from a daily feeding of a well stocked tank, and certainly negligible in comparison to my tapwater. I use RO water on small tanks, but on larger tanks, its tapwater, and as I said, a WC actually increases my ammonia levels temporarily.

Anyway, if all of these parameters remain stable in a tank over time, they are at equilibrium in terms of input and uptake by plants. I'm still curious about my original question regarding overlooked compounds that WC help with for water quality. What are the things that continue to increase in concentration that aren't typically measured?


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

lksdrinker said:


> Mostly fish poop and uneaten fish food. Would you want to hang out in your kitchen if you threw your scraps on the floor and did your business right there instead of using the toilet? Now if you did throw your scraps on the floor and crapped right where you eat; wouldn't you want someone to come in every so often and remove all that? The other alternative is you live like some of those people on the show hoarders....the piles (food, excrement, etc) keep growing until you're overwhelmed and you start getting sick. Now add water and imagine you're a fish and you've pretty much got the same situation!


Have you really never heard of organic gardening/farming? Nature built nutrient rich topsoil for eons before man made and began using chemical ferts ....along with herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, etc. and damaging the soil food web.
Consider what happens naturally in streams, lakes, ponds and ditches in the tropics.


----------



## TINNGG (Mar 9, 2005)

A better analogy would be a largish family deciding to never leave their house again, or bathe, while keeping the doors and windows shut. It's not just waste; it's pheromones and body odor. Filters and air cleaners can only remove so much.

Those ponds and ditches in the tropics either get a massive water change in the form of flooding, in which they become a part of a far greater body of water, or they dry up.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

houseofcards said:


> Removing organics before they break down into ammonia, etc. by doing water changes is not reserved for just high-tech. Your always better off with 'clean' water and adding back in the inorganic salts for the plants. It's better for the fish, the plants and controlling algae.


I can't argue that some amount of periodic partial water changes aren't beneficial, even though the Walstad method finds them counter productive as they remove nutrients the plants could use. When you say that "your always better off with 'clean' water" you seemingly fail to realize that's exactly what the plants do! They absorb these [more natural] nutrients and purify the water. Plants use ammonia as their preferred source of nitrogen.



houseofcards said:


> That's all great, but that's a niche of the planted tank world and does not represent most setups. It's very restricting and limited to usually low, low/mid light. Because of this you can only grow certain plants and it's usually harder to alter the setup because of what's in the substrate and water column.


Again I must disagree. I don't know that there are more high tech planted tanks than low tech. There sure seems to be a lot of 'dirt' tank enthusiasts in this forum which is also Walstad inspired. And I don't know how limiting a more natural approach is. After all don't most of these plants grow in nature without chemical ferts? 
I'm not saying that one way is right and another is wrong, just that a more natural approach is very possible.


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

Fish aren't the only organisms that produce waste in a planted tank. The plants that a lot of us think of as being so purifying by using all the waste products produced by fish, bacteria, snails, shrimp etc. also excrete waste products into the aquarium. One of those would be O2 released during photosynthesis, something we can all agree on as a pretty good addition. They also release nitrogenous compounds into the tank. So plants also contribute to pollution in our tanks. They're not just taking all of the "bad" stuff in and giving only good old O2 back. The bigger and faster plants the grow the more they excrete, but the amount of water in the tank stays the same. I'm sure it is possible to find a balance so that the amount of waste being produced by the fish is all used by the plants and the amount of plant waste is completely used by the bacteria and the bacterial waste is all used by the plants, etc. if it even works that way. I like water changes and usually do a 50% change every 5 days or so. We're not dealing with natural bodies of water. We have a very small amount of water with and very large amount of waste excreting living organisms. I can't see how it does not make sense that in that situation water changes are at least very advantageous if not necessary.

Of course I've seen all the pics of Uncle so and so who has this great planted tank with a 1000 wpg, he never changes water, never adds any ferts and doesn't use CO2 and is selling fish to his local lfs because they breed so fast he can't keep up with them so maybe it's all just personal preference .


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

O.K. I'm going to settle this once and for all. I just got back from Petsmart (Dog's big night out) and I grabbed their official _Aquatic Plants Care pamphlet_. Let's see, what it says:

"Plants use light to photosynthesize" - :smile2:
"Use foreground plants...in the front..." - :grin2:
"Rule of thumb to properly light plants is 1.5 WPG" - :wink2:

Oh, here now it get's good. "For optimum health, regular water changes not only prevent the undesirable accumulation of excess nutrients, but also remove nitrates and other WASTE products of the fish and plants." 

See I told you >


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

houseofcards said:


> O.K. I'm going to settle this once and for all. I just got back from Petsmart (Dog's big night out) and I grabbed their official _Aquatic Plants Care pamphlet_. Let's see, what it says:
> 
> "Plants use light to photosynthesize" - :smile2:
> "Use foreground plants...in the front..." - :grin2:
> ...


Glad you got it from an expert. Isn't that where Tom learned most of his stuff? 

Just a note. The sarcasm is not directed toward Tom. I have the utmost respect for him and I've received a lot of valuable help from him through his posts, website and pm's.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

TINNGG said:


> A better analogy would be a largish family deciding to never leave their house again, or bathe, while keeping the doors and windows shut. It's not just waste; it's pheromones and body odor. Filters and air cleaners can only remove so much.
> 
> Those ponds and ditches in the tropics either get a massive water change in the form of flooding, in which they become a part of a far greater body of water, or they dry up.


It's all nutrients for the plants which in turn purify the water. Every bit as good or better [nutrients] than chemical ferts. Just look at how nature does it.


----------



## tlarsen (Feb 6, 2014)

Jeff5614 said:


> Fish aren't the only organisms that produce waste in a planted tank. The plants that a lot of us think of as being so purifying by using all the waste products produced by fish, bacteria, snails, shrimp etc. also excrete waste products into the aquarium. One of those would be O2 released during photosynthesis, something we can all agree on as a pretty good addition. They also release nitrogenous compounds into the tank. So plants also contribute to pollution in our tanks. .


I assume you are talking about the decaying parts of the plants, right? Otherwise, I'm not sure what waste products you are referring to. If the plants are staying the same size or growing larger, they are a net sink for nitrogenous compounds, and are not contributing more to the water column through decomposition than they are absorbing.

It is true that most tropical wetlands and small water bodies are highly dynamic systems, subject to changing inputs, water chemistry, flora and fauna. However, there are also many examples of closed, balanced systems in the tropics that do not change much over time. I'm a tropical ecologist, and I like to bring my field adventures and experiences back to my tanks at home when I can!

Clearly it is very difficult to achieve and maintain that equilibrium at home, but it can be done. Still, I think there are other contaminants, especially from fish food, such as lipids, that might require water changes as they are not as readily broken down by bacteria or absorbed by plants. I'd like to learn more about what these are though, as they are almost always just lumped into the 'OTHERS' category...


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Jeff5614 said:


> Glad you got it from an expert. Isn't that where Tom learned most of his stuff?


LOL, probably. Petmart home of Mondo Grass and Lucky Bamboo.


----------



## tlarsen (Feb 6, 2014)

houseofcards said:


> "For optimum health, regular water changes not only prevent the undesirable accumulation of excess nutrients, but also remove nitrates and other WASTE products of the fish and plants."
> 
> See I told you >


Ha! There's that 'other waste products' line once again! It gets repeated so many times yet never defined. Perhaps its the boogeyman. Or a basket of deplorables that's responsible for mucking up our tanks. Maybe they only come out at night, and that's why we don't know. Nitrates and phosphates are not that hard to measure and maintain in a heavily planted tank.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

What's amusing, if not amazing, are those that flush the 'bad' natural nutrients with water changes and then replace them with man made chemical pollution! It's madness I tell you, madness!
:grin2:


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

AbbeysDad said:


> What's amusing, if not amazing, *are those that flush the 'bad' natural nutrients with water changes and then replace them with man made chemical pollution!* It's madness I tell you, madness!
> :grin2:


I can't do this any more. I'm going back to Petsmart....


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

AbbeysDad said:


> I can't argue that some amount of periodic partial water changes aren't beneficial, even though the Walstad method finds them counter productive as they remove nutrients the plants could use. *When you say that "your always better off with 'clean' water" you seemingly fail to realize that's exactly what the plants do! They absorb these [more natural] nutrients and purify the water*. Plants use ammonia as their preferred source of nitrogen.


Do you actually think I don't know that? What your not understanding is that once you rely on only the plants to do that it's a limited system in terms of light and the plant mass requirement you need. The water change helps ALL setups by removing waste. You don't always have the plant mass or growth you need to do that. So because many setups don't have that or want that a water change is necessary for some and can only help all setups as long as nutrients are put back in. 



AbbeysDad said:


> Again I must disagree. I don't know that there are more high tech planted tanks than low tech. There sure seems to be a lot of 'dirt' tank enthusiasts in this forum which is also Walstad inspired. *And I don't know how limiting a more natural approach is. After all don't most of these plants grow in nature without chemical ferts?*
> I'm not saying that one way is right and another is wrong, just that a more natural approach is very possible.


If you think an aquarium represents nature. Put your tank outside in the sun, with soil or whatever don't do anything to it and let me know what happens in a few weeks. 

Of course it's possible to have a natural approach, but you will be limited to what you can grow based on the lights. Don't you have a low-tech tank going. Can you grow every plant in it? That's what I mean by limited. You are limited to certain plants by the light. 

Isn't this your list of plants in your current setup: Jungle Val, Wisteria, Green Crypt Wendtii, Anubias Nana, Java Fern, Java Moss, Dwarf Sag, Amazon Sword.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Must be Petsmart has WiFi.


----------



## Olskule (Jan 28, 2010)

houseofcards said:


> . Of course it's possible to have a natural approach, but you will be limited to what you can grow based on the lights. Don't you have a low-tech tank going. Can you grow every plant in it? That's what I mean by limited. You are limited to certain plants by the light. .


Actually, as I understand it, the most limiting factor in aquatic plant growth is the CO2, which is the reason that many, if not most of the plants we commonly think of as "aquatic" species are actually normally emmersed species in their natural environment, which can adapt easily to fully aquatic conditions. And most of these will eagerly grow out of the top of your aquarium, or at least grow floating surface leaves, if you don't trim them back. Except for a few plants, like hornwort, elodea, etc., most of our aquarium plants would actually "prefer" to grow their leaves in the air, because of the higher concentration of CO2 available in the atmosphere (as compared to water). This is also why most aquarium plant suppliers don't grow their plants submersed, because they grow faster when their leaves are in the air. (This is also why many plants from commercial suppliers "melt" when you get them, or at least take a while to "get going", because they are having to lose their "air" leaves and grow new leaves that are specially adapted to being totally submersed.) Of course, in a high tech tank with CO2 injection, there is much more CO2 available for the plants to combine with organic nutrients (or artificial fertilizers), so they use more nutrients, natural or otherwise, and to do this they need more light to power the photosynthesis. When all three requirements are met--nutrients, CO2 and light--the plants grow better and more quickly; thus, the appeal of the high-tech tank. However, since the most limiting factor from a "natural" standpoint is CO2, this means that nutrients and light can exist in abundance, but without the higher CO2, the plants can't utilize the abundance of either, which is where algae steps in to "help" deal with the excess of both/either. And different types of algae take advantage of different excesses (light, nutrient A, nutrient B, etc.), so whichever excess or combination of excesses you may have in your aquarium results in a different algae; this is where "balance" comes in. If the amount of light, nutrients (a balance within itself), CO2 _and_ the amount (and type) of plant stock are within the "proper" parameters, then you will have "balanced" your aquarium and should see good plant growth. (Of course, any fauna in the system would fall under the category "nutrients" and, to a degree, CO2, because they supply both.)

So what does all this have to do with the original question about water changes? Well, for one, in a low-tech tank you are removing any over-abundance of nutrients that _could_ contribute to algae problems. This, of course, would depend upon both the demand for nutrients (by the plants) and the supply of nutrients (how many fish and how much you feed them). If it is a plant-only tank, then there is less likely to be an excess of nutrients unless you are purposefully adding them (ferts), and water changes to remove excess nutrients would not be needed.

As has been mentioned above, contaminants in the air within your home can settle into your aquarium or be literally injected into it via an air pump or the venturi of a water pump (power head, etc.) The reason for doing these things is to increase the gas exchange, which is good (if you're not trying to keep CO2 in the water), but a side effect is that contaminants in the air get taken up by the water, also. Water is very good at absorbing contaminants--ever notice how the air always seems fresher after a rain (or a heavy dew)? That's because the rain (or dew) has absorbed pollutants from the air (and also due to the action of ozone created from various processes during these events). The "Rainbow" vacuum cleaner famously uses water as a "filter" to trap dirt, dust, etc., and you are basically doing the same thing with an aquarium air pump, the difference being you're not sucking the air through a dirty carpet, so you get much less contamination in the water. It is still some, though. I forget the exact percentages, but the air in the average home is much more polluted than the air outside. (Just ask any home air purification product rep, I'm sure they can tell you exactly how much and what it consists of.)

Other naturally occurring substances you probably want to get rid of or dilute are the chemicals released by the animals and plants themselves. Someone above mentioned pheromones, and I suppose they are released and I'm not sure how long they take to break down or what negative effects they might have on the other fish, but some species are stimulated to spawn by a large water change, so I would venture to say that a dilution of _something_ spurs their reaction. Also, many plants put out chemicals that discourage other species of plants from encroaching on their "territory", and although I'm not aware of any specific aquarium plants that do this, and the subject has only recently become a focus of scientific study, we do know that "weapon" exists in the botanical arsenal, so perhaps it may be the culprit in those odd cases where an otherwise prolific aquarium plant cultivator just can't seem to get "such-and-such" to grow when all other parameters seem ideal. There's so much we don't know.

So that's three things I can think of offhand that might fall under the "other 'waste' products" (although they aren't all truly "waste products") you would want to reduce/dilute through water changes in your average aquarium: excess nutrients, contaminants from the air (or your hands, come to think of it), and naturally produced chemicals put out by the plants and/or animals. Of course, the more balanced your system is, or the lighter the bio-load (fauna), the less need you will likely have for frequent water changes. However, another, perhaps more important goal achieved by water changes is the re-introduction of trace minerals. As the term implies, these are components of natural water that exist in very small amounts, yet many are essential to the health of plants and animals. Did you ever drink pure, distilled water? It isn't very satisfying, because it doesn't contain trace elements we are used to--and need--in our drinking water. In the closed system of an aquarium, trace minerals/elements get taken up and "locked up" by plants (and animals) so that they are no longer in the water, available to new plant growth or animals, which need these tiny amounts in order for their bio-processes to function properly, or better. This, to me, seems like the strongest reason to do regular water changes even in aquariums that are well planted and well balanced. The necessary trace elements/minerals get absorbed and become unavailable for new growth or everyday biological processes, so they need to be replenished regularly.

Agreed, our aquariums are rarely, if ever, little slices of Nature; if we wanted to truly emulate Nature, we would have nothing smaller than a 55 gallon aquarium with one or two minnow-sized fish in it. "Balanced" is about as close to "natural" as we will be satisfied with, and even that is not (or extremely rarely is) actually and absolutely "balanced", because it is not a perfectly closed system; we generally add energy (light, heat and motion) and fish food, and replace water that has left the system through evaporation (or filter cleaning, which in itself takes away "wastes" from the system), so it is a partially closed system which we add to and take away from, hopefully in balance (less the growth that has occurred within the system, i.e. flora and fauna). I remember studying a theoretically "closed" system (such as a terrarium) back in the sixth grade. I realized then that the closest we can get to a truly "closed" ecosystem--as in "set it and forget it"--is usually very boring because there is not much going on in it. (Plus, it is never totally "closed", because at least light energy is added to the system, unless, maybe, it's a mushroom-growing closed system?)

SO, bottom line, water changes are good because they keep ANY potentially harmful component (nutrients, introduced contaminants and non-waste chemicals produced by flora and/or fauna) from becoming too abundant within the system AND to replace necessary trace elements/minerals that have been "locked up" within the system and made unavailable for new growth or bio-processes. And the term "other waste products" is so often used because the person (A) doesn't know what they actually are, or (B) doesn't want to go into the details and potential possibilities encompassed by the general term. (Believe me; I used to work in pet stores, and with most people, if you start to go into the "whys" of doing things, they become lost and get that blank look on their face, so it's best to "K.I.S.S.", or "Keep It Simple, Stupid".)

Olskule


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Olskule said:


> Actually, as I understand it, the most limiting factor in aquatic plant growth is the CO2, which is the reason that many, if not most of the plants we commonly think of as "aquatic" species are actually normally emmersed species in their natural environment, which can adapt easily to fully aquatic conditions...
> Olskule


Light, co2, nutrients take your pick any one of these could be a limiting factor in one's aquarium. Your reference toward the end of your post that aquariums don't really resemble nature (which of course I agree), but then your try to make a point about co2 being the limited factor and you reference how plants grow in nature isn't really applicable to what I was talking about. 

In the context of the discussion, specifically what I was talking to abbeysdad about, is his 'Walstad Inspired' setup is that its limited to the plants he can grow because the system isn't sustainable with strong light. With the stronger light the system will demand macro dosing in addition to what he's doing and probably co2. He clearly indicated that he wants the system to be somewhat 'self sustaining'. Those systems are limited to lower light that doesn't necessarily require co2 o NPK dosing. 

In general anyone of those variables (co2, light, nutrients) could be limiting. When you go strong light most here pretty much assume your providing co2.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

CO2 is limiting factor in majority of low tech tank's or they would all be using high lighting.
The light energy just drives demand for more CO2 and possibly nutrient's.
Can add all the nutrient's one want's to, but if demand for CO2(light driven) exceeds what you/I can provide,the plant's will know it/show it.
Is easy to provide light/nutrient's.CO2 not so easy to get right for many it appear's.
Even those with issues in higher light driven tank's with CO2 could see less issues if they would back off the light but they persist.
Nothing about glass box of water is like nature for there are no rain's,current's,or tides to carry away that which we remove via water changes like already mentioned waste product's from plant's and fauna.
If the waste product's are not able to be used by sufficient plant mass, then Algae will happily find it's niche in the tank.


----------



## lksdrinker (Feb 12, 2014)

AbbeysDad said:


> Have you really never heard of organic gardening/farming? Nature built nutrient rich topsoil for eons before man made and began using chemical ferts ....along with herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, etc. and damaging the soil food web.
> Consider what happens naturally in streams, lakes, ponds and ditches in the tropics.


not sure what organic farming has to do with this. But, I'm sure in those situations they wont keep piling on the manure layer upon layer upon layer indefinitely. There is still a proper amount of ferts to use whether it be organic, synthetic, chemical or whatever you want to call it. Balance is always essential; and it can be tough to accomplish proper balance in a square glass box. Comparing it to anything in nature is kind of a stretch. What happens naturally in lakes, ponds, etc is most typically a constant influx of new water which is essentially the same as a water change.


----------



## tlarsen (Feb 6, 2014)

Olskule said:


> So that's three things I can think of offhand that might fall under the "other 'waste' products" (although they aren't all truly "waste products") you would want to reduce/dilute through water changes in your average aquarium: excess nutrients, contaminants from the air (or your hands, come to think of it), and naturally produced chemicals put out by the plants and/or animals.
> 
> SO, bottom line, water changes are good because they keep ANY potentially harmful component (nutrients, introduced contaminants and non-waste chemicals produced by flora and/or fauna) from becoming too abundant within the system AND to replace necessary trace elements/minerals that have been "locked up" within the system and made unavailable for new growth or bio-processes. And the term "other waste products" is so often used because the person (A) doesn't know what they actually are, or (B) doesn't want to go into the details and potential possibilities encompassed by the general term. (Believe me; I used to work in pet stores, and with most people, if you start to go into the "whys" of doing things, they become lost and get that blank look on their face, so it's best to "K.I.S.S.", or "Keep It Simple, Stupid".)
> 
> Olskule


Thanks for this Olskule. I'd like to steer the thread away from the discussion on balancing light, nutrients and CO2 in semi-natural vs high-tech tanks, as that is well covered before, and instead focus on this 'OTHER' category. So of the 3 Olskule mentions here, let's ignore nutrients because we understand those well, including trace elements/minerals that can be added by dosing as well as by water changes.

Contaminants from the air - agreed, there are many VOCs and other contaminants that could be important here and could build up in a tank without water changes. But instead of listing the hundreds that may exist, I'd still like to understand the principle culprits and what impacts they have. As a scientist, I am not satisfied with lumping everything into a generic category.

Naturally produced chemicals by plants and animals - while there are some, such as pheromones, it seems unlikely to me that they would negatively impact the flora and fauna or lead to algae. They certainly could alter behavior such as spawning though, which is why water changes could trigger a response. They also breakdown naturally, especially with light. I assume Olskule is referring to allelopathy, which happens when organisms, particularly plants, release chemicals that inhibit the growth of others. I have seen rainforest trees with completely barren ground in a 15 ft radius around the trunk and a dense understory of plants beyond this radius, because of this powerful effect which reduces competition. But most species do not do this, and if our aquarium plants did, the effect would be very conspicuous when that species is introduced to the tank.

So what else? I'm still convinced that water changes play an important role in maintaining water quality and healthy plants, fish, shrimp, etc., and that this occurs independently of the nutrients already discussed. But why? What is it about the water that becomes stale?


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

roadmaster said:


> ...
> Nothing about glass box of water is like nature for there are no rain's,current's,or tides to carry away that which we remove via water changes like already mentioned waste product's from plant's and fauna.
> If the waste product's are not able to be used by sufficient plant mass, then Algae will happily find it's niche in the tank.


Somehwat untrue when you think it through...we add lighting, filters, heaters, plants, substrate and creatures all to emulate nature and it's processes....which is why I refer to it as a 'nearly natural biotope'...not exact, but as close as we can get. Anything less would be cruelty to the creatures we've made captive in the glass box.

We presume that water is 'fresh' because rains flush away any waste that would make it unpure. But by this logic, and after eons of this, the oceans should be cesspools which we know is not the case. Nature recycles and reuses everything.

As I mentioned way back in a previous post, to a degree, (in spite of Diana Walstad's method) partial water changes are beneficial. However, they are less significant in the heavily planted nearly natural biotope aquarium where plants (and creatures like MTS) assimilate waste as nutrients.

But I guess I better go ask the kid at Petsmart what he thinks. 0


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

Balanced Redox potential is a benefit that water changes help provide.
Is some thick reading for those interested other than just passive acknowledgement.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

AbbeysDad said:


> Somehwat untrue when you think it through...we add lighting, filters, heaters, plants, substrate and creatures all to emulate nature and it's processes....which is why I refer to it as a 'nearly natural biotope'...not exact, but as close as we can get. Anything less would be cruelty to the creatures we've made captive in the glass box.
> 
> We presume that water is 'fresh' because rains flush away any waste that would make it unpure. But by this logic, and after eons of this, the oceans should be cesspools which we know is not the case. Nature recycles and reuses everything.
> 
> As I mentioned way back in a previous post, to a degree, (in spite of Diana Walstad's method) partial water changes are beneficial. However, they are less significant in the heavily planted nearly natural biotope aquarium where plants (and creatures like MTS) assimilate waste as nutrients.


 Don't get me started on Malaysian trumpet snail's :hihiI love em and hate em)
Yes they assimilate some organic matter as food and that which they eat ,they also excrete.
In large enough number's,they too become a player in the total dissolved solid's and or waste generated daily.(many over feed,over stock)
Whether you or I have the plant mass to assimilate all the waste being created is subjective.
Signed on for water changes some forty year's ago when I first began keeping/caring for fishes, and believe encouraging other's to do so is wise.
Nothing beat's being able to perform a large water change right from the tap without worrying bout sudden increase/decrease in GH,pH when the situation present's itself or when caring for several tank's.
Opinion's vary.


----------



## Panw (Jan 20, 2016)

This is an interesting subject, I have a well established 29g tank with 2 large Angels, tetras, a Cory, and a pleco. I have them for more then 5 years now. I rarely do water change - may be 20% once a month, or sometimes longer. I topped the water every 2 weeks or so. Fishes are healthy. It seems to me that with a larger tank, once it is established, you don't need water changes as often. I have never tested the water in the tank, may be I should to learned more


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

AbbeysDad said:


> ....
> As I mentioned way back in a previous post, to a degree, (in spite of Diana Walstad's method) partial water changes are beneficial. However, they are less significant in the heavily planted nearly natural biotope aquarium where plants (and creatures like MTS) assimilate waste as nutrients.
> 
> But I guess I better go ask the kid at Petsmart what he thinks. 0


You keep saying this and I don't disagree. My point is what your describing is a limited system that only works for certain plants that do well in dimmer aquariums. 

You haven't answered the question. For your 'Walstad' inspired tank why did you choose this petsmart inspired beginner pack: Jungle Val, Wisteria, Green Crypt Wendtii, Anubias Nana, Java Fern, Java Moss, Dwarf Sag, Amazon Sword.


----------



## tlarsen (Feb 6, 2014)

houseofcards said:


> You keep saying this and I don't disagree. My point is what your describing is a limited system that only works for certain plants that do well in dimmer aquariums.


I think his main point doesn't only apply to low light set ups and plants. He is saying, why would you flush out as many of the natural nutrients coming from fish and plant waste if you are then just going to immediately replace them with chemical ferts that do the same thing for the plants. In low or high tech setups, if nitrates and phosphates are too low, you can stock more heavily with critters instead of adding chemical ferts. If nitrates and phosphates are too high, you can reduce the bioload of critters OR do a partial water change to get them to appropriate levels. But why lower them more than needed only to then add chemical ferts to make up for this difference? I understand it is easier to balance the system this way, but it is not technically necessary.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

tlarsen said:


> I think his main point doesn't only apply to low light set ups and plants. He is saying, why would you flush out as many of the natural nutrients coming from fish and plant waste if you are then just going to immediately replace them with chemical ferts that do the same thing for the plants..


Well that's exactly the point that abbeysdad doesn't understand. There's a huge difference between providing plants with for example nitrate from dosing KNO3 then there is from providing them with nitrate from waste decomposition. It simply doesn't work when you move to higher light and more challenging plants. The tank get's over-run with algae because of the waste (organics) that are left in the tank. I've setup enough tanks to know. If it's not true, then abbeysdad or you should be able to grow ANY plant with that type of husbandry. Not only any plant, but a layout that isn't jam packed with plants. When people aquascape they don't want that. I would love to see it. 

I'll tell you what, if you can do it you'll put all the companies like Seachem, ADA, etc who recommend and sell dry/liquid nutrients on notice. You'll also teach all the professional/amateur aquascapers that they can simply rely on waste in their tanks and not bother dosing or doing water changes. 

No one's saying it can't be done for certain setups, but it's limiting.


----------



## tlarsen (Feb 6, 2014)

houseofcards said:


> There's a huge difference between providing plants with for example nitrate from dosing KNO3 then there is from providing them with nitrate from waste decomposition. The tank get's over-run with algae because of the waste (organics) that are left in the tank.


Could you please explain specifically what this difference is? I tend to agree that it is real based on my own experiences and those of countless others, but I'd like to understand the mechanism. What are the 'waste organics' that algae are feeding from before the plants can access them? Why are they different from the nutrients plants require and from those that are dosed? Perhaps it is just that they are not equally distributed in the tank in places where the plants can absorb them as quickly as the algae (i.e. collecting on the surface of substrate).

I'm certainly not suggesting that some kinds of plants don't require additional dosing of ferts to thrive.


----------



## lksdrinker (Feb 12, 2014)

tlarsen said:


> Could you please explain specifically what this difference is? I tend to agree that it is real based on my own experiences and those of countless others, but I'd like to understand the mechanism. What are the 'waste organics' that algae are feeding from before the plants can access them? Why are they different from the nutrients plants require and from those that are dosed? Perhaps it is just that they are not equally distributed in the tank in places where the plants can absorb them as quickly as the algae (i.e. collecting on the surface of substrate).
> 
> I'm certainly not suggesting that some kinds of plants don't require additional dosing of ferts to thrive.



I think its more of a control issue. If you remove all the waste (almost impossible to remove it all, but for arguments sake lets say you can); then you have a clean slate and you can add a precise amount of X nutrient/chemical whatever. I dont think algae is able to feed from the 'waste organics' faster than the plants can nor are the nutrients required by plants or algae all that different. I think its that the plants cant always consume all of the waste organic and therefore the algae feeds off the extra waste thats not taken in by the plants. When you're controlling the amount of X, through trial and error you can eventually figure out how much of X you require for your setup (or, as many in this hobby do you choose something like the EI method where you just throw everything at the tank and reset weekly with a large water change).


----------



## tlarsen (Feb 6, 2014)

True. It is easier to control the balance of nutrients if you reset with frequent water changes. But for most people, the bioload in the tank remains fairly consistent (unless you suddenly add or remove a lot of fish), as does the amount of food added, so it shouldn't be too difficult to start from this base level of known nutrients available from the waste, and add X amount needed (if any) by dosing, without doing the WC. I still think the WC must be removing other organic substances that are harmful to the balance in the aquarium, but I don't know what they are. Again, perhaps lipids?


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

houseofcards said:


> Well that's exactly the point that abbeysdad doesn't understand. There's a huge difference between providing plants with for example nitrate from dosing KNO3 then there is from providing them with nitrate from waste decomposition. It simply doesn't work when you move to higher light and more challenging plants. The tank get's over-run with algae because of the waste (organics) that are left in the tank. I've setup enough tanks to know. If it's not true, then abbeysdad or you should be able to grow ANY plant with that type of husbandry. Not only any plant, but a layout that isn't jam packed with plants. When people aquascape they don't want that. I would love to see it.
> 
> I'll tell you what, if you can do it you'll put all the companies like Seachem, ADA, etc who recommend and sell dry/liquid nutrients on notice. You'll also teach all the professional/amateur aquascapers that they can simply rely on waste in their tanks and not bother dosing or doing water changes.
> 
> No one's saying it can't be done for certain setups, but it's limiting.


Aquatic plants actually prefer ammonia as their primary N2 source, so nitrates become significantly reduced (and the beneficial bacteria colony shrinks). 

I can grow ANY vegetable in my organically enriched vegetable garden soil and nature seemingly has no problem growing any of these aquatic plants without chemical ferts. 

I honestly don't know if anyone has tried a natural method with bright light and CO2. I would concede that there would need to be a balance of bio-nutrients to plant mass, but as mentioned, it would seem that this could be adjusted/controlled with stock levels, feeding, and/or appropriate volume partial water changes.

If I was going to put any chemical company on notice it would be another company for genetically modifying food crops to tolerate more herbicide poison so they could sell more Roundup!

I've been in the hobby for some 50 years, but I am relatively new to a planted tank. I was a bit surprised to learn of (high tech) high light, high chemical ferts and CO2 gas injection. My 30+ years of organic gardening and understanding the damage that chemicals does to the soil food web and the environment in general caused me to wonder if the chemical approach in the aquarium was all that good for the fish! 

Although I've added a few others, the majority of the plants I have were a starter set from Dustin's Fishtank's chosen because they're hardy and easy to grow. 
I admit that with the exception of dwarf sag, carpet plants that grow in nature in shallow water under bright light would not work in my 24" deep 60g, so call it limited. Then again, I can't grow those big ole watermelons in my garden like they do down south as my growing season is just too short!


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

Where's Solcielo? We need him to get this thread going .


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Jeff5614 said:


> Where's Solcielo? We need him to get this thread going .


Your bad. He's probably having a good laugh somewhere


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

tlarsen said:


> ...What are the 'waste organics' that algae are feeding from before the plants can access them? ..


I don't think anyone knows that exactly. When you remove organics in general there's less algae. Many professionals/hobbyist use carbon, purgien in addition the water changes, etc. Everything we do low stocking, heavy plant mass, less feeding all point to less organics are better. All assumes you are dosing so the plants don't run short. I have a small tank going now, it get's high-end EI dosing, good light and there's no algae. It didn't even go through an algae phase when I set it up. I had carbon in the filter which I seeded from another tank, 50%-60% weekly water changes. If I was relying on waste for this setup it would have been an algae farm.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

AbbeysDad said:


> ...
> I can grow ANY vegetable in my organically enriched vegetable garden soil and nature seemingly has no problem growing any of these aquatic plants without chemical ferts.


That's great, but has very little to do with a planted tank where you have to balance, fish, plants and control algae. 



AbbeysDad said:


> I've been in the hobby for some 50 years, but I am relatively new to a planted tank. I was a bit surprised to learn of (high tech) high light, high chemical ferts and CO2 gas injection. My 30+ years of organic gardening and understanding the damage that chemicals does to the soil food web and the environment in general caused me to wonder if the chemical approach in the aquarium was all that good for the fish!


O.K. now were getting somewhere, your aversion to using chemical ferts and trying to do it naturally. 



AbbeysDad said:


> Although I've added a few others, the majority of the plants I have were a starter set from Dustin's Fishtank's *chosen because they're hardy and easy to grow. *
> I admit that with the exception of dwarf sag, carpet plants that grow in nature in shallow water under bright light would not work in my 24" deep 60g, so call it limited. Then again, I can't grow those big ole watermelons in my garden like they do down south as my growing season is just too short!


Exactly its a limited system, thank you! 

My point is that if you do large water changes, use organic removal media, etc. It's more likely someone will succeed without having to stuff the tank full of plants and/or limit themselves to low light and a limited number of species.


----------



## tlarsen (Feb 6, 2014)

houseofcards said:


> I don't think anyone knows that exactly. When you remove organics in general there's less algae.


Obviously I agree that experience shows this to be the case, but I find the answer unsatisfactory. Let's assume we are talking about waste organic substances before they are even broken down into the ammonia, nitrates, potassium, phosphates, Ca, Mg, etc that plants can use. Which substances are compromising water quality and helping algae?

Cellulose? tannins? cutins? lignins? pheromones? other proteins? lipids/oils? carbs?


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

Jeff5614 said:


> Where's Solcielo? We need him to get this thread going .


Give it time. It will happen.


----------



## TINNGG (Mar 9, 2005)

I think we get the algae farms less because there's too much of a nutrient than because there's not enough of another nutrient. I didn't have an algae farm crop up in the cat-blessed tank, even though the ammonia readings were ridiculous. I threw every plant I could scrounge into the tank, squirted in potassium, phosphate, and trace, and crossed my fingers. I'd done several huge water changes to no avail. I did have a nitrasorb pack in the filter. And then the ph crashed, because one or more of the plants was apparently capable of stripping carbon from the water.

I did eventually get it stabilized... Still never had algae in it. Go figure.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

tlarsen said:


> Obviously* I agree that experience shows this to be the case, but I find the answer unsatisfactory.* Let's assume we are talking about waste organic substances before they are even broken down into the ammonia, nitrates, potassium, phosphates, Ca, Mg, etc that plants can use. Which substances are compromising water quality and helping algae?
> 
> Cellulose? tannins? cutins? lignins? pheromones? other proteins? lipids/oils? carbs?


It's hard to give a completely satisifying answer, since no one knows all these processes for sure. I know what works, when you remove organics via media, water change, removing dead leaves, etc. your algae issues go way down and your able to get away with more light, less plants, more flexibility on what to do with your setup.

I don't have much of a desire to learn every single process. It's not a lab, it's a hobby and a fish tank with too many changing variables. There might be nature in our glass cubes, but it's far from a natural setting.

It might be interesting to note that some of the individuals who have become household names in the hobby like Amano, Knott and many others are far from scientists. They are more artistic and have the experience to know what works and how to achieve a certain look. Having a PhD in this stuff is not required.


----------



## tlarsen (Feb 6, 2014)

It is definitely a fun hobby, and should remain fun without the need for detailed science. I am most drawn to the hobby for the aesthetics of aquascaping and because of a fascination with the ecology and interactions among plants and animals in the tank. As humans, we tend to seek answers to the unknown, driven by curiosity. While it is not necessary to understand every mechanism, doing so is interesting and fun for some people, and could actually simplify the hobby in the end.

But I am more interested in the natural history of these species than in the water chemistry. It still amazes me that we can travel around the tropics and find countless new species of fish and plants on a consistent basis, with hundreds of thousands or even millions of invert species still to be discovered. That is exciting. Some of these will make it into the aquarium trade. And importantly, these can bring money back to conserve the habitats where those species live naturally.

But I digress. I would still love to hear answers to questions posted in this thread if and when someone is able to provide them. Thanks for the interesting discussion!


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

Attempt was made.
Maintaining or attempting to find balanced Redox potential in a glass box of water is but one of a few benefit's that water changes provide.
Some chemically charged ion's/mineral's are replenished and or decreased/utilized as the system find's itself.
Letting plant's define the system as much as possible is our aim for both plant's and fishes.
Both do well with regular water changes, and no one with any lengthy experience will tell you any different. 
Some system's/method's require less water changes, but most often the bioload will be at minimal values if it is indeed the longeterm health of the fauna rather than just using fishes for aesthetic value in an aquascape.


----------



## Smooch (May 14, 2016)

tlarsen said:


> What are the 'waste organics' that algae are feeding from before the plants can access them? Why are they different from the nutrients plants require and from those that are dosed? Perhaps it is just that they are not equally distributed in the tank in places where the plants can absorb them as quickly as the algae (i.e. collecting on the surface of substrate).


Have you read the label on your fish food lately? Do aquatic plants have a use for soy, wheat flour and much of the other cheap fillers that are used in many fish foods these days? I don't think so, and fish are not meant to eat this kind of stuff either. All it does is pass through the fish resulting in mess. More poop, more junk in the water, more waste laying around on the substrate. 

I could be wrong, but I have my doubts that there is wheat flour in my PPS-Pro ferts.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Smooch said:


> Have you read the label on your fish food lately? Do aquatic plants have a use for soy, wheat flour and much of the other cheap fillers that are used in many fish foods these days? I don't think so, and fish are not meant to eat this kind of stuff either. All it does is pass through the fish resulting in mess. More poop, more junk in the water, more waste laying around on the substrate.
> 
> I could be wrong, but I have my doubts that there is wheat flour in my PPS-Pro ferts.


I'm guessing that you've never done any organic gardening/farming. Leaves, grass clippings, old hay/straw, animal manures, spent grains, green manures... all make excellent organic fertilizer as the soil food web breaks them all down into plant usable nutrients in rich topsoil. Just as nature has done it for eons.

Now having 'said' that, if the primary ingredient in your fish food is a grain (wheat, oat, rice flours or gluten) followed by fishmeal, you might consider a higher quality food that lists whole FISH as the primary ingredient. Omega One and Almost Natural are two such high quality foods. (note: Besides being a customer, I have no affiliation with either.)
The interesting thing is way back when I switched to higher quality foods, I noticed significantly less fish waste!

Regardless, any fish food will be decomposed into plant usable nutrients. Again, there is the issue of the balance of nutrients to plant mass. The stock level and proper feeding can control this to a point. Also, it is more than possible that algae (just another plant) is more fond of organic nutrients than chemicals which may help explain why high light and excess organics is often trouble. 

Suffice it to say that some level of periodic water changes is beneficial to balance the system. The 'secret' sweet spot is how much and how often.
With high tech and more chemical ferts, you may need weekly or twice-weekly at 50% or so. In more natural low tech with little/no chemical ferts, weekly or every other week at 25% may well suffice. Unfortunately there are many variables making every tank situation different enough so there's no absolute formula. 
But if we 'listen' closely and are patient, the plants will show us the way.


----------



## Smooch (May 14, 2016)

AbbeysDad said:


> I'm guessing that you've never done any organic gardening/farming. Leaves, grass clippings, old hay/straw, animal manures, spent grains, green manures... all make excellent organic fertilizer as the soil food web breaks them all down into plant usable nutrients in rich topsoil. Just as nature has done it for eons.
> 
> Now having 'said' that, if the primary ingredient in your fish food is a grain (wheat, oat, rice flours or gluten) followed by fishmeal, you might consider a higher quality food that lists whole FISH as the primary ingredient. Omega One and Almost Natural are two such high quality foods. (note: Besides being a customer, I have no affiliation with either.)
> The interesting thing is way back when I switched to higher quality foods, I noticed significantly less fish waste!
> ...


Didn't we already have a discussion in another thread about your armchair psychology and you kept telling me 'Nuff said' but refused to drop the subject? Yes, we did.

We've all heard your talking points about organic gardening, ect... I find it a bit ironic that you even consider yourself such a person as it's you that is always complaining about how the farm you live near contaminates your water to the point where you can't drink it. Do you water your plants with RO and keep your plants in raised beds to prevent cross contamination? I doubt it. 

Nuff said!


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Smooch said:


> Didn't we already have a discussion in another thread about your armchair psychology and you kept telling me 'Nuff said' but refused to drop the subject? Yes, we did.
> 
> We've all heard your talking points about organic gardening, ect... I find it a bit ironic that you even consider yourself such a person as it's you that is always complaining about how the farm you live near contaminates your water to the point where you can't drink it. Do you water your plants with RO and keep your plants in raised beds to prevent cross contamination? I doubt it.
> 
> Nuff said!


When you accuse me of armchair psychology I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Because I've tried to inform you about the organic fertilization of soil? I'm sorry, having spent 30+ years studying, learning and applying, I was trying to help you better understand. 

Yes, I have high nitrates in my well water, but I'm pretty sure that the 5-10-5 NpK fertilizer they spread on their field doesn't jump across the road. Families all around us drink their well water with seemingly no problems. I just choose to drink bottled water that I have delivered instead...goes back some 25+ years when my wife became seriously ill and was bedridden for 2 years.
....And my garden plants are watered by rain.


----------



## tlarsen (Feb 6, 2014)

roadmaster said:


> Maintaining or attempting to find balanced Redox potential in a glass box of water is but one of a few benefit's that water changes provide.
> Some chemically charged ion's/mineral's are replenished and or decreased/utilized as the system find's itself.
> Letting plant's define the system as much as possible is our aim for both plant's and fishes.
> Both do well with regular water changes, and no one with any lengthy experience will tell you any different.
> Some system's/method's require less water changes, but most often the bioload will be at minimal values if it is indeed the longeterm health of the fauna rather than just using fishes for aesthetic value in an aquascape.


Sorry, I didn't mean to overlook this answer. I didn't know anything about this, so am just reading up a bit now. It definitely seems like a very important and underappreciated process in an aquarium. I'll definitely do a bit more research so I can understand it more completely. Thanks!


----------



## tlarsen (Feb 6, 2014)

Smooch said:


> Have you read the label on your fish food lately? Do aquatic plants have a use for soy, wheat flour and much of the other cheap fillers that are used in many fish foods these days? I don't think so, and fish are not meant to eat this kind of stuff either. All it does is pass through the fish resulting in mess. More poop, more junk in the water, more waste laying around on the substrate.
> 
> I could be wrong, but I have my doubts that there is wheat flour in my PPS-Pro ferts.


I do read the ingredients and try to use high quality foods without much filler. Of the ingredients you point to there though, I would say yes, aquatic plants do have a use for them. Like the other organic compounds, they get broken down into nutrients for the plants to absorb. Many of the foods are high in oils that are healthy for the fish, but I do wonder if these build up in the aquarium and become rancid before they fully decompose.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

AbbeysDad said:


> I'm guessing that you've never done any organic gardening/farming. Leaves, grass clippings, old hay/straw, animal manures, spent grains, green manures... all make excellent organic fertilizer as the soil food web breaks them all down into plant usable nutrients in rich topsoil. Just as nature has done it for eons..


I think you need to drop the organic gardening analogy. It's just not really applicable to most aquariums. If you took a section of your organic garden and put it inside a glass box and filled it with water and let 'nature' take it's course, you would have a bunch of dead fish and algae you never dreamed existed. 

Although there are tanks that can flourish on various waste products they are very limited. For the most part the less organics that are left in the tank the better. The inorganic salts we put back have been proven by plenty not to initiate algae.


----------



## Vohlk (Apr 8, 2016)

People will probably not like this article because you need to register to read it lots of scholarly websites are like this, but here goes nothing.
Trace Metal Concentrations in Oxidation Ponds on JSTOR

This talks about what I was thinking in that nitrates and phosphorus might play a role, but over the long term the concern might be on heavy metals, by topping off your water unless using RO/DI) you will inevitably introduce dilute levels of heavy metals (thallium, mercury, lead) over time they will build up to fairly decent levels, and might impact the health of our "ecosystems". The article isn't perfect as it refers to aquaculture (aimed at food production), but it might still be applicable to a fish tank designed for viewing pleasure too. Most of these heavy metals come off of our pipes or exist naturally, and most of these can be detrimental in low concentrations.

Realistically what is the timeline for such buildup? Not sure.
But it would make sense that if you are topping off an aquarium every once in a while a water change wouldn't hurt. (obviously I think i am not the first one here to say this)


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

houseofcards said:


> I think you need to drop the organic gardening analogy. It's just not really applicable to most aquariums. If you took a section of your organic garden and put it inside a glass box and filled it with water and let 'nature' take it's course, you would have a bunch of dead fish and algae you never dreamed existed.
> 
> Although there are tanks that can flourish on various waste products they are very limited. For the most part the less organics that are left in the tank the better. The inorganic salts we put back have been proven by plenty not to initiate algae.


The success of the Walstad Method proves you wrong.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

AbbeysDad said:


> The success of the Walstad Method proves you wrong.


:hihi:


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

There's a reason why I never try to tell someone the best way to run a reef tank....because Ive never done one.


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

AbbeysDad said:


> The success of the Walstad Method proves you wrong.


Aren't Walsad tanks generally lower light, non CO2 injected with water changes not generally encouraged? Aren't they also less densely planted than a "high tech" set up? I guess what I'm trying to get at is that they are a very different situation than a CO2 injected tank with more light and much denser planting. I don't think anyone would disagree that there's anything wrong with infrequent water changes on a "low tech" tank.


----------



## natemcnutty (May 26, 2016)

Jeff5614 said:


> Aren't Walsad tanks generally lower light, non CO2 injected with water changes not generally encouraged? Aren't they also less densely planted than a "high tech" set up? I guess what I'm trying to get at is that they are a very different situation than a CO2 injected tank with more light and much denser planting. I don't think anyone would disagree that there's anything wrong with infrequent water changes on a "low tech" tank.


Wouldn't those "harmful" trace elements be even more detrimental in a Walstad tank with less plant mass and less photosynthesis to process those elements? I would think high tech would handle that better (assuming high lights aren't causing additional evaporation).


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

natemcnutty said:


> Wouldn't those "harmful" trace elements be even more detrimental in a Walstad tank with less plant mass and less photosynthesis to process those elements? I would think high tech would handle that better (assuming high lights aren't causing additional evaporation).


If you have a high tech tank and you're trimming a few inches off a bunch of stems each week I would think so.

I was trying to say in my post that I think we've got a bit of an apples to oranges comparison going on here. AbbeysDad, with all due respect, is coming from a low tech situation, at least that's what I gather from looking at his journal. I can't help but think that managing a low tech Walstad tank is not the same as a higher light, CO2 injected, much more densely planted tank. Water changes not being so necessary in low tech as high tech.

AbbeysDad, you mention in your journal your changing 10-15 gallons per week in your 60g tank to offset high nitrate readings from your well water. I'm not sure how different that is from doing larger changes in a high tech tank.


----------



## Bananableps (Nov 6, 2013)

tlarsen said:


> Actually, my tapwater has 1.0 ppm of ammonia, so water changes actually increase ammonia levels in my tanks


This made me chuckle.


I think a lot of the chasm between frequent-water-changers and infrequent-water-changers (like myself) comes from how we condition our tanks.


Tanks with mature water develop the capacity to deal with high levels of dissolved organics. The plants and bacteria are adapted to handle nutrient rich water and substrate. 

Tanks with infrequently changed water develop a dependency on water changes, and so do poorly if you fall behind in your routine. The plants and bacteria are adapted to handle more sterile water, and less adapted to more organic-rich water, so when the water becomes "dirty" algae sweeps in and fills in the gap*.

Observation from frequent water change people of increased tank health after water changes comes, I believe, in large part from the fact that their tanks are ecologically dependent on them. Observation to the contrary from mature water people is due to their own particular tank ecology.



*Ludwigia repens is a great illustration. It has to shed all of its leaves and grow new ones whenever water parameters change dramatically - it is basically completely reconstructing its organs to deal with the new conditions. Algae doesn't have to do this, so it can "fill in the gap" when there is change.


----------



## Bananableps (Nov 6, 2013)

Smooch said:


> Have you read the label on your fish food lately? Do aquatic plants have a use for soy, wheat flour and much of the other cheap fillers that are used in many fish foods these days? I don't think so, and fish are not meant to eat this kind of stuff either. All it does is pass through the fish resulting in mess. More poop, more junk in the water, more waste laying around on the substrate.


This argument is completely bonkers. 

All plant life relies on the waste products of animals, bacteria, and fungus. As long as the waste contains the necessary nutrients (which it does, as extensively shown by Diana Walstad using very low quality flake food), plants do not give a [pun intended] what the waste was before it got chewed up and squirted out.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Bananableps said:


> Tanks with mature water develop the capacity to deal with high levels of dissolved organics. The plants and bacteria are adapted to handle nutrient rich water and substrate.


So by mature water you mean water that isn't changed as much? Not sure I follow you here.


----------



## Bananableps (Nov 6, 2013)

houseofcards said:


> So by mature water you mean water that isn't changed as much? Not sure I follow you here.


Sorry, yes.

Bit sleep deprived, sorry to cause confusion.


tl;dr version: if you don't change your water very often, your tank gets used to it and water changes become less necessary. If you change your water a lot, your tank gets used to it and water changes become necessary.

Frequent-water changers observe negative effects from skipping a water change because their tanks are not adapted to infrequent water changes.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Jeff5614 said:


> AbbeysDad, you mention in your journal your changing 10-15 gallons per week in your 60g tank to offset high nitrate readings from your well water. I'm not sure how different that is from doing larger changes in a high tech tank.


No, I prefilter my well water for partial water changes to remove the nitrates. 



Jeff5614 said:


> If you have a high tech tank and you're trimming a few inches off a bunch of stems each week I would think so.
> 
> I was trying to say in my post that I think we've got a bit of an apples to oranges comparison going on here. AbbeysDad, with all due respect, is coming from a low tech situation, at least that's what I gather from looking at his journal. I can't help but think that managing a low tech Walstad tank is not the same as a higher light, CO2 injected, much more densely planted tank. Water changes not being so necessary in low tech as high tech.


I was never comparing low tech to high tech, merely explaining my 'Walstad inspired' method.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Bananableps said:


> Sorry, yes.
> 
> Bit sleep deprived, sorry to cause confusion.
> 
> ...


So if I understand correctly lets say I have two identical tanks, one I do a water change every other month and the other one every week the former would be better equipped to deal with the organics that are in the water.


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

AbbeysDad said:


> No, I prefilter my well water for partial water changes to remove the nitrates.
> 
> 
> 
> I was never comparing low tech to high tech, merely explaining my 'Walstad inspired' method.


Ahh, gotcha. I guess I need to read a bit more carefully.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

@AbbeysDad, you keep referencing the virtues of the Walstad Method then why not just do a Walstad type setup. Your tank isn't anything close. You have inert sand, your doing 20% weekly water changes, you running two HOB filters, and your dosing Flourish ferts and sticking root tabs in the substrate. That is simply a low-tech tank.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

I am running a Walstad type tank with soil based substrate,osmocote,green sand soil amendment,capped with safe-t sorb.
Tank is lit presently with four T8 bulb's ten inches above the surface of the water.
I also dose small amount of macro/micro's from mineral salt's.
This tank is but a few week's old and was re-dirted from same type set up than ran for two year's.
Water changes are same as I have done for year's at 50% weekly.
Swordtail's,Celeb's rainbow's,platy's,are all fat and sassy.
Don't need to argue method's when so many different method's, way's, produce result's but rather expand our consideration's as to the value of water changes in a mostly closed system as OP inquired.
Too many differing source water's to consider the precise target's that we wish to omit from the system due to too many variables.
Suffice to say that the regular export and replenishment of water is of benefit to the entire system. IMHO


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

houseofcards said:


> @AbbeysDad, you keep referencing the virtues of the Walstad Method then why not just do a Walstad type setup. Your tank isn't anything close. You have inert sand, your doing 20% weekly water changes, you running two HOB filters, and your dosing Flourish ferts and sticking root tabs in the substrate. That is simply a low-tech tank.


That's why I call what I'm doing 'Walstad Inspired'. 
The Walstad method uses 1" or so of soil, capped with 1" or so fine gravel (or sand). Good water flow, but minimal filtration and no water changes. Good plant mass, but low relative bio-load.

I don't think the success of the method has as much to do with 1" of washed out soil, but more to do with filtration and no water changes, allowing the plants to be fed 'organically' and purify the water. (After all, Walstad's had tanks up now and going strong 8-10 years so any soil elements are long since depleted.)

So I'm just using silica sand and yes, I initially used root tabs and modest ferts to get plants going.... but haven't used any ferts for weeks now (and the plants are still lush, green and growing slowly).

Now (unlike Walstad), I'm feeding high quality fish food, and although the tank is heavily planted, the bio-load is greater than in the Walstad Method. 
The AC70 filters (with AC50 impellers for reduced flow) is mostly for good circulation. They are simply filled with sponges and use large prefilter sponges to keep the fry out. I clean them infrequently mostly just to maintain flow.

I also see benefit in some degree of routine partial water changes...but a much reduced volume and/or frequency than might otherwise be the case. Perhaps 20% (10g) every week or every other week. So the potential water changes merely assist in maintaining the balance of organics relative to plant mass. (am currently doing 20% (10g) every other week.)

Like earthworms in my garden, I'm also leveraging Malaysian Trumpet Snails to aerate the substrate and enrich with their waste for rooted plants.

So it's Walstad except no dirt and modest water changes as needed for nutrient balance and water quality. Of course, I'll monitor nitrates and plant health and might even add modest micros if the plants were to fade, but otherwise it's *a 'Walstad Inspired' nearly natural biotope*.

Time will tell the whole story.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

@AbbeysDad, that's all well and good. Sounds like you have a nice low tech set up going.

The problem is you are trying to impose these same concepts across the board to other types of set ups, where it simply doesnt work. 

It is literally impossible to run a high light co2 injected tank full of demanding plants by relying on fish poop, no matter how dirty you let it get, or how long you go between water changes. There'll be all sorts of problems way before nutrient levels ever climbed high enough. Not to mention livestock would go belly up from toxic waste.

It'd be like someone saying you have to dose EI in your "Walstad inspired tank" just because they do it.

I dont think anyone is questioning that what you do works. But it doesnt apply to every type of set up. To imply otherwise is just flat out wrong.


----------



## Bananableps (Nov 6, 2013)

houseofcards said:


> So if I understand correctly lets say I have two identical tanks, one I do a water change every other month and the other one every week the former would be better equipped to deal with the organics that are in the water.


Correct.

I do about four water changes a year on my 30 gallon dirted tank. My plants grow great. My fish spawn happily. The tank is about a year and a half old. Within the first few months of establishment I had a couple of green water blooms, some spots of BBA, a little bluegreen epidemic, and spots of string algae. I never responded to any of these algae problems with a water change. Eventually, the tank just got better, and with the exception of what grows on the glass I haven't had a spot of any type of algae at all in about a year.

I can pull out plants, creating huge plumes of muddy water, plant new plants (as you might notice in the different pictures of the same tank below), and the water clears up on its own within a day, no algae bloom at all. 

You just have to not spoil your tank with so much fresh water. Let your tank water mature and your aquarium ecology will adapt to neglect.

Anyone who's ever let a lawn become a prairie will know the truth of this. At first, you can hardly keep the dandelions (which are algae in this metaphor) away for all your spraying, mowing, and weeding. But if you just let things mature into a true bio-diverse meadow, the dandelions are unable to compete.

I believe dandelions are like nuisance algae (BBA, string, etc; not the innocuous stuff growing on hardscape): they thrive in biologically undiverse conditions. Keep your tank water mature and your tank micro-ecology diverse and you won't have to worry.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

AbbeysDad said:


> So it's Walstad except no dirt and modest water changes as needed for nutrient balance and water quality. Of course, I'll monitor nitrates and plant health and might even add modest micros if the plants were to fade, but otherwise it's *a 'Walstad Inspired' nearly natural biotope*.


OK, fine, but what I'm not getting is if the Walstad method is so great, and according to you, it's madness to remove nutrients and then put them back in chemically, why didn't you just do a true Walstad setup, instead of a Inspired 'Nearly' Natural Biotope?


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

burr740 said:


> @AbbeysDad, that's all well and good. Sounds like you have a nice low tech set up going.
> 
> The problem is you are trying to impose these same concepts across the board to other types of set ups, where it simply doesnt work.
> 
> ...



I'm not trying to impose anything on anyone - I'm not sure how you got that idea? I may have suggested in one thread or another that anything and everything in the water gets inside the fish through osmosis and chemical additives are likely harder on fish than the more natural approach. If that's what you mean?

And no there were/are some that challenge the notion that decomposed organic waste can feed plants - that organics are bad and chemical ferts are required. That the only way not to have algae is to replace organics with inorganic salts. Maybe it's like other myths in the hobby that survive because they're written so many times they must be true. (I especially like the one where you need 4x to 10x gph flow for good filtration. I even saw a recent recommendation for 15x for the planted tank. <g> )

Also, the water in my tank is not dirty at all but really crystal clear. There's no detritus or mulm on the substrate (although it would be okay if there was). The established, mature tank with a good cleanup crew readily processes waste materials.

Since you mentioned EI, I'll agree that organics with EI is no doubt probably a problem due to the potential combined 'overdosing' of nutrients. With that method, I suspect that organics need to be kept to a minimum?

Note: My apologies to the OP as it was not my intention to highjack the thread.

Bump:


houseofcards said:


> OK, fine, but what I'm not getting is if the Walstad method is so great, and according to you, it's madness to remove nutrients and then put them back in chemically, why didn't you just do a true Walstad setup, instead of a Inspired 'Nearly' Natural Biotope?


Because I don't think 1" of washed out dirt brings anything lasting to the party and frankly is more trouble than it's worth.
(I wrote that because you challenged my organic garden references and seemingly couldn't wrap your head around an organic approach to growing aquatic plants.)


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

AbbeysDad said:


> Because I don't think 1" of washed out dirt brings anything lasting to the party and frankly is more trouble than it's worth.
> (I wrote that because you challenged my organic garden references and seemingly couldn't wrap your head around an organic approach to growing aquatic plants.)


Throughout this thread you constantly referenced the benefits of the Walstad method and railed against adding in chemical ferts. You said it was madness to take out organics that the plants use. You didn't want to here that it doesn't work in well lite tanks with more difficult plants, but here you criticize the very 'bedrock' of the Walstad method. You can't have it both ways.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Bananableps said:


> ...
> You just have to not spoil your tank with so much fresh water. Let your tank water mature and your aquarium ecology will adapt to neglect.


So I should change the water less in my tanks? What's in the mature water itself that will take care of the organics. My tanks look pretty good with regular water changes, they'll look even better with less water changes? Confused :confused1:


----------



## Bananableps (Nov 6, 2013)

houseofcards said:


> So I should change the water less in my tanks? What's in the mature water itself that will take care of the organics. My tanks look pretty good with regular water changes, they'll look even better with less water changes? Confused :confused1:


Oh I never said they'd look better! I'm sure your tanks look great. I was just trying to explain that frequent water changes might be unnecessary, and that observations of improved tank health after a water change might be more a symptom of tanks that are used to frequent water changes rather than evidence of the necessity of frequent water changes.

Basically: regular water changes are fine, but perhaps unnecessary.

You also ask the reason for this. My guess is that the plants and bacteria just become adapted to taking advantage of organic-rich water over time, so your tank deals with it better. Bacteria and plants that are used to pristine water won't be as prepared for a flood of organics, so algae can come in and fill the gap.

In my experience I know this to be true with high confidence for dirted tanks. I have less experience with undirted tanks, however.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Bananableps said:


> .
> In my experience I know this to be true with high confidence for dirted tanks. I have less experience with undirted tanks, however.


Dirted tanks usually have low light, so it's a different ballgame. If you have low light and your trying to have the plants live off waste it's one thing. Difficult plants with high-light organics are the >


----------



## GrampsGrunge (Jun 18, 2012)

AbbeysDad said:


> Aquatic plants actually prefer ammonia as their primary N2 source, so nitrates become significantly reduced (and the beneficial bacteria colony shrinks).
> 
> I can grow ANY vegetable in my organically enriched vegetable garden soil and nature seemingly has no problem growing any of these aquatic plants without chemical ferts.
> 
> ...


Back in 1990's, when I was first starting to get good plant growth from my tanks, I was using the derided Dupla type of 'heating cable' method in my substrate. This was in a 32H gallon tank with a 125 watt, phosphored Mercury Vapor lamp, pendant over the top and the remote ballast wrapped with silicone airline tubing to pull the excess heat off the ballast and transfer to the gravel substrate DIY style. I also did a really minor amount of DIY CO2 injection. I retrospect, the tank was always growing plants like crazy even before the CO2 was added a year after I started it. What seemed to be the trigger was the amount of healthy, fast growing plants, and the health of the substrate. The substrate got a 1/3rds gravel vacuum about twice a month, with 15~20% water changes. I also had a old Metaframe Magnadrive HoB filter with several AQ500 sponge medias that had a couple rather huge, emmergent Oakleaf Water Sprites growing paludrium style, rooted in the sponge media. Our home visitors often thought that it was some sort of huge houseplant fern.

It was an unusual tank, probably over stocked with about 15~19 small-medium sized assorted tetras, a mated pair of Goldeneyed Dwarf ciclids, a 'big' clown Pekoltia, and 4 Hara Jerdoni. I had to thin the Rotala and Stargrass every month, and the Java Fern and Moss were thinned semi annually. It was insanely productive given it's size. I have no real explanation for it's success except that it could be considered a heat driven, high light level Walstadt mulm substrate tank, as it produced a lot of mulm and muck in the gravel, between water changes. The fish weren't being over fed though.

Our potted patio tomatoes and peppers grew well on the gravel vacuumings. I made lots of great salsa from that and my other tanks. I occasionally added a little amount of terrestrial liquid iron supplement to this to keep the Rotala pink.

The only images I have of it are from an old VCR tape made back in 1994.


----------



## tlarsen (Feb 6, 2014)

houseofcards said:


> Throughout this thread you constantly referenced the benefits of the Walstad method and railed against adding in chemical ferts. You said it was madness to take out organics that the plants use. You didn't want to here that it doesn't work in well lite tanks with more difficult plants, but here you criticize the very 'bedrock' of the Walstad method. You can't have it both ways.


I'm still not seeing why you keep claiming that tanks with few water changes in which as much nutrients are recycled as possible are limited to low light, easy to grow plants. Many plants have high light requirements and/or nutrient requirements, or have very particular nutrient requirements. By relying on recycled organic waste, you provide at least a foundation for those high maintenance plants which then may need further additions of chemical ferts. But there is still no explanation of why it is necessary to remove all the dissolved organics and then replace them with chemical ferts. Except that experience shows it works better.

Here is a tank I had for which I did no water changes for 2 years. I used no dosing regime, only added small amounts of Seachem's line of products haphazardly every month or two when the plants seemed to need it. All DIY CO2. Some of these plants are considered difficult and some may claim they require approaches like EI, when augmentation of natural processes may be enough.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

tlarsen said:


> .... By relying on recycled organic waste, you provide at least a foundation for those high maintenance plants which then may need further additions of chemical ferts. But there is still no explanation of why it is necessary to remove all the dissolved organics and then replace them with chemical ferts. Except that experience shows it works better...
> .


Experience is king. No one know all these processes. I have no desire to get a PHD in Planted Aquarium Maintenance. So your showing me one tank that BTW seems like it went through a lot of problems with diy co2 and no macro dosing. I could show you 50 from start to finish with no real problems when the tank is dosed and the water is changed on a regular basis. Organics left in the tank cause algae. There is no doubt. The higher you go up in light the less forgiving the setup is. This has been shown over and over again. If your dosing, any plant can be fulfilled, if you relying on those nutrients from the water column you could only use so much light OR listen carefully you need a certain amount of plant mass for it to work. That's the key point you and some others in this thread don't get. If you don't want to add more plants, what if you want a lot of negative space or you doing an iwagumi and you need to force strong light to the carpet, but you don't want a ton of stems to uptake all the left over waste? 

*Removing water and waste works in EVERY setup as long as you dose back. Leaving organics in the tank doesn't. * You either have to have less light or more plants then you might want. Your beholding to the dynamics of the setup not the other way around.

BTW if your setup was so great the way it was, why did it get over-run with BGA and you finally gave up?



tlarsen said:


> ...
> Sadly, I finally lost the battle with BGA/cyanobacteria. After trying everything (strong circulation, huge water changes, nitrates, etc), including heavy dose of erythromycin, I just hauled everything out, replaced the substrate, and am starting from scratch with pressurized CO2. Should be refreshingly reliable after DIY for so long. Will update as the new tank is set up.


Why are you switching to pressurized. Sounds like your going high tech, why? 



tlarsen said:


> *The didiplis stems are turning black already. Same problem I had before with large stems and DIY CO2. *I thought the pressurized CO2 with the TC didiplis might do the trick this time, but same as before. I guess I'll replace it with something more manageable, like E. stellatus.
> Dosing PPS-Pro, but only every other day until the roots grow in properly and the plants begin growing more quickly.
> Ammannia senegalensis seems to be growing rapidly from tissue culture.
> R wallichii - seems to be holding on, but not much growth
> HC - holding on, but not really rooting or spreading much yet...


Sounds like your new setup is having problems as well, some the same as your 75G had that you tried to prove a point to me. So you had stems going black, BGA, what else? That seems more like it's proving my point. 

Maybe you need more ferts and water changes or maybe your light is too weak from your old organic waste setup.


----------



## ichy (Apr 6, 2015)

have not read the whole thread but, a couple people have mentioned redox. 
Water changes in fresh water tanks also remove waste proteins produced by fish not only in poop, but from respiration, digestion etc.
In a saltwater tank, they use protein skimming to remove these proteins. Why don't freshwater people use foam fractionation?
Couple reasons:
1. you don't have to mix saltwater. Freshwater is cheap and easy, just dump it down the drain, refill from the tap.
2. The chemical makeup of saltwater allows for tiny bubbles to be created that provide a chemical bonding location for these proteins.

Why do you want the best ORP you can get? The lower the ORP the harder it is for living organisms to perform ion exchange. This ion exchange is how both plants and animals assimilate minerals for proper growth.

If you really want to understand the benefits of water changes, you gotta understand REDOX as it relates to biological systems. So in fact, you can find the answer to why do water changes. Its all about the ORP.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

houseofcards said:


> Throughout this thread you constantly referenced the benefits of the Walstad method and railed against adding in chemical ferts. You said it was madness to take out organics that the plants use. You didn't want to here that it doesn't work in well lite tanks with more difficult plants, but here you criticize the very 'bedrock' of the Walstad method. You can't have it both ways.


I referenced the Walstad Method because many are familiar with it and understand that it works. The benefit is in leveraging the organically produced nutrients through modest filtration and lack of water changes while letting the plants purify the water.

I did not criticize the method, but rather saw a process and a potential improvement by not using dirt and allowing for some partial water changes (like rain in nature) as necessary to balance the organic nutrients to the plant mass to [better] ensure water quality. This should create a nearly natural ecosystem and a very healthy environment for the fish.

No we can't exactly duplicate nature in a glass box...but there's no good reason not to get as close as we can to create the healthiest environment for the fish!

I believe that I clearly said that I did not know if leveraging the organic nutrients would work in high light [high tech] systems. But I will say that those systems are likely harder on fish and inverts as they are somewhat sterile and unnatural. 
In conventional farming, chemical ferts tend to kill the natural soil food web and runoff pollutes streams and rivers (and wells!). 

_They said that PCB's, DDT and Agent Orange were safe. Now they genetically modify food crops so they will tolerate even more [safe] Roundup herbicide. Oops, sorry...different 'rail'!_
:smile2:


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

AbbeysDad said:


> I referenced the Walstad Method because many are familiar with it and understand that it works. The benefit is in leveraging the organically produced nutrients through modest filtration and lack of water changes while letting the plants purify the water.


If you keep referencing something that you seem to hold in high esteem and to rebuff my methods, then you should follow that example. From what I can tell you have a low-tech setup. Your using filters, doing water changes, dosing ferts, using an inert substrate. That isn't anywhere near a true Walstad setup. 



AbbeysDad said:


> I did not criticize the method, but rather saw a process and a potential improvement by not using dirt and allowing for some partial water changes (like rain in nature).


This one I got a chuckle out of. Now water changes are natural, "like rain in nature". Seem[/URL]s like your trying to have it both ways.



AbbeysDad said:


> But I will say that those systems are likely harder on fish and inverts as they are somewhat sterile and unnatural.


Where are you getting this from? A gut feeling? That couldn't be more wrong. I've had fish live 7-8 years. Why do discus owners sometimes change 90% of their water at a time. Some do daily water changes, others several times a week. Why do many fish spawn after a water change. 

On that note I will leave you with this:


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

AbbeysDad said:


> I did not criticize the method, but rather saw a process and a potential improvement by not using dirt and allowing for some partial water changes (like rain in nature) as necessary to balance the organic nutrients to the plant mass to [better] ensure water quality. This should create a nearly natural ecosystem and a very healthy environment for the fish.
> 
> No we can't exactly duplicate nature in a glass box...but there's no good reason not to get as close as we can to create the healthiest environment for the fish!
> 
> I believe that I clearly said that I did not know if leveraging the organic nutrients would work in high light [high tech] systems. But I will say that those systems are likely harder on fish and inverts as they are somewhat sterile and unnatural.


The inorganic dry salts like KNO3 are exponentially less toxic to livestock than the same compound that is a result of the nitrification process.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

houseofcards said:


> If you keep referencing something that you seem to hold in high esteem and to rebuff my methods, then you should follow that example. From what I can tell you have a low-tech setup. Your using filters, doing water changes, dosing ferts, using an inert substrate. That isn't anywhere near a true Walstad setup.


I have repeatedly tried to explain what I'm doing and this post is so wrong it shows that you're either not reading or not comprehending.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

burr740 said:


> The inorganic dry salts like KNO3 are exponentially less toxic to livestock than the same compound that is a result of the nitrification process.


I'm not sure I understand you. 
The result of the nitrification process is NO3 (nitrates) which is not dangerous to fish except in extremely high levels over long periods of time. Since plants prefer ammonia as a preferred source of nitrogen, nitrates are typically less than would otherwise be the case. 
Then again, perhaps dosing KNO3 may inhibit plants from processing ammonia, so increased NO3 may result over time as BB process the ammonia?


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

AbbeysDad said:


> I'm not sure I understand you.
> The result of the nitrification process is NO3 (nitrates) which is not dangerous to fish except in extremely high levels over long periods of time. Since plants prefer ammonia as a preferred source of nitrogen, nitrates are typically less than would otherwise be the case.
> Then again, perhaps dosing KNO3 may inhibit plants from processing ammonia, so increased NO3 may result over time as BB process the ammonia?


Then why cant everyone simply dose NH4 to meet all the nitrogen needs? Because it is toxic, even to plants above 2 ppm or so.

As to plants preferring NH4 over NO3. 

Lots of info here



plantbrain said:


> Growth and ion uptake by wheat supplied nitrogen as nitrate, or ammonium, or both | SpringerLink
> 
> and
> 
> ...



At the risk of veering further off topic, relying on fish food/waste is fine for low light tanks with non demanding plants. Urea quickly becomes NH4, and so on through the nitrification process.

But for tanks that need more in the way of nutrients, high light/high tech set ups, relying on poop build up with no water changes will soon be feeding more algae than plants.

4th post in this thread may offer you some additional insight on what feeds plants and what feeds algae.

Why dont nutrients cause algae? | UK Aquatic Plant Society

But again, this relates to high light, co2 injected tanks. Low light tanks do not have to be kept as "clean" in order to thrive. Nor do they require as many nutrients, which is why fish poop alone can often sustain one.

The point is, your claim that inorganic dry salts are somehow more toxic than "natural" sources of NO3 is flat out wrong.

So is the idea that water changes are not beneficial to all but the most minimalistic of set ups. Primarily to remove organic build up, secondarily to keep nutrient levels within a certain range. The latter can be regulated with dosing, the former cannot.


----------



## ichy (Apr 6, 2015)

burr740 said:


> The inorganic dry salts like KNO3 are exponentially less toxic to livestock than the same compound that is a result of the nitrification process.


Bingo!


----------



## K1963158 (Aug 15, 2016)

I've been running a medium light tank that is on the low side of medium. If I do not add KNO3 then I do not register nitrate even if I do not do water changes for over a month. If I don't dose dry chemicals my plants suffer and I get algae. When I dose then things look good.

I tried to do the "no water change" thing and just topped my tank. I survived about for about 2 months. My plants grew well, no noticeable increase (or decrease) in algae and the fish were fine. But I just could not take it! I had to change the water so back to changing water approximately 50% and dose a very low EI kind of thing.

The only thing different is that my ottos and cories go crazy after a water change...swimming, schooling, laughing and playing! 

Just my 2 cents. Lots of different ways to approach this hobby. Lots of info out there to either educate or confuse.

Nothing beats experience though. I've been at it with planted tanks for over 10 years and still learning.

Cheers


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

That's a good post @K1963158

The main point I was trying to get across in this thread is that:

*Removing water and waste works in EVERY setup as long as you dose back. Leaving excess organics in the tank doesn't.*

People like to think aquariums can be run like nature. To a certain extent you can, but it's extremely limited.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

That's great @K1963158!... But I have to wonder, what if instead of a 50% WWC and dosing, it was a 25% WWC with no additives???

Btw, We tend to think we need low level nitrates for plants, but I find it interesting that the nitrates in the waters our fish originate from are so low they can't be measured (zero). So, if the plants are doing well, and there are no nitrates, there's prolly not a problem!


----------



## K1963158 (Aug 15, 2016)

AbbeysDad said:


> That's great @*K1963158*!... But I have to wonder, what if instead of a 50% WWC and dosing, it was a 25% WWC with no additives???
> 
> Btw, We tend to think we need low level nitrates for plants, but I find it interesting that the nitrates in the waters our fish originate from are so low they can't be measured (zero). So, if the plants are doing well, and there are no nitrates, there's prolly not a problem!


If I do not dose macros and micros then my tank and plants suffer. It does not happen right away but it takes weeks of time. First thing I notice is a lot of GSA on the glass and plants, then this brown thicker stuff and sometimes hair algae. In addition to the algae my anubias get pinholes and yellow leaves. So I add both macros and micros at a low EI and reset the tank with a water change. 

My fish are happy because Winnipeg water is excellent for them. My plants are happy because they are in a nutrient rich environment and I am happy because I have a rather low maintenance tank that I can look at and enjoy.

I do what works for me.


----------



## Vohlk (Apr 8, 2016)

AbbeysDad said:


> Btw, We tend to think we need low level nitrates for plants, but I find it interesting that the nitrates in the waters our fish originate from are so low they can't be measured (zero). So, if the plants are doing well, and there are no nitrates, there's prolly not a problem!


Where did you get this information from? I am just curious. Bodies of water contain varying amounts of nitrates. The concentrations usually change throughout the year (increase in fall, decrease over the summer/spring) This is very dependent on what type of body of water you are talking about. Rivers and streams maintain lower concentrations that lakes do, also small lakes have larger variability and usually more than larger lakes do. Also this is dependent on what type of fish an plants live in the lake/river. Also the turnover rate and water flow have a lot to do with that as well as other nutrient levels and temperature. So i guess it really depends on what you meant by they can't be measured. But certainly it is not actually *0*.

Here are some links to monitoring stations in Michigan that look at this in the grand river (first two are rivers 2nd one is of multiple lakes):
https://apps.grandriver.ca/waterdata/kiwischarts/wq_nitrate.aspx
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/wrd-swas-wcmp-0509report_431945_7.pdf
Comparison Methods in pH and Nitrate Level Concentrations from Urban and Rural Bodies of Water


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Vohlk said:


> Where did you get this information from? I am just curious. Bodies of water contain varying amounts of nitrates. The concentrations usually change throughout the year (increase in fall, decrease over the summer/spring)....


I was speaking of 'wild' water in the tropics (like the Amazon) where many of our tropical fish originate from. Without a doubt many waters are polluted with nitrates as runoff's from agricultural areas....both from chemically fertilized fields as well as huge manure 'ponds'.

Bump:


K1963158 said:


> If I do not dose macros and micros then my tank and plants suffer. It does not happen right away but it takes weeks of time. First thing I notice is a lot of GSA on the glass and plants, then this brown thicker stuff and sometimes hair algae. In addition to the algae my anubias get pinholes and yellow leaves. So I add both macros and micros at a low EI and reset the tank with a water change.
> 
> My fish are happy because Winnipeg water is excellent for them. My plants are happy because they are in a nutrient rich environment and I am happy because I have a rather low maintenance tank that I can look at and enjoy.
> 
> I do what works for me.


Of course! As you reported, without water changes your plants and fish were doing well. But a 50% water change removes half the nutrients in the tank requiring some form of replenishment. I was merely wondering if the WWC volume was less, if any additives would be required...it's all about balance of nutrients (bio-load) and plant mass. 

Hey, but in the end, we all do what we feel works best. I'm just trying to get there with as natural approach as possible.


----------



## Vohlk (Apr 8, 2016)

AbbeysDad said:


> I was speaking of 'wild' water in the tropics (like the Amazon) where many of our tropical fish originate from. Without a doubt many waters are polluted with nitrates as runoff's from agricultural areas....both from chemically fertilized fields as well as huge manure 'ponds'.


Again I am actually asking, but where are you getting your information from, the amazon river has pretty high levels of nitrates:
Nutrient and phytoplankton biomass in the Amazon River shelf waters

Also nitrates are a *natural* part of the nitrification process. A body of water without nitrates would be sterile, or about to be. Naturally, as things decay they form ammonia NH3, which then is nitrified into NO2, then again into NO3, this happens in areas where fertilizers are used (usually it is ammonia that is used in fertilizer "ammonium phosphate"), but this is going to be natural of the decay of *any* organic matter.

I do not understand, so please correct me if I am wrong but are you implying that in a 100% organic situation there would be no nitrates? I hope this is not the case.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

I have long since forgotten the original studies I saw that concluded that there were unmeasurable nitrates in amazon water...
But I concede that there is conflicting information.

I did find this on a quick search:

Is Nitrate Toxic? A Study of Nitrate Toxicity

_"Long-term studies identified a nitrate concentration high of 1.24ppm in the Amazon River (9) and 80ppb (virtually undetectable) in the Orinoco River (10)."_


----------



## Vohlk (Apr 8, 2016)

That study though even says within it that the Orinoco rivers nitrates sometimes rise during the dry season (also 80ppb is .8ppm low yes but with today's tech. It is very possible to detect easily)
Also low nitrates does not equal no nitrates

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk


----------



## K1963158 (Aug 15, 2016)

AbbeysDad said:


> I was speaking of 'wild' water in the tropics (like the Amazon) where many of our tropical fish originate from. Without a doubt many waters are polluted with nitrates as runoff's from agricultural areas....both from chemically fertilized fields as well as huge manure 'ponds'.
> 
> Bump:
> 
> ...


Well I still dosed my tank even without water changes and just doing top ups. I have hygrophilia siamensis growing that are potassium hogs and suffer if I don't.


----------



## tlarsen (Feb 6, 2014)

houseofcards said:


> Experience is king. No one know all these processes. I have no desire to get a PHD in Planted Aquarium Maintenance. So your showing me one tank that BTW seems like it went through a lot of problems with diy co2 and no macro dosing. I could show you 50 from start to finish with no real problems when the tank is dosed and the water is changed on a regular basis. Organics left in the tank cause algae. There is no doubt. The higher you go up in light the less forgiving the setup is. This has been shown over and over again. If your dosing, any plant can be fulfilled, if you relying on those nutrients from the water column you could only use so much light OR listen carefully you need a certain amount of plant mass for it to work. That's the key point you and some others in this thread don't get. If you don't want to add more plants, what if you want a lot of negative space or you doing an iwagumi and you need to force strong light to the carpet, but you don't want a ton of stems to uptake all the left over waste?
> 
> *Removing water and waste works in EVERY setup as long as you dose back. Leaving organics in the tank doesn't. * You either have to have less light or more plants then you might want. Your beholding to the dynamics of the setup not the other way around.
> 
> ...


I'm not trying to prove any point to you, or to say what is right or wrong. I'm merely stating that I was able to maintain some high maintenance plants for two years with no water changes and very minimal dosing. Obviously something happened after that 2 year period that threw the system off. That is actually why I started this thread in the first place, to try to understand why. I'm just trying to learn, and I want to understand the mechanisms, not simply do what is instructed.

I believe my system worked well for 2 years because I was able to monitor and maintain appropriate nitrate and phosphate levels through a balance of fish stock/feeding and plant biomass, without letting them get out of equilibrium. I suspect in the end that the phosphate crept up in the ratio, leading to the BGA problems.

*However, I have thankfully learned from this thread that my problems may also have arisen from the redox potential *that was out of whack without water changes. A buildup of DOC in the water MAY have contributed to these problems, but I have yet to see any evidence to explain why this is the case - I would love to know! I still have not heard any explanation for this, only the statement of fact through experience.

The reason I went to pressurized is primarily for the convenience. DIY is a lot of work, and it is tough to keep balanced. My new tank setup was a test, and the reason for the didiplis and other plants failing first of all is probably due to a need for stronger light, although I have other 'high light' plants that are doing fine. The inert substrate is probably also a problem. I'm not trying to argue about anything, merely to learn and understand the processes by which planted tanks function. I still believe that it is not necessary to remove all natural waste products that the plants can use, and replace them entirely with chemical ferts.


----------



## tlarsen (Feb 6, 2014)

Vohlk said:


> That study though even says within it that the Orinoco rivers nitrates sometimes rise during the dry season (also 80ppb is .8ppm low yes but with today's tech. It is very possible to detect easily)
> Also low nitrates does not equal no nitrates
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk


I conduct freshwater biodiversity surveys and we also measure aspects of water quality. Here is just one recent example from South America, in Suriname: (mg/L) Nitrate 0.01, Phosphate 0.05, Ammonia 0.0, iron 0.82 (this is the same location where we found several tetras and catfish common in the aquarium trade, including new species)


----------



## Vohlk (Apr 8, 2016)

So 10ppb nitrate right
It's really small but still there
Correct me if I am wrong but 0 nitrates would be a bad thing???

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk


----------



## tlarsen (Feb 6, 2014)

Generally 0 nitrates in the water column is tough for plants. I have seen 0 measurable nitrates, but that tends to be in very small fast flowing headwater creeks in S America with sandy bottoms. Some aquatic plants still manage to grow, but the nitrates and aquatic plants increase as you move further downstream

Bump: Here is an example from that type of creek with no nitrates (mg/L):
phosphate 0.11, nitrate 0.0, ammonia 0.08, iron 0.83

Interestingly, even with no nitrates, phosphates are definitely present. This is a completely pristine area with no runoff from any human influence.


----------



## tlarsen (Feb 6, 2014)

PS An absence of nitrogen in some environments is the primary reason that carnivorous plants evolved


----------



## Vohlk (Apr 8, 2016)

Right, so it is affirmed that for the most part 0 nitrates in a system is not a good thing (at least compared to most aquatic plants)

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk


----------



## tlarsen (Feb 6, 2014)

Vohlk said:


> Right, so it is affirmed that for the most part 0 nitrates in a system is not a good thing (at least compared to most aquatic plants)
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk


I think everyone would agree with that, but the levels in nature (often for example 0.01 ppm in places where aquatic plants thrive) are still *2-4* *orders of magnitude* lower than people usually target in the aquarium


----------



## Vohlk (Apr 8, 2016)

Wait people shoot for more than 1000 ppm nitrates?

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Vohlk (Apr 8, 2016)

Correction 100ppm?

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk


----------



## tlarsen (Feb 6, 2014)

Well certainly not most, but I've seen quite a few people content with 100 ppm nitrates. Still, 10 ppm is 3 orders of magnitude higher than most natural situations. I'm not saying it doesn't work, because clearly it can. But it is interesting to ponder.


----------



## Vohlk (Apr 8, 2016)

Yes also maybe something to consider is that a lot of the fish we use today have been bred in captivity for several generations (100s? Maybe that's a stretch)
But tolerance to high nitrates has developed unintentionally as a result

Obviously some fish have high nitrate tolerances already (catfish and such)
And as a result we as aquarium keepers have allowed the levels to rise higher for our own easiness 

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

tlarsen said:


> I'm not trying to prove any point to you, or to say what is right or wrong. I'm merely stating that I was able to maintain some high maintenance plants for two years with no water changes and very minimal dosing. Obviously something happened after that 2 year period that threw the system off. That is actually why I started this thread in the first place, to try to understand why. I'm just trying to learn, and I want to understand the mechanisms, not simply do what is instructed.
> .


If you took two high-light identical tanks and one you did water changes and dosed and one you didn't and relied on waste for Macros the odds are you will have more problems with the later. Two things could happen that would be eliminated in the water change/dosed tank. One you could run short of macros and the plants suffer. Once they suffer your being reactive as opposed to pro-active (dosing/water changes). 

Two, not enough of the natural waste is being used and what's left over causes algae. So basically with no water change/no dosing your trying to find a sweet spot, which is much more difficult than removing and dosing. Another thing you forgetting which I mentioned many times is that your way its more reliant on plant mass. Try removing 2/3 of your plants and see what happens. it's harder still to control algae with high light and a small amount of plants. Sorry, but for me I don't necessarily want a tank full of plants, sometimes I want more hardscape less plants. I want to do what I want not be compromised because I need to stuff the tank with plants. 

This is what I said earlier in the thread and I stand by it. I even mentioned something about plant mass and what I talked about above. 

"*Removing water and waste works in EVERY setup as long as you dose back. Leaving organics in the tank doesn't.* You either have to have less light or more plants then you might want. Your beholding to the dynamics of the setup not the other way around."


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Vohlk said:


> Yes also maybe something to consider is that a lot of the fish we use today have been bred in captivity for several generations (100s? Maybe that's a stretch)
> But tolerance to high nitrates has developed unintentionally as a result
> 
> Obviously some fish have high nitrate tolerances already (catfish and such)
> And as a result we as aquarium keepers have allowed the levels to rise higher for our own easiness


I don't think there's any science to support the fact that fish (or anything) exposed to toxic elements become immune to their effects, regardless of the number of generations exposed. It has been proven that fish exposed to higher nitrates have more health problems and shorter life spans. So higher nitrates may be okay/fine for plants, but not so much for fish. 
I'm not sure about potassium nitrate salts like KNO3, but I'm pretty sure nature doesn't add that to grow plants.


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

AbbeysDad said:


> I don't think there's any science to support the fact that fish (or anything) exposed to toxic elements become immune to their effects, regardless of the number of generations exposed. It has been proven that fish exposed to higher nitrates have more health problems and shorter life spans. So higher nitrates may be okay/fine for plants, but not so much for fish.
> I'm not sure about potassium nitrate salts like KNO3, but I'm pretty sure nature doesn't add that to grow plants.


So what would be the natural lifespan of my 5 year old cardinals and black skirts that have been exposed to nitrate, phosphate, potassium, etc. on a daily basis and are still going strong?


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Jeff5614 said:


> So what would be the natural lifespan of my 5 year old cardinals and black skirts that have been exposed to nitrate, phosphate, potassium, etc. on a daily basis and are still going strong?


As was being discussed, I was speaking of high nitrates (100ppm was being referenced which is very bad). What is the nitrate level in your tank?

Note: Experts in the field all agree that high nitrates are detrimental to fish (It's not my opinion)


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

@;


AbbeysDad said:


> As was being discussed, I was speaking of high nitrates (100ppm was being referenced which is very bad). What is the nitrate level in your tank?
> 
> Note: Experts in the field all agree that high nitrates are detrimental to fish (It's not my opinion)


I'm pretty sure it's nowhere near 100 ppm.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

When one does a hi-tech setup where your dosing and doing regular large water changes your nitrate target range isn't close to 100ppm, it's about 15%-25% of that. 

By doing large water changes and controlling dosing you have a much less likely chance of having two many nitrates for fish. If your relying on the tank itself to process the nitrates then your relying on a certain amount of plant mass and uptake which is very confining.


----------



## Vohlk (Apr 8, 2016)

AbbeysDad said:


> I don't think there's any science to support the fact that fish (or anything) exposed to toxic elements become immune to their effects, regardless of the number of generations exposed. It has been proven that fish exposed to higher nitrates have more health problems and shorter life spans. So higher nitrates may be okay/fine for plants, but not so much for fish.
> I'm not sure about potassium nitrate salts like KNO3, but I'm pretty sure nature doesn't add that to grow plants.


I am not sure if you are joking, trolling, or being serious. If you are being serious just do a little research on it you will see that it is quiet common for organisms to adapt to a changing environment as long as it is a "slow" change (obviously this varies highly between organisms and what the change entails and slow isn't always that slow).
One example of this which is very apparent in the fish keeping world is simply the fact that I can have an angelfish (happy enough to attempt breeding even though she doesnt have a mate) and a pH of 8.2. Angelfish come from the amazonia region which traditionally has a pH of about 6.5-7.3. A lot of the fish we keep and breed today have developed a tolerance to a larger range of pH's simply because when they where bred in the past any fish that A) didn't survive the pH they where bred in... well they died, or B) If they survived and couldn't breed well they didn't pass on their genes.

Other great examples to look for are studies of bacteria and their resistance to antibiotics (it's a really big issue with agriculture but I digress)


Another point:
If fish cannot adapt to changes in water parameters why would we even bother acclimating fish (via drip acclimation or whatever) when adding a new fish to our tanks?
Doesn't this if anything suggest that fish are able to adapt?


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Variations in pH and/or hardness are not the same as the toxic effects of ammonia, nitrites, and nitrates. I suppose there's something to be said for insects like roaches that develop a tolerance to certain pesticides. However, I haven't seen any fish studies that suggest that any fish have become genetically immune to high levels of nitrates. It's generally held that nitrates of no greater than 10-20ppm are best for fish...and long term exposure to high nitrates causes health problems and shortened life spans. I suppose the negative effect is relative to the levels and the duration.

I have learned that drip acclimation is now old school and not recommended because it really takes fish weeks to acclimate to new/different water conditions. Experts now recommend floating to equalize water temperature, then pour through a net into a waste bucket and place fish directly in the tank.


----------



## Vohlk (Apr 8, 2016)

What experts?
And I would agree with you on the 10-20ppm is best for fish

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Vohlk said:


> What experts?
> And I would agree with you on the 10-20ppm is best for fish


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDRtrxWmxX0


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

What's the downside to drip acclimation?


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

houseofcards said:


> What's the downside to drip acclimation?


Watch the video as it makes good sense.

For fish that have been shipped, the pH becomes acidic, converting the ammonia to ammonium, but a subsequent drip acclimation raises the pH and the ammonium converts to toxic ammonia....and can kill the fish.

For fish from the local fish store, you 'can' drip acclimate, but it serves little purpose because it actually takes fish weeks to osmotic-ally acclimate to new/different water.


----------



## tlarsen (Feb 6, 2014)

Vohlk said:


> I am not sure if you are joking, trolling, or being serious. If you are being serious just do a little research on it you will see that it is quiet common for organisms to adapt to a changing environment as long as it is a "slow" change (obviously this varies highly between organisms and what the change entails and slow isn't always that slow).
> One example of this which is very apparent in the fish keeping world is simply the fact that I can have an angelfish (happy enough to attempt breeding even though she doesnt have a mate) and a pH of 8.2. Angelfish come from the amazonia region which traditionally has a pH of about 6.5-7.3. A lot of the fish we keep and breed today have developed a tolerance to a larger range of pH's simply because when they where bred in the past any fish that A) didn't survive the pH they where bred in... well they died, or B) If they survived and couldn't breed well they didn't pass on their genes.
> 
> Other great examples to look for are studies of bacteria and their resistance to antibiotics (it's a really big issue with agriculture but I digress)
> ...


It's important to recognize the distinction between 1) developing a tolerance and 2) evolving new adaptive traits. The word adapt should technically be reserved for evolutionary genetic changes. Adaptations can occur through natural selection, which is EXTREMELY slow and is not something we would observe in any of our lifetimes (antibiotic resistant bacteria are more of an exception because their lifecycle and generations are so incredibly rapid, and just a few individual bacteria with resistant mutations out of billions of bacteria can quickly survive and reproduce).

Adaptations also occur through artificial selection which is what we do to selectively breed individuals with particular desirable traits, and this can be done fairly quickly, but it still requires the appropriate genetic variation to exist in the first place.

In most cases what we are talking about here is developing a tolerance. This is not related to genes at all, and is not passed on between generations. It is merely the process of allowing an individual to slowly become accustomed and tolerant of new environmental conditions. When their offspring are born into the same environment, they are quickly accustomed to it because they have never lived elsewhere, but this is not because they are genetically different from wild stock. But you can select individuals with the highest pH tolerance for example for artificial selection and breeding.

Finally, just because a fish naturally inhabits waters of a certain pH range does not mean that it can't tolerate pH levels outside of that range. Species vary greatly in how specialized vs generalized they are, and what ecological niche they occupy.


----------



## tlarsen (Feb 6, 2014)

houseofcards said:


> If you took two high-light identical tanks and one you did water changes and dosed and one you didn't and relied on waste for Macros the odds are you will have more problems with the later. Two things could happen that would be eliminated in the water change/dosed tank. One you could run short of macros and the plants suffer. Once they suffer your being reactive as opposed to pro-active (dosing/water changes).
> 
> Two, not enough of the natural waste is being used and what's left over causes algae. So basically with no water change/no dosing your trying to find a sweet spot, which is much more difficult than removing and dosing. Another thing you forgetting which I mentioned many times is that your way its more reliant on plant mass. Try removing 2/3 of your plants and see what happens. it's harder still to control algae with high light and a small amount of plants. Sorry, but for me I don't necessarily want a tank full of plants, sometimes I want more hardscape less plants. I want to do what I want not be compromised because I need to stuff the tank with plants.
> 
> ...


You provide 2 scenarios:
1) waste does not produce enough macros for plants. Then simply dose extra ferts on top of the waste derived nutrients to meet plants needs, or add more fish
2) waste produces more nutrients than plants can use, leading to algae. Then you could either a) do larger and more frequent water changes, b) decrease stocking/feeding or c) increase plant biomass

You claim that this doesn't work with fewer plants/lower plant biomass, but the logic is not there. Fewer plants=fewer nutrient requirements, so either have fewer fish, or do your water changes to keep nutrients from waste at appropriate levels. You still haven't explained why dosing ferts is needed in this scenario. Most tanks have a fairly consistent bioload and plant mass, so if you measure your parameters and know what your baseline is, you can work from there.


----------



## Vohlk (Apr 8, 2016)

tlarsen said:


> It's important to recognize the distinction between 1) developing a tolerance and 2) evolving new adaptive traits. The word adapt should technically be reserved for evolutionary genetic changes. Adaptations can occur through natural selection, which is EXTREMELY slow and is not something we would observe in any of our lifetimes (antibiotic resistant bacteria are more of an exception because their lifecycle and generations are so incredibly rapid, and just a few individual bacteria with resistant mutations out of billions of bacteria can quickly survive and reproduce).
> 
> Adaptations also occur through artificial selection which is what we do to selectively breed individuals with particular desirable traits, and this can be done fairly quickly, but it still requires the appropriate genetic variation to exist in the first place.
> 
> ...


This is why I said a lot, not all, and honestly probably not most but a fair number have and do, I don't remember which one but if you go back in my previous posts on this thread one of the articles I linked talks about pH tolerance variability between fish species.

Also *tolerance* is genetic, the issue with most substances is that tolerance can be formed in many ways using many different combinations of genes. That in addition to the fact that there are so many different organisms, and substances to form tolerances against it can be hard to locate exactly what gene (or genes) are responsible for the tolerance. (also to note a lot of times it is a gene which encodes a protein which gives tolerance genes themselves don't really do a whole lot (for the most part)). Here is a summary of a research paper that talks about identifying a gene (s) that results in cadmium tolerance (resistance) in certain types of plants. (I understand that this is not 100% exactly the same as what we are looking at (tolerance to nitrates/nitrites in fish) but the concept still holds:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1171413/pdf/003325.pdf

Lastly, organisms can "adapt"/"evolve", rather quickly, if you wish to read about it yourself one example would be the peppered moth and how it went from a mostly white moth to a mostly dark (gray/brown) moth. This happened in as little as 38 years for a large portion of moths to change color (1811 no identified peppered moths where of dark coloration, 1848 a large portion where dark in coloration, now because of less soot we are seeing the trend move in the opposite direction) Here is a paper that discusses microevolution:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Laurence_Cook/publication/6089356_Postindustrial_melanism_in_the_peppered_moth/links/54339bcf0cf225bddcc9b292.pdf


----------



## tlarsen (Feb 6, 2014)

Vohlk said:


> This is why I said a lot, not all, and honestly probably not most but a fair number have and do, I don't remember which one but if you go back in my previous posts on this thread one of the articles I linked talks about pH tolerance variability between fish species.
> 
> Also *tolerance* is genetic, the issue with most substances is that tolerance can be formed in many ways using many different combinations of genes. That in addition to the fact that there are so many different organisms, and substances to form tolerances against it can be hard to locate exactly what gene (or genes) are responsible for the tolerance. (also to note a lot of times it is a gene which encodes a protein which gives tolerance genes themselves don't really do a whole lot (for the most part)). Here is a summary of a research paper that talks about identifying a gene (s) that results in cadmium tolerance (resistance) in certain types of plants. (I understand that this is not 100% exactly the same as what we are looking at (tolerance to nitrates/nitrites in fish) but the concept still holds:
> 
> ...


Absolutely, I agree with everything you wrote here. I didn't mean to imply that the word 'tolerance' by itself cannot be based on genetics. I was just trying to make the distinction that some people don't seem to understand between the characteristics of an individual that are based on genetic expression and those that are based on non-gene based changes in 'tolerance' or what might be better called in this case, 'acclimatization'. Clearly you do understand these differences.

If you place an individual in an environment it is not accustomed to, it may be able to slowly adjust or acclimatize to that environment, with zero change in its genetic code. This built up tolerance is not passed on to future generations.

If you select individuals with genes beneficial to tolerating particular environmental parameters, especially those at the edge of the range of most individuals within the population, you can selectively breed fish or other creatures that can tolerate those conditions, and this will be passed on to future generations.

I have always liked the moth example of how their color changed with the industrial revolution due to soot (I have frequently used this as an example in discussions with the dwindling and mind-boggling percent of the population who still question evolution). Yes, we can observe natural selection at play within shorter time frames and within our lifetime. These tend to be limited to minor morphological changes such as color, which are usually coded by just one or a couple genes, and tend to have large inherent variability from which natural selection can act. Physiological tolerance is generally dependent on many more gene combinations and generally evolves much more slowly.

Antibiotic resistant bacteria are really a strange form of artificial selection, even though we are unintentionally selecting traits that are unwanted for us, by blasting billions of bacteria on a daily basis with the same strains of antibiotics. Dog breeds are a great example of how humans can drastically alter morphology of a species in a very short time using artificial selection.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

tlarsen said:


> You provide 2 scenarios:
> 1) waste does not produce enough macros for plants. Then simply dose extra ferts on top of the waste derived nutrients to meet plants needs, or add more fish
> 2) waste produces more nutrients than plants can use, leading to algae. Then you could either a) do larger and more frequent water changes, b) decrease stocking/feeding or c) increase plant biomass
> 
> You claim that this doesn't work with fewer plants/lower plant biomass, but the logic is not there. Fewer plants=fewer nutrient requirements, so either have fewer fish, or do your water changes to keep nutrients from waste at appropriate levels. .


Not sure what I’m missing here, your saying to increase water changes to keep organics low? O.K. Also with fewer plants, fewer fish you still have a large void where algae can come in, especially with good light. 



tlarsen said:


> You still haven't explained why dosing ferts is needed in this scenario. Most tanks have a fairly consistent bioload and plant mass, so if you measure your parameters and know what your baseline is, you can work from there.


If I’m understanding you correctly, no, that’s not true at all. As plants grow and the tank ages the plant mass is getting larger and their fert requirements get larger. What you’re talking about is finding a balance. Finding a balance is like walking a tightrope. Why would I want to do that when I could just dose (whether the plants need it or not) and do water change to remove organics. It’s the best case scenario. Your providing the plants what they need and reducing organics 

Not many things are required and no one’s saying you have to do this, but what I’m talking about is pro-active preventive, before many problems start. Once you see a problem now you’re reacting to a deficiency, algae, whatever and it’s a different ballgame to recover. I can’t emphasis enough that doing water changes and dosing will work in EVERY setup. Not doing them you will be limited in some way.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

What we have here is a draw because both methods really, really work!...and both produce lush, green plants.

Now I think high tech is a bit more expensive and somewhat more complicated. But if you're really into plants that normally grow in shallow water with high light, it's perhaps the only way. And high light, CO2 and high ferts push plants to grow faster. Which means a bit more work trimming and replanting. Then there's the 50%+ weekly water change and more ferts.

In the low tech, more natural method, organic nutrients are leveraged to feed the plants that purify the water. Less (or sometimes no) chemical ferts are required. There does need to be somewhat of a balance of bio-load to plant mass and partial water change volume/frequency may be adjusted to compensate.

Now Diana Walstad has had tanks going strong for 8-10 years with no water changes!!! Admittedly, she must have exceptional balance. (I'm thinking well planted with a light bio-load). In her words, water changes would just remove nutrients that the plants could use and as plants grow and are trimmed, impurities are removed (interesting logic).

Now I feel that in a heavily planted tank (even with an imperfect balance), with modest water changes, the tank can be maintained with little or no chemical ferts and this will result in the purest water and a very healthy, natural habitat for fish. On the upside, plants grow slower so there's less trimming/replanting and there's overall less maintenance required.


----------



## Mxx (Dec 29, 2010)

I skimmed through this thread and thought I'd add my own comments, as I'd wondered this myself. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

AbbeysDad said:


> Watch the video as it makes good sense.
> 
> For fish that have been shipped, the pH becomes acidic, converting the ammonia to ammonium, but a subsequent drip acclimation raises the pH and the ammonium converts to toxic ammonia....and can kill the fish.
> 
> For fish from the local fish store, you 'can' drip acclimate, but it serves little purpose because it actually takes fish weeks to osmotic-ally acclimate to new/different water.


 
Have had domestic Discus(other species also), shipped and acclimated to my tank's via drip acclimation within an hour or two.
Not many fishes more sensitive to fluctuating water chemistry.IMHO
Can place a few drop's of PRIME in acclimation tub and small air stone for aeration.
Been doin it this way for year's.
Hate to think my success was all dumb luck.


----------

