To change or Not to change that is the question...

[Dochere]

As to the advice of 99RedSi I have taken this post out of my old thread and started a new one as I would like to hear some responses on this. The old post is at http://www.aquariacentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=935

I am going to open a can of worms here, but what the hey, you only live once. I keep reading posts on water changes and it seems that the general majority of individuals think that this is the way to go. What about individuals who don't want to climb in the tank so to speak and clean glass, siphon gravel, change water, etc.? Is there a better way?

In two years of owning my current tank (mind you I have had a fish tank/s for the last twelve years?) my biggest problem so far has been a small amount of brown growth on a single artificial plant in my tank. This same tank has not had a water change or partial change in two years and the water quality has remained extremely consistent. Previous to this tank I used to do what everyone else does and that is clean it conventionally as mentioned above. I was sick of it and figured that I could come up with something better that what I was doing.

Now I am not saying what I have done is perfect. Most of you will probably disagree with this method of aquarium ownership. I can just see you cringing as you read that this water hasn't been changed in two years. I also have to say that this method of aquarium ownership is expensive as it takes allot of chemicals, additives, etc to maintain the water properly. Just to look at it from my perspective though, I do not see my aquarium as a hobby. I use it for relaxation and soothing meditation purposes. Don't get me wrong, I love my fish, but I have enough to do and enough hobbies to keep me busy without climbing into my tank. I do however want what’s best for my fish and would never do anything to harm them, at least not intentionally. Short of talking about me and what I believe anymore here is what I've done.

In most tanks there is a bed of gravel or other substrate in the bottom of the tank. If you run your fingers through it you will churn up sediment and debris, even if the tank was recently cleaned. I have a friend that has a 125gal tank with oscars in it and no matter when you run your fingers through the gravel you will churn up debris. This individual is religious about cleaning and maintaining his tank. If you do the same thing in my tank, you will see absolutely nothing. This is due to the large volume of water that flows through the gravel. There is a strong current that runs through the entire surface area of the gravel. This current doesn't allow any matter to settle. The under gravel filter is rigged so that it is broken into 4 separate sections - front left, front right, rear left, and rear right. Each of the 4 sections has a large powerhead moving water through each area of the plate. As any matter sinks towards the bottom you will see it swirl and rise as it gets to about 3-4 inches from the bottom. Even large food pellets never touch the bottom. I combine that with a total of three filters cycling just over 1000gph. With these three filters I rarely see any debris floating in the tank.

Now this leads to other issues like proper ph levels and the fact that you are virtually eliminating bacteria growth in the substrate. Using a combination of natural rock with buffering capabilities and a host of chemicals and bacteria, along with the bio capabilities of the filters, I am able to keep the environment quit fish friendly. At least it seems that way. Everything I have tested for has consistently fallen within acceptable ranges. When I submitted a sample of the water to a local pet shop for testing, I was told that the water was some of the best he had seen for a cichlid tank (this was about 3 months ago when I was getting fed up with the brown spots).

Now I am sure that allot of you won't agree with this setup. Allot of you do this as a hobby. I have to say however, that I can't see how this setup is not working. My fish are healthy, the water looks great, the water seems to test fine, I have never had a loss or a disease, and I am always complimented on the overall appearance of my tank.

I would love to hear comments on this and if anyone has done something similar let me know about it. If any of you have ideas or know of other tests that can be done to prove that there are ill effects going on in this tank please let me know and I will buy the tests and check it out. My main goal here is to have a healthy tank with very little maintenance. Thoughts???

[Hatter]

Now this leads to other issues like proper ph levels and the fact that you are virtually eliminating bacteria growth in the substrate. Using a combination of natural rock with buffering capabilities and a host of chemicals and bacteria, along with the bio capabilities of the filters, I am able to keep the environment quit fish friendly. At least it seems that way. Everything I have tested for has consistently fallen within acceptable ranges.

I am curious about a couple things you said here.


1. What are you doing to "virtually eliminating bacteria growth in the substrate"?

2. What "chemicals and bacteria" are you using/refering to?

3. What have you tested for?

4. If the debris and sediment isn't in your gravel, where is it and how do you remove it?

[wetmanNY]

What works, works! Some people cut down on water changes by using their dense plantings as filtration. They "export" end-products when they prune their plants. This is Diana Walstad's style.

You have a different approach, and we need to hear more concrete detail, because it's interesting...

You aren't virtually eliminating bacteria growth in the substrate., however. In fact, you have a rich biofilm covering your gravel, and the strong reverse flow keeps the nitrifying bacteria well fed and well-provided with oxygen. You have a huge biofilter, even though-- I figure-- you don't have any plants in the system.

What you are eliminating is the humus that's constantly being swept into your filtration and discarded.

It takes a lot of chemicals, additives, etc to maintain the water properly. You don't mention what the chemistry is, so we have no way to learn from your success.

So tell more.

[ewok]

some things you stated are wrong......

i would suggest a nitrates kit for one, and that is something you *can* measure. the added trace elements from just adding water probably can't be measured conventionally but will still possibly cause problems. phosphate also might become a problem.... and god knows what else i can't think of.

from the sounds of it you have rfugf or rugf not ugf and that does make a difference. it should keep the substrate pretty clean. a wrong point, it WILL still grow bacteria in the substrate, not that that's a bad thing. bacteria can and will grow everywhere.

ph would also be another issue i would worry about, over time it will slowly drop, but i gather you deal with it chemically.....

while your methods seem to be working i would worry about long term affects and exposures. most fish come from environments where the water is "changed" many times daily and eliminating this is bound to have repercussions even if it isn't immediately noticable.

however the only thing i would suggest is water changes, it seems you have eliminated the need for vacuuming by using the rugf. with the basic water changes you should be able to eliminate most chemical usage, probably 90% of what you currently use. maybe invest in a python? i do most of my stuff manually, but i have heard they work very well. most people state they are very easy to use also.

i also came into this hobby with your attitude, figuring man over nature and have found, in the long run, it is much cheaper and simpler to just change water. in the long run i think the chemical balancing act will fail you, nothing personal. like i said, i also thought i could do it this way in the beginning.

good luck

[ewok]

Originally posted by Hatter


4. If the debris and sediment isn't in your gravel, where is it and how do you remove it?

the rugf blows it up for the other filters to trap would be my guess hatter.

[Decz]

I agree, that what works, works!

When I first started in the hobby, I had no idea about cycling or water changes at all!

For one year I had a 20 gallon high setup, it was seriously overstocked, and I NEVER did a water change, nor did I test for anything besides PH. And, I never cycled the tank. I only ever added water due to evaporation.

I had 4 tiger barbs, 4 black skirt tetra's, 1 spotted raphael catfish, 2 albino cherry barbs, one small RTBS, 4 zebra danios, 2 leopard danios. The tank was packed! somehow, none of these fish died or got sick while they were in that tank!

It wasn't until I tried to move (1 year later) that my fish started developing problems, and actually, not many survived the move.

It has been a number of years since I had that setup, and I have since read up on cycling, and I make sure each tank cycles before I really do anything else to it.

I seem to spend much more money on maintenance, and much more time - weekly 30% water changes between a number of tanks, but for some reason, I feel much better about doing this, and much more confident that my fish are healthy.

I NO IDEA have why it worked when I was so inexperienced, but somehow it did. Looking back, I can't believe myself!

At this point in the hobby, I feel I need to use the knowledge that I have gained, and keep these little guys healthy and alive!So, I will continue the 30% water changes weekly, and do more if needed. I will NOT wash the filter sponge out just under the tap, lol, and I will *try* not to overstock...

[Hatter]

I figured as much Ewok, I just wanted him to explain what maintenance he does so we can see what is going on in his tank. He made some (IMO) controversial statements and I was looking for him to elaborate on them...

[ewok]

i wonder what that kind of setup would do to my catfish.....
it doesn't seem like many fish would rest on the bottom in that tank..................

[vfrex]

Dochere - What if there was a way to change the water in your tank without "diving into the tank"? Would you utilize the option or would you still go with the no water-change route?

[Dochere]

Originally posted by Hatter


I am curious about a couple things you said here.


1. What are you doing to "virtually eliminating bacteria growth in the substrate"?

2. What "chemicals and bacteria" are you using/refering to?

3. What have you tested for?

4. If the debris and sediment isn't in your gravel, where is it and how do you remove it?

1. I am not doing anything to stop growth in the substrate and I don't intend to. I am just not doing anything to help promote the growth either. Any bacteria growth there would be beneficial though lack of a food source from waste materials and such is my reasoning behind what I said. I am sure there is a bacterium in every aspect of my tank. I should have said prohibiting growth in the substrate.

2. I have a list of chemicals and additives that I use. Some of these include Nitrite Eliminator, nitrate reducer, Waste control, Aquarium Clean, ACT, Biozyme, Nitromax, Thera P, Tanganyika Buffer, Rift lake Vital, ACE, Algae Fix, Red Slime remover, Hole in the head guard, and some others.

3. I test GH, KH, High range PH, Ammonia, Nitrite, copper, Nitrate now (thanks to this board), phosphate, iron, and salinity.

4. The debris is removed through the three filters, two h.o.t.'s and one canister.

[fishlips]

Glad I'm not a fish. Tommorow you could add more chemicals and breed some discus!

[Dochere]

Originally posted by vfrex
Dochere - What if there was a way to change the water in your tank without "diving into the tank"? Would you utilize the option or would you still go with the no water-change route?


It's funny you say that vfrex, I saw a unit at one point that allowed you to do that. It seemed to hang on the back of the tank and would some how remove water at the same time fresh water was being put in. I can't remember what it was called or where i saw it but it looked pretty neat if it worked...


Originally posted by ewok
I would suggest a nitrates kit for one...
maybe invest in a python?

I have a Nitrate test kit now thanks to this forum, I picked it up last week. My levels are perfectly fine.

I also have a python. I use it to put water in my tank, works well. I don't need it to suck anything out of the gravel though as I would need something in the gravel first.

[Dochere]

Originally posted by fishlips
Glad I'm not a fish. Tommorow you could add more chemicals and breed some discus!


Does it take allot of chemicals to breed discus???

Do you think they (the fish) know that there are all of those chemicals in there?:confused:

[OrionGirl]

RUGF and UGF promote bacterial growth in the substrate. The water flows through the substrate, carrying with it all of the dissolved wastes (ammonia and nitrites are liquid in your tank--not solid). The bacteria thrive where there's more current pushing those wastes as well as oxygen past them. Short of stuffing the substrate with antibiotics, there is no way for you to inhibit this growth.

Fish can detect their environment. Yes, they know those chemicals are in the water. Think of walking into a room with a cat box that hasn't been cleaned for weeks. You can smell it, right? Or, how about walking into a room that was just steam cleaned--you can still smell the cleaners, right? Same thing with fish. Just as the smell of paint will give some people headaches, chemicals in water can cause aversion in fish. Studies have documented fish avoiding areas where toxic chemicals build up. Salmon find their way back to the birthing waters via the smell of those waters.

I do regular water changes on all my tanks. The planted tanks can go weeks without a change and no tests will show up akilter. I do water changes because I enjoy it, and believe it helps my fish prosper. I also think that the fewer chemicals Iuse, not only am I saving myself some money, but it's better for the fish as well.

[vfrex]

1) I would imagine that the fish know that there are chemicals in the water. Think about when you take a deep breath in a city. Take the same deep breath out in the country. Fish breath too.

2) I know of an automatic water change system. Don't really like it though. Not yet at least. Picture this for a water change though...

This is how I understood it anyway. Stick a hose into a pipe under your tank (that pipe leads to the tubing for your canister filter). The other end of the pipe leads to the bottom of the tank (thus, the tank is drilled). Ordinarilly, the water will flow into the canister, the water will be filtered, and the canister will send the water back into the tank. But when you stick the hose in the spigot, it flows into the hose. Of course, you'll have the hose outside or in some kind of drain. Voila, water flows out until you take off the hose. Since the hole is at the bottom of the tank, detrius in the gravel also flows out. Then you use the python to fill the tank back up...

Poof, easy water change, little to no getting wet, faster than most.

NO spending water on expensive chemicals
NO dabbling in controversial issues
NO excuses

go build one today :D

[appaloosatb]

Out of curiousity, how big is this tank and how many/what types of fish are in it? I know that larger bodies of water have more potential to become a stable ecosystem, so I could see this working very well for larger tanks but not for standard 10 gallons.

With the list of chemicals you're putting in your tank, I bet you're the LFS's favorite customer! :) The only concern I have with this is whether or not it may shorten the fish's lifespan at all... I'm by no means an expert or even anything close to one, but I have to wonder whether that many chemicals stresses the fish.

Also, what are your exact test results? Could you possibly (if it's not too much trouble) test your water and tell us the exact numbers/levels you come up with?

Have you added new fish to the tank recently, or are all of the fish the original inhabitants from when this experiment started? If you have added new fish, did they do alright? Sometimes fish can become acclimated to high levels of nitrates over time, but new fish will die or become sick in the tank because they haven't had that acclimation period.

This is a very interesting thread! I'm anxious to hear more about your tank. :)

[Anton Wernher]

Interesting aproach and I wish you continued success. However with all those chemicals and the probable filter maintaince I must say that it looks like your put way more work into you tank than myself.

[Hatter]

You seem to contradict your self in answer#1, but maybe I'm not reading it right. I didn't understand it when you first posted it, and I don't get it now either. I think it's another topic for another day...

I've since read the original post which answered some other questions I had.

Although we use a similiar setup (HOB + UGF + canister) we seem to be on opposite ends of the spectrum chemical wise. I use no chemicals with the exception of Nov-Aqua for chlorine removal.

I never believed any of those chemicals worked, but if you haven't done a water change in 2 years and your nitrate is not through the roof, I tip my hat to you. I guess if it works for you go with it. I prefer to keep my money in my wallet and will continue to change water, it works for me.

[pinballqueen]

I used to keep my tank with the chemical/no water change approach, with a very similar setup to the tank in question (rugf and a h.o.t. filter). It worked great for a while, the fish were all growing rapidly, the ph was never off by more than a point or so, and the water was sparkling clear. People were constantly complimenting me on how beautiful it was......

Then it crashed. All of my fish died within a 2 day timespan. I had never heard of testing for nitrates in the water, and I never tested anything but ph until the fish started dying. I tested for ammonia and it was off the color chart that came with the kit, some insane number. It was like someone poured a bottle of windex in there.... I had "left well enough alone" and my fish died, poisoned by their own wastes. It took about a year and a half for this to happen to my tank....

I have since taken the hands-off approach to the other extreme...I change about 40% of the water about once a week or so, and NEVER add any chemicals to it except a dechlorinator (unless I have a sick fish, but even then I try to treat with natural methods if I can). It has served me well, and there is only one chemical bottle (stress coat) in my cabinet (besides my test kit, which is kept elsewhere...). It's much safer for me, my tank, and my other pets, in my opinion.

I think that there are as many methods to fishkeeping as there are hobbyists, and whatever works, works. Just keep in mind that it might only be a temporary balance, and any little thing (such as one potted plant dying, which triggered my tank-death) might crash the system out. I think this applies to all tanks, not just the "unique" approaches to the hobby. Aquatic ecosystems are probably the most difficult to mimic, and nothing can completely replicate them. Mother nature has yet to divulge that secret to us....

[Dochere]

Originally posted by appaloosatb
Out of curiousity, how big is this tank and how many/what types of fish are in it?...

With the list of chemicals you're putting in your tank, I bet you're the LFS's favorite customer! :)...

Could you possibly test your water and tell us the exact numbers/levels you come up with?

Have you added new fish to the tank recently, or are all of the fish the original inhabitants from when this experiment started?


1) The tank is 70 gallons, with 11 African cichlids.

2) I try to shop online, not many good places around here; the closest one I go to is about 35 minutes away. I would like to say that not all of those chemicals are put in all the time. After I test I add what’s appropriate to adjust the tank accordingly, I do all of my bidding 1 day a month.

3) I record my results here are what they were at my last test about a week ago: PH 9.2, Ammonia 0, Phosphate .2, Nitrite 0, Nitrate 20, copper .05, GH 400 ppm, KH 600ppm, Iron 0, salinity1.2 ppt.

4) There are 11 fish, 8 original, 3 were added aprox 2 months ago.

[vfrex]

Um...why are there phosphates present?

[Dochere]

Originally posted by Hatter
You seem to contradict your self in answer#1, but maybe I'm not reading it right. I didn't understand it when you first posted it, and I don't get it now either.

Hatter, I am sorry I am not making myself clear. I will try one more time to see if I can get you to understand my logic.

It is my understanding that fish give off nitrogenous waste products which break down to ammonia. It is my understanding that certain bacteria convert this ammonia to nitrite and others convert nitrite to nitrate.

Most people have an under gravel filter with a substrate on top that collects waste product. Even though they siphon the substrate, there is still waste product present. Certain Bacteria breaks down this waste to nitrite and others convert this nitrite to nitrate as the waste works its way down to the filter plate, eventually rendering the ingredients harmless.

In my set up there isn't waste product present. So my logic tells me that if there isn't product to be consumed, then the entities that consume the product would not be present or at least not in the quantities that would be present in a traditional setup. Also considering the additives I add to combate ammonia, Nitrite, and Nitrate I would figure that this would play a part as well. I could be wrong, but that is where the disclaimer of "my logic" comes in.

[Dochere]

Originally posted by vfrex
Um...why are there phosphates present?

Seeing as phosphate is a ester of phosphoric acid, or salt, I am assuming that it is in the buffer that I use, or maybe my water...

I have no idea?

[vfrex]

I apologize, I was thinking phospherous. Anyway, what do you think of the setup I described? Would you do water changes if they were as easy as I said?

[OrionGirl]

The only way there is no waste product present in your tank is if you have no living fish. Those products don't show up on a test kit if you use chemical means to remove them (ie, nitrite reducers, ammonia absorbing media) or have biological filtration . The bacteria are present, just in levels that won't process all the waste products if the chemical support were removed.

Ammonia and nitrite are no big deal--the biological component of your filtration is not questionable. Nitrates are difficult to process in an unplanted, freshwater setup. Further, nitrates are an indicator of other, less detectable toxins. As nitrates rise, so cna other problems. Water changes is the best and easiest way to manage these other dissolved organics.

As for your additions of bacteria--there are not any products that have been proven effective in adding bacteria. Anything that sits on a shelf is likely snake oil at best.

As for your readings...You test reguarly for phosphates and iron, but not for nitrites? Seems silly to me, but hey, it's not my buck. Your pH seems high for me, but I don't run Africans, so maybe that's normal. Exactly what are you using to get your salinity reading? Most people use hydrometers, and a reading of 1.2 on a hydrometer would be saltier than most oceans.

[wetmanNY]

Wow! pH at 9.2. Soda Lake! You're more alkaline than Lake Tanganyika there, Dochere. That's part of your secret, I think. I don't know the chemistry-- you're as far from my acidic, soft, tannic, planted tanks as a mini-reef is, about 100 timews more alkalinity!-- but obviously your nitrite/nitrate eliminators are working. An ion-exchange resin that trades nitrate for carbonate, right? The extra carbonates pumped into the water, along with your Tanganyika Buffer Salts are acting as a chemical filter by complexing with PO4, copper etc. and precipitating them. I'll bet there's some carbonate "snow" getting caught up in your filter media and exported.

Your cleanliness and powerful filtration means there's very little biodegrading of wastes going on, which would be eating at your alkaline buffer. High oxygen content, low BOD. Do you dose with hydrogen peroxide? (I do.)

I'm surprised you don't use PolyFilters, a standby for me.

I wish I knew the chemistry behind those conditioners!

Another secret: 11 fish in 70 gallons. I bet you don't overfeed them. Not much flake feed going into that system, no? Live food and veggies?

[Dochere]

If they were as easy as you said (or maybe a little easier) I would probably do them once a month and what you said seems pretty simple. Now we need to devise a way to remove and add the water to the tank in just one step and I might be hooked.

I still am not seeing why I should do this though. It seems that most people are doing water changes to remove nitrates and debris, but if nitrates aren’t an issue, there isn't debris, and all tests are acceptable, what will I be removing then? Water?

I could see my whole system crashing down as soon as I start doing water changes.:eek:

[vfrex]

Well, starting water changes WOULD crash the tank (at least the fish would die). They wouldn't be able to deal with the PH jumping down...so just in case this discussion motivates you to do a water change, figure out how to not send your fish into shock before you do it ;)

[Dochere]

Originally posted by OrionGirl


As for your readings...You test reguarly for phosphates and iron, but not for nitrites? Seems silly to me, but hey, it's not my buck. Your pH seems high for me, but I don't run Africans, so maybe that's normal. Exactly what are you using to get your salinity reading? Most people use hydrometers, and a reading of 1.2 on a hydrometer would be saltier than most oceans.

OrionGirl, I do test Nitrites, you misread my post. 9.2 is about average of what every top tanganyika expert I have seen has suggested.

I use a Lamotte kit for salinity, a direct reading titrator, with a range of 0-20ppt. 1.2 is quite low.

[Dochere]

Originally posted by wetmanNY
You're more alkaline than Lake Tanganyika there, Dochere. That's part of your secret, I think...An ion-exchange resin that trades nitrate for carbonate, right?...Do you dose with hydrogen peroxide? (I do.)...Another secret: 11 fish in 70 gallons. I bet you don't overfeed them. Not much flake feed going into that system, no? Live food and veggies?

I have wondered if the high alkalinity could have something to do with the way this tank behaves.

I have no idea how the nitrate reducer works, but that way sounds good to me???

Yes the food is live most of the time or small doses of frozen. I feed very little at a time and make sure everything is consumed before adding more. I do add seaweed as well but in a feeder and I remove it after about 5 minutes and through away the excess.

[Archer]

I think OG and wetmanNY made the good point that under-stocking the tank, and not overfeeding the tank will naturally lead to less nitrates and lower maintenance of a tank.

I can't imagine your tank having the same water conditions if your tank is fully stocked.

If the ultimate goal is a peaceful, relaxing aquarium with very little or no water changes, then a large planted tank with good filtration and with very few fish should do the trick. It sounds like your tank is pretty close to that description.

[wetmanNY]

I figure there must be several export routes, since unbalanced end-products are apparently not building up.

You feed some seaweed, Dochere. Is there also a rich growth of algae on the rocks, which your fish keep grazed to a minimum? That would explain one possible route for export of nutrients-- since they aren't building up within the system. Phosphates, and nitrates too (since the ammonia is stripped from the system by the nitrifiers in the RFUGF, the algae depend on nitrate) go into algae, are eaten by fish and rapidly get filtered out of the system.

Are your Tanganyika cichlids eating algae all day long-- pick pick pick over the rock surfaces? Then their waste is quickly passed to the filter by your strong current, and you are meticulous about cleaning the filter... am I getting the picture?

Do you have lots of snails?

Very interesting. Your system has more in common with a well-balanced, self-contained marine aquarium than with a softwater system like mine, where I'm constantly stripping out end products of metabolism, doing water changes, pruning away leaves, rinsing the filters, always flushing the system in various ways, etc.

You didn't pick up on my thought:

The extra carbonates pumped into the water, along with your Tanganyika Buffer Salts are acting as a chemical filter by complexing with PO4, copper etc. and precipitating them. I'll bet there's some carbonate "snow" getting caught up in your filter media and exported.

Do you in fact find a kind of carbonate "floc" in your filter that you're rinsing away?

[Anton Wernher]

http://malawicichlids.com/mw01011.htm#tangph shows the pH for the lake.. your tank seems almost right on for the surface.

I have a very limited understanding of the elements required for fish life cycles... is there any concern about the replacement(lack there of) of these that would be done normally through water changes.

[slipknottin]

put some bright lighting over your tank and see how long it goes without a fierce algae bloom...

that would tell us how much dissolved nutrients are in your water

If you do have a lot of snails, and other things like that, alot of your waste might be getting consumed. But from experience with SW, only about 20% of these waste products are consumed by these critters, the other 80% end up as nitrates, phosphates, or other waste products.

oh, and BTW, all the products you use that are made by "marc weiss" make 0 difference. Snake-oil. He has never made any claims about what is in any of his products other than "it works wonders"

[Dochere]

Originally posted by wetmanNY

Do you have lots of snails?

The extra carbonates pumped into the water, along with your Tanganyika Buffer Salts are acting as a chemical filter by complexing with PO4, copper etc. and precipitating them. I'll bet there's some carbonate "snow" getting caught up in your filter media and exported.

Do you in fact find a kind of carbonate "floc" in your filter that you're rinsing away?

No, I haven't any snails. i do see a sort of white dandruf on my filter pads, never really put two and two together.

[Dochere]

Originally posted by slipknottin
put some bright lighting over your tank and see how long it goes without a fierce algae bloom...
products you use that are made by "marc weiss" make 0 difference. Snake-oil.

You must have missed my last post but up until the last few days my lighting was by two compact fluorescents at 65 watts a piece with 6500k bulbs. They were on 8-10 hours a day. During that time all I have had was a small amount of brown algae growing only on one of the artificial plants I have in the tank.

Since Saturday I threw out the compacts and bought a ballast with a single 40 watt fluorescent. It now has an actinic 420 bulb in it and I have it on less and I already see the brown algae going away.

Also, I am not sure who marc weiss is or what products are his, is there a web site or info on him/his co?

[RTR]

Just what water conditions are you trying to create? With that pH, GH, and KH, it certainly isn't Malawi ot Tanganyika.

I'll keep changing water and skip the chemicals - as I age water and normally have only chlorine as an additive which is removed by aging, I can do without the whole spread.

[wetmanNY]

Marc Weiss makes that Rift Lake Vital you mentioned earlier. Many people are skeptical of his secret "necessary biological trace elements" and general claims to enhance immune systems. In a closed system it's generally conservative to know the ingredients of anything you add to the system.

I'll bet some PO4 is exiting your system complexed with carbonates in that "white dandruff" that collects in your filter media! The main source of PO4 coming into our aquaria is in the" fishmeal" of flake feeds: ground bones and scales pass right through fish. These organic phosphates (as "apatite") have to be mineralized by bacteria and then taken up by plants or algae andthen usually ingested by small plant-eaters, before fish can assimilate the PO4 group, as part of a big organic molecule.

But most of the phosphate excreted in your system is eliminated before bacteria in the substrate or the filter media have a chance to mineralize it. These factors, plus the rich carbonate load, which quickly scavenges phosphate from the water and binds it in mineral compounds (that dandruff), are keeping your water phosphate clear-- which in turn keeps algae minimal... nice.

You're very tolerant of our nosy, slightly testy curiosity, Dochere-- your system does run counter to most general advice, and it's hard to miss a slight undercurrent of shocked disapproval here...

[slipknottin]

heres my take... much the same as Wetmans.

much the same way kalkwasser works in marine tanks (it could work in FW tanks, but isnt usually done) the high Ph solution precipitates all phosphate out of the water.

phosphate is the limiting agent in algae, and without any phosphate you wont get algae blooms.

Your nitrate levels likely are still pretty high, and other toxins might still be building up in the water.

[wetmanNY]

Dochere posted nitrates at 2 ppm, which I've been assuming was a typo-- for 20ppm, Dochere? Still very modest nitrate for any tank that's not densely planted, if it is 20ppm..

BTW, Dochere, do you happen to have quite a lot of porous red lava rock in that set up? mmm ...low nitrates... porous lava rock, hmm... possible bacterial de-nitrification.. mumble mumble...

[slipknottin]

im questioning the validity of most of the tests...

phosphates results said .2, which in any tank will lead to algae outbreaks.

[quick061]

Originally posted by wetmanNY
BTW, Dochere, do you happen to have quite a lot of porous red lava rock in that set up? mmm ...low nitrates... porous lava rock, hmm... possible bacterial de-nitrification.. mumble mumble...

what exactly does porous lava rock do for an aquarium? i am planning on using it in my tank that i'm setting up now and would like to know its effects before hand if i could.

as for this whole situation, i think its a good idea to try something new every now and then and see what works (barring the sacrificing of fish of course). this seems like a classic example of something that seems completely backwards but in reality is pretty stable.

as the sang goes, what ever floats your boat :)

[slipknottin]

hey wetman-- you might like this article

http://www.animalnetwork.com/fish/library/articleview2.asp?Section=Aquarium+Frontiers+--+Biochemistry+of+Aquaria&RecordNo=2481

seems like the usual fish-geek type article you enjoy :D

[Fishiebusiness]

Whatever the nitrogen compound tests say, i dont feel comfortable having my fish live in their own excrement for years on end.

[TnCgal]

Thank you for saying that, Fishiebusiness, because that's what I was thinking all along also. Regardless of what any chemistry tests may say, I would never allow my fish to swim in recirculated waste water their whole lives. I don't care how you analyze it, it's just unhealthy.

There are more things to fish-keeping than dissecting water molecules and I think we get "so" caught up analyzing that we forget the basics and in this case it just boils down to giving your fish a clean living environment free from toxic waste. And I'm sorry, but there is no way you can have fish without having detritus in your substrate or dissolved in your water. It's unrealistic - not to mention an impossibility.

[wetmanNY]

I guess we can read and hear about the "cycle" of nitrogen, or transformations of carbon or phosphate or sulfate, how the organic forms are disassembled and "mineralized" by microbes, and know it in our heads, and understand intellectually how our own wholesome tapwater is recirculated from upstream effluents that are not drinkable... but still not be able to take that knowledge to "heart": Whatever the nitrogen compound tests say, I dont feel comfortable having my fish live in their own excrement for years on end. expresses this sentiment precisely.

On another front, but still apropos Dochere's Tanganyikan closed system, slipknottin posted an excellent analysis of phosphate transformations that has been sitting at Aquarium Frontiers archive, but which I have missed because it was "about" marine aquaria and didn't appear relevant to me. Dochere's system is more like a marine system than my sweetwater "Amazon."

...but it's not irrelevant. Thanks for the geekatoid phosphate link, slipknottin!

[JeffP]

Dochere,

Thanks for posting such a controversial and innovative approach. To use Wetman's terminology, your "freshwater closed system" seems interesting. I would love to see pictures of your setup and regularly keep us posted on its progress. Only time will tell but you've at least got a good track record for two years.

Wetman (and others),
Thanks for providing some possible insight into the water chemistry. This closed freshwater approach might make a nice article for posting online or in an aquarium magazine if you can nail down the chemistry and waste transport mechanisms.

This approach is controversial for fish keeping but it actually has something in common with potential (and controversial) innovations in wastewater treatment and water supply engineering. In certain parts of the country where water is in short supply, people are actually beginning to consider "brownwater re-use" technology as a potential option to meet future water demands. Wastewater would be treated mechanically and chemically and then would be re-used in some manner.

[Dochere]

Originally posted by TnCgal
...And I'm sorry, but there is no way you can have fish without having detritus in your substrate...

Sorry that I have't been able to keep up with this but I have been extreamly busy. This topic is extreamly interesting to me and I must say there have been allot of good posts on this. I can see allot of intelligance here.

TnCgal, if there is no possible way to have a tank without waste products in the substrate, then where are they in my tank? In every tank I have seen I have always been able to stur up the gravel and actually see debris churned up. In my tank I do the same thing and see nothing. So where is the waste product at? I am assuming that you do not understand the way the under gravel filter is set up or just how much water is flowing through each plate. Either way unless it is invisable (which is why I test) I am not seeing it.

[Dochere]

Originally posted by JeffP
This approach is controversial for fish keeping but it actually has something in common with potential (and controversial) innovations in wastewater treatment and water supply engineering.

Actually, some of the logic behind this set up was inspired by the water treatment industry. An engineer with AMI (a company that sells water treatment mills to foreign countries) was one of the individuals I consulted when setting up this tank. He was the reason that we modified the under gravel filter plate so that we could set up the pumps in the way that we did. I know that there is a way to have a tank that is 99.9% maintenance free. Anyone who has ever seen an ecosphere has seen a self contained system that is able to support life for long periods of time without human intervention. I can't imagine that it could not be done in a 70 gal fish tank. I think it’s a trial and error process that time and patience to succeed.

[slipknottin]

did you notice how all those ecospheres survive?

nutrient import and export. without both none will be successful.

the fish waste is getting broken down somehow. Your test kits (at least the one for phosphates) are off. As the only reason you dont have algae is because the phosphates are getting bound with calcium carbonate.

Instead of using sunlight (as with plants), you think you could use bacteria and just have fish food as nutrient import, right?

well where are the nutrients going? they dont evaporate, and there is no such bacteria or invert that will remove all toxins from the water. (removing nitrates is one thing, and precipitation of phosphates is another)

not all organics end up as phosphate or nitrates.

[keely]

I think different people have different perceptions of what's work. I change half the water every week, the old fashioned way, with buckets.

I find gravel vacuuming satisfying for some reason, watching gunk go up the tube. While I'm running water into pails, I can mentally finish my master plan for world peace.

It seems so minor, to me. If I had to buy the list of chemicals in this thread, remember when and how much to add, and keep testing my water all the time to make sure they're working, THAT would be work, for me. :) Not to mention I hate cleaning filters, which seems to be the replacement for gravel vacuuming in your case.

[RTR]

TnCgal - I've run RFUGs with zero, zilch, nada buildup of mulm in the substrate over very extended periods of time (10 years is the longest test to date), so that part of the system is comprehensible and achieveable.

slipnottin - With sufficient mechanical mechanical filtration sufficiently maintained, 99% plus of the particulates will be squestered in those filters, and with short enough maintenance intervals on those filters, at least a majority of that particulate matter will be out before it is digested. A rather lax variant of this is how I run low nitrate tanks. I know if I went back to my old SW handling of daily mech rinsing I'd really be low nitrate - I don't know if I would make 2 ppm without partials, but I can accept the possibility, especially if the micron pads are used in the HOTs and swapped out quite frequently.

But there is still the issue of dissolved materials - pheromones, phenols, and all the other organics, plus the colorants, and the bacterially mineralized nitrogen, phosporous, sulfur, chloride, and other non-organic carbon compounds - they need to be taken care of in some manner. This water may well be heavy enough for foam fractionators to work - is such employed here?

I can say that I would never use some of the products listed, as they are undefined and unpublished as to ingredients, and have reputations that I consider well inside the snake oil category. But that is personal opinion. I can see the fitration tecniques employed and know their effectiveness in my hands, so I can see that this could be extended. If I were doing so, I'd still do the water changes to handle the unmeasurables (without a spectrophotometer that is), rather than use undefined chemical soup to combat buildup of some of these, but again that is personal option. The pH, Gh, and KH bother me, but I have not researched the "in" levels for Tanganyikans or why it is desirable to excede Lake parameters. It would be interesting to see longevity and fecundity data from these fish.

[slipknottin]

i just read back through the thread, and Dochere never mentions cleaning out the filters. So there is NO nutrient export going on, with the exception of possible denitritfication...

[Anton Wernher]

I am confused as to what is done to the tank(as far as maintance) and how often.

"2) I try to shop online, not many good places around here; the closest one I go to is about 35 minutes away. I would like to say that not all of those chemicals are put in all the time. After I test I add what’s appropriate to adjust the tank accordingly, I do all of my bidding 1 day a month."

Does this mean all the maintaince to the tank is done once a month?

[Fishiebusiness]

Originally posted by slipknottin
i just read back through the thread, and Dochere never mentions cleaning out the filters. So there is NO nutrient export going on, with the exception of possible denitritfication...

I agree.
If one finds it too much of a hassle to do water changes once a week, would he not find rinsing out your filter media DAILY also a bit too much?

[Dochere]

Originally posted by RTR


But there is still the issue of dissolved materials - pheromones, phenols, and all the other organics, plus the colorants, and the bacterially mineralized nitrogen, phosporous, sulfur, chloride, and other non-organic carbon compounds - they need to be taken care of in some manner. This water may well be heavy enough for foam fractionators to work - is such employed here?


Hey RTR can you expand on this? Are you referring to a protein skimmer or equivalent? Thanks.

Slipknottin, all the media is changed on a regular basis. I do not clean the media; I throw it away and replace it with new media.

Anton, I do a majority of the maintenance once a month. Except for vitamins and trace minerals. I have been testing twice a month for about three months, but have not found it necessary to do any other maintenance in between regular maintenance.

[slipknottin]

oh...

theres your nutrient export.



Tanks with a sand substrate dont allow debris to get trapped either.

Ive been doing this for awhile. Tanks with sand substrate and good filtration such as penguin 330s or emperor's. I replace the media every month or so, and the bacteria go un-affected as it lives primarily on my substrate and on the biowheels.

[Dochere]

Originally posted by RTR
...I can say that I would never use some of the products listed, as they are undefined and unpublished as to ingredients, and have reputations that I consider well inside the snake oil category...
...If I were doing so, I'd still do the water changes to handle the unmeasurables (without a spectrophotometer that is), rather than use undefined chemical soup to combat buildup of some of these, but again that is personal option...

Hey RTR on the first part there, is there a list or web site or other source of information on good products vs. bad products. I wouldn't mind switching/reducing additives to the tank, as long as the tank keeps behaving as it has been.

On the second part, how could the ability to compare two light radiations wavelength by wavelength help you in determining if it was proper to do a water change? What would be your control in determining acceptable water conditions? Also couldn't you simply use a turbidimeter to determine the suspended solids in the water and compare that to what would be the maximum acceptable? While where on the subject, what about a sediment test with a color coded coagulant to determine dissolved solids?

[JeffP]

Dochere,

You didn't mention if any of your filter media contains carbon. If it did, it might address RTR's point on dissolved organics, phenols, and probably pheromones and similar organic compounds. Carbon should be able to remove those. I don't understand the water chemistry well-enough in an alkaline tank with various chemical supplements to speculate what happens to the other comments RTR mentioned.

Post pixs!

[Dochere]

Jeffp, in the media baskets there is Purigen, Detox 2, Organic Resin, and Matrix Carbon.

[Tiger15]

11 fish in a 75 gal isn't that overcrowded, assuming your fish are Mbuna size fish and not fully grown. My 75 gal has 3 times your fish load and my nitrate can go up the roof if not because I do 75 percent water change and substrate vacuuming biweekly.

You didn't answer whether you use porous lava or tuff rock. If indeed your fish are healthy and you are runing strong filtration and current, you may be achieving live rock live sand effect as in SW system.

[wetmanNY]

About ecospheres-- which take to an extreme this concept of an enclosed, self-sufficient system Dochere's experimenting with: the little desk-sized ones are too small not to undergo wild swings that eventually do them in. Their geometry simply gives them too much surface for their volume. I've had my eyes on the big one (is it 100 gallons?) at the American Museum of Natural History, and it's stable still, set up two winters ago when the Rose Center opened.

But Dochere is intervening constantly, to keep the system "in tune."

One element, Dochere, that you're missing, which IMHO might be effective for you, is PolyFilters, available cheaply on line from the various PetPlaces. PolyFilter adsorbs heavy metals (though your heavy metals are quickly precipitated on carbonates) and it would eliminate the possibility of phenols, a rather intractable end product --though not one that builds up quickly where there are no plants and no softening vegetation. Pheromones break down rapidly; think how quickly the other fry start growing again once the alpha juvenile is removed.

The other organic compounds are being rapidly mineralized by bacterial action. What would collect in the substrate as insoluble brown humus floc, is whirled into the mechanical/chemical filtration and discarded. The current flow means there's plenty of oxygen to "burn" organics.

I was wondering about porous pumice-type lava rock as the one place in the system where some anaerobic denitrification could slowly be taking place, as nitrates diffuse inwards. And I'm still curious about the ecological role of algae on the surfaces. Is there constant algae-grazing, Doc?

If there ever was a "freshwater" system where foam fractionation could work, this would be it!

Dochere, I feel you should rethink the vitamin additives, as your fish are surely getting theirs from your balanced diet. Fish don't pick up vitamins from the water, across their gill surfaces. At least that's what I read. And you want to cut down on anything you introduce that's not involved in some complete biochemical reaction.

I'm inspired to rinse all my filters tonight!

[Dochere]

Originally posted by wetmanNY
...I'm inspired to rinse all my filters tonight!

:D There isn't any pumice in the tank. There is a Biocartridge in one spot in the 330. There is also a 9x9x4 denitrifying block in the sump. Could either of these be a substitute in your logic for the pumice? Also, there isn't any visible algae of any type, except for the very small amount of brown algae(?) that is on the top of one of the artificial plants.

I would like to know more about foam fractitionation, so anyone who's got the info, pass it along. A suggestion for a protein skimmer that works in a sump would be great as well.

[Fishiebusiness]

Have you tried running your tank without all those additives and had negative results? I've found most additives to be a good way for companies to make money and little else.

[Dochere]

Fishiebusiness, no I have not tried running the tank without the additives. I have switched brands, and have tried different products but I have never discontinued using any product. I am going to slowly, very slowly, cut back on a product at a time. Simply because I can understand that the fish may very well be aware of the additives in the tank. I am also going to put a bit more research behind the products that I am using to validate there need and the claims of the manufacturers.

[wetmanNY]

Originally posted by Dochere


There isn't any pumice in the tank. There is a Biocartridge in one spot in the 330. There is also a 9x9x4 denitrifying block in the sump. Could either of these be a substitute in your logic for the pumice?

Absolutely! Better! More efficient than chunks of pumice. A CellPore BioCartridge, and perhaps it's a CellPore block too? or something similar. RTR has been experimenting with anaerobic de-nitration in freshwater for some time now...


Also, there isn't any visible algae of any type, except for the very small amount of brown algae(?) that is on the top of one of the artificial plants.

Diatoms, doubtless. Aren't your Tanganyika cichlids Aufwuchs grazers, picking over the biofilm all the time?They're eating the seaweed you give them. I'm ignorant of Rift Lake habits, you can well imagine. Strong light and some algae growth kept in check by grazing would add some natural cycling to your system. Any micronutrients taken up by the algae and not used but expelled by the fish would quickly find their way to your filtration and get exported...

[Siluar]

Great thread folks, fascinating stuff!

It's sending me back to your site to find out what the hell "foam fractitionation" and "light radiation wavelengths" are, Wetman.

**Points at tank and screams, "you make magic!" Walks away banging self on head with club**

[carpguy]

I'm putting this puppy down in my book (alongside Slip's sump) as one of the great AqC threads of all time (or at least the last 6 months:rolleyes: ). Phenomenally informative, intelligent and civil in tone.

I started out with a vague sense that it was somehow inherently "wrong" to take Dochere's approach and now understand that its a perfectly legitimate way to run a tank. So the mind is a little more open than it was yesterday, and that's always a good thing. But the main lesson I'm taking with me is just that: don't leap to conclusions, alternate methods may work just as well.
But if the point of all this is just to avoid having to do regular water changes, I'll stick with my bucket. You've built a mini-waste treatment plant -- you could send the thing up on the next shuttle! If I decide to go with a lower-tech more organic approach, then maybe there is a moral component to it (personal choice), but it also just seems more practical (to me).

I've read a little bit into the (Walstad-style) low-tech self-sufficient planted tank. And I've read a bit of criticism of it. I think maybe it goes a little too far in the opposite direction, but (morally, again) I find its organicism preferable to the massive chemical tinkering going on here. So WetMan (or Slip, or anyone else), how much of the viability of Dochere's method depends on the unusual chemistry (high alkalinity) of the tank? Just out of curiousity, could something like this work in a soft acidic tank? Are all the chemical additives needed or are they occuring alongside a stable nutrient and chemical export system provided by the filtration and alkalinity?

Just wondering (and awed), as ever…

-carpguy

[RTR]

In simplest terms, a spectrophotometer detects compounds, chemicals, by their response in a clear cell when particular wavelengths are transmitted. It can be quite accurate, used as detection devices or quantitation devices depending on techniques. A flame photometer performs similar function at the element level.

My objections to particular commercial products lies in the companies' refusal to share any information on their ingredients. This is in turn coupled to general reports of no effect observed by experienced aquarists when trying such products. There are several companies notorious for this.

A foam fractionator is the device incorrectly refered to on many of the boards as a "protein skimmer". They are not effective in most FW systems other than those having massive bioloads (koi ponds). As you move through brackish water conditions, the systems become functional at sequestering certain materials in foams, which are then condensed in such a way that they are not returned to the water column. Your water is not BW, but I suspect it has detecable specific gravity on simple hobby testers, and might allow such a device to function with a bit of tuning. Take a sample to a store or friend with a wide range specific gravity tester to see. I have not tried to correlate TDS to fractionator function, but you are well up on the scale compared to most hobby tanks. But we have no info on whether or not you tank has significant levels of the material which could be foam extracted.

[wetmanNY]

Originally posted by carpguy
.

I've read a little bit into the (Walstad-style) low-tech self-sufficient planted tank. And I've read a bit of criticism of it. I think maybe it goes a little too far in the opposite direction, but (morally, again) I find its organicism preferable to the massive chemical tinkering going on here. So WetMan (or Slip, or anyone else), how much of the viability of Dochere's method depends on the unusual chemistry (high alkalinity) of the tank? Just out of curiousity, could something like this work in a soft acidic tank? Are all the chemical additives needed or are they occuring alongside a stable nutrient and chemical export system provided by the filtration and alkalinity?


It's an esthetic and intellectual judgement, I hope, rather than a moral one. I always prefer my morel questions in omelets anyway.

Diana Walstad's planted enclosed system depends on the concept of "export" too. But it's a different export. In the planted tank, it's in the form of pruned or "harvested" plant materials, removed before they can over-enrich the system. Walstad adds no fertilizers, except what is in fishfood.

There's more than one kind of enclosed balanced system. Walstad's is more self-balancing through bacteria and plants (and a few fish), and thus it's more like the planetary self-balancing system popularized as "Gaia theory." So it's more akin to the "natural" system.

But we all keep a thumb on the scale, or a hand on the flywheel, to guide and tune these systems...

[RTR]

LOL at the omelet remark...

I believe the number 11 bus goes to Hammersmith and will not be driven by St. Nicholas - or something close to that.

I can accept Dochere's setup as an "edge" tank, carrying a certain concept as far as it can be taken. As such it is fascinating. As such it just has to be controversial also. I am uncomfortable with recycled water such as this - because I know how hard it is to define all the goodies or nasties (viewpoint) dissolved there. I'm one of the old fogy types who "believes" that water changes are a near-panacea (experience, not philosophy). The tank I considered "best" biologically of mine used the Meridian water changer - with daily partials from the tap. That is not a low-tech setup either, as procesing is required on the water on the way to the tank, and fail-safes are needed on the system.

I have no idea if the parameters shown by the hobby tests have any significant association with the (to me) astronomic pH/KH/GH. I will say that it appears the low-ORP slab is functioning for denitrification, or perhaps some of the additives/exchage materials are doing that job. I could not get nitrates that low without anaerobe assistance.

[Luca Brazzi]

I also have to say that this method of aquarium ownership is expensive as it takes allot of chemicals, additives, etc to maintain the water properly. Just to look at it from my perspective though, I do not see my aquarium as a hobby. I use it for relaxation and soothing meditation purposes. Don't get me wrong, I love my fish, but I have enough to do and enough hobbies to keep me busy without climbing into my tank.


This thread is great... although I think it has one thing missing (unless Ive missed a post)...

In the above quote Dochere states that he/she does not see the aquarium as a hobby. However, wouldnt you say that Dochere spends far more time and money investigating his/her "Chemistry Set" style of keeping fish than those of us who just change the water? I would have to say that to Dochere... fishkeeping is definitely a hobby, however his/her level of engagement in this hobby is different from most of us.

Dochere is an fishkeeping hobby fanatic. From a chemistry perspective that is.

It's simple Dochere... change the water, and RELAX.