Another overgrown nitrate filter root trim & filter mod

[CWO4GUNNER]

There is no escaping doing tank maintance if you want a healthy successful aquarium.

My point is with what we now know about how to handle the missing puzzle of nitrate build up, water-changes no longer have to be weekly or even monthly requirement. So lets be clear water-changes on a weekly basis is voluntary and no longer a necessary part of tank maintenance, not unlike insisting at the turn of the century it was still far better to spend a week painting a house using a 2" paint brush instead of a 1 day using pressurized sprayer. Most now know and have finally accepted after 50 years that the paint brush and the paint sprayer are both capable of painting a fleet of ships (or aquariums), however we also know one is just far more efficient then the other, even if there are still a few holdouts does not change that fact.

 

[happypoet]

This assumes that nitrate build-up is the only reason to do water changes.
I don't think that this has been established as fact.

 

[dafishman]

Doesn't seem to me like Gunner's advocating the complete cessation of waterchanges, unless I'm reading things wrong...

 

[CWO4GUNNER]

This assumes that nitrate build-up is the only reason to do water changes.
I don't think that this has been established as fact.

No its not, as I have mentioned before in my case with tap water averaging a TDS of 700 PPM and low humidity/high evaporation rate, forces me to do 6 week water changes when my water peaks at 1100 to 1300 PPM TDS and nitrate levels between 20 to 30 PPM.

But with respect to being slave to weekly water-changes due to the task-master of uncontrolled climbing high nitrate levels (40 to 80 to 160 PPM), is something we no longer have to deal with unless we elect to.

 

[happypoet]

I guess my concern is that things we don't measure that are excreted by the fish (enzymes, hormones, etc.) could build up and have a detrimental effect on the system or the health of the fish.
This is obviously 100% conjecture on my part. It's just a concern, rather than a statement that I think this happens.

 

[dafishman]

Nah, conjecture's how progress is made, as well as by experimenting. Nothing new is learned by sticking with 'tried and true' methods, although there is more inherent risk.

 

[dundadundun]

No its not, as I have mentioned before in my case with tap water averaging a TDS of 700 PPM and low humidity/high evaporation rate, forces me to do 6 week water changes when my water peaks at 1100 to 1300 PPM TDS and nitrate levels between 20 to 30 PPM.

But with respect to being slave to weekly water-changes due to the task-master of uncontrolled climbing high nitrate levels (40 to 80 to 160 PPM), is something we no longer have to deal with unless we elect to.

I guess my concern is that things we don't measure that are excreted by the fish (enzymes, hormones, etc.) could build up and have a detrimental effect on the system or the health of the fish.
This is obviously 100% conjecture on my part. It's just a concern, rather than a statement that I think this happens.

the routine of w/c's has been well documented, compared and contrasted through different styles of tank keeping/maintenance/inhabitants/etc..

gunner does have a point and unfortunately for his sake of this discussion he keeps mostly goldfish and unplanted tanks. however... what he's not doing and the observances/science behind it actually backs up his claims. diane walstad and tom barr both agree that a heavily planted, lower stocked tank can go years without a w/c... much longer than gunners big boys and hard water will allow him to get away with.

not only that but pothos has been extensively tested on several different things. i'd suspect it's such a great test subject due to it's uncanny ability to adapt and grow in almost any environment.

anyway... i've seen testament to pothos' ability to remove voc's, doc's and/or toxins from several animals including neurotoxins produced by newts, aquatic frogs, etc. ... and one of the studies mentioned these same toxins actually stunted the growth of nearby younglings if the adult shared the same water space with them... unless there was enough volume and pothos to keep the levels low enough. testament both by hearsay and scientific studies.

notable mention in this discussion: ei afaik is the main reason 50% weekly w/c's were introduced into the hobby. the premise is that mathematically... if you're doing 50% w/c's weekly your ferts can never build up more than twice what you add in a week plus what's in your source water.

other than sickness/disease/sever overstocking there should be no reason for 50% weekly water changes in the hobby otherwise.

other than that w/c's should be done a "need to be done" basis... and each aquarist should familiarize themself with what works best for each tank individually... or do more than absolutely necessary to ensure the best health of their stock.

 

[CWO4GUNNER]

Just so we are clear let me say that I do all my tank water changes on the same day a total of 7 tanks with diverse species 1-120T tropical community tank angels, silver dollars, gobi, clowns, cory's; 1-100 with 6 Koi (future pond), 2- 80T's one with vicious bumblebee ciclids, the other with 5 cartoon parrots; 1-60L 1 large Oscar; 1-244T assorted Mbuna cihlid too many species too numerous to count breeding like crazy, New 210L only tank with Gold-fish put to work eating Fungi log; 1- 160L project tank the stand being build as we speak; Possible 160L tank-stand-canopy deal under negotiations for deep discount purchase. 12'X12' octagon gazebo build started yesterday, roof 50% built, will serve as staging point for 4' deep pond for protection against hawks and coyote. I am not advocating the elimination of water-changes, only that there are cheap and effective methods of greatly minimizing them.

I have been experimenting with my newest $120 Craiglist 210L tank by buttoning up all open to atmosphere opening with glass and neoprene and for the last 3 weeks have managed to keep evaporation on this the largest surface area tank I have 24X85 or 2040 square inches down to 1/3 (1/2 gallon) replenishment tap water compared to 2.5 gallons required by my smaller tanks every 3 days. Most remarkable is my 60L tank which uses no glass covers only plastic canopy that very porous requires an entire 2.5 gallons of replenishment water every 3 days and of course has the highest TDS levels. In the buttoned up 120L tank you can actually see the rain falling off the sealed up lids which is cleaner then reverse osmosis water. With this experiment being so promising I plan to extent TDS levels from rising to critical levels (1300 PPM) by 2 to 3 weeks extending periods between 50% water chnages to 8 weeks or 2 months.

 

[SPL15]

I may have to look into Pothos. I think it could go great with the aquaponics system I'm working on as a permanent filler. If I remember right, every 10 gallons of tank water will support 10 Sq yards of plants in an aquaponics system (with no water changes) so with a 20 gal tank & 1 sq yard of planting area, I'll need a few water changes & pothos sounds like a good filler to take up some of the excess nutrients.

Also I'm assuming TDS is Total Dissolved Solids, how are you measuring this? I think with prolonged water changes this is a great thing to be able to measure. One thing I've noticed about all the aquaponics research I've done is that all the examples have nasty looking water loaded with apparent Dissolved compounds. For these systems, the plants are the main feature with the fish just a means to an end, but as you've shown this system can HIGHLY benefit a fish focused decorative aquarium. My plan is a system where the fish are the focal point with crystal clear water with the plants as an added benefit to me & the fish.

I agree 110% that a terrestial plant based toxin removal filter is a viable way to reduce the maintenance of a decorative aquarium. I've read tons of papers about how floating rafts of sunflowers are so much more efficient at reducing toxic heavy metals in poluted waters (even radio active metals like uranium) than conventional destructive mechanical removal. A plant based filtration system is sustainable & is a great way to reduce water consumption as well as benefit the environment of the fish as well as the air in the home. The ONLY down side that can be argued is asthetics, as I'm sure some people dont like the looks of a plant growing out of their tank & the space needed to house a plant based filtration system. Although the cost of water is cheap in the US, I still feel pretty wasteful dumping 50 gals of water down the drain per week. A planted filter wont eliminate water changes, but if it can reduce the need by half, that is a monumental gain. Think of how publicized a low maintenance traditional filter would be if it eliminated toxins enough to halve the amount of water changes needed from Nitrate buildups!

& I also agree with water changes being based on actual need based on measurement, not the recommended xx% per week. I see this recommendation equivalent to 3000 mile oil changes in people's cars. Some people drive & maintain their cars in a way that 10,000 mile oil changes are perfectly fine, some cars need an oil change 3 times per month if they are constantly pushed to the limit at a track & daily driven.

Great thread! I hope it encourages others to take this up.

 

[spacefish34]

This is a great thread.I have used a few species of plant for this application including pothos,spathiphyllum,syngonium,and my favorite;various species of philodendron.Gunner,my mentor who began teaching me all things aquatic and gardening taught me that philodendron removed more toxic and undesirable substances from water than the other commonly used plants for this application.I was wondering if you knew any research or the like that this is true.I never really questioned him as he was my teacher,but would be interested to know if that is correct.Great topic...