# low tech dosing questions



## maxthedog123 (Jul 23, 2007)

OK - I'm trying to make sense of the dosing for a low tech tank. Tom Barr suggests this once per week per 20g:

1/4 Teaspoon of Seachem Equilibrium (for traces and Calcium + Magnesium
1/8 Teaspoon of KNO3 (Potassium Nitrate)
1/32 Teaspoon of KH2PO4

According to the fertilator from aquaticplantcentral this will add:

NO3 (nitrate): 5.27ppm
PO4 (phosphate): 1.61ppm
K (potassium): 7.42ppm
Ca (calcium): 1.42ppm
Mg (magnesium) .42ppm
Fe (iron): .02ppm

If correct, it’s going to have to use the following to get nearly the same ppm dosing rate for each nutrient:

Flourish Nitrogen: 15ml
Flourish Phosphorus: 70ml
Flourish Potassium: 10ml
Flourish Iron: 0ml
Seachem Equilibrium: 0.6875 tsp

However, in Tom's discussions, he mentions that dosing low tech would be approximately 10% of recommended levels. Looking at the suggested levels on the fertilator, this would be more like:

Flourish Nitrogen: 6ml
Flourish Phosphorus: 9ml
Flourish Potassium: 0ml
Flourish Iron: 0ml
Seachem Equilibrium: 0.6875 tsp

Which yields:

NO3 (nitrate): 1.9ppm
PO4 (phosphate): 0.19ppm
K (potassium): 4ppm
Ca (calcium): 1.42ppm
Mg (magnesium) .42ppm
Fe (iron): .02ppm

So I am confused and looking for advice. What is the target nutrient level in ppm? Are the amounts in the fertilator correct? Looking for advice to get started on a dosing routine.

I also added flourish tabs into the gravel bed.


----------



## naturelady (Dec 14, 2009)

I just want to clarify...

Are those original recommendations from Tom Barr for low tech tanks? 

I'm asking because I haven't ever been able to find a recommendation for low tech tanks on his site. I am sure its there, but I just haven't found it yet. All of the recommendations I have found posted by him were for 3x per week dosing.


----------



## maxthedog123 (Jul 23, 2007)

Yes - I copied the link below from Tom Barr. I posted about this on his site, but most traffic there is high tech. This topic is just one thread in the articles section - I never got a reply about dosing.

http://www.barrreport.com/showthread.php/433-Non-CO2-methods


----------



## naturelady (Dec 14, 2009)

Um, so wait, is this what you are saying:
Tom Barr in one place makes one recommendation for a low-tech dosing schedule.
In another place, he recommends going with 10% of his standard dosing for low-tech, and when you figured out the ppm of this method, they were different than you found from the first method?

If that is the case, then I recommend, just pick one, and see how the plants do. Adjust it if you feel it is needed.

Plants are very flexible. These plans are just general recommendations. Whichever you pick, you probably would end up adjusting it anyway to account for water parameters in your area, the fish stocking density in your tank, etc.

And I will also point out- is the water in your area very hard? If so, you may not want to use the Equilibrium (it would probably not be necessary).


----------



## maxthedog123 (Jul 23, 2007)

Yes - he makes the comment that 10-20% of standard is good for low tech. However, he is very consistent in his dosing suggestions but also says "wait and see" a lot. The only reason I questioned Tom's dosing is his recommended dosing is more than 10% of what is recommended in the "fertilator". Perhaps the recommended dosing on APC is simply lower than Tom's?

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/fertilator.php

In any event, just trying to figure out where to start for low tech dosing.


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

There's no way to put together a "one size fits all" standardized dosing- every tank is going to differ in plant species, overall plant mass, bioload, light and CO2 levels, etc... so you DO just have to start somewhere, and watch your plants and levels for deficiencies. Dosing often has to change over time as well, as a tank grows in and the overall plant mass/need for nutrients increases.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

naturelady said:


> Um, so wait, is this what you are saying:
> Tom Barr in one place makes one recommendation for a low-tech dosing schedule.
> In another place, he recommends going with 10% of his standard dosing for low-tech, and when you figured out the ppm of this method, they were different than you found from the first method?
> 
> ...


I do not suggest using the seachem stuff.
Their suggestions (weekly etc) are different from mine.

I take the general ranges of a CO2 enriched tank and scale it back to 2-4X a month(some do weekly, but a week skipped here or there is fine and wise in some cases).

The 20 Gal tank is typically dosed with eI about 6/8 tsp a week
Non CO2, is about 1/8th minus a week here or there, this comes out to about 10% by volume including the skipping.

If it's a bit higher/lower, it's fine.
Plants are flexible.



Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

lauraleellbp said:


> There's no way to put together a "one size fits all" standardized dosing- every tank is going to differ in plant species, overall plant mass, bioload, light and CO2 levels, etc... so you DO just have to start somewhere, and watch your plants and levels for deficiencies. Dosing often has to change over time as well, as a tank grows in and the overall plant mass/need for nutrients increases.


Hence the "wait and see" stuff.
folks have to watch the tank and just see if the plants do well with less, but only when you start at a higher level which you know are non limiting.

That way the effects on plants are independent of the nutrients' ppms.
From there, if things are good, you reduce it down till you see some negative signs on the plants, then bump it back up to the next highest level.

This takes observation and time, folks should be watching your tank and the plant's growth, they are the best easiest test kits to use and the ones that really matter.

Since things are growing pretty slow, build up is slow and care is easy.
If you have floating plants, say 10-25%, then the 10% rule also does not apply, that is in there also.

Water sprite will suck out nutrients, pennywort etc really fast.
They are floating and not CO2 limited, so they will goes 10-20X faster growth.

In a rigid system, the dosing suggestion is off and adds too much........ but many have floating plants, and skip a dosing every other week etc to lean the tank down some. You also have folks that add soil sediments, and older sand sediments will denitrify and remove NO3 faster than plant uptake will remove NO3 alone.

These are all considered, so take all the advice and not just the strictest version and focus just on ppm's. Such micromanagement has never helped anyone near as I can tell in the hobby.

Look at all the issues, ask about floating plant's impact, ask if skipping a week to lean it the tank down is a good idea, etc.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Diana (Jan 14, 2010)

Start by testing your tap water. (If that is what you are using in your tank)
Then test the tank. 

In a low tech set up there are sometimes enough nutrients from other sources that you should not follow any specific recipe too closely. 

I started with EI (lowest suggested dosing level) and then tested and adjusted the dosing to what my plants were using. 

For example: My tap water has 4-5 degrees GH, and over the course of the week the tanks maintain that 4-5 degrees. While I am sure the plants are using Ca and Mg, this is something I do not have to dose as a fertilizer (perhaps enough is getting in the tanks from fish food), so I do not add Equilibrium to my tanks. Similarly, NO3 is hovering in my tanks, climbing in some, dropping in others. I test this more often to see how to dose. 
My plants show potassium deficiency and iron deficiency before anything else, so my modifications include more K and more Fe.

So it is all about starting SOMEWHERE and watching (including watching the test results) to see what happens. Then adjusting what you are doing.


----------



## maxthedog123 (Jul 23, 2007)

As I mentioned, I am using up my remaining Seachem liquid products. I paid for 'em, I might as well use them, right?

Plants seem to be doing pretty well in lower light and no CO2. My sword leaves are not as green as they were last week. Maybe a little more yellow? I have flourish tabs underneath it. Should I also consider dosing iron?

Something I don't understand: when I first started my tank, I was a test fiend. I haven't tested my water in a long, long time. When I first set it up, my GH was around 14 and my KH was 8-9 and pH 7.6. I haven't dosed CO2 in almost 3 weeks now. My KH tested at 2, GH at 12 and pH at 6.6. Can someone help me interpret those results?

I know that KH/pH yields a good place on the CO2 chart. Other that that, what does it mean? Why caused them to go down over time?

Equilibrium is in Tom's suggested dosing. Do I need to dose that or dose a GH of 12 indicate enough Mg and Ca? Equilibrium is also a source of iron - if I don't dose that do I need to dose iron.


----------



## Erloas (Dec 14, 2009)

Depending on water changes and what you have in the tank, your KH and GH will probably decrease over time. Hardness in nature is removed through filtering through plants (bogs) and other methods. So if you have that happening naturally in your tank then you should see some reduction in GH and KH from the same mechanism that reduces it in nature. How much will depend on what is removing it and how much it can remove versus how much you are adding back with water changes.

Take snail shells as another example, crushed they are used to raise pH, and very acidic water is hard on most snails. So assumable if you have snails growing they are probably using some of that hardness from the water to build their shells. Especially if you are having a lot of them grow and removing them then you would be removing some of the hardness they used (where as if they died in the tank and were left there the shells would release the hardness back into the water over time)

I've also heard a few types of plants are able to use hardness for some of nutrients they need. Though I'm not sure which types and how fast they can use it.


----------



## Byron (Aug 20, 2009)

I agree with Erloas on the gradual lowering of hardness and pH in an established aquarium. As mentioned, one way to maintain it is with regular partial water changes. Adding calcareus gravel as in the filter also maintains a stable level. In my case, the tap water is < 1dGH and < 1 dKH with a pH of 7 and in my aquaria both GH and KH are zero unless I use dolomite in the filters, about half a cup keeps the GH at 2 and the pH at 6.0 instead of 5.0. If you want soft acidic water fish, as I have, mostly wild caught Amazonian and SE Asian, this is perfect. I've maintained these levels for more than 12 years.

I've never used CO2 but I gather that if you did the pH would be even lower. But it should depend upon your fish preferences; most aquarium plants will do fine so long as extremes are avoided.

The other question was plants using hardness for nutrients; I assume this is to do with those plants that fare better in basic/harder water from those that fare better in soft/acidic water. Hardness is a measure of water's calcium and magnesium concentrations; Wetzel notes that other nutrients are linked to this, like bicarbonate, potassium, sulfur.

Plants generally prefer to assimilate carbon from CO2, and most do this easily in soft slightly acidic water. In harder water carbon is available more as carbonates and some plants do have a good ability to assimilate carbon afrom carbonates, especially Vallisneria and Myriophyllum. Amphibious or bog plants (Echinodorus species, many crypts) show a strong preference for CO2 perhaps because they assimilate it so easily from the air during their emersed period, and some plants like aquatic mosses appear not to be able to use bicarbonates at all, only CO2.

I am not an advocate of dosing individual nutrients in a low-tech aquarium because it is difficult to provide the 15 mineral nutrients required by aquatic plants in correct proportion to each other, and the latter is an important consideration. Excess of some nutrients can create a deficiency in others through the plant being unable to assimilate the other; in my own experience I have seen an excess of magnesium cause a deficiency in potassium, and an excess of potassium a deficiency in iron, and I have overdosed with iron and nearly killed the plants. Studies have shown that an excess of copper, zinc or manganese can induce iron deficiency. 

To ensure a balanced nutrient source I now use a comprehensive liquid fertilizer twice a week. I have experimented with only once a week three times over the past year, and each time the Echinodorus began developing yellowing leaves, and returning to twice weekly corrected this deficiency within 1-2 weeks in all three cases. For 12 years I only used liquid fertilizer, no substrate fertilization, and had thriving plants. The "trick" is to balance the light (intensity and duration) with the 17 nutrients (including carbon, nitrogen and the 15 minerals) according to the plants--species and number--in the aquarium. As the latter can vary from aquarium to aquarium I start with once a week, observe the plants, and add a second dose to those aquaria requiring it.

Byron.


----------



## Diana (Jan 14, 2010)

With a GH of 12 degrees I would not dose more Ca or Mg. Calcium and magnesium are plant nutrients, but are also available in tap water, and fish food. For soft water fish I would keep the GH well under 10 degrees, and closer to 5 is better. Lower than about 3 degrees is too low, unless you are keeping some very specific plants, or breeding certain soft water fish. 
The KH is dropping, and this allows the pH to drop. While there is also a link to how much CO2 is in the water, the link in more vague than the charts would suggest, and not worth much. You can add a little baking soda to raise the carbonates. 1 teaspoon of baking soda added to 30 gallons will raise the KH by 2 degrees and the pH will probably come up a bit. Very low pH can stress the nitrifying bacteria. 
Some plants can use carbonates as a source of carbon. 

Leaves turning yellow is a sign of something going on, and could be any of several deficiencies. Older leaves? or newer? Are the main veins in the leaves green? Or yellow like the rest of the lead? Are new leaves coming out puckered or misshapen in any way?


----------



## maxthedog123 (Jul 23, 2007)

Erloas and Byron - thanks for your thoughts. I'm not doing water changes - hence the low tech tank. I also don't have any snails - my yoyo loaches take care of that. Right now I have 2 yoyos, 6 tiger barbs, 5 giant danios and 1 BN pleco. A light load - I'm going to add another 4-6 tiger barbs. Can't decide between more danios and possibly adding a bunch of white clouds.

Diana - I will give a little bit of baking soda and see if raising the KH improves things. 

My H. polyspera and ludwigia are growing nicely. The older crypt leaves seem to be curling a bit. All of the sword leaves seem to be generally more yellow all over. Keep in mind the sword is very new, so it doesn't have much of a root structure. I put some flourish tabs underneath it a week ago.


----------



## Erloas (Dec 14, 2009)

maxthedog123 said:


> ...
> I'm not doing water changes - hence the low tech tank. ...
> 
> 
> ...


Water changes are always a good thing. I know some people don't do very many changes on low-tech setups and have good results, but I don't know of anyone that doesn't do regular water changes when dosing ferts. 

So if you are worried about low KH, and you have a decent level of KH in your tap water, and water changes are always a good thing why don't you just do some periodic water chantes and get some natural KH from that rather then trying to raise it with baking soda?


----------



## maxthedog123 (Jul 23, 2007)

I am dosing very low amounts. Changing the water also introduces a lot more CO2 into the tank. Everything I've read about low tech says swings in CO2 levels are not a good thing for the plants.


----------



## Byron (Aug 20, 2009)

maxthedog123 said:


> I am dosing very low amounts. Changing the water also introduces a lot more CO2 into the tank. Everything I've read about low tech says swings in CO2 levels are not a good thing for the plants.


Wonder what the definition is of a CO2 "swing." I do 50% water changes on my tanks, have done for 15 years, and I have incredible plant growth as the photos of my tanks illustrate if you'd like to view them under my name on the left.

Byron.


----------



## Kamon (Jan 26, 2010)

Some do water changes every week. Others perform water changes every six months or so. 

Why is it that the majority of "low-tech" comments towards water changes claim that doing them too often (weekly) is a bad thing?


----------



## Kamon (Jan 26, 2010)

I've also read that dosing low amounts would not induce the need for a water change because the nutrients are simply "used up". 

Estimative Index dosing for high-light/high-CO2 tanks obviously need the water change due to excess nutrient build-up.


----------



## maxthedog123 (Jul 23, 2007)

Why a discussion of no water changes? Because Diana Walstad has an entire book that discusses no dosing, no CO2 and no water changes ever. Tom Barr discusses using no CO2, very low dosing and no changes or changes every 6 months (see below for the answer on frequent water changes). Dosing is skipped every once in a while to do a "reset".

I don't doubt that your plants are doing well. If you are actively watching your tank and following a routine I'm sure they are. However, I am trying to follow a different but very well documented method described by some very knowledgeable people. I would argue that folks on what is supposed to be a "low tech" forum are too quick to argue that you MUST do water changes. I'd say it depends on what methods you are trying to follow.

My questions relate to dosing in a low light, non-CO2 environment. I would argue that dosing NaHCO3 (sodium bicarbonate) isn't any more "unnatural" than putting KNO3 and KH2PO4 in your tank, no?

http://www.barrreport.com/showthread.php/433-Non-CO2-methods

Doing water changes adds CO2 back to a CO2 limited tank.
Plants and algae both can and do adapt to low CO2 environments and induce genes to make enzymes that concentrate CO2 around Rubisco, the CO2 fixing enzyme. Algae tend to be better at it and have a faster response time and much shorter life cycle. When we add the CO2 at higher levels, this causes the plants and algae to destroy the low CO2 enzymes and start growing without of them since they no longer need them to fix CO2 form the KH ( the -HCO3).
Why keep all this machinery around if you no longer need it? Doing weekly water changes "fools" the plants and helps encourage algae more. Algae are faster to respond to low CO2 than plants.
Once the plants do adapt, they can do well. Plants want stable CO2 and nutrients to do best.


----------



## Kamon (Jan 26, 2010)

I thought it had something to do with adding CO2 back into the tank when "new" water was introduced. My low-tech 10gal hasn't experienced any algae so far and hopefully will fight it off for the remainder of it's life. roud:

Also, I agree that dumping tons of fertilizers into the water is quite the opposite of natural. 

Thanks for that bit of info, Max.


----------



## Erloas (Dec 14, 2009)

Well I haven't read the Diana Walstad book, but of course I know there are plenty of ways of doing low tech tanks. Keeping CO2 at a limited value helps in the control of a low tech tank. But a periodic water change is good in a lot of ways and it is very well documented. Depending on the rate of KH in your tank being used up, and from the sounds of it, that is fairly slowly, you still wouldn't have to do water changes very often to keep your KHs up. 
If your only worry about doing a water change is to spike the CO2 levels in your tank then simply leave the bucket(s) out for a day with an airstone in them and outgas all the extra CO2 built up in them and then do the water change with that. Its also a good source of other trace elements.

I have nothing against baking soda, in fact buy all you wish, thats good for me (because I work at a plant that produces sodium bicarbonate for all sorts of uses).

But at this point it almost seems like you are doing more work to keep your tank as low tech as possible and to me that seems kind of self-defeating.


----------



## maxthedog123 (Jul 23, 2007)

If you are getting healthy plant growth and do not have an algae problem, then it sounds like you've hit a good balance with whatever you are doing. roud:

I did my weekly dosing, added a little more Flourish this time for more trace and iron, and also decided to add some baking soda to see how boosting the KH affects things. This tank has been up and running for almost 3 years, so I don't doubt there is a bit of "old tank syndrome" going on with the KH.

BTW, when I'm out of the Seachem liquids, I will get dry ferts.


----------



## maxthedog123 (Jul 23, 2007)

Erloas said:


> Well I haven't read the Diana Walstad book, but of course I know there are plenty of ways of doing low tech tanks. Keeping CO2 at a limited value helps in the control of a low tech tank. But a periodic water change is good in a lot of ways and it is very well documented. Depending on the rate of KH in your tank being used up, and from the sounds of it, that is fairly slowly, you still wouldn't have to do water changes very often to keep your KHs up.
> If your only worry about doing a water change is to spike the CO2 levels in your tank then simply leave the bucket(s) out for a day with an airstone in them and outgas all the extra CO2 built up in them and then do the water change with that. Its also a good source of other trace elements.
> 
> I have nothing against baking soda, in fact buy all you wish, thats good for me (because I work at a plant that produces sodium bicarbonate for all sorts of uses).
> ...


Leaving the buckets out - that is a very good idea. I may consider that no matter what I do. I don't think I'm doing too much more work, I got a test kit out from under my tank which hasn't been out in months. When I decided to add baking soda, I walked over to the kitchen and got some out of my wife's spice cabinet!


----------



## Byron (Aug 20, 2009)

My reason for 50% weekly water changes is not the plants but the fish. The only reason to do any water change is for the health of the fish.

I highly respect Diana Walstad; don't take her comments out of context. She advocates minimal water changes but she also points out that she has "small or moderate number of fish" in her aquaria. That is the point.

It is possible to set up an aquarium with no filters, no water changes, and thick with plants. But the fish load has to be very small to balance. One author suggested 7 or 8 neon tetras in a 55 gallon well-planted aquarium as the stocking level for this; most of us maintain far more fish in our tanks.

David Boruchowitz in his 2-part article "Time for a Change: A Mathematical Investigation of Water Changes" in the November and December 2009 _TFH _says it better than I can:
Most aquarium maintenance is a matter of crud and how to get rid of it. A mechanical filter traps suspended crud, a chemical filter removes certain dissolved crud, and a biofilter changes very toxic dissolved crud into much less toxic crud. But no matter how much filtration you have on your aquarium, dissolved crud in some form continues to accumulate.

We don't even know everything that accumulates, but we do know that keeping the amount of dissovled crud to a minimum really makes a difference in the growth, health, and apparent happiness of our pet fish. The simplest, easiest and most effective way of removing the accumulated pollution in an aquarium is to do just that--physically remove it by taking out the water and replacing it with fresh, clean water.​This is why I do water changes; the fish are first, the plants second. But I have seen no detrimental effects on the plants.

Byron.


----------



## Diana (Jan 14, 2010)

> we don't even know everything that accumulates, but we do know that keeping the amount of dissolved crud to a minimum really makes a difference in the growth, health, and apparent happiness of our pet fish. The simplest, easiest and most effective way of removing the accumulated pollution in an aquarium is to do just that--physically remove it by taking out the water and replacing it with fresh, clean water.


hear here!!


----------



## maxthedog123 (Jul 23, 2007)

I'd love to read the articles, but I am not a subscriber to TFH and those require a login to access. Sounds like very good articles. Can you read them when they are older?

I don't disagree with what you are saying about water changes. I've kept fish for years. I also agree that what Tom and Diana are talking about may not be for everyone, but I also think that 2 people with several advanced degrees between them are qualified to propose _one method _of taking care of a planted tank. I would disagree, however, that "balanced" stocking would be 7-8 neons in a 55g tank. It's not 25 cichlids either, but the neon example seems a bit of an extreme example.


----------



## Byron (Aug 20, 2009)

maxthedog123 said:


> I'd love to read the articles, but I am not a subscriber to TFH and those require a login to access. Sounds like very good articles. Can you read them when they are older?
> 
> I don't disagree with what you are saying about water changes. I've kept fish for years. I also agree that what Tom and Diana are talking about may not be for everyone, but I also think that 2 people with several advanced degrees between them are qualified to propose _one method _of taking care of a planted tank. I would disagree, however, that "balanced" stocking would be 7-8 neons in a 55g tank. It's not 25 cichlids either, but the neon example seems a bit of an extreme example.


Bear in mind the neon example means no filtration or water changes or anything, it is very strictly "natural" in that the plants handle the filtration and that fish load is the maximum to allow that to work without any intervention by the aquarist. The more fish, the more waste and the plants can't handle it fast enough, thus we intervene. Water changes are solely for the fish; the more fish, the more often. And no one can argue that they don't improve things, just look at the fish response to them. All of us know that fish appreciate a water change, so something has to be in it. If we take nature as the example, no fish in nature lives in the same water; water is constantly changing, either flowing past in a stream, or in a lake there are convection currents, plus the fish load to water volume ratio is no where near what it is in any aquarium. And fish have the ability to escape the water by swimming elsewhere, but in the aquarium they are forced to confine themselves to what we give them. Last point, treatment. I and many others have cured ich and diseases simply with water changes, not so much curing as preventing. The last two times I have had ich appear with new fish it has simply disappeared with no intervention from me. I firmly believe it is because the regular weekly water change keeps the fish in better condition and thus better able to fight off minor things like ich. The issue of stress is significant; fish in less than ideal conditions are under stress, and stress we now know affects their immune system, just as it does in humans. Keeping them healthier with fresher water is a big step towards preventing disease.

TFH is online now but you do have to subscribe. Before I did, I used to use our public library, they have TFH back to the beginning. Some fish stores carry it.

Byron.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Kamon said:


> Some do water changes every week. Others perform water changes every six months or so.
> 
> Why is it that the majority of "low-tech" comments towards water changes claim that doing them too often (weekly) is a bad thing?


Old habits, etc, also the % of floating species also plays a role, the bioloading of the tank. I've never seen a real nice non CO2 planted tank that was well done that got a lot of water changes weekly with many harder to grow species.
I've done it without the water changes however.
Also, the tap might have some nutrients as well.

We also cannot measure the light for comparing the systems either.
Sort of a large factor.

Still, most are really surprised to find that no water changes can be done, even those doing to the % every week can avoid and reduce them.

They might chose no to, but they should be able to and get the same if not better results.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Byron said:


> My reason for 50% weekly water changes is not the plants but the fish. The only reason to do any water change is for the health of the fish.


Most fall into this group, but if you watch plants closely, you see a similar effect when they get exposed to the air during a water change.
I do WC's mostly for fish, since most of us come from that side of the hobby to plants later, we tend to do this water change thing.

Unlearning that is difficult.



> I highly respect Diana Walstad; don't take her comments out of context. She advocates minimal water changes but she also points out that she has "small or moderate number of fish" in her aquaria. That is the point.
> 
> It is possible to set up an aquarium with no filters, no water changes, and thick with plants. But the fish load has to be very small to balance. One author suggested 7 or 8 neon tetras in a 55 gallon well-planted aquarium as the stocking level for this; most of us maintain far more fish in our tanks.


The real question is about what is the BMP, best management practice for a given goal/aquarium?

For a goal, you have that, then you look for a method that best is suited for long term success.

Some clowns wanna claim their method is the best for any and all tanks/goals, which is rubbish. A good slap with mullet is what they need.



> David Boruchowitz in his 2-part article "Time for a Change: A Mathematical Investigation of Water Changes" in the November and December 2009 _TFH _says it better than I can:
> Most aquarium maintenance is a matter of crud and how to get rid of it. A mechanical filter traps suspended crud, a chemical filter removes certain dissolved crud, and a biofilter changes very toxic dissolved crud into much less toxic crud. But no matter how much filtration you have on your aquarium, dissolved crud in some form continues to accumulate.​




Well, in general this is true with a couple of noted exceptions, this is not really true with respect to NO3 and if you use plants and export their biomass. NO3=> N2 can occur.Also, organic matter is broken down into CO2 and H2O, just like sugars are for us, we exhale the CO2.

These methods requires little work.

Good article and makes the point about doing larger %, vs smaller more frequent ones.




> e don't even know everything that accumulates, but we do know that keeping the amount of dissovled crud to a minimum really makes a difference in the growth, health, and apparent happiness of our pet fish. The simplest, easiest and most effective way of removing the accumulated pollution in an aquarium is to do just that--physically remove it by taking out the water and replacing it with fresh, clean water.





> This is why I do water changes; the fish are first, the plants second. But I have seen no detrimental effects on the plants.
> 
> Byron.


Yep, as far as BMP, water changes are easy and can be automated/semi automated also.

Once you do that, then the WC is very easy to address.

I love non CO2 tanks, they take time to develop, but the fish and critters are happy. So patience is rewarded and that is often lacking in most hobbyist. 

I am in agreement!

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Kamon said:


> I've also read that dosing low amounts would not induce the need for a water change because the nutrients are simply "used up".
> 
> Estimative Index dosing for high-light/high-CO2 tanks obviously need the water change due to excess nutrient build-up.



Yes, the plants sequester the "waste", bacteria tranwsform thigns into CO2, H2O and nutrients for plants over time.

These are rate dependent processes.
So with slower rates of production/growth etc, loading of fish, this balance is far more manageable.

EI dosing does not require large frequent water changes when used correctly if water % change reduction is the goal however.

You simply have a non limiting reference and can reduce the % of the EI dosing down till you have a negative plant response, then bump the dosing back up to the next higher %.

Then you can avoid water changes for weeks, months even.

Also, as with any sustainable goal with aquariums, LESS LIGHT is the key.
Less light= less algae growth, slower plant growth, less CO2 demand which in turn means less nutrient demand etc.

While I have suggested a water column dosing routine that is extremely effective for non CO2, I still also suggest using a rich sediment as well.
I also suggest watching and adjusting the dosing to suit plants, and using indicator plant species as metrics.

This is true for CO2, Excel or non CO2 and is common sense usage of dosing.

So it's not just the dosing or ferts alone, it's all the parts.:icon_excl


Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Also, if you have not yet,m read the "Biology of Aquatic plants" on Tropica's web site. It's 4 pages but very good. 

regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## maxthedog123 (Jul 23, 2007)

*Boruchowitz article in TFH (Nov & Dec 20009)*

Byron-

I went to the library today to read this article. I found out TFH goes back to around the year 2000 at the library, so I can see myself wasting many lunch hours there.

Good article, but I think this comment by Tom sums it up:



plantbrain said:


> Well, in general this is true with a couple of noted exceptions, this is not really true with respect to NO3 and if you use plants and export their biomass. NO3=> N2 can occur.Also, organic matter is broken down into CO2 and H2O, just like sugars are for us, we exhale the CO2.
> 
> These methods requires little work.
> 
> Good article and makes the point about doing larger %, vs smaller more frequent ones.


The article makes a great point, but analyzing mythical PU's (pollution units) completely ignores uptake by plants. I think the article is a great discussion on the effect of water changes in a non-planted tank where pollution will only ever increase.

I know that plants will not take up everything - I don't pretend to understand total dissolved solids. In addition to plant uptake, there are also other processes that are breaking down some of the organics that then get used up. So, to use the analogy from the article, it's not accurate to say the toilet in the bathroom never gets flushed. It does get flushed when plants are present - we just may disagree on what % of a flush that is.

Now that the horse is floggged, I am not disagreeing that water changes are good things. Just this - in the _right_ low tech scenarios a weekly water change is not required maintenance for the health of plants and are not even required for the fish.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Byron said:


> Wonder what the definition is of a CO2 "swing." I do 50% water changes on my tanks, have done for 15 years, and I have incredible plant growth as the photos of my tanks illustrate if you'd like to view them under my name on the left.
> 
> Byron.


And....you have a lot of *floating plants*, so CO2 is less an issue.
Light also plays a large role, more light= more issue when you do the water changes.

Without light PAR data, it's hard to test.
Species of plants also play a role, most swords and aponogetons, Egeria, Cryptes etc do pretty well in non CO2 tanks, try growing a lawn of Gloss or hair grass.

Not so easy. 

Comparing is fine, but the devil is in the details, same with not doing water changes.

While you have been doing them, the question remains, can you get away without doing them and have the tank's plant growth do well/better?

These same issues come up in CO2 enriched planted aquariums as well.

As the rates of growth are much slower, the maintenance and pruning less, the overall rates are much slower, so avoiding the water changes is much easier to get away with using this method than CO2 enrichment.

Plants can and do adapt well to stable CO2 and Rubsico accounts for 50% of the protein in most leaves, so it's a huge allocation of resources and the base of the nutrient chain/food for plants.

If the plant is chasing the supply and having to alter it's CO2 acquisition all the time, then this makes plant growth much more difficult(not impossible).
This is far more important than any N, P, K, trace issue.

Fish loading can add a fair amount of NPK and traces at low levels that are hard to measure. CO2 is even harder to measure.

Since CO2 is very tough to measure, particularly at lower and smaller ppm's,
and light is rarely measured with a PAR meter, this leads to all sorts of focus on nutrients and supposed conflicts in observations, but if we cannot compare the observations fairly against some stand, then less can really be said and the hobby does not progress.

I chose to use water column dosing instead of soil based on the rates of uptake in CO2 enriched systems, then scaled them down to the same % reduction in CO2.

It worked.

However, I am still a strong advocate of using fertile sediment as well.
That's easy and adds another layer of redundancy to supplying nutrients to plants. 

Still, with lots of floating plants, that block the light intensity and suck CO2 directly from the air, doign large water changes is not an issue.

My tank below can say the same thing in that context:










The tank has about 3x more biomass now and some more ferns growing submersed. If I wanted all submersed growth, I would not do the WC's.


Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Byron (Aug 20, 2009)

In the "right" low-tech... is what I said. Few fish and lots of plants. But I keep far more fish than the plants can possibly support. And unless I mis-read Mr. Barr's responses, I think he and I are generally agreeing on the basics.

I do not pretend to have all the answers, I have been keeping planted tanks for some 20 years, always low-tech, and without knowing why things were working until more recently when I had the time to do more research and as various books and methods became available.

I am not giving up on the water changes because I can see the effect on the fish. I have chocolate gouramis and pygmy sparkling gouramis spawning in the 70g, rare pencilfish spawning in the 90g, even the cardinals are going through the motions in the 115g. And there is absolutely no detrimental effect that I can see on my plants. Each week I chuck out a handful of Echinodorus quadricostatus and E. tenellus plantlets, and excess Frogbit and Pennywort. And my Echinodorus macrophyllus which is more than 12 years old is sending out another flower spike, and there are spikes having 3 and 4 side-branches at the surface from two E. bleheri in the 115g and a E. major [I think] in the 90g. The point of all this is that I can't imagine better plant growth, yet I still read that you can't grow plants in plain gravel--I am; you can't have less than 2 watts of light per gallon--I have less than one; with what I'm doing the plants will be "slow" if they grow at all--well, it's more than good enough for me. And I use my photos as the evidence.

Which I guess only shows there are many ways to have successful aquaria. I just like to advance the simplest because it seems preferable to stay out of my tanks and let nature do her job.

Byron.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

maxthedog123 said:


> I know that plants will not take up everything - I don't pretend to understand total dissolved solids. In addition to plant uptake, there are also other processes that are breaking down some of the organics that then get used up. So, to use the analogy from the article, it's not accurate to say the toilet in the bathroom never gets flushed. It does get flushed when plants are present - we just may disagree on what % of a flush that is.
> 
> Now that the horse is floggged, I am not disagreeing that water changes are good things. Just this - in the _right_ low tech scenarios a weekly water change is not required maintenance for the health of plants and are not even required for the fish.


I like the toilet analogy, used it often myself to goad the lazy into caring more for their tanks. 

I think the utility in the low tech non CO2 methods(there are low tech CO2 enriched methods BTW), is that you reduce the labor to a minimum.

You allow the tank to develop and slowly grow without pruning much, just feed the fish and maybe dose a tiny bit 2-4x a month or so.

The trade offs are what count and at what point does changing water really help the aquarium vs cost/time/motivation/labor?

You can also set up the non CO2 planted tank to be hard plumbed and then water changes are very easy. Same for CO2 enriched systems.

I had one case that had massive fish loading and they wanted a non CO2 tank, so we added a automated water changer, to do 10-20% per day slowly and at night. Java ferns bloomed very well as a result.

The night time allowed the CO2 to dissipate and not affect the day time growth due to water changing. We also reduced the light some.

This resulted in much better conditions for plants and for the fish. There was little chance of running out nutrients as there was about 1 kg of fish per 40 Gallon of tank fed live food 2-3x a day. They wanted wood and plants mostly.

So dilution was needed there more than a dosing routine. 
I could have gone the open top emergent growth direction, or added some floaters to reduce the light and mop up any extras, basically using floating and emergent plant as a back up to prevent algae, another layer of redundancy for management. But that tank's fish would rip up any floaters quick. They left the ferns alone for the most part.

Ferns went from black and BBA covered to nice and fat green.

Byron's tank illustrates that as does a few tanks I've done. Almost no non CO2 tanks I do have pure submersed growth only. This adds a strong buffer against algae and reduces light. 

If you add more loading to any aquarium, beyond what the plant's demands are, then water changes will be needed.

You can also add more floaters, less depending on what method you like also for water changes. Likewise, you can use Excel if you need to do water changes for awhile or often etc.

Still, water changes are not suggeted for non CO2 aquariums that have slow growth rates and the goal is less work, that's their main selling point.

If I want to do water changes and prune more often, I'll use CO2.
Even there, I can get away with less WC's using low light and floaters.

These methods are not hugely different when you put all this together, the rates change etc, but simple management steps can be taken in any method to reduce labor and balance the various trade offs for a given goal.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## maxthedog123 (Jul 23, 2007)

Byron said:


> Which I guess only shows there are many ways to have successful aquaria. I just like to advance the simplest because it seems preferable to stay out of my tanks and let nature do her job.


Byron - I think we are in violent agreement!! I am just experimenting with a new direction due to shrinking free time.

Your tanks are beautiful. I'll have to try to get pictures of mine up on here sometime soon.

Tom - thanks very much for your thoughts.


----------

