# Low tech - no tech?



## Boris Swede (Sep 29, 2018)

As I am new to this forum, and to planted tanks, firstly - what is the definition of "low tech"? Is it simply no added CO2? There are a few threads here about "no water change tanks" and "neglectable tanks" so this is apparently a topic of discussion. Why we would want these traits is not the topic here but rather an understanding of the basic principles that could make this possible.
I personally have had large cichlids wich need large and expensive filters and special media etc. What woke me up was the youtube videos by "Aquarium coop" where Cory explains not _what_ we need but _why_ and_ how._ Since I have a degree in natural sciences it made me feel really stupid to not have posed these questions to myself but that is human nature, to run with the group rather than question it. Anyway, this is why I am changing to a planted and balanced setup more in line with those basics and why I found this forum. 

Right now I have a 100 gallon, five foot tank running with two canister filters and two airstone sponge filters.
The airstone sponge filters are newly added because they have the bacteria in the tank rather than separated from it and the air bubbles break up the surface and aid in gas exchange(?). They also provide some mechanical filtration.
The canisters will be replaced by a powerhead for water movement. I also have Pothos stuck in the back corners of the tank.

Here is some food for thought: L.R.Bretz has made a video about his unfiltered tanks.
The main one with the rainbows doesn't seem to have much plants so how does this work?


----------



## tamsin (Jan 12, 2011)

Low tech is the normal standard tank - lights, filter and heater (if necessary). High tech is when you add in CO2 and usually also comes with a light upgrade and often higher flow. Generally high tech puts all the processes into overdrive so you need to waterchange and fertilise more to keep a balance. No tech removes the filter (but may still include artificial lighting). 

The reason filterless tanks work isn't that they are okay without a filter it's that the whole tank is the filter. If you think about a filter all it is doing is ensuring adequate flow across high surface area media suitable for hosting bacteria, there is no reason why that same process can't happen inside the tank i.e. the tank becomes one giant filter canister. Even in a filtered tank there is a great deal of bacteria working away outside the filter. Plants make it even more effective - hence people sometimes use them in sumps.


----------



## Boris Swede (Sep 29, 2018)

Thanks tamsin!
Yes, the filtration part I understand. You don't need a special surface, such as special filter media, for the bacteria to grow on. You just need enough surface which the glass, rocks, substrate, wood etc. provide adequately. Also, more surface doesn't give more bacteria as you can, and do, only have as much bacteria as can survive on the waste we produce by adding fish food. More fish or more surface doesn't feed more bacteria. It is the amount of food we put in that is the limiting factor.
What I find intriguing is that in the video he says that he seldom does water changes. He says monthly or bimonthly. The nitrates must go somewhere and there are not that much plants in relation to the fish? The substrate looks like a thin layer of coarse gravel. Great for nitrifying bacteria but we can rule out any denitrification going on there. Does he simply have his fish in high nitrate levels between water changes? Not too high because he is a successful breeder?


----------



## Proteus01 (Mar 12, 2017)

Please keep in mind that Mr. Bretz uses RO water. One of the reasons water changes are needed is to control the minerals in the tank. Since they generally don’t leave the tank without WC (or plant removal, if that’s your thing), tap water can cause an overload with topoffs only. Different fish can be OK or not with the mineral levels you have. 
Know your water, if you’re going to depend on the tank to maintain itself. I’m in Ohio with liquified limestone water, so it’s not a small concern for me. Other places are different. 
What L.R.Bretz does is really amazing, but not an easy way to start. That stable balance achievement takes time (and is totally worth it!). 
Also, he pays very close attention to his tanks, even if no maintenance is required. Anything going awry would be countermeasured quickly. 
Low tech is my method of choice, but I definitely add filtering, do WC, check fish behavior, skip feeding occasionally, remove algae, trim plants, stir substrate, check for water flow, adjust light time, clean glass, etc.


----------



## tamsin (Jan 12, 2011)

Boris Swede said:


> What I find intriguing is that in the video he says that he seldom does water changes. He says monthly or bimonthly. The nitrates must go somewhere and there are not that much plants in relation to the fish? The substrate looks like a thin layer of coarse gravel. Great for nitrifying bacteria but we can rule out any denitrification going on there. Does he simply have his fish in high nitrate levels between water changes? Not too high because he is a successful breeder?



It does look surprisingly high stocked and the plants aren't that dense/speedy growers. It could be there are high nitrates - they don't show as obvious an issue as some things depending on other parameters. It might be when he does a change it's a bigger one or he's changing more frequently that he realises - easy to lose track with a lot of tanks. Could be the substrate is deep enough to have anaerobic bacteria that do deal with nitrate. I'd guess that might be a holding tank rather than breeding as that's a lot of fish to munch eggs


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Put simply low tech is a tank with less light, ferts, and no CO2. It typically has plants that do well in low to medium light. High tech requires bright light, more ferts and CO2 injection.
Frankly I think low tech somewhat favors the fish and high tech favors the plants.
------
As to filtration, many hobbyists just get it wrong. More filters/filtration may make the water look clean (out of sight, out of mind), but the waste that gets trapped in the filter(s) continues to decompose and pollute the water. It's only with routine partial water changes that we dilute the pollution ('the solution to pollution is dilution') and replenish minerals.
------
Lucas has it wrong. It goes without saying that plants aid in water purification. However, balance would require a large plant mass (of fast growing plants) and a relatively small bio-load. Most of Lucas's tanks appear to be the reverse! The only tank I've seen in his video's that may be balanced is the aquascape tank in his son's play room - lots and lots of plants and few if any fish. The trouble is you can't really see the pollution and our only test for pollution is nitrates, even though there are many negative chemical elements in fish tank pollution. Even so, I'm a subscriber and I've never seen Lucas do (or refer to) a nitrate test on any of his tanks. I heard him say that water in nature is dirty, so dirty tank water should be just fine. The trouble with this logic is that dirty/muddy water from rains in nature is nothing close to the pollution that builds up in the confines a fish tank!
------
Many fish can somewhat adjust/adapt to old, polluted tank water leading to old tank syndrome. But some can't. And degrading water chemistry lowers immune systems and shortens life spans.
------
Can you have a "balanced" tank with enough fast growing plants (using pollution as nutrients) relative to the bio-load so that water changes could be lower volume and/or less frequent - SURE.
HOWEVER, the very best medicine for an aquarium is routine partial FRESH water changes to maintain high quality water chemistry.
------
We often hear from folks on the forums that claim they don't do water changes, their nitrates are low (or ZERO), and their fish are just fine - even breeding. Most of them are just kidding themselves or us!....and many of these folks are the ones that may likely abandon the hobby after everything goes south.
------
If you had a cat, would you never empty the litter box? If you had a rabbit, would you never change the bedding? If you had a dog, would you never pooper scoop the yard?
What's do damn tough about a partial water change on an aquarium?!?!?!
I've heard some say I won't do a water change until I see a problem. To this the best analogy I've seen is "I won't do an oil change on the car until I see a problem".
The trouble is....then it's too late!


----------



## Boris Swede (Sep 29, 2018)

AbbeysDad said:


> As to filtration, many hobbyists just get it wrong. More filters/filtration may make the water look clean (out of sight, out of mind), but the waste that gets trapped in the filter(s) continues to decompose and pollute the water. It's only with routine partial water changes that we dilute the pollution ('the solution to pollution is dilution') and replenish minerals.


Good point!
Mr Bretz also points out that any changes to the load, such as cleaning the filter, upsets the balance. I am guilty of cleaning my canisters far less often then I do a water changes and the same will surely be true with the sponge filters. Would I be better off without the sponge and have just an air stone?


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Boris Swede said:


> Good point!
> Mr Bretz also points out that any changes to the load, such as cleaning the filter, upsets the balance. I am guilty of cleaning my canisters far less often then I do a water changes and the same will surely be true with the sponge filters. Would I be better off without the sponge and have just an air stone?


------
Lucas is wrong again! Removing the crud from a filter does not upset the balance! Whenever you remove pollution, it's a good thing.
Balance implies that there is enough nutrients (aka pollution) removed from the water as is being input (fish/plant waste, excess food, etc.) Removing less is bad, removing more is good!
Edit: Look at this another way. If we reduce/or remove pollution (aka nutrients) [such as cleaning the filter] our fast growing plants just wouldn't grow as much. This wouldn't really be a negative or 'upsetting' the balance.
------
I like Lucas but he's trying to 'sell' a dirty water philosophy - I'm just not buying in. 
------
I have HOB's and sponge filters in various tanks....and my Aquaclear HOB's are totally filled with bio-sponge material. My tanks all have a lot of fast growing floating plants (water sprite / frogbit), but I wouldn't say they're balanced .... and I do routine partial water changes of 50+%.
------


----------



## tamsin (Jan 12, 2011)

For filter cleaning, the top layer sponge and fleece I rinse every water change in the bucket with old tank water - a good squidge and shake - don't be gentle. The biomedia doesn't particularly get dirty but if yours has again just shake it in the water. It's no more harmful to it than having gallons of water flowing through it every day! Only thing you should avoid is is scrubbing it under a tap as that can have chlorine/chloramine in.

I think you have to be careful about what you read online, don't just listen to one person, have a good read and make sure you understand why they say do x or why z works. Often things can work perfectly for one person and not at all for you because there are a lot more factors involved than are apparent - just the variation in tap water, for example, is enormous so people can say 'do this is works' and be right, but it won't be right for you.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Without showing NO3 levels the video above proves nothing good. 

As for the No-Water-Change systems, it can be done. I have seen many and also done a few. However, it involves more work than the simple periodic water change approach.


----------



## Boris Swede (Sep 29, 2018)

tamsin said:


> I think you have to be careful about what you read online, don't just listen to one person, have a good read and make sure you understand why they say do x or why z works. Often things can work perfectly for one person and not at all for you because there are a lot more factors involved than are apparent - just the variation in tap water, for example, is enormous so people can say 'do this is works' and be right, but it won't be right for you.


Exactly why I started this thread!
Not to bash each others choices or opinions but to illuminate the _why_ and _how_. 
So basically, mulm on the bottom or in the filter, isn't pollution until it is broken down into other compounds by bacteria?
Removing it before it is broken down has no effect on the load or ballance of the water column?


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Boris Swede said:


> Exactly why I started this thread!
> Not to bash each others choices or opinions but to illuminate the _why_ and _how_.
> So basically, mulm on the bottom or in the filter, isn't pollution until it is broken down into other compounds by bacteria?
> Removing it before it is broken down has no effect on the load or ballance of the water column?


 ------
Well particulate matter is ugly, but if it's removed before it decomposes, it's almost as though it was never there. Likewise, after organic matter has decomposed into brown mulm, it's pretty much inert as the badness has already been released into the water. Much of the brown crud you clean from a filter are the remnants of decomposed organics. However, there is also urine and pheromones, etc. in the water that you never see.
It is unclear to me if a large mass of fast growing plants could utilize all of the pollution as nutrients. I know that I have tanks where the surface is completely covered with fast growing floating plants, and I still have nitrates. We also shouldn't discount the need to replenish minerals that the plants and fish use. Some report significant plant growth following water changes.


----------



## Boris Swede (Sep 29, 2018)

AbbeysDad said:


> ------
> Well particulate matter is ugly, but if it's removed before it decomposes, it's almost as though it was never there. Likewise, after organic matter has decomposed into brown mulm, it's pretty much inert as the badness has already been released into the water. Much of the brown crud you clean from a filter are the remnants of decomposed organics. However, there is also urine and pheromones, etc. in the water that you never see.
> It is unclear to me if a large mass of fast growing plants could utilize all of the pollution as nutrients. I know that I have tanks where the surface is completely covered with fast growing floating plants, and I still have nitrates. We also shouldn't discount the need to replenish minerals that the plants and fish use. Some report significant plant growth following water changes.


If plants are to take up all the nitrate the tank produces then there must be no other limiting factor. I am not sure about how hydroponic systems work where there are no (?) water changes. Are plant minerals added to the water or is it incorporated into the fish food? In my african cichlid tank I hade trouble seperating the poop from the fine sand i used as substrate. I asked about it on a cichlid forum and got the advice to not bother with it. I did this and continued with my water change schedule. True enough when enough bacteria was established the poop decomposed fast and the mulm was trapped in the canister filters. Not much was lying unsightly in the tank. The crypts grew well enough considering that they only had 1" of fine sand and fish waste to live on.
In a planted tank with complex hardscape, are we able to remove any significant amount of organic waste before it decomposes?


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Actually most plants prefer to use ammonia as their nitrogen source so this indirectly reduces nitrates in the tank. Some plants will use nitrates. However, I have yet to see a case in my tanks where plants were able to as you put it 'take up all the nitrate'.
I'm not all that familiar with hydroponic systems but would bet that some ferts may be added to supplement fish waste or as you suggest special foods may be used. Then again, there's typically far more plants (and large fish like tilapia) then we'd see in any aquarium. 
------
It is unlikely that a fish keeper would be able to get much fish/plant waste before it decomposes, but there may be exceptions. Like a plant turning brown or a dead fish. And sand is much better than gravel as gravel 'allows' plant/fish waste and uneaten food to get down under and slowly rot 'n decay.
------
This is feeling almost like a lecture or rant, so I'll leave you with this:
I'll admit I'm a fish guy first, and plant guy second (not all are, esp in a planted tank forum...and that's fine).
I feel the best practice is to have plants, especially fast growing floating plants, not only for natural beauty in the display tank, but to help purify the water. But routine partial water changes are key to continuously maintaining the highest possible water quality....
in nature, there's rain. In the fish tank, there's a routine partial water change. "The solution to pollution is dilution".


----------



## Boris Swede (Sep 29, 2018)

Well I appreciate the lecture.
Thanks for taking the time to explain!


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Boris Swede said:


> Well I appreciate the lecture.
> Thanks for taking the time to explain!


 You're welcome. 

I wish there were forums like this when I was new to the hobby 50~ years ago...but that was long before pc's, smart phones, and the internet!


----------



## wendellperkins (Aug 6, 2017)

*Low-tech defined. I agree, the tank is the filter.*

I learned about low tech tanks from a book called "The Ecology of the Planted Aquarium" Diana Walstad. I didn't have a tank for a few years and I bought the book thinking it would get me up to speed on new plant growing tech. It was a great surprise to find out it was all about not using any of that stuff. 

According to the author "Low-tech aquariums that I maintain are characterized by a small or moderate number if fish, reduced filtration and cleaning, a large number of healthy growing plants and diverse microorganisms. Essential to my natural aquarium is moderate lighting, a substrate enriched with ordinary soil, and well-adapted plants." Later on the same page she mentions "Plants and soil bacteria -not trickle filters- remove ammonia from the water and protect fish." 

I read the book 2 years ago and set up a 5 gallon tank that week to try it out (first two photos). It took a few months to stabilize and for me to trust it, but it eventually housed 10 cardinal tetras and literally hundreds of Neo shrimp. I run a small in tank power filter that had some crushed coral and a piece of sponge as filter medium. I have run it without the sponge, but the tank water will cloud up when I overfeed and the sponge seems to help clear it up. I eventually added an air bubbler to break up the surface scum. I rinse out the filter when it is too clogged to blow water around (about every 2, to 3 months). I top off the tank with San Diego tap water (650 TDS). I have done some partial water changes, 2 of them because I wanted to move the tank, and probably 5 more total. There were two times that I felt like the bio load was out of kilter because of the auto feeder, or over harvesting java fern. I worried about a nutrient spike. Funny thing is that our water has Chloramine in it and water changes were actually adding ammonia to my system. I was able to see actual levels change after I added a digital monitor. It currently has a 75 watt LED light from my reef aquarium on it and it still does not grow algae on the glass. (It is pretty amazing.) 

I built several other 2 gallon systems with just an air bubbler and plants to grow shrimp in. They were awesome. I set up another 30 gallon outside that completely failed and still struggles to grow plants, but it has some fat Celestial pearl danio living on mosquito larva that naturally show up. 

Yes you can do a tank with no filter. Yes plants are capable of removing and binding tons of nutrients. Yes you can do no water changes if you plan out your tank correctly. 

Before the above book I was a big fan of another book called "Dynamic Aquaria" It is about building and restoring living ecosystems. I first read it in 96 and it goes into detail about how to remove nutrients with plant growth. They detail systems where they grow hair algae in a separate tank and use that as the primary filter. The Baltimore aquarium was one of the testing grounds for the system and they mentioned an approximate 10% water change per year. 

For me, much of the joy in the hobby is trying to get my tanks as close to a captive ecosystem as I could, and of corse no maintenance. I still add plenty of food to my tanks and I typically use more light than I read about others using, but I generally have "no water change systems". I say generally because during start up I normally change water whenever things don't look right and occasional leaks, spills, or tank moves. 

The small tanks worked out so well that I decided to do a 120. I started it with a canister filter, uv sterilizer, and some C02. It gives me the best results fastest. As the plants root down and I add livestock I will cut off the co2. The canister has carbon, crushed coral, and the floss pads that came with it but not the bio media. I will decide if I am going to keep it on the system when it is stocked up. 

Water changes aren't necessary, but you will need to learn why and be sure that you have all the pieces in place. There is a good deal of crossover into saltwater reef keeping. Definitely higher tech, but my 120 gallon coral reef system hasn't had an intentional water change in well over 16 months. (4 gallon plumbing leak). It grows SPS, I have the water tested by a lab to let me know if and when my parameters are different than seawater. (It helps me sleep better.) I have only had to adjust 2 trace elements. Things naturally work if you let them. Get the book and learn why things work.


----------

