# the beaslbob build



## beaslbob

reference:



Agent13 said:


> Curious then, do you get algae/cyano problems then?
> 
> Also more idle curiosity here. If you were to set up a 10 gallon tank using your ideally preferred method could you walk me through it exactly.. substrate, stock, plants how you'd do the cycle(if you do cycle ..you do right?) . Maintenance, decor, equipment etc.
> or if you have a 10g setup could you just explain that one ? and maybe a picture?
> 
> Pwetty pwetty pwease??


from thread:


http://www.tropicalfishkeeping.com/...n/effect-prime-oxygen-levels-aquarium-294058/

I posted this on another forum site and one poster titled their build thread as the beaslbob build just because it 'had a ring to it' :lol: You can now google beaslbob build or beaslbob method and get many hits.

So here is what I do:

equipment required

tank (10g used here) $15 or so.

old timie 2 tube incandescent hood. ($20 bought seperate and new but sometimes included in 10g starter kits or available at thrift centers and the like).

2 11-14 watt skinny spiral pig tail 6500k floursent bulbs. Designed to replace incandescent bulbs. Wall mart had GE packages clolored blue with "6500k" vertical down the sides. 2 tubes ~$5 or so. Note: the wattage it not the much higher equilivant incandescent wattage which is the wattage of an equilivant incandescent bulb).

1 1'x1'x3' plastic bag if canadain sphagum peat moss. $11 building supply stores. (note no ferts added)

1 50 pound premium play sand. building supply stores $3.

1 50 pound bag pro choise select. from: Pro's Choice Products. $6. (Had to contact that manufacturer to get a local source.)

plants: 4 bunches of anacharis, 4 Vallisneria, 4 small potted types (swords, crypts etc), 1 amazon sword.. (for reference check out: Vals, Corkscrew (Vallisneria americana) (10 plants per order) ) ~$30-50 or so.

some kind of stand to put aquarium on. 

setup:

1) place 1" of peat moss in the tank. Add water up to the top of the peat moss. Level the moss and clean the edges of the tank.

2) Place 1" of play sand on top of the wet moss. Repeat the adding water, leveling and cleaning.

3) Place 1" of pc select on top of the sand and again add water, level, and clean.

4) Add the plants. I like the anacharis in back, vals down the sides, the potted left and right of center and the amazon sword more or less centered. Then level the pc select till it looks nice.

5) Using water from a commonly used cold water faucet add water poured over a dish untill the tank is full.

6) Add the lights and turn on 8-10 hours per day.

7) Do nothing but admire the tank for 1 week.

8) Add a single fish. If live bearer a singe male. I like the dwarf sunburst platties.

9) Do nothing for one week but admire how active the fish is and wonder why he is pooping so nicely. If you feed that fish it will die on the 5th day.

10) Add 2 females (of you use live bearers) or 4 other fish if you did not use live bearers.

11) start feeding 1 flake per day.

upkeep.

1) Feed very lightly.

2) Replace evaporative water with water from a cold faucet that has been ran for a minute or so.

3) If the tank clouds up, you have algae, or cyano, kill the light and stop feeding until it clears up.

Just to be sure you uderstand.

1) no chemicals of any type

2) no mechanicals of any kind. No filters, No airstone. Nothing

3) don't worry about the snail bloom after a few weeks. Do Nothing. In a year there will only be a few left.

Once ot twice a year of maybe more often you may want to "clean" the mulm on the substrate. Just don't get carried away. Don't stir up the substate.

And of course you will probably have to harvest the plants from time to time.




here is a such as it is picture of a 20g long. Notice the "high tech" lighting. :lol:











Here is the cycle parameters of that 20g long FW 












So there it is.

the "beaslbob build". Which has had the same results in may cities in teh US as I was transferred aorund in the air force.

It's just my take on the time honored natural or balanced or walstad or lieden methods. You basically establish a balance eco system right from the start and let that take care of the tank.

and worth at most.

.02


----------



## beaslbob

*Beaslbob build Parameters example*

I can't access my test results from work so will post that and vid of a tank from home tonight.


----------



## jaysee

I think people in general "do" too much to their tanks. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Agent13

Thanks!
"2 11-14 watt* skinny spiral pig tail *6500k floursent bulbs" <-lol!!!

oh curious,, is the peat moss for PH issues or some other reason?


----------



## beaslbob

Agent13 said:


> Thanks!
> "2 11-14 watt* skinny spiral pig tail *6500k floursent bulbs" <-lol!!!
> 
> oh curious,, is the peat moss for PH issues or some other reason?


that actually is an excellent question.

PH with or without the peat moss rises to purple on the api high range test kit. (8.4-8.8)

I found out that with just play sand kH rose to over 20 degrees and gH rose to 40 degrees or more.

And neon tetras did not do well.

But with the peat moss kH stayed at 4 degrees and gH at 9 degrees for over 2 years.

And neon tetras thrived.


I think the pH is high because the plants are removeing the co2 and returning oxygen. Plus the lack of circulation deters those values from more closely matching atmospheric conditions.

But then I worry that most people expecially newbies would try to change those values. Meanwhile, the fish in my tanks just keep swimming and swimming and swimming.

my .02


----------



## Agent13

Thanks for the clarification. I was thinking you were dealing with PH from the tap issues.


----------



## beaslbob

Agent13 said:


> Thanks for the clarification. I was thinking you were dealing with PH from the tap issues.


 
and thanks for response. :lol:

Kinda hard to wrap your mind around but give this a thought.

With this system the quality of the tap water is not anywhere nearly as important as when water changes are being done. PH and all other parameters in the tank's environment are overwhelmingly a function of the tank itself. Therefore, the a safe environment in the tank can be setup and maintained with just about any potable tap water. I don't intend to test it but I honestly don't think the input water has to be even potable. (afterall plants are used to clean up enviromental toxic wastes). So as long as the plants are thriving the water will be conditioned to support the fish. 

my .02


----------



## BWG

What are your tapwater pH, KH, GH? If you don't mind me asking.


----------



## Flear

only a single experiment that was vaguely similar

took dried plant clippings from the tank, chopped them up and threw them in a bucket to break down, ... sure the ammonia skyrocketed, ... but the PH was well above 7.5, (limits of test kit i had)

took about a week before ammonia readings were zero (or close enough)

i was thinking of trying something similar with peat moss to see if it would give a lower PH

your beaslbob build, sounds simular, about a week for things to finish breaking down and ammonia levels to drop.

maybe i'm missing the obvious, ... could you elaborate on this please:


beaslbob said:


> PH with or without the peat moss rises to purple on the api high range test kit. (8.4-8.8)
> 
> I found out that with just play sand kH rose to over 20 degrees and gH rose to 40 degrees or more.
> 
> But with the peat moss kH stayed at 4 degrees and gH at 9 degrees for over 2 years.


-i'm assuming nutrients in the water column are lower with the sandy cap (as the only difference)
-i don't quite get what you mean by the PH being the same with or without the peat ... is that the same reading as your tap water ?


----------



## beaslbob

Flear said:


> only a single experiment that was vaguely similar
> 
> took dried plant clippings from the tank, chopped them up and threw them in a bucket to break down, ... sure the ammonia skyrocketed, ... but the PH was well above 7.5, (limits of test kit i had)
> 
> took about a week before ammonia readings were zero (or close enough)
> 
> i was thinking of trying something similar with peat moss to see if it would give a lower PH
> 
> your beaslbob build, sounds simular, about a week for things to finish breaking down and ammonia levels to drop.
> 
> maybe i'm missing the obvious, ... could you elaborate on this please:
> 
> 
> -i'm assuming nutrients in the water column are lower with the sandy cap (as the only difference)
> -i don't quite get what you mean by the PH being the same with or without the peat ... is that the same reading as your tap water ?


 
I meant the final pH of the tank water.

And this was confirmed with an experiment I did with quart mason jars with various substates. Some planted with lights and others kept in darkness.

The planted lit jars all rose to a pH of 8.4 or higher with plant life. 

that unlit jars had pH valuse much lower with peat jars the lowest.

IMHO the plants suck out the carbon dioxide which raises the pH.

And oh yea neon tetras live for years at those pH levels.

my .02


----------



## Flear

plants also consume nutrients in the water column that would otherwise raise the PH (not just CO2)

would have me thinking, the cap lowers the rate nutrients are released into the water column till it's slow enough the plants can keep the levels in the water column down

I have heard peat moss (sphagnum peat moss) when alive, can hold up to 40% of it's mass as water to deal with long periods without rain (or other sources of water to hydrate it). as this turns into a large store of water, the moss's natural defense to keep this water free from an infection is to keep this water acidic. I THINK this is where adding peat moss to substrates is done in an attempt to keep the PH lower.

i would think, (from your tests) this is more of an old-wives-tale than reality, ... (but honestly i don't know)


----------



## beaslbob

Flear said:


> plants also consume nutrients in the water column that would otherwise raise the PH (not just CO2)
> 
> would have me thinking, the cap lowers the rate nutrients are released into the water column till it's slow enough the plants can keep the levels in the water column down
> 
> I have heard peat moss (sphagnum peat moss) when alive, can hold up to 40% of it's mass as water to deal with long periods without rain (or other sources of water to hydrate it). as this turns into a large store of water, the moss's natural defense to keep this water free from an infection is to keep this water acidic. I THINK this is where adding peat moss to substrates is done in an attempt to keep the PH lower.
> 
> i would think, (from your tests) this is more of an old-wives-tale than reality, ... (but honestly i don't know)


I think it does act to lower the pH but after a few weeks the plants sucking out the co2 overrides the effect.

Also read on a canadian peat moss site that for soil it actually hold ammonia to be released later.

If that is true then it should also help trap ammonia in our tanks durint the initial cycle.

my .02


----------



## Agent13

When you clean your substrate once or twice a year as you stated.. about what percentage of your water volume would you say you tend to change? I'm just wondering how you clean it when you say you never do water changes..is there a certain amount that doesn't count? Or do you have one of those eheim vacs?

Does the tank by all appearances look clean when kept this way?
Sorry if this seems like an interrogation but I'm trying to get a complete view of your fish keeping method. Or maybe it's more the Aquarium keeping method then the fish themselves I'm "investigating" ;-) (Since I think for the most part we keep vastly different fish aside from maybe my kids 16g tank)


----------



## Flear

i've heard humus does that, if i remember correctly, it's like MTS (mineralized top soil) without the mess, i also think it might have a source of ammonia for a nitrogen source for the plants, ... i'm a lot less sure about the ammonia part though


----------



## beaslbob

Agent13 said:


> When you clean your substrate once or twice a year as you stated.. about what percentage of your water volume would you say you tend to change? I'm just wondering how you clean it when you say you never do water changes..is there a certain amount that doesn't count? Or do you have one of those eheim vacs?
> 
> Does the tank by all appearances look clean when kept this way?
> Sorry if this seems like an interrogation but I'm trying to get a complete view of your fish keeping method. Or maybe it's more the Aquarium keeping method then the fish themselves I'm "investigating" ;-) (Since I think for the most part we keep vastly different fish aside from maybe my kids 16g tank)


I remove as little water as possible when cleaning up the substrate. 

Water looks clear when dont correctly. With higher lighting and feeding it does get cloudy. I a totally dark tank the water remain clear. So the "trick" is to hit a balace where you have healthy plants and fish with clear water.

my .02


----------



## beaslbob

*parameters and pictures*

Better late then never.

(Wish admin would move to my original post.)



here is a such as it is picture of a 20g long. Notice the "high tech" lighting. :lol:






Here is the cycle parameters of that 20g long FW


----------



## Agent13

beaslbob said:


> Water looks clear when dont correctly.
> my .02





beaslbob said:


> here is a such as it is picture of a 20g long. Notice the "high tech" lighting. :lol:


I though you said the water would look clear when done correctly..did you do something wrong *Not judging ! Ducks head * lol Sorry I couldn't stop my fingers from typing. I'm a little anal retentive I confess. I'm _that_ mom who is up till 2am cleaning up till the house looks like the kids were never there.


----------



## beaslbob

actually the water is clear but there is a slight algae on the back glass


----------



## Flear

i've got algae all over in my tank, ... i am looking for different algae, but dono what i could find that would suit my purposes, ... 

there is the typical algae types, long and stringy, short and bushy, or forming fluffy clumps, shades of green or black (cyano aside), 

actually cyano has me curious about nitrates as well, i came across something (one thing only actually) that mentioned cyanobacteria can increase nitrates directly from N2, ... most cyanobacterias are toxic, but i think some are safe. a random thought for dealing with planted tanks that have a nitrogen deficiency.

but with other algae types, than the typical ones that affect most peoples freshwater tanks, i'm sure some have some rather unique appearances and may be rather nice to have in a tank. provided they don't get out of hand.


----------



## Agent13

Flear said:


> actually cyano has me curious about nitrates as well, i came across something (one thing only actually) that mentioned cyanobacteria can increase nitrates directly from N2, ... most cyanobacterias are toxic, but i think some are safe. a random thought for dealing with planted tanks that have a nitrogen deficiency.
> .


I'm pretty sure it's more the cyanobacteria in marine tanks that are harmful. It can however starve your plants in freshwater but mostly it's just ugly and difficult if it gets out of control. It's really already in small amounts in all places on earth but only noticeable when given the right circumstances to "bloom" .


----------



## Flear

ya, i'm not at a point to consider really looking into cyano, ... i would only consider it if i needed to for nitrates, ... so for now it's just a curiosity, one of the many things i've come across, ... and i've seen what some tanks are like where it gets out of hand, ... not worth it in my books


----------



## beaslbob

Flear said:


> i've got algae all over in my tank, ... i am looking for different algae, but dono what i could find that would suit my purposes, ...
> 
> there is the typical algae types, long and stringy, short and bushy, or forming fluffy clumps, shades of green or black (cyano aside),
> 
> *actually cyano has me curious about nitrates as well, i came across something (one thing only actually) that mentioned cyanobacteria can increase nitrates directly from N2*, ... most cyanobacterias are toxic, but i think some are safe. a random thought for dealing with planted tanks that have a nitrogen deficiency.
> 
> but with other algae types, than the typical ones that affect most peoples freshwater tanks, i'm sure some have some rather unique appearances and may be rather nice to have in a tank. provided they don't get out of hand.


Increase is the incorrect word. Cyano can use nitrogen gas for nitrogen vrs the ammonia/nitrates of most plants. (Yea yea I know it's a bacteria but still it has "plant life".) Just as soybeans fix nitrogen in farmer's fields and why they rotate crops.


There is some organic equation where 16 nitrogens are used for every phosphate (among other things) to produce plant stuff. The theory is that nitrates become scarce and cyano steps up and gets its nitrogen from the gas. Further starving plant life of phosphates. So the tank can rapidily becomes cyano dominated vrs plant dominated.

So after a few months of operation, nitrates drops down and here comes the cyano.

What I do is simply kill the lights and stop adding food. So the cyano dies off returning ammonia/nitrates to the system and plants. Then resume with less lighting and feeding and adjust so the plants thrive but not the cyano.

That rebalances the system in favor of the plants.


my .02


----------



## Agent13

do you have any info on you current tank(s) that are from within this decade? 
Also I'm curious about your claim to using the Walstad method.. Can you elaborate what part of her method are you using ?


----------



## beaslbob

Agent13 said:


> do you have any info on you current tank(s) that are from within this decade?
> Also I'm curious about your claim to using the Walstad method.. Can you elaborate what part of her method are you using ?


 
just have the 55g since we moved to a new house 3 years ago. before that 10g leiden, 55g was a mixed reet, 30 mixed reef, betta bowl, 20g long leiden.

As to the waltstad, I do not use co2, do use organics (the peat moss but not the potting soil) limited water changes. heavily planted, lower lights. Not exactly the same but close.

my.02


----------



## Agent13

beaslbob said:


> just have the 55g since we moved to a new house 3 years ago. before that 10g leiden, 55g was a mixed reet, 30 mixed reef, betta bowl, 20g long leiden.
> 
> As to the waltstad, I do not use co2, do use organics (the peat moss but not the potting soil) limited water changes. heavily planted, lower lights. Not exactly the same but close.
> 
> my.02


So not really her method ..so very misleading when you claim the use of Diana's method. Very confusing when you so quickly recommend your method to newbies when claiming it's a part of a valid documented many times over method.. That actually is fine with the filters(actually her fav tank she uses my fav filter the eheim canister). And is a fan of prime if you don't have well water..which she does. And with fish recommends a powerhead if not a filter for circulation. Plus does water changes.. her method if far from yours.

BTW..did I miss something? whatever happened to your tests on your tank? 
"I can't access my test results from work so will post that and vid of a tank from home tonight." Or are you just going on these old tanks and don't even use your own method anymore?


----------



## beaslbob

Agent13 said:


> So not really her method ..so very misleading when you claim the use of Diana's method. Very confusing when you so quickly recommend your method to newbies when claiming it's a part of a valid documented many times over method.. That actually is fine with the filters(actually her fav tank she uses my fav filter the eheim canister). And is a fan of prime if you don't have well water..which she does. And with fish recommends a powerhead if not a filter for circulation. Plus does water changes.. her method if far from yours.
> 
> BTW..did I miss something? whatever happened to your tests on your tank?
> "I can't access my test results from work so will post that and vid of a tank from home tonight." Or are you just going on these old tanks and don't even use your own method anymore?


 
I didn't claim to be 100% Walstad. But she does recommend soil and lotsa plants. and no co2 for instance.

If the overridding thing is the plants then the rest are not relevant to maintaining an healthy tank for the plants and fish. 

I can't tell at work here as the links are just x's. Did I not post parameters during a cycle on page 2?

my .02


----------



## Flear

i have yet to get the book, on the list of things to get
from what i understand isn't it the organic topsoil as the key ingredient for the substrate, ... that's about the same as peat, although one is a generic mix from whatever dirt plot it was shoveled from, and one is a specific farmed & dried plant mix (or something like that, you get the idea)

simular enough in my books, ... yet still different enough


----------



## Agent13

Flear said:


> i have yet to get the book, on the list of things to get
> from what i understand isn't it the organic topsoil as the key ingredient for the substrate, ... that's about the same as peat, although one is a generic mix from whatever dirt plot it was shoveled from, and one is a specific farmed & dried plant mix (or something like that, you get the idea)
> 
> simular enough in my books, ... yet still different enough


He recommends something far different. Her book actually is very good for a planted low maintenance tank. His method is no more like her method then any of my tanks. I personally would highly recommend her method however. 


And bealsbob, you posted parameters for a random tank from a decade ago. 
You are however right, your method does pop up on google..by all the forums you've been banned from and discussions of how you never post recent pictures and aggressively push this method like it's some valid proven method onto newbies on all forums.


----------



## ao

I'm not sure about the whole no water change thing. i think it may work for some, and crash for others. 

I set up a ten gallon for my uncle back in may 2012. I used some kind of garden soil capped with a sand substrate....It was the first and last time I ever set up a soil based tank, can't say I'm a fan...

I didn't have time to wait for the tank to establish, so I planted the tank with a mixture of hair grass, rotalas and Charale and threw in 6 endler frys and one betta (which i hoped will keep the population in check... )

Half a year later I come back home to visit and find that my uncle's family switched off the light, heater and filter in favor of saving electricity. They did however place the tank near a well lit window. I also came home to an overfed betta who lazily watched delicious fry dance past him(grandmas and their over doting tendencies...), about 40- 100 guppies (couldn't count them all). And ofcourse they didn't do a single water change like I instructed...

What was note worthy was the level of over grown greeness in that tank. I couldn't see 3 in past the front glass... ditto if I'm looking in from the side.

For the sake of my own sanity, I did a large water change and trimmed some plants... it's been 8 months since then, and I have no idea what kind of hideous self evolving monster the tank has grown into....

needless to say, sometimes these things work. I just wouldn't recommend it to others because there is that chance of it failing when you can't exactly explain why it is scientific. O_O I would whip my uncle's family into proper tank care if I had the authority...

honestly, in the end.. I just don't want to be responsible for someone else's tank crash.....



EDIT:


Here are the pics of said tank AFTER I did a water change and trim. I was so horrified I didn't even think to take a photo of the "before" and immediate set off to perform water change and trim... lol

























































Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## beaslbob

Agent13 said:


> He recommends something far different. Her book actually is very good for a planted low maintenance tank. His method is no more like her method then any of my tanks. I personally would highly recommend her method however.
> 
> 
> And bealsbob, you posted parameters for a random tank from a decade ago.
> You are however right, your method does pop up on google..by all the forums you've been banned from and discussions of how you never post recent pictures and aggressively push this method like it's *some valid proven method onto newbies on all forums*.


 
That's because it is a valid and proven method that was around long before all the filters and chemicals we use today.

And I have had several newbies that "saved" that first highly stressed cycle fish by these methods. Not in days but in hours.

my .02


----------



## beaslbob

aokashi said:


> I'm not sure about the whole no water change thing. i think it may work for some, and crash for others.
> 
> I set up a ten gallon for my uncle back in may 2012. I used some kind of garden soil capped with a sand substrate....It was the first and last time I ever set up a soil based tank, can't say I'm a fan...
> 
> I didn't have time to wait for the tank to establish, so I planted the tank with a mixture of hair grass, rotalas and Charale and threw in 6 endler frys and one betta (which i hoped will keep the population in check... )
> 
> Half a year later I come back home to visit and find that my uncle's family switched off the light, heater and filter in favor of saving electricity. They did however place the tank near a well lit window. I also came home to an overfed betta who lazily watched delicious fry dance past him(grandmas and their over doting tendencies...), about 40- 100 guppies (couldn't count them all). And ofcourse they didn't do a single water change like I instructed...
> 
> 
> ....


Thanks for posting. This agrees with my experience.

FWIW IMHO what you did was smart not just lucky.

so much for these methods are not for beginers and require advanced experienced aquarumists. :shock:

my .02


----------



## Agent13

beaslbob said:


> Thanks for posting. This agrees with my experience.
> 
> FWIW IMHO what you did was smart not just lucky.
> 
> so much for these methods are not for beginers and require advanced experienced aquarumists. :shock:
> 
> my .02


What she came back to was a nasty tank. Fish surviving.. sure but not in conditions ideal or in anyway pleasing to the eye. And again also, not the same thing as your "method". You are argueing that *any* planted tank is the same?


----------



## rickey

I got no dog in this fight but seem to me the limiting factor will be denitrification This must take place under some condition in the ecosystems. In general, it occurs where oxygen is depleted, and bacteria respire nitrate as a substitute terminal electron acceptor. Due to the high concentration of oxygen in our atmosphere denitrification only takes place in anoxic environments. Plants assimilation nitrate ion reducing this to ammonia produces one OH- ion. To maintain a pH balance, the plant must either excrete it into the surrounding medium or neutralize it with an organic acids. This will result in the water becoming alkaline. Now granted that with superior plant growth the trimming process would remove nitrogen from the environment but I can't see plant trimming reducing nitrogen to the point of no water changes. And I won't go into DOC in the water column.

R


----------



## beaslbob

rickey said:


> I got no dog in this fight but seem to me the limiting factor will be denitrification This must take place under some condition in the ecosystems. In general, it occurs where oxygen is depleted, and bacteria respire nitrate as a substitute terminal electron acceptor. Due to the high concentration of oxygen in our atmosphere denitrification only takes place in anoxic environments. *Plants assimilation nitrate ion reducing this to ammonia produces one OH- ion.* To maintain a pH balance, the plant must either excrete it into the surrounding medium or neutralize it with an organic acids. This will result in the water becoming alkaline. Now granted that with superior plant growth the trimming process would remove nitrogen from the environment but I can't see plant trimming reducing nitrogen to the point of no water changes. And I won't go into DOC in the water column.
> 
> R


I am totally unaware of that process and in years of posting I have never heard that before. Can you provide me a reference where plants tank nitrate and reduce it to ammonia?

I am very aware that plants consume nitrates (when no ammonia is available) plus phosphate plus some other nutrients, plus co2, and return oxygen. In that process plant tissue/food is produced along with the returned oxygen. So it seems to me that anaerobic denitrification would be unnecessary. Especially when the plants have made the tank a net consumer of co2 and producer of oxygen each 24 hour period.

I have heard of anaerobic processes as in deap sea beds in marine tank (with limited algaes present). In that process the nitrates are reduced to nitrItes and then to nitrogen gas. A when not working in that manner can in fact further reduce the nitrItes to ammonia instead of the nitrogen gas. Which obviously is not a healthy environment as the ammonia then would then add to the "bio load" for the aerobic bacteria. Not to mention the sulfer compunds produces also.

I am also aware that reducing co2 rasies pH with KH remaining constant. Hence my high PH values (8.4-8.8 purple on the api high range test kit) indicating low co2 in the system.

But then I am still learning. Meanwhile my old tanks did just fine for years and years.

Still just my .02


----------



## rickey

Nitrate transport: a key step in nitrate assimilation
Fran¸coise Daniel-Vedele∗, Sophie Filleur and Michel Caboche

"Nitrate is the major source of nitrogen for the vast majority
of plants. It is ﬁrst reduced to nitrite by nitrate reductase
(NR), nitrite being further reduced into ammonium by
nitrite reductase (NiR). Nitrate assimilation has been the
matter of many studies and has been reviewed by Hoff et
al. [1], Crawford [2] and more recently by Daniel-Vedele
and Caboche [3] and Campbell [4]. Of particular interest,
is the study of the post-transcriptional control of nitrate
reductase activity."

R


----------



## BWG

beaslbob said:


> I am also aware that reducing co2 rasies pH with KH remaining constant. Hence my high PH values (8.4-8.8 purple on the api high range test kit) indicating low co2 in the system.
> 
> Still just my .02


Your high pH values indicate high pH. By your theory both of my planted aquariums should be running at that pH each night when CO2 is at it's lowest. Instead the run at 6.0. You're also not taking into account that plants produce CO2 at night.

Long story short, carbonic acid is not the only determining factor for pH.


----------



## beaslbob

BWG said:


> Your high pH values indicate high pH. By your theory both of my planted aquariums should be running at that pH each night when CO2 is at it's lowest. Instead the run at 6.0. You're also not taking into account that plants produce CO2 at night.
> 
> Long story short, carbonic acid is not the only determining factor for pH.


 
While carbonic acid is not the only factor in pH, your theory on night time pH is just plain wrong. CO2 is highest at night and the pH drops at night. Higher co2 less pH.

IME pH is highest just before lights out which is why I recommend measuring pH at that time. The nightly pH drop is mitigated with sufficient kH.


----------



## jaysee

You guys and your plants.....


----------



## ao

jaysee said:


> You guys and your plants.....


What? *shock* the only reason anyone gets fish is to compliment their pretty aquatic plants! you're totally missing out!


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## Agent13

jaysee said:


> You guys and your plants.....


LOL!


aokashi said:


> What? *shock* the only reason anyone gets fish is to compliment their pretty aquatic plants! you're totally missing out!
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com App


Well sometimes I get fish(or inverts) to see what interesting decorating or destruction they can do with my plants.


----------



## BWG

beaslbob said:


> While carbonic acid is not the only factor in pH, your theory on night time pH is just plain wrong. CO2 is highest at night and the pH drops at night. Higher co2 less pH.
> 
> IME pH is highest just before lights out which is why I recommend measuring pH at that time. The nightly pH drop is mitigated with sufficient kH.


Yeah apologies. What I had meant by night was right before lights out.I worded that awkwardly, but the point I was trying to make is that you can't base CO2 concentration solely on pH.

Would you like a free tip from me? I know it probably is worthless to you, but I'll give it anyway. Want to prove your method is legit? Start from the beginning. Record your tapwater parameters and regularly record your tank parameters. Show that the fish and plants are healthy, show GH isn't skyrocketing from no water changes ever, etc, etc.

No one will take the 'beaslbob method' seriously without those things. All you have shown is a build from nearly 7 years ago and parameters from then as well. What does that chart show? That stocking slowly and having plants makes cycling painless. That's not the 'beaslbob method' that newbie fishkeeping 101. They don't name an award for the millionth person to figure something out. It's like math when everyone was back in school and they made you show your work. If you want to prove your method is legit and works over time then show it. Until then all you've proven is you know as much about cycling and fishkeeping as all but the greenest person on this forum.


----------



## Agent13

BWG said:


> Start from the beginning. Record your tapwater parameters and regularly record your tank parameters. Show that the fish and plants are healthy, show GH isn't skyrocketing from no water changes ever, etc, etc.
> .


Which is pretty much what I've been gently trying to pull from the very first question that led to this thread...and gave up on after it was clear there was no such data. And may never be.


----------



## BWG

Agent13 said:


> Which is pretty much what I've been gently trying to pull from the very first question that led to this thread...and gave up on after it was clear there was no such data. And may never be.


I know, but subtle didn't seem to be working for you


----------



## rickey

Agent13 said:


> Well sometimes I get fish(or inverts) to see what interesting decorating or destruction they can do with my plants.


I need to send you a box of Goldfish, they'll take care of your plant problem.

R


----------



## Agent13

BWG said:


> I know, but subtle didn't seem to be working for you


But I wanted more then numbers. I wanted EVERYTHING to put all pieces of the puzzle together. And blaring with a loud horn your intentions tends not to yield such results.. but here nothing aside from a magical wand would give me what I was asking for. 


rickey said:


> I need to send you a box of Goldfish, they'll take care of your plant problem.
> 
> R


Should see what my blue male crayfish did! Extremely talented interior decorator. There is a video floating about on TFK of it . But one day I would love to play with goldies again and remember why my mom loved them so much.


----------



## beaslbob

rickey said:


> I need to send you a box of Goldfish, they'll take care of your plant problem.
> 
> R


 
I those cases some kind of refugium would be appropriate. Just like the marine systems where most fish do eat the algaes.

FWIW my two goldfish (comets) leave the plants alone in my 55g.

.02


----------



## beaslbob

rickey said:


> Nitrate transport: a key step in nitrate assimilation
> Fran¸coise Daniel-Vedele∗, Sophie Filleur and Michel Caboche
> 
> "Nitrate is the major source of nitrogen for the vast majority
> of plants. It is ﬁrst reduced to nitrite by nitrate reductase
> (NR), nitrite being further reduced into ammonium by
> nitrite reductase (NiR). Nitrate assimilation has been the
> matter of many studies and has been reviewed by Hoff et
> al. [1], Crawford [2] and more recently by Daniel-Vedele
> and Caboche [3] and Campbell [4]. Of particular interest,
> is the study of the post-transcriptional control of nitrate
> reductase activity."
> 
> R


 
Interesting.

Is this internal to the plants? Could explain why plants use more energy to consume nitrates then when consuming ammonia.

thanks.


----------



## beaslbob

jaysee said:


> You guys and your plants.....


 
Are you a "plant" for planting that? :lol:

not even worth .01


----------



## beaslbob

BWG said:


> Yeah apologies. What I had meant by night was right before lights out.I worded that awkwardly, but the point I was trying to make is that you can't base CO2 concentration solely on pH.
> 
> Would you like a free tip from me? I know it probably is worthless to you, but I'll give it anyway. Want to prove your method is legit? Start from the beginning. Record your tapwater parameters and regularly record your tank parameters. Show that the fish and plants are healthy, show GH isn't skyrocketing from no water changes ever, etc, etc.
> 
> No one will take the 'beaslbob method' seriously without those things. All you have shown is a build from nearly 7 years ago and parameters from then as well. What does that chart show? That stocking slowly and having plants makes cycling painless. That's not the 'beaslbob method' that newbie fishkeeping 101. They don't name an award for the millionth person to figure something out. It's like math when everyone was back in school and they made you show your work. If you want to prove your method is legit and works over time then show it. Until then all you've proven is you know as much about cycling and fishkeeping as all but the greenest person on this forum.


 
I finally started recording parameters and am reporting what I found.

One problem is that at first I did no measurements at all. Test kits even such as they are have come a long way since 1980. And I have the same results in many cities with various water supplies.

Of course that reflects the basic methods I posted at first. 

test kits are not needed.

any potable tap water is sufficient.


I was surprised about the high pH for instance. but that last think I would do is make adjustments in a tank that has had a heavy bioload for the last 7 years. Just let the pH be high. 

still just my .02


----------



## rickey

beaslbob said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Is this internal to the plants? Could explain why plants use more energy to consume nitrates then when consuming ammonia.
> 
> thanks.


Yes, internal to the plant, 
R


----------



## beaslbob

rickey said:


> Yes, internal to the plant,
> R


 
Thanks


----------



## Flear

dono about energy levels or such about what the plants get or how much they have to burn to consume nitrates vs ammonium, ...

it's easy at a ph under 6.5, it's almost all ammonium, almost zero ammonia
plants like ammonium.
after that plants like nitrates, which (as i have red anyway) will process nitrates into ammonium so they can once more use ammonium

ammonia on the other hand, ... well that's toxic
ammonium & ammonia are different although interchangeable based on PH.
one is safe for our tanks, one we hope we have an established tank to start the nitrogen cycle else our tanks are going to die.

i could be wrong, but plants don't like ammonia at all
our tanks are expected to have little to no ability to process ammonium, allowing it to build up, ... except for that slim margin of ammonia at those lower PH levels that can process the nitrogen cycle

PH below 6.5, great, doesn't take much to maintain a non-toxic environment with fish swimming in heavy ammonium concentrations
a PH shift can be all that's needed to suddenly kill all our fish before we know what happened.

sure, i'm way off topic on ammonia vs ammonium vs nitrates on, ... but ammonia doesn't factor in.


----------



## jaysee

I'm not a plant person, but I have heard them say that plants do like ammonia.


----------



## Flear

the little bits i've come across (it's a really hard search)

i couldn't find clear answers on plants directly using ammonia
i did find answers that suggest regardless what the plant absorbs the plants internal PH will convert it to ammonium and it gets what it's after for it's nitrogen nutrient

i did come across stuff that mentioned as far as ammonia is concerned plants can tolerate ammonia levels high enough to kill our fish long before the plant suffers


----------



## beaslbob

I have heard that John Deere landscaping's turface can be used also and is almost the same as the pro choice select.

link:

Pro League® Calcined Clay | Turface Athletics


----------



## Flear

Turface is a marketed name for arcillite
arcillite is baked Montmorillonite
Montmorillonite is a clay with a very high CEC and 1001 uses, the most accessible one being cheap clay clumping cat litter as it swells when wet


----------



## beaslbob

so that's where the kittly liter stuff comes from.

Thanks


----------



## Flear

never know where research will take you when looking up what is needed to build a self-sustaining aquarium.

much of what i have seen of other peoples attempts involved tanks that, ... well, ... if you couldn't see it easily with your eye, if you couldn't readily obtain it from the LFS it wasn't worth considering.

but things i have found, ... substrates, various algaes, fish with a rather exacting diet, stuff in the tank to match that diet, ... things/critters to increase the health of the substrate, more research on what to do about nutrients in the water column, lighting, tempuratures, ... well now i'm bragging

but down to the basics, ... what i think is needed for a self-sustaining aquarium is a giant over what i have heard of people attempting. 

i run into some major serious concerns with various cycles in the tank, ... nitrogen cycle, ... where there's stages that involve gasses to be gassed off, that's nothing other than nutrients lost that the tank will not regain, ... that's scary and nothing can be done about it

things to help retain nutrients in the tank, preferably in the substrate, ... no stone unturned, ... and high CEC additives are something i am really interested in to solve one of the problems.

high AEC minerals ... well that's proving to be trickier.

some time i have to head over to another forum where i found information on issues with DSBs, (real issues are talked about, not the ones people keep imagining) that i think interferes with, but relates to the possitive & negative charge in the substrate affecting nutrient retention there.

and how to solve the nitrogen/ammonia issue, i don't even know what other nutrients have a form in the aquarium that can be gassed off.

in addition is chelating chemicals, which brought up concerns about farming fertilizers, organic fertilizers vs the chemical ones, ... those chemical ones are toxic, worse for an aquarium man-made chelating chemicals are no better, ... try to find what to add to chelate chemicals that would otherwise eventually remove themself from the usable aquarium life-cycle, ... :/

but yup, this is the stuff that kitty litter is made from
also used in the oil industry to remove water from the oil, ... and other things i haven't heard about.


----------



## equatics

beaslbob said:


> I am totally unaware of that process and in years of posting I have never heard that before. Can you provide me a reference where plants tank nitrate and reduce it to ammonia?
> 
> I am very aware that plants consume nitrates (when no ammonia is available) plus phosphate plus some other nutrients, plus co2, and return oxygen. In that process plant tissue/food is produced along with the returned oxygen. So it seems to me that anaerobic denitrification would be unnecessary. Especially when the plants have made the tank a net consumer of co2 and producer of oxygen each 24 hour period.
> 
> I have heard of anaerobic processes as in deap sea beds in marine tank (with limited algaes present). In that process the nitrates are reduced to nitrItes and then to nitrogen gas. A when not working in that manner can in fact further reduce the nitrItes to ammonia instead of the nitrogen gas. Which obviously is not a healthy environment as the ammonia then would then add to the "bio load" for the aerobic bacteria. Not to mention the sulfer compunds produces also.
> 
> I am also aware that reducing co2 rasies pH with KH remaining constant. Hence my high PH values (8.4-8.8 purple on the api high range test kit) indicating low co2 in the system.
> 
> But then I am still learning. Meanwhile my old tanks did just fine for years and years.
> 
> Still just my .02


I have enjoyed reading this thread. I don't know that much about plants' uptake of Nitrogen, but I found the chemical reactions to the Nitrogen Cycle and I thought they might help. All you have to do is run them backwards in reverse order:

*Nitrification*Nitrification occurs by the following reactions:
2 NH3 + 3 O2 → 2 NO2 + 2 H+ + 2 H2O
2 NO2- + O2 → 2 NO3-
Aerobic bacteria use oxygen to convert ammonia and ammonium. Nitrosomonas bacteria convert nitrogen into nitrite (NO2-) and then nitrobacter convert nitrite to nitrate (NO3-). Some bacteria exist in a symbiotic relationship with plants (legumes and some root-nodule species). Plants utilize the nitrate as a nutrient. Animals obtain nitrogen by eating plants or plant-eating animals. Nitrogen Cycle


Like I said, I don't know much about this, but at least functionally, plants take up Nitrogen as follows:


NH3 (also from NH4) is taken up by plants directly, as is, and does not require conversion. Nitrite, the next step up in nitrification, is first converted to NH3, using 3 oxygen ions (energy), then used for energy.


So, NH3 can be directly used by the plant without the expense of energy to convert it and is preferred over Nitrite and Nitrate. Nitrite takes Oxygen (energy) to convert to NH3 internally to the plant and is where the plant goes next. Nitrate must be converted twice to be used by the plant as NH3 using Oxygen at each conversion. Ammonium (NH3) and Nitrite are preferred over Nitrate, so the only time Nitrate willl be used is if there is no Ammonium or Nitrite present and if there is Nitrate present.


When my plants are growing well, I see 0 Nitrate, otherwise 20 or less. This makes me think that since the plants are taking up all of the ammonia and bypassing the bacterial Nitrogen Cycle, Nitrate doesn't get a chance to exist, if all the conditions like adequate light, nutrients exist.


Steven


----------



## beaslbob

Thanks Steve.

Bout the only thing I would comment on is the lack of nitrates because the plants are consuming the ammonia. That IME is wrong. Bacteria still build up and consume ammonia then finally nitrates drop down because there is no more ammonia fo the plants. I have seen initial nitrate spikes for 3-4 weeks or so in new tanks. But with very small (1ppm or less) short (1 day or less) ammonia spikes. And similiar spikes when something goes bump in the night on established aquariums.

But still that's just my .02


----------



## equatics

beaslbob said:


> Thanks Steve.
> 
> Bout the only thing I would comment on is the lack of nitrates because the plants are consuming the ammonia. That IME is wrong. Bacteria still build up and consume ammonia then finally nitrates drop down because there is no more ammonia fo the plants. I have seen initial nitrate spikes for 3-4 weeks or so in new tanks. But with very small (1ppm or less) short (1 day or less) ammonia spikes. And similiar spikes when something goes bump in the night on established aquariums.
> 
> But still that's just my .02


Thanks for the reply. How about if I limit that scenario to when there is 0 Nitrate?

BTW, I liked your graph. Can you think of why the Nitrates drop precipitously? Thanks.

Steven


----------



## beaslbob

equatics said:


> Thanks for the reply. How about if I limit that scenario to when there is 0 Nitrate?
> 
> BTW, I liked your graph. Can you think of why the Nitrates drop precipitously? Thanks.
> 
> Steven


I speculate that was the point where the bacteria caught up with the ammonia. 

not too much effect when one bacteria splits into 2. Which I think can happen farily rapidily like 45 minutes or so with ideal conditions.

But weeks later the bacteria may change for 20 billion to 40 billion in that 45 minutes.

So if it would require 30 billion to consume the ammonia the bacteria stop there and all the ammonia is converted to nitrites. and the plants have to start getting nitrates for nitrogen.

All that happened in 45 minutes or less.

But that's just my speculation

Worth at most .02


----------



## beaslbob

FWIW I find it particularily bothersome when one has to pay for bacteria that will be in your tank and in sufficient quantity for no cost.

I would much rather pay for pretty plants which not only prevent the parameter spikes but have many many good "side" effects as well.

Or better yet get those plants for low or no costs from fellow hobbiests.

But even if the bottled bacteria and chemicals were at no cost, the fish and tank do much better just using live plants.

still that all just my .02


----------



## Hallyx

That may well be true, Mr. Bob. But if the lives of my fish relied on my maintaining plants, they would all be as dead as the plants and I'd be keeping snakes.

I'm sure their are other black-thumbs who cherish the nitrogen cycle for similar reasons.

May I ask, respectfully, sir, why you interject off-topic comments about plants on a cycling-advice thread?


----------



## jaysee

*Cycling help!!*

Yeah I am wondering the same thing. I think it's unrealistic to expect success with plants from people who are coming here looking for help cycling their tank. Too, just tossing plants in the tank like you say to do EVERY TIME doesn't actually teach them anything about how the cycle works. Plants or no plants, that's something that EVERYONE needs to learn. That is why people come to this thread, no?


----------



## beaslbob

Hallx and Jaysee

I understand where you're coming from.

My experience is simply different.

I have never known any new aquarium setup even by those who have absolutely no experience or knowledge of aquariums which followed the methods in the link in my signature with say platies, that did not result in a clear, algae free aquarium full of plants and fish in six months.

Hopefully that is why people are coming to this thread.


But then that is just my .02


----------



## Agent13

beaslbob said:


> I have never known any new aquarium setup even by those who have absolutely no experience or knowledge of aquariums which followed the methods in the link in my signature with say platies, that did not result in a clear, algae free aquarium full of plants and fish in six months.



So about that link.. yea...anyone looking at it really should read ALL of it. You do show how little you know about your own tanks and your own "method" that resulted in that gross tank.

I do love my plants unlike Jaysee..who is only pro at keeping a bit of algae ;-)
However the issue with pushing plants as the way to cycle your tank is that it's flawed. That's not really cycling your tank. Sure I agree the lend you a bit of a safety net which is nice.. and they can be pretty(when done right !!) but they aren't a substitute for cycling. As Tolak says.... there are many ways to the same result. I think Jaysee and myself are a perfect example of that. I do water changes every week or two on my larger tanks. I do keep plants. He does water changes every couple months or so. Keeps no plants. We both have many tanks and a large variety of fish yet our different approach to tank maintenance and keeping yields pretty tanks. One thing though..we do both cycle our tanks. I think it's in our best interest to explain that to everyone ... cycling IS important and not understanding that can lead to failure of your tank. I don't play chemist..I don't test my water hardly ever anymore. Once you've established your routine and understanding of your tank its all very simple..or hard if you like it to be.


----------



## beaslbob

carlos puron said:


> Well I appreciate everyone's input in this thread I didn't want this to become a discussion sorry
> 
> Back to the tank ph went down I'm raising it today sorry that I haven't post work is killing me I've been testing every day though and test still showing high ammonia ph went down since yesterday but I didn't have a chance to raise it I'm basically just getting home to sleep today I 'll try to raise as much as I can before choir practice
> 
> I have the ph at 6.0
> Ammonia 2.0ppm ( I'm still adding prime)
> Nitrite .0
> Nitrate 5.0
> 
> Someone post a link about an aquarium club i guess I'll join once I have more time
> 
> Thank you guys for all your help and one last question do you think crushed coral would do better for the ph than the seashells if so I'll take another visit to aquarium world


before adding prime I would test free and total ammonia using the seachem ammonia multitest kit. And only dose prime the the free ammonia. If all the ammonia is total Prime will not only have no effect but will decrease the oxygen level of the tank.

I would also use baking soda to dose till kh (carbonate hardenss) is 4 degrees. And let the pH fall wherever it falls. 

my .02


----------



## Agent13

beaslbob said:


> before adding prime I would test free and total ammonia using the seachem ammonia multitest kit. And only dose prime the the free ammonia. If all the ammonia is total Prime will not only have no effect but will decrease the oxygen level of the tank.
> 
> I would also use baking soda to dose till kh (carbonate hardenss) is 4 degrees. And let the pH fall wherever it falls.
> 
> my .02


 Ugh!! Nooooo! Don't use baking soda. That will cause more problems then help. 
You should add crushed coral to your filter and aragonite sand substrate will help too. This causes the raise of PH to be slow steady and consistent. No worrys of drastic PH swings that are easy to happen with baking soda.


----------



## Mikaila31

Regardless of how much you hate it, Bobs method is a viable method. May not be the best option but regardless it is viable. My methods are somewhat similar but that has nothing to do here nor there. Plants without compare are the easiest way to cycle or jump start a tank short of mature media. I really don't know the last time I started a tank any other way. I have mature media too... its just more effort to transfer it over. Tho mines quicker start up, higher input, higher output, lotta fish, lotta plants. I'd be stocked before you were anywhere near cycled. Cycling is one way to start a tank... its not at all required. For the same effect I can heavily stock a tank and not use a filter on it and have better water quality then if it was cycled with a filter. Plants are much more then a safety net. 

Also nothing wrong with using baking soda either it specifically effects kH and not gH. Crushed coral and aragonite are going to effect both gH and kH. Gypsum.... if you care to know will effect only gH. I use baking soda and/or gypsum preferably. Buffers don't cause drastic pH swings since they are fairly neutral, really not sure why ppl think they do. I don't test my water much but I do play chemist way more then I care to......


----------



## Agent13

Mikaila.. 
I am keeping it civil. However I do not recommend baking as the rise is not gradual . It's fast . That's a swing in itself. Not good for the fish. I too have to play chemist with my African tank and have achieved a consistent PH with the methods I recommend . Those methods don't require you to pay close attention to amount of water you change then dosing properly with each water change. We all ate prone to human error and that's just not a good recommendation if you want the safest choice. Sure , yes it most certainly will raise your KH therefor raising your PH.. But it's not a steady natural method. And once you go that route you are a dlave to it. I do respect your opinions .. Perhaps more then many here . But with my African tank I had to research water chemistry very closely to get a well rounded understanding .
Jess, I'm playing nice I swear . I firmly believe in what I'm saying and I can't recommend something that I feel has a high potential for failure . 


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## Mikaila31

kH does not directly raise pH it depends on a whole lot more then that. If anything it stabilizes pH, which can also flux considerably an easy 1.0 pH during a water change and fish won't die or get stressed. Mine usually does and that has nothing to do with anything i add or don't add depending how I feel. When I do add sodium bicarb or gypsum its powdered stuff. I take a spoon drop it in the tank. My fish swim all over and try to eat it and ect. If it really bothered all my GBR they wouldn't be doing it. Its a precise method that gives you X gH and Y kH if you so want it. Calcium carbonate can not do that. And your only a slave if you think 'consistent' really matters 3kH one week, 5kH the next week, 4kH.... honestly that's consistent enough for me. I will start being more consistent with my tanks when natures rivers do the same, till then the fish couldn't care(my plants honestly care more). 

I could add the same gH and kH to two of my tanks. One I could tell you will stay around 7.8pH and the other 6.5pH. Oh and my tap water is 8.5-8.8pH. If you want a consistent pH on the latter tank you can forget about it.


----------



## pop

Hello Mikaila31:
You are right it is always better when everyone not only speaks civil but respectful with consideration for each others views. 
You speak of gypsum do you mean wall board or joint compound? What you say makes sense to me but would its use increase total dissolved solids in the water reducing clarity. 

I believe that each and every individual has to develop their own processes for fish keeping. There is not a magic way that works for everyone. Fortunately here at tfk we are exposed to many different ways to keep fish and like a well stocked table we can choose and pick what is desired.
pop :-D


----------



## Flear

skipping ahead, ...

i have not read any references of plants consuming ammonia, all references i have heard mention ammonium

that there are no references about plants consuming ammonia only means there are no references, it has turned into common knowledge that plants consume ammonia, but i have also never heard a single mention by these people on the existence of what ammonium is, ... they are different, the plants consume one (ammonium) and there is no reference to the other in anything i have come across that recognized the existence of both.

after ammonium is nitrates, 
plants can also directly consume nitrates
then the plants convert nitrates into nitrites and ultimately into ammonium where it makes use of it directly

often plants are seen to prefer lower pH levels, where more ammonia is converted into ammonium due to the natural pH present, ... far less direct ammonia, ... is this coincidence or a major issue that plants may not be able to really handle ammonia, and do indeed love ammonium, ... i dono, i can' find anything that talks about both and mentions the plants preferences concerning ammonia (not ammonium)

---

a high pH in the 8.4-8.8 range does not speak for CO2. pH levels of the ocean are likewise high, and they are finding the pH in the ocean is affected by having a greater CO2 level, greatly enough that the pH of the ocean has changed and is being lowered - and it's got a rather similar high pH.

a DSB (deep sand bed - not deep sea bed) also increases CO2 production in a tank as decomposition is allowed at greater levels with more CO2 produced.

a higher pH is nothing other than more disolved nutrients and solids in the tank that increase pH OH- ions. i'm no chemistry expert or even close, but this is a tendancy to have more metals and metal related compounds dissolved (i could be wrong, but without farther chemistry knowledge this is my current thinking) ... 

---

as for CO2 & pH levels at night vs day, ... there's plenty of ways to ensure there is a constant gassing off of excess CO2, and introducing CO2 if otherwise deficient to mitigate this affecting pH at all regardless of day/night, any water filter that creates flow & turbulence with the surface will do this.


----------



## Austin

Hmmm, well since ammonia and ammonium are in equilibrium, if the plants are consuming ammonium ion and removing it from the system, the equilibrium will shift toward ammonium ion (thus removing ammonia too), so indirectly they do decrease ammonia concentration, at least thats my guess based on my general chemistry classes.


----------



## Flear

Austin, yes, indirectly they do lower ammonia by removing ammonium, and homeostasis being what it is, ammonia will covnert to ammonium to be removed by the plants, ... provided ammonium levels are not drastically high (very low pH you have nothing to worry about.

if you do have drastically low ph and plenty of ammonium, ... that's just a dangerous mix.

beaslbob, ... curiosity, ... how different is your setup from the walstad method, ... to me it sounds very similar although you've said more than i've red of her book (i've red none, and still know more about her method over how yours is different from it.)

you can reinvent the wheel but ... while you think you've come across something amazing everyone else is looking at you from the cars they've been driving for years wondering what you're talking about and why you think it's so special.

to a lesser extent remineralized top soil, ... except your substrate base isn't remineralized, it has to be processed so the plants can get access to the nutrients.
humus, already remineralized, so that step is skipped

organics (humus) also preform some AEC action (retaining negative anions in the substrate)
you have no clay in your substrate, that would preform CEC (retain positive cations) so these are left to float into the water column

you have high pH, a sign of a possibly saturated water column with nutrients that your substrate cannot retain.

a high PH also removes some very important nutrients from the water column, boron, magnesium, iron, phosphorous, ... it limits others zinc, copper.

just removes these from forms that are usable by plants, ... in some cases it may be temporary (like nitrogen - our ammonia/ammonium relation), ... other times it's rather permanent (iron to rust - and you better hope you have a very acidic substrate, or you'll always have an iron deficiency, ... something i recall you mentioned you have to continuously supplement.

rust (which is accumulating in yours) is not good in a tank.

other nutrients in high pH will combine with other nutrients in the water column, move themselves into an insoluble state and both fall out (being unavailable to plants) i think it's calcium bonds with phosphorus, ... while calcium wants to dissolve into the water column, this will remove phosphorus from your plant availability.

listening to you in this thread and other threads you are good at pointing out that you know very little about what is going on in your tanks other than you are not changing water and your plants are healthy (enough) and your basing it on your "beaslbob method" that looks eirily similar to the walstad method, that she goes into enough detail to understand the sciences of what is going on in her tanks, ... something you are unable to provide us with, ... you are clear that you are going on visual observations as deciding from those alone what is going on in your method and deciding you have a 'good' method others should use.

i do know our tanks, and keeping them going, are very flexible, one person put forward a substrate mix he had that used (not exaggerating) a compost mix that included his dogs poop. and shrimp & plants thrived within days

our tanks are flexible, so flexible it's almost impossible to break them, ... yet you've got a pH high enough to ensure zero iron availability for your plants, ... you broke something in a near bullet-proof design and you're promoting it as good that everyone should try.

you've got a pH high enough in your tanks it's a wonder your fish are not stressed, ... but i haven't seen any pictures of your tank that show how vigorous and healthy your fish are, most freshwater fish i have seen like pH levels much lower than 8.0

6.0-7.0 are great, primarily as they're great for plants, (right nutrient availaibilty that years of evolution has decided is optimal due to nutrient availability) and plants that do a lot to make life possible for our fish prefer this pH range to grow it, ... and fish getting used to this level, again, due to years of evolution.

your pH is kinda scary high for most fish.

yet, once again, so long as things are stable we are seeing that things are, or can be a near bullet-proof design.

but how happy are your fish, how happy are your plants ?
you've got a theory, you're going on visual evidence and promoting a system that you are seeing is showing nutrient deficiencies.


----------



## Agent13

Interesting Mik.
I actually do have consistent values on all my tanks except my 16g. That one is a lower PH KH and GH tank. It does fluctuate a bit. But I don't care about the values on any tank other then my African tank which consistently high KH and PH are important . It stays at 8.0 PH and 14dKH.. Stays there. While those fish were in my QT tanks with a mildly fluctuating KH (and PH) they were stressed. They don't do well with incorrect water. Being mostly f1s I imagine they may be more sensitive to this . I do understand how baking soda effect PH. It most certainly does raise your PH mostly by way of your KH. I agree you can instantly get very exact values with this method ... What I do not like about it is how fast in changes your values . I know that isn't good for fish to unnaturally fluctuate that much in a contained environment . Sure, it changes and fluctuates in the wild. However those fish are in streams lakes and rivers . Not 20g, 55, or 125g tanks . The change from say .. A rain doesn't change the water as fast as we can(but shouldn't !) in out tanks. I also like to point out I prefer fish that are healthier then wild fish. . Fish in the wild do die from changing conditions stress and other stuff that we as fish keepers have much more control over. I understand your point ... I just don't agree it's the safest method. Also it does require you to pay a bit more attention to your tank then I prefer to recommend to any newbie.. Or really anyone who doesn't want to turn fishkeeping into a chore. But.. Just my opinion .


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## Hallyx

My admittedly vague understanding goes something like this:

Plants use the nitrogen from ammonia, along with light, as energy to convert the C from CO2 into plant mass, releasing O2, thus raising pH. 

They also release the H+ ions which combine with more NH3 to become NH4. Fewer free H+ mean lower pH.

Any of this close?

Hi Olympia. Glad you're on this one.


----------



## Flear

hallyx, 

i've never seen any resources that mention a plants use (or not) of ammonia when they talk about ammonium, ... 
when ammonia is talked about ammonium is not talked about
to me this suggests those resources that are talking about ammonia are considering them the same thing.

a plants internal pH is expected to be rather acidic, ensuring that inside the plant it's all ammonium.

and once more there is talk of one but not the other.

again, i have never in all my searching (aside from those long written research papers that (currently) i don't have the patience to read) i have never seen anyone talking about both, i have never heard any mention on a plants view of ammonia when ammonium is talked about.

in high pH systemsm, ... this could pose a question as there is an abundant quantity of pure ammonia in the water, (if there is any that has not gone through it's stages in the nitrogen cycle for our tanks), ... this does not answer a simple question, ... is ammonia toxic to plants ?

i have heard that plants can tolorate much higher levels than our fish ever could, ... but the question starts to wonder if ammonia is toxic to our plants.

we know ammonium is prefered for our plants, and plants survive in pH levels above 6.5, so they can tolorate ammonia, ... but none of that answers what is going on with ammonia as opposed to ammonium

a 6.5 (or lower) ph is almost all ammonium (practically zero ammonia)
a 9.5 is about 50/50 ammonia/ammonium
an 11 is 100% ammonia

even beaslbobs tank of 8.5 is still majority ammonium, ... even if total is negligible as plants are using ammonium and bacteria is converting ammonia

again, and i'm stressing this like a broken record

who knows anything about a plants use of ammonia that recognizes the reality and existence of a plants use of ammonium ?
i have yet to come across any resources on this (and lack the patience to read those detailed research reports)


----------



## Agent13

Flear,
I don't know how I missed this but I see you think bobs method is similar to the walstad method? I absolutely is not. Diane's method I can wrap my head around. Hers is a true method. She even uses filtration .. Her tanks are beautiful .. Bobs "method " is no more like the walstad method than nearly any tank that has plants. If he is using the wastad method(lol) then I suppose I am too.. Perhaps you are too , flear . For that matter haha. 


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## Flear

i guess i am  yay


----------



## beaslbob

Hallyx said:


> My admittedly vague understanding goes something like this:
> 
> Plants use the nitrogen from ammonia, along with light, as energy to convert the C from CO2 into plant mass, releasing O2, thus raising pH.
> 
> They also release the H+ ions which combine with more NH3 to become NH4. Fewer free H+ mean lower pH.
> 
> Any of this close?
> 
> Hi Olympia. Glad you're on this one.


 
Pretty close.

Plants also use nitrates for nitrogen but do prefer ammonia if available.

The consuming co2 and releasing o2 vastly overides the nightly consumption of O2 and release of CO2. So the lowest planted pH is still much higher then the highest non planted pH.

And they do die and rot so you do have a minor h+ release just like all living things. Again totally overridden by the plant growth.

I saw one article on alk where plants (and anaerobic bacteria) actually return carbonate as they consume the resulting nitrates. Increasing kH. But that could be overridden by the plants consuming carbonate for carbon instead of co2 as in low co2 environments.

my .02


----------



## Mikaila31

pop said:


> Hello Mikaila31:
> You are right it is always better when everyone not only speaks civil but respectful with consideration for each others views.
> You speak of gypsum do you mean wall board or joint compound? What you say makes sense to me but would its use increase total dissolved solids in the water reducing clarity.


The gypsum I use is food grade tho if you find industrial gypsum it would work as well provided there are no additives. Calling gypsum wall board/joint compound is a bit like calling potassium nitrate an explosive. 

I add anywhere from 0-7 different things to my tanks after every water change and not one is a dechlor. What I add and when really itsn't dictated by anything except what I feel like and my ADD when I forget completely. They are all solids, so yes initially there is some clouding and yes TDS creases. TDS tho doesn't have a huge impact on clarity. Turbidity is usually suspended particles(not really dissolved) more then TDS. My tap TDS is ~120 and I can shoot that all the way up to 400 and there is no issue fish wise or with clarity. 

Austin - that is correct on equilibrium. There will always be ammonium so the ammonia issue is non-existant. High enough pH and yes there will be less but it is still there and will always be. pH will become an issue before ammonia does in regard to plant life AFAIK. Caustic lakes are pretty much devoid of plants and fish for a reason. Plants are highly adaptive tho. Ammonia favoring equilibrium should be easily uptake into a cell if conc. is lower in it. There it could go to ammonium, ammonia to ammonium and vice versa happens very readily. But plants being highly adaptive have lots of special enzymes, active transporters, and other uptake methods amongst the many species. A number of plants can utilize nitrogen sources beyond ammonium and nitrate. Carnivorous plants are so specialized due to the lack of nitrogen in their environment along with other nutrients.

Agent - each to their own. My fish don't care. If you think yours do, then do whatever makes you and them happy. I have some wild caught fish, ones I have had since at least 09', I've been showering them with various additives for years. 

I theres a thread somewhere on hear I made over a year ago(maybe two) of an 'el natural' filterless tank I did with heavy stocking. I may not agree with all of bobs methods but that has to do with technicalities more then anything, apart from perhaps water changes. I'm currently preparing to convert 3 more of my tanks over to soil this winter/spring. Also there is a difference between filtered, filter dependent, and unfiltered. I do almost always believe in circulation pumps at the least, you do not however need a filter. You can use a filter, doesn't mean the tank requires it. I have a 40g with ~46 fish give or take and when its filter starts making noise I unplug it. Usually thats due to water evap. and I'm lazy, might be a week before I actually do anything about it. Its basically a larger version of what my 15g once was.


----------



## pop

Hello M__31:
I have never heard of food grade gypsum what is it and what is it used for? You raised my interest with this ‘A number of plants can utilize nitrogen sources beyond ammonium and nitrate. Carnivorous plants are so specialized due to the lack of nitrogen in their environment along with other nutrients’. Are these carnivore plants aqua plants or land plants or maybe a little of both?
Also when aquarium plants use nitrate do they first convert the nitrate back to nitrite then to ammonia? Just wondering.
pop


----------



## Mikaila31

pop said:


> Hello M__31:
> I have never heard of food grade gypsum what is it and what is it used for? You raised my interest with this ‘A number of plants can utilize nitrogen sources beyond ammonium and nitrate. Carnivorous plants are so specialized due to the lack of nitrogen in their environment along with other nutrients’. Are these carnivore plants aqua plants or land plants or maybe a little of both?
> Also when aquarium plants use nitrate do they first convert the nitrate back to nitrite then to ammonia? Just wondering.
> pop


This is the gypsum I currently use. You could go to menards and buy a bag of garden gypsum and that would be just as acceptable, its just a huge bag will last you a good more then a lifetime in the aquarium hobby. I add gypsum for plants, it is a calcium supplement. You could use calcium carbonate to the same effect, but like agent said it doesn't dissolve anywhere near as readily. I've dosed calcium carbonate to tanks before only to siphon out the powder 7 days later cuz its still sitting on the substrate and not dissolved. Its really no help when it isn't dissolved.

Both for carnivorous plants. I own one aquatic species, bladderwort, one of the few that can tolerate high nutrient levels. I use to keep sundews and fly traps for a few years but ran out of space and time for my terrestrial species. They have specialized enzymes as well as physical adaptations that allow them to catch and consume small organisms. However due to evolving in an environment that was very nutrient devoid many have no checks or limits for nutrient uptake, unlike most plants. If you plant them in miracle grow and its a death sentence. That high availability of nutrients will kill most of them. All nutrients have toxic levels inside plants. Most carnivorous plants never had a reason limit nutrient up take, so many can't. Wrong soil or if you feed them too much they will die from nutrient toxicity. 

Plants convert nitrate back to ammonium/ammonia, which is why they prefer ammonium/ammonia. Using nitrates there is an energy loss involved to make that conversion back. They can still get plenty of energy from nitrates its just not as efficient. They can also take urea and break it down to ammonium/ammonia, bacteria can do the same. Unlike most animals, our fish produce ammonia and not urea but most amphibians do produce urea. Urea is the most common nitrogen fertilizer for terrestrial plants. As far as the aquarium goes its less toxic than ammonia, but still pretty toxic to fish and such. Besides ammonia/ammonium, nitrite, nitrate, and urea. There is a class of 'nitrogen fixing' plants, mostly all terrestrial that I know of. That have symbiotic relationship with bacteria that lets them utilize N2 out of the atmosphere and use it as a nutrient. The key part of that tho is the bacteria take the N2 and convert it to ammonia/ammonium for the plant. In the end all sources of nitrogen at some point become ammonium/ammonia in regards to plants.


----------



## Agent13

Thanks Mik for bringing up gypsum . It's very little discussed in fish keeping. I guess in a way we were arguing apples and oranges ? As I'm not against gypsum as long as you are aware of exactly what you are doing. Far more easy to control then baking soda. Actually a substance I often forget is a good buffer.... Simply because in my years you may be the only 2nd person who has said they use it. 


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## Mikaila31

Its no harder or easier to control then baking soda. They are two different things with different effects. If you actually want stability calcium carbonate the last thing I would personally use. I added gypsum(calcium sulfate), baking soda (sodium bicarbonate), and epsom salts (magnesium sulfate) to some of my tanks yesterday each of these has an effect on either gH or kH. All dissolve quite readily(5-10min) which is much slower then the other 4 EI fertilizers I add. You could use calcium nitrate or calcium chloride in place of gypsum. For planted people there are so many different things you can add for different reasons. It really comes down to what your goals are.


----------



## pop

Hello M__31:
Thanks for the word on gypsum I was thinking of adding a chunk of sheetrock to the tank to see what happens. I had no idea that it is used in the fermenting process. One mistake avoided. So I can use gypsum to control biogenic decalcification from plants. For some unknown reason I am thinking how is carbon dioxide associated with all of this is bionic decalcification the result of the lack of co2 in the water?
You got me thinking since plants consume all available ammonia will plant supersede the establishment of the bio-filter, if this is the case will heterotrophic bacteria fill in the bio-filter gap replacing the autotrophic bacteria. Since the atmosphere consist mostly of inert nitrogen so will the water have a similar amount of inert nitrogen can nitrogen fixing heterotrophic bacteria generate enough ammonia to re-establish the autotrophic bacteria based bio-filter.
The reason I ask is I want to add live plants to my setup and I am wondering if it is best to establish autotrophic bacteria based bio-filter before adding plants. 

pop


----------



## Flear

i really do wish people understood more of the nitrogen cycle
i really do wish people understood more of what plants did and didn't do concerning ammonia
i really do wish people understood the relationship between ammonia and ammonium.

reality is ...
if plants consumed all available ammonia we would have instant cycling by adding plants with zero nitrites & nitrates all the time that would never build up and bacterial cultures to handle these would never get established

please people, ... how hard is it ???

---

if you want nitrogen fixing bacteria, ... find, add, culture, etc. (whatever) get some cyanobacteria in your tank.

otherwise, skip this step, ensure you are doing the same stuff as a normal tank does all the time, ... things enter the tank, things decompose, things produce ammonia, and the nitrogen cycle starts.

adding nitrogen fixing bacteria to be concerned about ensuring your plants get enough N in their diet, means when you add a bio-load to your tank your going to have some serious issues if you don't have beyond a surplus of plants to keep up with the ammonia and rest of the nitrogen cycle.

this is an issue only if you recognize your plants are showing Nitrogen deficiency symptoms, ... please don't consider this if you don't know what nitrogen deficiencies look like.

only (repeating) *ONLY *consider this in an established tank with fish and the rest of the critters in there where your plants are showing nitrogen deficiencies.

---

yes this is an area i have considered in the past, and considering that i don't do things standard, i continue to keep it in mind...

but cyanobacteria is usually toxic, very hard to get rid of, and a major slim coat that can cover the bottom of your tank leaving you pulling your hair out with greater success than removing any cyanobacteria you may experience, ... those that have had it express often how they have a near impossible time getting rid of it.

... you know, just things to consider before you kill your tank and go bald


----------



## Mikaila31

pop said:


> Hello M__31:
> Thanks for the word on gypsum I was thinking of adding a chunk of sheetrock to the tank to see what happens. I had no idea that it is used in the fermenting process. One mistake avoided. So I can use gypsum to control biogenic decalcification from plants. For some unknown reason I am thinking how is carbon dioxide associated with all of this is bionic decalcification the result of the lack of co2 in the water?
> You got me thinking since plants consume all available ammonia will plant supersede the establishment of the bio-filter, if this is the case will heterotrophic bacteria fill in the bio-filter gap replacing the autotrophic bacteria. Since the atmosphere consist mostly of inert nitrogen so will the water have a similar amount of inert nitrogen can nitrogen fixing heterotrophic bacteria generate enough ammonia to re-establish the autotrophic bacteria based bio-filter.
> The reason I ask is I want to add live plants to my setup and I am wondering if it is best to establish autotrophic bacteria based bio-filter before adding plants.
> pop


Why would the water be lacking CO2? CO2 is always dissolving into the water as much as its equilibrium and solubility allow. Same goes for any other gas. 

Plants will compete with a biofilter for ammonia. Any ammonia the biofilter processes to nitrate the plants can still uptake the nitrate and convert it back to ammonia for their own use. The degree to which they compete depends on the plant mass and how productive they are. A biofilter can still establish it may be to a lesser degree, depends on many variables. 

Autotrophic bacteria being what exactly? If there were autotropic bacteria that could compete with our autotrophic plants and heterotrophic bacteria I'm sure they would be. Cyanobacteria like flear mentioned would in theory fix nitrogen, but again the reason it does this is because it is very adaptive in a low nitrogen environment. Likewise it gets out competed easily in environments that are not lacking nitrogen and other nutrients. You fill a bare tank, put a sponge filter in it. You could leave it forever uncycled and I've never heard of one start fixing N2 in any significant degree. Not sure why you would want to go to the trouble. A biofilter in theory is less efficient then plants. Plants sequester nitrogen within themselves completely removing it. Only in the event that they die would it be released. A biofilter simply takes a form we consider highly toxic and makes it less toxic. That nitrogen is still there tho and our aquarium 'cycles' are very much incomplete. 



Flear said:


> i really do wish people understood more of the nitrogen cycle
> i really do wish people understood more of what plants did and didn't do concerning ammonia
> i really do wish people understood the relationship between ammonia and ammonium.


I really do wish you would pick up a textbook.
I really do wish you would read #75 and #83.

For those of us actually concerned with the availability of nitrogen and possibility of nitrogen deficiency(which can certainly happen) thats where potassium nitrate comes into play. A high bioload and a biofilter does not ensure your plants enough nitrogen, it simply make it harder to run out;-).


----------



## Flear

potassium nitrate sounds great , ... potassium deficiency  ... i need to find potassium supplements for my tank.


----------



## pop

Hello M__31:
thanks for the explanations I am not sure i completely understand all of the implications but i think it is helpful. 
One thing more since plants are so efficient at toxin removal why do so many folks with planted aquarium preform redundant test for the nitrogen cycle when the bio-filter may not even exist. Since there is no nitrate why then change water on a weekly basis.

I guess I was sold a bag of worthless goods when I ordered api test kit for 20 bucks. Normally i don’t test for the nitrogen cycle but i thought i would try to emulate TFK methods and here i am informed that i maybe better off just doing things the way i have been!

Since there is a wish list I wish I knew where #75 & #83 are to be found.
pop


----------



## Flear

Pop, you me, and hundreds of other people ask that same question every day

Beaslbob here is making a statement and proving every day water changes are not always needed
my tank at home as well is proof of that as well

many saltwater tanks and their "live rock" also provides anoxic environments in the live rock to process nitrates into harmless N2 (that can be gassed off)

Deep sand beds (DSB) also provide this action (without plants)

yet, many people are replacing water on a regular basis with regular weekly or monthly maintenance for one single purpose "because they think it has to be done"

and they refer to the nitrogen cycle as their proof.

there are some that recognize that the nitrogen cycle may be resolved with one of the above methods, and they are incorporating those methods in their tank.

these people decide that regular water changes are again required, ... and this time the excuse becomes a buildup of fish hormones that will affect growth rates of fish.

we can't test for hormones.

but we notice that once people recognize nitrates are no longer an issue, and nutrients are likewise being processed by plants and/or algae, and all these things that are in the water column (nutrients) are being utilized by plants and/or algae in a healthy cycle for healthy plants in a balanced nutrient mix for the plants, ... 

then there comes an excuse that we can't test for the presence, the absence or an excess buildup of "hormones"

so, it seems, if it's not one thing, it's another, and so long as there's an excuse people will persist in maintaining some excuse or another to continue regular maintenance.

---

my personal thoughts on fish hormones and the excuse that water changes are needed to keep healthy fish as a buildup of hormones will stunt their growth ... 

WTF, really folks ?

does that mean i'm right, no by any means, it does not mean i'm right.

but i have seen fish outgrow their aquarium and show no signs of even slowing down their growth, so (to me) that says fish hormones are a BS excuse.

if your fish are healthy, if your plants are healthy, if whatever you are adding is not building up to toxic levels, if you're not adding anything and things are maintaining healthy levels, ... 

well at this point, beaslbob is making an excellent point

changing your water is going to introduce whatever is in your water pipes into the aquarium, ... dissolved lead, dissolved copper, dissolved chemicals the water treatment plants are adding to keep the pipes from corroding (not necessarily healthy) added chemicals to ensure no infectious bacteria grows and reproduces in the water piping that could cause us health issues, ... some rather deliberate toxic chemicals

these chemicals are various forms of phosphates
types of chlorines (either chlorine itself, or chloramines (different kinds of chloromones may be found - with different levels of toxicity and half-life times)

those are the chemicals i'm familiar with, there's likely others as well, ... chemicals added and chemicals produced by various parts of the waterworks system dissolving or converting inside city water piping as it makes its way from the treatment plant into your home.

water that goes in the tank that is soft, ... you're likely reducing any and all nutrients in the water column, to lower levels, ... great if your water is in an eutrophic or hypertrophic state and you want mesotrophic or oligotrophic nutrient levels. (if you don't know what this is, don't change your water)

water that is hard, is going to be higher in calcium (likely from dissolved cement piping it flows through) and will increase calcium levels ... fine for tanks with high pH and/or coral tanks, or other tanks housing invertebrates.

for fish what want soft water, and your tap water is hard, ... changing water may not be the best move unless things are getting toxic (you can either see it, or test it), ... in this case get a RO unit (another expense)

---

so what's the truth ?

well i'll side with change your water when you know why you're changing your water.

-medications are always a reason to change water afterwards
-being without plants or any other means of processing nitrates into N2

those are what comes to mind myself. maybe i'm missing a few REAL REASONS for water changes.

but go with reasons for water changes instead of doing things because it's just what is always done, regular maintenance

more often then not regular maintenance is good (general averages being what they are)
sometimes those water changes are needed
very often water changes are alright regardless as our fish & plants are adaptable to changing levels of water parameters (so long as the change isn't too drastic too fast)

but sometimes this isn't the case, ... and i'm only guessing here, ... these are people who struggle and try as they might, they're doing everything they should, everyone has advice that "this should work" and no matter what it's not working, and they give up and blame themselves.

---

now the reality, ... as simple as it is, ... know what you're doing. don't do it just because, but know what you're doing, know why you're doing it.

that sounds so simple, and yet, the vast majority are doing things because "well everyone else does the same thing" ... they don't know what they're doing

and it gets really sad, this is the majority of the world in everything, we do things because someone else said to, we don't question, we don't understand, we just follow, ... 

we don't think, and when questioned, we don't take responsibility for our actions, because we were told what to do.

... but that's my rant about that.

it applies to aquariums as well, 

if you don't know why, perhaps it's time you find out. and learn and "know what you're doing"


----------



## jaysee

Many of those discus people feel pretty strongly about the importance of daily water changes when growing out stock, to remove the growth inhibiting hormones they think they excrete. There is a reason they see improved growth rates from those massive daily water changes. Is the reason the reason they think it is? I don't know.


----------



## Agent13

jaysee said:


> Many of those discus people feel pretty strongly about the importance of daily water changes when growing out stock, to remove the growth inhibiting hormones they think they excrete. There is a reason they see improved growth rates from those massive daily water changes. Is the reason the reason they think it is? I don't know.


Likely the simple answer is yes. One growth inhibiting hormone is somatostatin ( omg autocorrect knew that word .. Good thing as I wasn't sure the spelling lol) . I think studies on that were even out there when I started keeping fish more seriously at 12. Also gamma aminobutyric acid . Both of those build up in the water and slows or stunts growth. There are pheromones and other hormones that also build up and cause other things .. Not sure the name of all these chemicals or all the specific effects ... Sorry I do crazy research and end up overloading on info and can't retain it all -_-. But in short .. Yep.. No water changes do have hormone related effects on fish.. And few water changes too, just not as big a deal at that point . 


However .. flear , I don't even care about that for an excuse for my water changes. I do them because I like sparkling clean tanks. Just that simple.. And a water change is sooo easy . I know done like to say that they have crystal clear water with few water changes but mostly that's untrue, well yes it can be clear... But there is a tint to the water. It's so subtle I'm sure most don't notice.. Perhaps my eyes are more color sensitive .. Idk. 

Yes, I'm aware if MANY more reasons for water changes. however I'll be perfectly honest and admit my main purpose for them is the look of fresh clean water. 



Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## Flear

yes, currently my tank looks like weak tea (i wish i was kidding, i'm not 

not in the slightest subtle, ... but that is due to other things i have done

as for when the water clears up (visually at least with plants and whatever else, ... i don't know how clear it gets, i think i have always noticed a slight tint even at it's clearest, ... 

reminds me of what i have heard about tanis from wood
and that has me wondering if this is why greenwater won't take hold in the tank


----------



## rsskylight04

I love this thread because it seems everyone brings there A-game ! So much good scientific info. I'm hoping that you all might be willing to apply the info in this thtead to my tanks.
My water is very hard because it comes from a spring fed natural lake that is rich in minerals (Skaneateles Lake ).Ph is also quite high. Its great for drinking and cooking , but I worry about my fish living in it because of the ph and hardness. 
Any of you freshwater chemists know -what are the dangers of keeping fish in hard alkaline water? Any warning signs I could look out for?
I have plants and sand substrate, and lightly stocked tanks. I change 25% water every week. I haven't had any problems that I'm aware of, but I'm thinking LONGTERM here.


----------



## Flear

going with beaslebob, and myself too, ... forgo water changes and plants may suck out the excess nutrients making softer water, ... ya, that's entirely theory, no science behind it, but an idea.

changing water though, ... i'm sure it would remain hard as any changes the plants made by sucking back nutrients would likely be replaced with the next water change.

as i sit here thinking about it though, ... pH aside, ... it might be better for plants being spring-fed lake water and the rest of the stuff in there, ... like your tank gets automatically dosed nutrients with every water change 

too bad plants and fish kinda argue about what's best for each other.

other then that, ya, i'm all theory on this one.


----------



## Mikaila31

Pops #75 and #83 try the post numbers, that is really only if your lost on the whole NH3/NH4 thing. Which was covered despite being basically off topic.

API test kits..... good to have on hand..... I can't say much more then that TBH. When I setup a tank it may get tested for ammonia once or twice over the first week. After that if ammonia hasn't shown its not going to. Its been may years since I've dealt with any NH3/NO2 issues in my tanks. Nitrate is pretty inaccurate but not useless for 1-2 times a year where I do a whole round of testing on my tanks to try and estimate their nitrogen uptake. An established tank is an established tank. It shouldn't change without reason provided you are taking care of it. Next time you wanna drop $20 on your tanks tho you are better off getting a digital pH meter and TDS meter off ebay. Both can be had for less then $20 total and you will actually use them kinda regularly... 



Flear said:


> Beaslbob here is making a statement and proving every day water changes are not always needed
> my tank at home as well is proof of that as well


No one needed proof every day water changes are not needed, thats pretty typical. If your trying to say water changes overall are not needed, then no. Neither you nor bob have given evidence of this. A tank managing for X amount of time without any water changed isn't any real proof since no one in this thread has given numbers to show that tank is holding steady. That somehow they have outdone nature on at least 1:1 millionth the scale and found the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. The only thing that is done here is making a low productivity tank which certainly will take longer to reach the eventual crash. Natural aquatic ecosystems are not self sustaining and they are not closed systems, they have multiple inputs and output and cycle at least a dozen elements. Hormones... eventually... will break down, afaik the whole disucs issue is due to their sensitivity and the high conc. of fish a breeder is going to be keeping in a single tank.

If you want to even hint at a possible self sustaining tank, make a tank that has no build up in TDS then we can go from there. Everytime someone says they only ever top up, my first question is 'How high is your TDS?" that alone is going to show a tank not self sustaining. Something is building up and will continue to indefinitely unless you change the water or provide some means of an output. The best you can do is slow it down really. Once you can make a tank where TDS isn't building up you can take it to the next level of are the nutrients staying stable which will require some more advanced testing then API offers. Just because TDS stays stable doesn't mean you won't hit a nitrogen deficiency, heavy metal toxicity, ect at some point. Just because you have plants doesn't ensure anything. They will only uptake as much as they need. You are simply assuming it will be exactly what the tank needs removed, which it likely won't be. As soon as the tank hits that first limiting nutrient... that will hold control over all other nutrient uptake and in short they will build up.

Plants can consume gH but very little of it since those are micro nutrients, kH is basically untouched by all but a few as an alternative carbon source. Most can't use it, peat moss is one of the few. 

My neglected tank isn't the best example for this since TBH IDK what all has happened to in the last 4-5 months. I've hardly changed the water tho. I've topped it up from half empty a couple times. I don't normally add anything to this tank, ferts, dechlor, ect. Its currently again half empty with the the filter and heater unpluged only the lights run to keep the plants and few inhabitants alive. It was on my list of weekend things to take care of months ago. But anyway lets use it as an example. Nothing is dying in this tank, plants are growing inverts and the ADFs that call it home are healthy. The water is clear. Now stat breakdown for this tank as of today is:
kH = 8-9d
NO3 = 0ppm
GH = 15-16d
pH = 7.8
TDS = 529ppm

My tap water that I use to top this tank up has the following stats:
kH = 4d
N03 = 0-5ppm
GH = 6d
pH = 7.8 - 8.0
TDS = 130ppm

Now these are truthfully what you should expect from a lack of water changes. KH and GH will usually be the first to increase. Its not hard to keep nitrates at zero even without filtration, especially when a tank is designed to do so. One degree hardness is equal to 17.8ppm, calculating that out on the heavy side of those numbers you can account for a 267ppm increase on the TDS. Yet the tank has a 399ppm increase in TDS over the tap. There is 132ppm increase unaccounted for, which goes beyond anything I can test for. This tank is not sustaining itself, that is what this is staying, there is build up and it will keep building up. 

You will have to drop to very low productivity to slow the build up also seal up the tank as much as possible to avoid evaporation so hardness doesn't build up as fast. Vast majority of people don't want that. Its the exact opposite of what I demand from most of my tanks. High light, high nutrients, high fish load, high output. The only real difference here is 30min a week for a 40-60g tank changing 50% or more of water to ensure there is no build up of excess nutrients. Plants and fish TBH like the same thing. I can spawn and raise fish in the same tanks I specifically setup for plant production. My tanks give me back at least some of their cost. 

If any are at all interested in aquatic ecosystems, freshwater ecology by Dodds is a great text. Google gives some chapters for free but not the ones of specific interest here, chapters 12-14 deal with various nutrient cycles. Do not expect it to be light reading, do not expect everything to be applicable to an aquarium. It helps you understand where the aquarium ends and where a complete ecosystem starts. An aquarium is not the latter.

I'm out of alcohol for now so IDK how responsive I will be to replys.


----------



## Flear

Mikaila31, thanks for your post

your right, neither me nor bob have provided any test results about our tank
i have never taken any test results on my tank other than PH & ammonia

ammonia for toxicity reasons
pH so i can keep on top of nutrient availability due to pH changes.

i would agree with your post about TDS escalating, ... to uncontrollable levels, and all that may be responsible for.

honestly, i do like the additional info yourself and others have provided about the nessissity of water changes beyond nitrates.

yourself (Mikaila31), Agent13, & Jaysee have provided information i have not come across before.
sure not showing testing and people are going on results (while results are good, results can be misleading)

but things to think about with more than an arbitrary "hormones" with zero information to say what is being talked about (thank you Agent13 

for my self-sustaining idea, recently a lot of effort has been put into considering what can be done to reduce nutrient levels in the water column, ... and aside from a high CEC additive to the substrate (that willreach saturation levels - so only delays the inevitable - does not solve this problem) ... i am left to consider greenwater, floating plants, and a plants natural tendancy to absorb nutrients directly from the water through it's leaves.

this is farther complicated as limited sources i have come across sound like potassium is easily water soluble, ... so what may start in the substrate will be easily moved into the water column, ... again, i can delay this result, but not stop it or slow it down once CEC is saturated.

greenwater (and critters to eat the greenwater to move disolved nutrients into detritus to fall to the bottom of the tank) is a very ... so far it's not promising without specific strains of pytoplankton that may bloom out of control if given a chance.

Mikaila31, yes, this is something i am spending more and more time considering how to deal with, and it's not looking promising.

---

agent13, i'm not at a level yet to consider how hormones in the water are broken down, or what can be done to shorten this time.

and what you & Jaysee mentioned are emphasizing what others have hinted at, that certain fish require "clean water" but don't go into any detail about what that means ... clean can be clear, but there's a lot that can be floating in water we will never see because it's either dissolved or (like hormones) just sits and floats indefinitely till it breaks down or is otherwise utilized (i have no idea)

but if (as jaysee mentioned) discus breeders are having what appears significant improvements with lots of water changes, there is more going on. and this has to be considered.

the hard part is information on this is worse than sparse. as i said many fish say "clean water" but sites go into no detail about what that means. (so i had simply ignored it, ... why bother considering something when you have no idea what's going on ... would be like living underground your entire life, never knowing what the sky is like and someone telling you it's blue - what does it matter, something to forget)


----------



## Flear

i may never get a truely self-sustaining aquarium going, but as a favorite quote i have come across

"you cannot understand a system until you try to change it"
-Kurt Lewin 

worst case scenario i'll understand in exacting detail where the problems with it are, what can be overcome & how, ... and what (currently - by current knowledge & findings) cannot be overcome, ... doesn't mean it won't be overcome, just currently it's a stumbling block preventing success

yes, i pursue this, and many may have noticed some strange questions posed by me, many of these questions are not answers, i personally think it's because they go beyond the realm of knowledge in the aquarium community, these are areas i am also drawing blanks on (and so ask), ... maybe i eventually find answers, maybe not, ... but i still persist in my pursuit, ... again, worst case scenario i learn more.


----------



## Austin

I think clean means less nitrates and less organic wastes in most contexts. I wouldn't want to live in my poop either.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jaysee

I think "clean" has different meanings based on the situation. For a newbie struggling with water quality, I often say clean meaning 0 ammonia and 0 nitrite. It's a very superficial way to look at it but IMO that's best for that situation - they don't need to know about TDSs or other things because it's irrelevant to their problem. Their understanding of what "clean" means will evolve in accordance with their growth in the hobby, and eventually they can join a discussion such as this because they understand that clean means more than clear, and more than just ammonia and nitrite free.

Of course the degree to which the water "needs" to be clean is debatable.... I often see people make proud claims about their fish's ability to survive what many would consider extreme conditions..... as if that credit doesn't belong entirely to the fish.


----------



## Flear

organic wastes typically have a carbon bond still attached, and given a chance will settle out of solution (not soluble in water)

nitrates can be reduced to near zero's with healthy sufficient plants 

... so in this case "clean" can be obtained with no water changes, lots of plants and still water.

bacterial activity can work on detritus to break down the organic compounds into (often) water soluble nutrients that plants can take in.

as was mentioned by Mikaila31, this does, and i'll agree with my own tank, this does lead to a steady increase in dissolved solids, (that are not organic - no carbon bond as the bacteria has taken the carbon for it's own use)

it's a rather simple cycle, ... plants & algae (as seen most simply in algae scrubbers in reef tanks) ...
the algae scrubber grows algae, algae takes dissolved nutrients and uses it for it's own growth.
if there are insufficient nutrients it breaks down, and these bits of algae are all filled with organic nutrients (carbon bonded).
this gets swept down the scrubber to be moved into the system again (those with a skimmer, the skimmer action will group these organics and be skimmed off, with the remaining water moving what little excess organics back into the display tank where they can settle in areas a lack of water flow will allow.
bacteria will then get to work on these areas (an abundance of organics has accumulated) and what nutrients they can use, they will use, what nutrients they expel out, are often soluble and once more move into the algae scrubber, ... 

the skimmer can't touch these inorganic nutrients and it causes some very frustrated reef enthusiasts to some extreme measures to remove nutrients from their tanks for the safety and health of their corals.

---

but ... organic waste vs. "clean".

no, living in our own poop would not be good, ... bacterial activity in the detritus can remove the carbon till there is none left (theory) and what remains is a pile of insoluble nutrients, ... and a ton of nutrients that were moved into the water column

it's that 'ton of nutrients in the water column' that causes the most concern and the TDS to increase to to some rather unfavorable levels

the organic nutrients fall out of solution given enough time and little to no water movement to allow it to settle.

"clean" water leaves way to much to the imagination that often conflicts with the reality of what is going on.


----------



## Flear

jaysee, i agree with the fishes tolerance to extreme conditions, ... so many know that specific water parameters for a fishes health are secondary to stable water parameters.

wildly fluctuating parameters will do more to stress a fish out than leaving well enough alone (or in extreme cases, the not good enough, but stable)

but correct parameters vs extreme parameters are the difference between happy fish vs. stressed (but surviving) fish


----------



## Austin

Plenty of organic compounds are water soluble.


----------



## Flear

Austin said:


> Plenty of organic compounds are water soluble.


could be, i must admit, i'm going through what i learned from a reef forum that delved into what algae does and does not do for removing nutrients from the water column. and as it went into a natural cycle of nutrients going through the system in a sustainable way, ... water to algae, algae breakdown, bacteria, back to water.

sure nothing is as simple as 'the simple explanation', but for what i was after, it was a great place to start and did explain so much that is done/can be done to help get reef tanks to mesotrophic and lower nutrient levels, ... although oligotrophic sounds more of a dream instead of a reality as even with an algae scrubber, a bare bottom tank and whatever else, your looking at the high-end of oligotrohpic levels, ... not good for the sensitive corals.

yes, i know this isn't freshwater related, ... but was a good place for me to start to understand what is going on with nutrients in the water column and at all other areas in the system.


----------



## rsskylight04

I really love the chemistry behind keeping freshwater fishtanks. Thanks guys for such an in-depth treatment of the subject. My interest is mainly academic, and i might just be missing the point but... why get into all this masters level chemistry when stable, healthy conditons can be maintained by regular water changes. I mean, what's so bad about water changes?

I love the idea of an all natural tank with no chemicals or filtration, but in a closed, unnatural system such as an aquarium, it seems pretty obvious that you'll have to remove and replace water regularly to avoid unnatural and unhealthy conditions.

I dont ask this to insult or contradict anyone. I really appreciate the thought and caring that goes into a discussion like this. 

Best wishes to all.


----------



## jaysee

Is there any documented benefit to the fish and the plants from keeping them in this manner? Any assumed benefit? Is it just "because I can"? Why is something that I've honestly been struggling to understand and probably a question that I should have asked a while ago.


----------



## Flear

Rsskylight, ... because i can 

like yourself, for academic interest 

to understand more 

to a belief that 'good enough' isn't always good enough, ... maybe better can be done, maybe there are things we do that cause issues, or things we do that are just because, or what can be done to solve other issues, ... so many questions 

worst case scenario, i know in lots of detail why things are done (and will share  - sometimes prematurely 

but to understand what can be changed, and what can't, to not give up on the idea that some things can be overcome that we are doing because "it's how it's always been done"

sure, a goal, that asks i look into all kinds of things, to explore all kinds of areas, some revising (like reinventing the wheel) others into areas that are taken for granted, ... and a few "well about about X" and see if this is the boost that's needed to go beyond what has been done before

the results so far are not as aesthetically pleasing as some tanks, but the idea of a tank that can maintain perfect health, ... that's something that goes into it's own area of beauty. ... to get there i tend to do all this insane level stuff ... some gets me no where, some has no current answers, some actually moves me forward


----------



## jaysee

jaysee said:


> Is it just "because I can"?





Flear said:


> Rsskylight, ... because i can


Aaaaaaaaand there it is :-D


----------



## rsskylight04

Flear said:


> Rsskylight, ... because i can
> 
> like yourself, for academic interest
> 
> to understand more
> 
> to a belief that 'good enough' isn't always good enough, ... maybe better can be done, maybe there are things we do that cause issues, or things we do that are just because, or what can be done to solve other issues, ... so many questions
> 
> worst case scenario, i know in lots of detail why things are done (and will share  - sometimes prematurely
> 
> but to understand what can be changed, and what can't, to not give up on the idea that some things can be overcome that we are doing because "it's how it's always been done"
> 
> sure, a goal, that asks i look into all kinds of things, to explore all kinds of areas, some revising (like reinventing the wheel) others into areas that are taken for granted, ... and a few "well about about X" and see if this is the boost that's needed to go beyond what has been done before
> 
> the results so far are not as aesthetically pleasing as some tanks, but the idea of a tank that can maintain perfect health, ... that's something that goes into it's own area of beauty. ... to get there i tend to do all this insane level stuff ... some gets me no where, some has no current answers, some actually moves me forward



I like this answer. There is a certain beauty in the IDEA of a naturaly self sustaining tank, and i love asking questions and seeking answers just for the sake of doing it. I teach literary theory and where would that subject be without needless questions and unnecessary answers? What I don't like is promising people results when there is no real reason to believe that they can achieve them.
Again, thanks to ALL for such an interesting discussion.


----------



## Flear

from my hormone question (here, advance section)

there's at least one study being done on plants reducing hormones, the test conducted in a hydroponics system.

that's promising, .. may require a tank far heavier planted then i originally considered though

but that much growing in the water column would also work like-wise as hard at keeping TDS down.

i swear i don't have ADD, but i gotta go over that post from earlier and keep getting distracted


----------



## Flear

Mikaila31 (i hope you read this curiousity)

i'm going to assume my tank at home (without water changes in more months than i can count)
is going to have a TDS that is through the roof (measurably anyway)

you mentioned your tap water is about ...


Mikaila31 said:


> The water is clear. Now stat breakdown for this tank as of today is:
> kH = 8-9d
> NO3 = 0ppm
> GH = 15-16d
> pH = 7.8
> TDS = 529ppm
> 
> My tap water that I use to top this tank up has the following stats:
> kH = 4d
> N03 = 0-5ppm
> GH = 6d
> pH = 7.8 - 8.0
> TDS = 130ppm
> 
> Now these are truthfully what you should expect from a lack of water changes. KH and GH will usually be the first to increase. Its not hard to keep nitrates at zero even without filtration, especially when a tank is designed to do so. One degree hardness is equal to 17.8ppm, calculating that out on the heavy side of those numbers you can account for a 267ppm increase on the TDS. Yet the tank has a 399ppm increase in TDS over the tap. There is 132ppm increase unaccounted for, which goes beyond anything I can test for. This tank is not sustaining itself, that is what this is staying, there is build up and it will keep building up.


... so i'm sure my tank is far higher than your "dirty" tank

if i can get the numbers down through massive plant overgrowth (it's an idea, a place to start)
things will reach an equalibrium if this is even feasable.

what set of numbers would you consider to be "soft" or even "managable".

i'm sure the lower the number the hard it will be to keep it there as equilibrium and homeo-stasis set in. i have seen the tank maintain a low pH that faught every attempt i made to raise it (till i did a massive trim on plants, then things went in the opposite direction and i'm sure a pH similar to what beaslbob mentions, over 8.

right now my tank is 7.0, but only because of a regular pH buffer i'm adding, this one isn't my "self-sustaining" one, more of an experiment your free to yell at me for being careless with my fish)

but i'm regularily adding a buffer, it's dependant on this buffer, as far as self-sustaining goes somewhere between a failure, and experiment, ... 

but,all that background and distraction aside, ...

IF the plants work at getting things back down, ... what kind of numbers would i consider to be on the right direction ?

as i'm sure, if the numbers are 400TDS, but stable there, some may consider that "well it's stable at least" but is that really taken care of itself, or just as low as the system can keep itself that it just can't reach lower levels

so i'm curious (and others are free & encouraged to add), ... what kinds of numbers should i be looking for ?

damn, i am going to need more test kits , oh well, for a good cause


----------



## beaslbob

*beaslbob method parameters and picture*

parameters for a bealbob build setup:


----------



## beaslbob

*picture of tank*


----------



## beaslbob

*10g*

In this tank we used dechlor so it is not a "true" beaslbob build.

but we added 6 neon tetras and 5 glo fish immediately. It was close as one neon died the first day.

this was two weeks after startup and the fish lived for two years until we torn down the tank for a move.


It is also a 10g


----------



## beaslbob

and here is a short video of a 10g following the beaslbob build by an inexperienced aquariumist


----------



## Agent13

Yea.. I've seen these pics a long time ago .. Even the video . I'm not exactly sure if you're allowed to post someone else's stuff without giving them credit.. 

Anywhoo... I can't recall .. What are the current tanks you have at this moment and are you still using this so called method ? If so how long has your current setup been running ?

Thanks..


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## beaslbob

rsskylight04 said:


> I really love the chemistry behind keeping freshwater fishtanks. Thanks guys for such an in-depth treatment of the subject. My interest is mainly academic, and i might just be missing the point but... why get into all this masters level chemistry when stable, healthy conditons can be maintained by regular water changes. I mean, what's so bad about water changes?
> 
> I love the idea of an all natural tank with no chemicals or filtration, but in a closed, unnatural system such as an aquarium,* it seems pretty obvious that you'll have to remove and replace water regularly to avoid unnatural and unhealthy condition*s.
> 
> I dont ask this to insult or contradict anyone. I really appreciate the thought and caring that goes into a discussion like this.
> 
> Best wishes to all.


that does not seem to be obvious at all to me. Unless you do massive water changes frequently, waer changes will never maintain healthy conditions by themselves. What will happens is conditions build up to where the conditions just before a water change equals the change between water changes divided by the fraction of water change. so if you change 1/5 of the water the tank conditions will be 5 times the change between water changes. Plus whatever is in the replacement water. So unless you are doing 100% daiily water changes with perfect water, the tank conditions override the water change effect.

So what is important is to limit the amount the tank changes. then the water changes are irrelevant and in fact can only deteriorate conditions.

Hence I have kept FW and marine tanks for up to 9 years with no water changes.

my .02


----------



## jaysee

beaslbob said:


> Hence I have kept FW and marine tanks for up to 9 years with no water changes.


And you've got a one graph (that could be made in 5 minutes), two pictures of the same tank and a 5 second video of someone elses tank (supposedly your build) to show for it? All the same stuff you've always posted.


----------



## Chesh

I'd also like to see some current photos/videos. . . curious to see what this type of setup looks like after several years running.


----------



## beaslbob

any comments on the parameter graph?

I guess the pictues must be at least acceptable. After all no negative comments on those. Just what to tanks look like fter a few years.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

1) with those paramenters does any new tank even need to measure those things.

2) How much better and safer are those paramenters to say the fishless mode? Let alone the prime/dechlor/waterchange/filtered methods.

3) how about the tank that added 11 fish in a 10g immediately (with dechlor) and still had 10 fish alive a year later.

All that means to me is the methods in my link are extremely safe even for the new hobbist with absolutely no experience.

I have had raw newbies 3 days into a tank with the first fish lying listlss on the bottom add anacharis and in a few hours the fish was completely recovered, zipping around the tank, and lived at least a year or more. Not to mention they were so pleased with having a brand new tank with pretty plants as well.

so still waiting on comments on the prameters submitted.


----------



## beaslbob

jaysee said:


> And you've got a one graph (that could be made in 5 minutes), two pictures of the same tank and a 5 second video of someone elses tank (supposedly your build) to show for it? All the same stuff you've always posted.


 
And 35 years of successful tanks.


----------



## jaysee

That's what you keep saying.....


----------



## Flear

beaslbob, what are your water parameters for your older running tanks ?


----------



## Chesh

Just letting everyone subscribed know that I combined Beaslbob's new thread into this one, where the discussion on this subject is already ongoing. You will find those posts on page 12 of this thread.


----------



## Agent13

beaslbob said:


> any comments on the parameter graph?
> 
> I guess the pictues must be at least acceptable. After all no negative comments on those. Just what to tanks look like fter a few years.
> Well as I've said before I'm not a fan of how the water looks ... but the reason for no comments is mainly it's not current.. this is the same picture you've been posting for almost a decade..along the the other pic. Do you have a tank right now that's been running for years on this method?
> Hmmmmmmmmmmmm
> 
> 1) with those paramenters does any new tank even need to measure those things.
> 
> 2) How much better and safer are those paramenters to say the fishless mode? Let alone the prime/dechlor/waterchange/filtered methods.
> 
> 3) how about the tank that added 11 fish in a 10g immediately (with dechlor) and still had 10 fish alive a year later.
> I just want to point out the advice we give here is not just to have these newbies ..or anyone strive for your fish simply to *survive* your tanks condition..and for only 1 yr... People can *survive* 20yrs of hardcore alcoholism but I don't think health forums will recommend that either..
> All that means to me is the methods in my link are extremely safe even for the new hobbist with absolutely no experience.
> I want to set up our members for success.. your claims have yet to be proven.. no on going data..no science to back it up.. and ..umm.. no ongoing data or even pics.
> I have had raw newbies 3 days into a tank with the first fish lying listlss on the bottom add anacharis and in a few hours the fish was completely recovered, zipping around the tank, and lived at least a year or more. Not to mention they were so pleased with having a brand new tank with pretty plants as well.
> Many new fish take time to adjust. Plus I've had new fish inactive till I added décor that apparently made them more adjusted and active..I don't even understand what this claim was supposed to prove.. and it's the same one I've seen you use over and over for many years in many places
> so still waiting on comments on the prameters submitted.


You gave us a graph of 2 weeks of the beginning of a tank you kept a decade ago.. that a method does not make. Just 2 weeks. Also may I respectfully point out that you call it a leiden tank yet you say you don't use filtration or circulation? You do know that also the leiden tanks are recommended to use a canister filter? Why do you use legit methods ..still use their name then butcher them? It's either a leiden tank or its not..and it is not.. its a bealsbob tank. I mean no disrespect .. I'm just genuinely concerned about how you're aggressively pushing this in the beginner section.. Why not discuss it right here ..or offer your advice in the planted tank section?


----------



## Mikaila31

rsskylight04 said:


> I really love the chemistry behind keeping freshwater fishtanks. Thanks guys for such an in-depth treatment of the subject. My interest is mainly academic, and i might just be missing the point but... why get into all this masters level chemistry when stable, healthy conditons can be maintained by regular water changes. I mean, what's so bad about water changes?
> 
> I love the idea of an all natural tank with no chemicals or filtration, but in a closed, unnatural system such as an aquarium, it seems pretty obvious that you'll have to remove and replace water regularly to avoid unnatural and unhealthy conditions.
> 
> I dont ask this to insult or contradict anyone. I really appreciate the thought and caring that goes into a discussion like this.
> 
> Best wishes to all.


Water changes are good. Period. There is absolutely no such thing in this hobby as changing too much water. The chemistry, biology, and ecology behind freshwater systems is absolutely fascinating. Knowing the science behind it is great and does help you predict your tanks surprisingly well. But a lot of it isn't necessary. Chemistry is my career which helps(or cry), biology is my major, I love my many tanks, I also love my kayak and spending time on natural water ways. Needless to say I hardly every test my water beyond pH and TDS. The only reason I bother with those tests is because both are digital pens and really no effort to check once a month. I love that you said closed system, since tanks certainly are. Lakes, rivers, oceans on the other hand are not. Water changes replicate what naturally happens in these systems. The degree is greater due to the incredibly higher bioload aquariums have in comparison. 

Flear.... Your still chasing the pot at the end of the rainbow. Plants alone are not going to control TDS. I don't know what natural TDS values are I would assume the range is pretty vast. I've not bother to test for that in my local state. What I can tell you is nitrates usually are not zero(but close), its easy to get and maintain zero in an aquarium due to high favoring of plant growth. Specifically the reason a lot of planted keepers add nitrates is to stop it from hitting zero. Plants do a role in cycling nutrients but they certainly don't do it alone in a natural system. I keep some crazy densely planted tank... I knock the glass on some of them prior to feeding to let the fish know since the plants are seriously that thick. Part of the reason IDK how many fish I have. 

Plants will take up some TDS out of the water but its not going to be close to equal the build up. Likewise fish produce hormones the same is true for plants. They also produce a wide range of hormones, all plants do. TDS = total dissolved solids. This includes everything inorganic and organic that is dissolved. You cannot test individually for everything a TDS meter will pick up without spending a small fortune. EVERYTHING contributes to TDS. Your fish food, dechlorinator, that useless pH buffer, that driftwood you added, evaporation, fertilizers, most substrates, ect, ect, and ect. All are going to push TDS upwards. 

TDS can fluctuate, everything does, the importance is it doesn't constantly build up. When I dosed all my fertilizer to that tank awhile back with the gypsum, baking soda, mag. sulfate the total sum was 2.5 tsp of powdered solids. In comparison to my neglected tank the TDS in that tank is currently 270ppm. The difference here is I know what is contributing to it. And the tank has large water changes to remove excess which drops the TDS before redosing. This is the same tank I use to breed GBR on an almost weekly basis for many months.

This is a simplified carbon cycle in a natural lake. First thing to note there is surface water input and groundwater input. There is also surface water output! Its still not a closed cycle! As Austin mentioned organics are certainly soluble. Alcohol mixes with water and it would be a tragedy if it didn't, since I don't sober post here anymore. DOC= dissolved organic compounds and is an important factor in aquatic systems. POC= partial organic compounds which are suspended but not dissolved, usually because they are not fully broken down by bacteria and fungi. Simple example of this is wood secretes tannic acids(along with much more) this is an organic compound and it will hang around for a long time before it eventually gets broken down (also will factor into the 'unaccounted' on a TDS meter). Trees fall into lakes introduce a easy ton or more of wood which will eventually get broken down by the lake. There are whole trophic levels missing in an aquarium that play a role here. Fish are one of the highest trophic levels in an aquatic system and thus have the smallest bioload and are of the least importance. Lakes and rivers all over the world play a huge role for insect larva. You really don't wanna know how many insects a square mile of lake can produce. Many of which leave the lake as winged adults, fly off, a huge amount of them get eaten by birds, bats, and other organisms. Again this is an output of nutrients leaving the lake. Its not closed, it never has been, and your gonna need to learn magic to make it so. 

Soft and hard is determined by gH and kH and IDK the ranges off the top of my head. TDS varies since again its a sum of everything which at the same time tells you nothing of whats what. The 'typical' dose of salt for FW will shoot your TDS up 300-400ppm in my experience. I would say for FW system TDS is typically below 500ppm unless you are counting the rift lakes. But say adding salt to my tap water and expecting it to be anything like the rift lakes based on TDS is gonna get you nowhere fast. 

Flear you could spend years on trying to make a self sufficient tank and still its not gonna happen. Designing a low maintenance tank with a high output isn't that hard. And it will pay you back before you figure out how to make a self sustaining one. Just my advice. Physics dictate chemistry, which dictates biology, which dictates ecology. 



beaslbob said:


> that does not seem to be obvious at all to me. Unless you do massive water changes frequently, waer changes will never maintain healthy conditions by themselves. What will happens is conditions build up to where the conditions just before a water change equals the change between water changes divided by the fraction of water change. so if you change 1/5 of the water the tank conditions will be 5 times the change between water changes. Plus whatever is in the replacement water. So unless you are doing 100% daiily water changes with perfect water, the tank conditions override the water change effect.
> 
> 
> So what is important is to limit the amount the tank changes. then the water changes are irrelevant and in fact can only deteriorate conditions.
> 
> Hence I have kept FW and marine tanks for up to 9 years with no water changes.
> 
> my .02


A tank will actually maintain levels with regular water changes, and always the more the better. The fact is things do level off like you mentioned. As levels increase while a tank establishes you eventually hit a point where levels in the tank become concentrated enough that the water changes remove an amount equal to the build up and thing stay basically stable. The math isn't as straight forward as that. The catch to this is the less water you change the higher the levels become before they stabilize and hold there. Which again comes down to more water changed is better. So you are correct the less and longer between changes the more conditions change. If you want a tank to stay similar to your tap water try 50% or more change a week. The reason keeping a high tech planted tank(or simply high demand) and dosing heavy fertilizers requires 50% weekly changes is again to ensure nothing builds up excessively.


----------



## Flear

angent13, yes that also has me concerned about the validity of his tank(s)

for 9 year old tanks there's not much for plant growth
for 9 year old tanks, when it comes number crunching time he's got numbers to estimate the initial days, ...

but where are his numbers for a tank he's running now, a tank that has run for years (several) ... what are those numbers ?

sure i expect ammonia & nitrite to be negligible, nitrates to be decent enough for the plants
he has offered a pH value for his tanks, ... 

beaslbob, ... do you have the test kits to test your water parameters ?
is this why you are not providing numbers because you are missing test kits to bring those numbers into play for everyone ?


----------



## Flear

Mikaila31, ... i'm always going to be chasing that pot at the end of the rainbow.

i call it 'not giving up'

in my frustration with beaslbob about not having any numbers for his aged tanks, 
i'm getting an opposite consideration for you, still no numbers though. ... not on your maintained tanks, which considering the topic/thread, is far more important to get a baseline with than considering tanks we are all considering 'unmaintained'

unmaintained is just that, ... useless to compare stats against, ... unmaintained vs. unmaintained, what one has numbers closer to a maintained tank ?, ... first question, "what are some sample numbers for a maintained tank ?

... i'm going to have to look elsewhere.


----------



## beaslbob

Flear said:


> beaslbob, what are your water parameters for your older running tanks ?


 
Kh 4 degrees gh 9 degrees ph 8.4-8.8 for over two years.


----------



## beaslbob

Agent13 said:


> You gave us a graph of 2 weeks of the beginning of a tank you kept a decade ago.. that a method does not make. Just 2 weeks. Also may I respectfully point out that you call it a leiden tank yet you say you don't use filtration or circulation? You do know that also the leiden tanks are recommended to use a canister filter? Why do you use legit methods ..still use their name then butcher them? It's either a leiden tank or its not..and it is not.. its a bealsbob tank. I mean no disrespect .. I'm just genuinely concerned about how you're aggressively pushing this in the beginner section.. Why not discuss it right here ..or offer your advice in the planted tank section?


I didn't think "you might take a look at the methods in my signature" is agressively pushing anything. :lol:

To me the newbie need easy to follow methods that result in a nice looking tank that is balanced, stable, and healthy right from the start.

Regradless of what we call the method.

my .02


----------



## beaslbob

Mikaila31 said:


> Water changes are good. Period.
> 
> ...
> 
> .


Then discuss this equation:

parameters before water change=value of replacement water+(change between water changes0/(fraction of water change)

And why it is possible to have 0 ammonia,nitrite,nitrates,phosphates and high pH for years with no water changes and a very heavy bioload.

Why inland aquatics in their maintenance systems do a 5% annual water change.

And why people doing water changes still report 1ppm ammonia after weeks of "cyclin g".


----------



## jaysee

beaslbob said:


> To me the newbie need easy to follow methods that result in a nice looking tank that is balanced, stable, and healthy right from the start.


Couldn't agree more, which is why we are all seeking some sheds of evidence that your method provides that. OTHER than your word. Lets be real - this is the internet.... you can say ANYTHING you want. None of us are even remotely satisfied with your "proof", mainly because all it is is you saying the same thing over and over and over again like a broken record. You even started a new thread posting old information that you've already posted here in this thread. Was that a joke?? You know what it is we want, and yet you just dance around and stick to your talking points. I'm starting to think that this is all just a game to you. But at this point your reluctance to divulge information speaks VOLUMES, and unfortunately due to the game you've played I don't know how anyone can believe any "real" proof you might furnish since it would be provided under duress, more or less.


----------



## beaslbob

jaysee said:


> Couldn't agree more, which is why we are all seeking some sheds of evidence that your method provides that. OTHER than your word. Lets be real - this is the internet.... you can say ANYTHING you want. None of us are even remotely satisfied with your "proof", mainly because all it is is you saying the same thing over and over and over again like a broken record. You even started a new thread posting old information that you've already posted here in this thread. Was that a joke?? You know what it is we want, and yet you just dance around and stick to your talking points. I'm starting to think that this is all just a game to you. But at this point your reluctance to divulge information speaks VOLUMES, and unfortunately due to the game you've played I don't know how anyone can believe any "real" proof you might furnish since it would be provided under duress, more or less.


All I can do is report my experinces, post parameters, report newbie and commercial results.

The fact that millions of people use other techniques does not invalidate any of that.


----------



## beaslbob

beaslbob said:


> Kh 4 degrees gh 9 degrees ph 8.4-8.8 for over two years.


Plus unmeasureable ammonia,nitrites,nitrates and phosphates.


----------



## jaysee

Talking points and the same old information that doesn't mean anything.

You're clearly knowledgeable so I just can't understand why you can't provide more than that.


----------



## Agent13

beaslbob said:


> All I can do is report my experinces, post parameters,.



Two weeks of parameters ???? That's all you have? From the beginning of a 20g with 1 little fish? Then NOTHING else in your 35yrs of fishkeeping ????? The same graph you've posted all over every fish forum for YEARS. Are you saying you have nothing else for us?? Not even able to do some tests on your current tank? No pics of it either. Even our brand knew noobs on this site happily provide more info . Can you give us anything? Or are you trying to repeat the same thing on enough threads in enough forums just to see your "method" pop up on google more? Yes.. That's an honest question as well. 


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## jaysee

beaslbob said:


> All I can do is report my experinces, post parameters, report newbie and commercial results.



When other people come up with a "method" they are able to do a whole lot more than that.....


----------



## Flear

newbies require more than easy to follow methods
once they are convinced all you need is easy to follow methods.

beaslbob, you talk about the math of the effectiveness (or as you put it "ineffectiveness") of water changes.

putting aside your pride for a bit, there is an effectiveness that supports water changes, ... 

going from "water changes" to "water changes are not needed because, well, because i've got proof.

yes, you have proof, i have proof, hundreds of other people have proof as well, ... what we don't have is anything to back up our proof, we have word-of-mouth, we have "well i did it, and things are stable"

we don't have proof

sitting back and saying "well i have done it, so you can do it too" that doesn't convince anyone of anything, ... your going about trying to convince people of your method and your method doesn't give any proof, it asks faith, ... we're not brought up in a world that encourages faith


----------



## rsskylight04

Maybe I'm just too trusting but I don't think beaslbob is lying. 
I would like to set up a tank and try, but I would be worried about the fish. No water changes and no dechlor?


----------



## Chesh

I'd worry too, RS! I'd never be comfortable enough to risk those little lives . .. :/ 
. . .anyway, I _enjoy _being shoulder-deep in my tank! lol, I'd actually _miss _doing my water changes! . . . and I'm still fully convinced that my fish would miss them, too. ^__^


----------



## Crazyfish

Food for thought

The only reason I do water changes is to clean up waste since I have plastic plants. If live plants are using the waste as food, why is there a need to change the water? Replacing evaporated water with tap water is akin to rain falling into a pond.


----------



## jaysee

Are you asking that after reading through this whole thread?

Water changes keep the fish healthy. Are there fish that can survive in extreme conditions? Yes, there are some tough fish out there that can survive whatever we throw at them. Are there fish that CANT survive in extreme conditions? You bet there are. So where does that leave us?? Well, if you want a tank you can neglect then you had better stock fish that can survive extreme conditions, like bob did with live bearers.


----------



## ao

Crazyfish said:


> Food for thought
> 
> The only reason I do water changes is to clean up waste since I have plastic plants. If live plants are using the waste as food, why is there a need to change the water? Replacing evaporated water with tap water is akin to rain falling into a pond.



Well... plants don't absorb everything. After a while the stuff like the TDS shoots up and can only be lowered with a water change....

My uncle keeps a heavily planted tank that doesn't ever get a water change. In my recent observations, the fish in there, though alive, are showing signs of stress and deformity.


----------



## Crazyfish

ao said:


> Well... plants don't absorb everything. After a while the stuff like the TDS shoots up and can only be lowered with a water change....
> 
> My uncle keeps a heavily planted tank that doesn't ever get a water change. In my recent observations, the fish in there, though alive, are showing signs of stress and deformity.


As long as you choose fish that doesn't require Low PH, then you should be ok... low PH usually means low TDS.


----------



## jaysee

Crazyfish said:


> As long as you choose fish that doesn't require Low PH, then you should be ok... low PH usually means low TDS.



So then wouldn't you agree that it in the interest of full disclosure, such a method should specify that it's for "only certain fish" rather than being passed off as a method for keeping all fish?


----------



## Crazyfish

jaysee said:


> So then wouldn't you agree that it in the interest of full disclosure, such a method should specify that it's for "only certain fish" rather than being passed off as a method for keeping all fish?


Most definitely. This "method" only creates an ecosystem for particular fish.


----------



## rsskylight04

Anyone know what species might be suitable? I'm really intersted in trying this. 
As long as it doesn't kill fish!


----------



## jaysee

I've only ever heard bob mention guppies and platies.


----------



## beaslbob

jaysee said:


> I've only ever heard bob mention guppies and platies.


neon tetras
zebra danios
angel fish
silver hachetfish
goldfish
mollies

Plus more


on the marine side

yellow and regal tangs
coral catfish
neon gobies
yellow gobies
mollies
plus more


So now you have heard of more fish.


----------



## beaslbob

Flear said:


> newbies require more than easy to follow methods
> once they are convinced all you need is easy to follow methods.
> 
> beaslbob, you talk about the math of the effectiveness (or as you put it "ineffectiveness") of water changes.
> 
> putting aside your pride for a bit, there is an effectiveness that supports water changes, ...
> 
> going from "water changes" to "water changes are not needed because, well, because i've got proof.
> 
> yes, you have proof, i have proof, hundreds of other people have proof as well, ... what we don't have is anything to back up our proof, we have word-of-mouth, we have "well i did it, and things are stable"
> 
> we don't have proof
> 
> sitting back and saying "well i have done it, so you can do it too" that doesn't convince anyone of anything, ... your going about trying to convince people of your method and your method doesn't give any proof, it asks faith, ... we're not brought up in a world that encourages faith


So where is your analysis of the equation I submitted.

Seems like you are asking for people to accept you view on faith instead of discussing that equation.


----------



## jaysee

beaslbob said:


> So now you have heard of more fish.



Yes that's amusing. I've only SEEN platies.


----------



## Austin

Just thought I'd point out that tap water is nothing like rain water... At least in most places. And a fish tank is nothing like nature, even with plants.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## rsskylight04

Austin said:


> Just thought I'd point out that tap water is nothing like rain water... At least in most places. And a fish tank is nothing like nature, even with plants.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Very good point. My tapwater is very different than rain. Tap is high ph and hard, rain is acid and soft.


----------



## Tolak

Nice starting list of species for someone newer to the BAP program of any reasonably decent club. Just guessing the TDS would tend to rise, along with the pH mentioned, African cichlids should be big on that list. I can see where plants might take a beating with some of those species, along with any NW cichlids causing some mayhem.

If this were a better system of tank maintenance I’d expect to see species less commonly bred due to the difficulty involved. There are several mentions of a closed self-sustaining system, similar to nature. All species breed in nature, if this were a more natural system breeding of those more difficult species would be more easily attainable. To me as well as many advanced breeders this would show a superior system to what is commonly found. Breeders change a lot of water; I have yet to meet one who bases their breeding techniques on not changing any water long term. It’s one thing to replicate seasonal changes with lack of water changes & so on, this is a short-term situation.

Inland Aquatics was mentioned, without knowing how involved their system is with water reclamation, something that should be part of a setup that size, they may well bring in only 10% new water yearly. This is part of public aquarium management, reuse & recycle, go green as much as possible. I’d bet they took the tech the big guys use, and downsized it for their facility, good on them.

Unfortunately this sort of system is beyond the budget of nearly all hobbyists, at least for now. That being the case it’s back to the low-tech water changes for all breeders I’ve met. I’m very lucky that I live in an area where I run into some of the bigger name breeders a few times yearly, the type that get into published breeder’s challenges & such. While changing water is not the only trick in their huge bag of tricks, it is a big, varied, and important one. Plants play into this as well, but again, they are not the only trick. Given the choice any breeder I know will forgo plants before water changes. 

The only real way to sort this out would be to source some various species, something easy to breed such as guppys, something a bit more difficult but not impossible, perhaps discus, or one of the more tricky L number plecs. Set up a tank as Bob does, set one up as a serious breeder would, random pick fish to stock and maintain accordingly. If you want to document it join a club, tell them of your intentions. They will love you, and probably want you to make a meeting presentation out of it.


----------



## jaysee

I don't believe I've seen it mentioned that he thinks it's a better way to keep fish. I do believe it's been asked of him and not answered though.


----------



## Mikaila31

beaslbob said:


> Then discuss this equation:
> 
> parameters before water change=value of replacement water+(change between water changes0/(fraction of water change)
> 
> And why it is possible to have 0 ammonia,nitrite,nitrates,phosphates and high pH for years with no water changes and a very heavy bioload.
> 
> Why inland aquatics in their maintenance systems do a 5% annual water change.
> 
> And why people doing water changes still report 1ppm ammonia after weeks of "cyclin g".


That equation isn't an accurate calc of the effects of a water change on parameters. It may seem straightforward but its not. Also it is a recursive calculation meaning the answer feeds back into it repetitively, which is they key to the leveling off. 
a = [a(n-1) + w][1-x] + xz, n>=1, a(0)=y
y=starting nitrate in tank b4 1st wc, z=tap parameters, w=buildup of nitrate b4 each wc, x= % wc in decimal, n= # of wc's

If you graph this you will note the tank levels out or I can PM you a file for it. An parameters go much further then just ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, and phosphates.

You have not given us anything that shows your parameters for over 2 years. 

Fish produce ammonia, a tank 'cycles' when there are no plants or bacteria to remove this ammonia. They can change all the water they want that doesn't stop the fish from producing ammonia. What it does is keep ammonia levels down so your not killing your fish off constantly while your cycling. Its easy enough to silent cycle a tank without your methods. 




Flear said:


> Mikaila31, ... i'm always going to be chasing that pot at the end of the rainbow.
> 
> i call it 'not giving up'
> 
> in my frustration with beaslbob about not having any numbers for his aged tanks,
> i'm getting an opposite consideration for you, still no numbers though. ... not on your maintained tanks, which considering the topic/thread, is far more important to get a baseline with than considering tanks we are all considering 'unmaintained'
> 
> unmaintained is just that, ... useless to compare stats against, ... unmaintained vs. unmaintained, what one has numbers closer to a maintained tank ?, ... first question, "what are some sample numbers for a maintained tank ?
> 
> ... i'm going to have to look elsewhere.


Some call it delusional...

You want numbers on maintained tanks all you have to do is ask:roll:. All tanks are different which is what you are going to see here. These tanks are maintained with regular water changes that doesn't necessarily make them comparable to my neglected 15g with almost no bioload. You want something directly comparable run an experiment yourself with two identical setups. All these tanks are due for a water change in 1-2 days.

10g - bare bottom, 15-18 H. belheri, snails and hornwort, 50% every 1-2 weeks
gH = 7degrees, kH = 0-1 degrees, NO3 = 30-40ppm, TDS = 200, pH = 7.1
40g Breeder - soil, fertilized, 45-50 fish, snails, shrimp, 50% weekly
gH = 10-11, NO3 = 15ppm, kH = 6, TDS = 250, pH = 7.9
20g - gravel, fertilized, 16-18 fish, 50% weekly
gH = 7, NO3 = 0, kH = 5, TDS = 296, pH = 7.7
Again tap water is
gH = 6, NO3= 0-5, kH=4, TDS = 130, pH = 7.8-8.0

The amusing thing here flear is I haven't seen or heard anything of your tanks. Majority of mine are setup low end or 'on a budget' and pay me back considerably... so I keep getting more -_- 

My neglected 15g is hopefully getting redone this weekend and will be a mess. My laziness means it needs a good long CLR acid bath to clean that glass.


----------



## rsskylight04

That equasion is much like the dialog by Plato in which a man must choose to bet on one of two runners. Runner#1 starts at the beginning and moves one step at a time. Runner#2 starts halfway to the finnish line and with each step of the first runner he moves another halfway. The man bets on runner#2 because its obvious that the runner who starts halfway to the finishline will win, but because of his trick with language and mathmatics, Socrates win the man's money.

Water changes move one step at a time. If my bioload produces 20 per week, and I remove/ dilute 20 per week, I'm stable.


----------



## beaslbob

Mikaila31 said:


> That equation isn't an accurate calc of the effects of a water change on parameters. It may seem straightforward but its not. Also it is a recursive calculation meaning the answer feeds back into it repetitively, which is they key to the leveling off.
> a = [a(n-1) + w][1-x] + xz, n>=1, a(0)=y
> y=starting nitrate in tank b4 1st wc, z=tap parameters, w=buildup of nitrate b4 each wc, x= % wc in decimal, n= # of wc's
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> .


You equation is after the water change.

My equation:

parameters before water change=amount in replacement water+(increase)/(fraction of water change)

Is before the water change and after sufficient water changes have been performed so the amount before water change is the same water change to water change. In other words where the tank winds up.

I have found out that by looking at the amount before the water change simplifies the equation considerably and allows a better analysis. for instance if you "tie" the amount of water change to the frequencey (1/10 every 10 days, 1/20 every 20 days, etc), the amount before the water change winds being the same. The amount after the water change varies with the amount/frequency.

The reason this works is that in order for the final conditions to be met, the amount removed by the water change must be removed by the water change. So if you're doing a 1/10 water change, the parameters must be 10 times the build up, 1/5 5 times, 1/100 100 times and so on.

I have already plotted the equation and found that the values reach that limit in a very short while. Like say 5% within a few months or so.

Check your charts and you will find that to be true.

Again in case anyone missed it. Fw and marine systems unmeasureable ammonia,nitrItes, nitrate, and phospahtes. PH 8.4-8.8. Calcium/alk/mag have to be maintained with dosing in reef tanks. FW tanks with peat moss in the substrate kh 4 degrees, gh 9 degrees for over two years. kh and gh do rise over years in FW tank with a plain sand substrate and neon tetras do not do well.


----------



## Tolak

Fish don't do math. They all reproduce in nature. If you can come closer to breeding species in your tank that are rarely reported you're moving forward. If not your neck & neck, or moving backwards. 

We all experiment with maintenance to some extent, hopefully for the better of the fish, or at least maintaining the quality of care while making our lives a bit easier. If you're maintaining the quality of care while making your life easier great, I'm all for easier. If you're more easily breeding more difficult species plenty of folks would like to hear about it, this would be the benchmark of improvement. If neither of these is happening something needs adjusting.


----------



## Crazyfish

Austin said:


> Just thought I'd point out that tap water is nothing like rain water... At least in most places. And a fish tank is nothing like nature, even with plants.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


True but a standing pond can support hardy fish.. why is this any diffirent? As long as the waste is being converted and the water has sufficent oxygen, that's all that matters. This setup can't provide a suitable home to any fish but it should work well for hardy ones. I just don't like standing water.


----------



## beaslbob

cleaned this up a bit.




beaslbob said:


> You equation is after the water change.
> 
> My equation:
> 
> parameters before water change=amount in replacement water+(increase)/(fraction of water change)
> 
> Is before the water change and after sufficient water changes have been performed so the amount before water change is the same water change to water change. In other words where the tank winds up.
> 
> I have found out that by looking at the amount before the water change simplifies the equation considerably and allows a better analysis. for instance if you "tie" the amount of water change to the frequency (1/10 every 10 days, 1/20 every 20 days, etc), the amount before the water change winds being the same. The amount after the water change varies with the amount/frequency.
> 
> The reason this works is that in order for the final conditions to be met, the *build up between water changes must* be removed by the water change. So if you're doing a 1/10 water change, the parameters must be 10 times the build up, 1/5 5 times, 1/100 100 times and so on.
> 
> I have already plotted the equation and found that the values reach that limit in a very short while. Like say 5% within a few months or so.
> 
> Check your charts and you will find that to be true.
> 
> Again in case anyone missed it. Fw and marine systems unmeasureable ammonia,nitrItes, nitrate, and phospahtes. PH 8.4-8.8. Calcium/alk/mag have to be maintained with dosing in reef tanks. FW tanks with peat moss in the substrate kh 4 degrees, gh 9 degrees for over two years. kh and gh do rise over years in FW tank with a plain sand substrate and neon tetras do not do well.


----------



## beaslbob

Tolak said:


> Fish don't do math. They all reproduce in nature. If you can come closer to breeding species in your tank that are rarely reported you're moving forward. If not your neck & neck, or moving backwards.
> 
> ...
> .


Let me see if I understand this.

Unless I breed fish noone else does or at least is considered very hard to breed, then "my" system is totally useless? 

Even if fish live for years and years and I never see a first fish (cycle) type death.


Even if raw inexpereienced newbies are amased with the results and will always do planted tanks in the future?

I simply reject that.

Besides my saltwater fish did spawn.


----------



## jaysee

I believe what tolak was getting at was whether your method is a superior or inferior method compared to the hobby standard. So.... Do you feel your method is superior to the standard method, and if so on what basis? Guppies and platies breeding? 


Amazed newbies? Where?


----------



## beaslbob

jaysee said:


> I believe what tolak was getting at was whether your method is a superior or inferior method compared to the hobby standard. So.... Do you feel your method is superior to the standard method, and if so on what basis? Guppies and platies breeding?
> 
> 
> Amazed newbies? Where?


 
Based upon years of successful long term high bioload tanks. 

in may different cities. 

Care to discuss the parameters I posted here and how they compare to "standard" methods.

How does a max of .25 ammonia for 1 day compare to newbie experiences here.

how about nitrates at unmeasureable levels after 21 days?

How about kH and gh at 4 and 9 degrees for over two years?

All with no water changes, and untreated tap water.


----------



## jaysee

beaslbob said:


> Based upon years of successful long term high bioload tanks.
> 
> in may different cities.
> 
> Care to discuss the parameters I posted here and how they compare to "standard" methods.
> 
> How does a max of .25 ammonia for 1 day compare to newbie experiences here.
> 
> how about nitrates at unmeasureable levels after 21 days?
> 
> How about kH and gh at 4 and 9 degrees for over two years?
> 
> All with no water changes, and untreated tap water.




How about we not deflect with more rhetoric. You would make a fantastic politician, by the way.

I don't know....I just think that if you wanted your method to be taken seriously that you would be more forthcoming with requested information and more eager to address people's concerns. By talking in circles and answering questions with questions, it's hard to believe that it is your goal to be taken seriously, and if that's not your goal then I have to ask what is. Not gonna hold my breath for an answer.


----------



## Austin

Crazyfish said:


> True but a standing pond can support hardy fish.. why is this any diffirent? As long as the waste is being converted and the water has sufficent oxygen, that's all that matters. This setup can't provide a suitable home to any fish but it should work well for hardy ones. I just don't like standing water.


To me it's sad to subject "hardy" fish to poor conditions just because they can tolerate it. If this technique doesn't work for more sensitive fish, what value does it have if you can just keep some hardy fish alive?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## beaslbob

Jaysee, Austin, et all.

Ok I get it.

I post procedures.

I post parameters.

I post pictures.

I post newbie reports.

I post mathmatical models of how and why it works.

All of which you ignore because you don't believe the results.

Not much more can be done.

I just hope newbies can get over all that, look at the parameters and results and give it a try.


----------



## jaysee

I don't know....I just think that if you wanted your method to be taken seriously that you would be more forthcoming with requested information and more eager to address people's concerns. By talking in circles and answering questions with questions, it's hard to believe that it is your goal to be taken seriously, and if that's not your goal then I have to ask what is. Not gonna hold my breath for an answer.


----------



## Crazyfish

Austin said:


> To me it's sad to subject "hardy" fish to poor conditions just because they can tolerate it. If this technique doesn't work for more sensitive fish, what value does it have if you can just keep some hardy fish alive?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


If it's the same environment that they are used to living in, then isn't that good? If nothing at all, the "beaslbob build" outlines the benefit of live plants in an aquarium.

My HOB filter does nothing more than trap suspended particles that are floating in the water. It's other function is to break the surface tension by waterfall thus introducing oxygen into the water. If you consider that the particles are taken to account by becoming plant food and oxygen is released into the water by the plants then the HOB filter's role has been eliminated by the plants. I'm not sure whether or not this is a sufficient amount of oxygen. I'd still want an air pump in there to agitate the water and provide some extra oxygen but that's just me.


----------



## Flear

i don't have stats on my (one) tank
largely because i don't have any tests apart from pH & ammonia

ammonia, i'm guessing is 0.2-0.3 - no, there is no such thing as a true zero, as that would mean your nitrogen cycling bacteria has crashed due to starvation. ... would also mean your fish have been removed and your plants are either gone or there is less than zero plant decomposition

but thinking about the nitrogen cycle, this also means your plants are dying (no nitrogen nutrient) and now your back to an empty tank with nothing alive in it to allow any ammonia in the tank.

i have a ph of 7.0 due to a buffer, ... otherwise it's off the scale of my pH test kit

i've mentioned this before, ... dono about this thread, but a few others.

---

as for where i go with this, ... if i do manage a self-sustaining tank, ... that's a 3 generation test, ... the initial fish (lets go with a life-span of 3 years), ... i need a tank that's been running 10 years, ... or at least 6 and still alive

beaslbob, ... yes, breeding in the aquarium is a sign of health, no breeding, ... well genetics tends to say when conditions are not favorable to consider future generations don't do it.

---

back to my tank, ... no i have no stats to speak of, ... i also have no kits to test those desired stats with.

there's little information on building a self-sustaining tank, ... so little infact that there is likewise no information on what to look for or consider if you do want to do this.

i do recal that when i had extensive plant coverage (beyond overgrown) my pH was 6.5 & very very stable, so much so it was frustrating that i couldn't adjust it no matter what i did or tried.

i removed plant mass and suddenly my pH was ... i dono, i'm going to side with similar to beaslbobs tanks (8.0+)

now only guesswork, the plants were making sure the pH stayed at that level, ... that's impressive to me.

doesn't mean this is the correct answer.

i am going to side with doing what i can to keep the numbers in a near softwater status, ... if i can do that, then i've got a start, ...

i do appreciate peoples input recently on TDS, and even the guess that pH can be an indicator of hard/soft/TDS.

my next step is to get test kits for this, ... and see what is actually going on.

i could get all kinds of test kits before, but without an idea what i was looking for, or why, they're test kits that don't mean anything to anyone other than "this is where your tank is at"

yes, my tank like beaslbobs doesn't mean a lot (not as much as some people are looking for), ... but i can do what beaslbob is doing and ask for peoples faith, ... or i can look into it and see how far i can push things.


----------



## Austin

beaslbob said:


> Jaysee, Austin, et all.
> 
> Ok I get it.
> 
> I post procedures.
> 
> I post parameters.
> 
> I post pictures.
> 
> I post newbie reports.
> 
> I post mathmatical models of how and why it works.
> 
> All of which you ignore because you don't believe the results.
> 
> Not much more can be done.
> 
> I just hope newbies can get over all that, look at the parameters and results and give it a try.


I've seen one photo from nearly a decade ago and a few parameters. If you want people to change what theyve been doing successfully for years, you need a lot more solid, organized backing. Although, honestly, I've only read bits and pieces of this thread so I may have missed some information so I've tried not to express my opinions too much, since it isn't worth much if I have not tried to understand the opposing view.... But, from what I understand this isn't some novel idea. I haven't bothered to try to understand the math, because this technique doesn't really have my interest. I won't risk my fish's health to try this, nor will I have an eye sore in my room-- in one week I have a ton of poo sitting on my sand. I cannot Imagine 6 months worth... so, I'm just trying to correct anything that is misinformation when I see it. I'm mostly watching this thread because its entertaining....
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Agent13

Speaking of entertainment.. Well you know that video a few pages back of a "newbie " setting up a tank with his method ? 
Yea, that's his aunts tank that he set up for her.. Talk about misleading wording , no? Lol 


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## Austin

What video?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Agent13

beaslbob said:


> and here is a short video of a 10g following the beaslbob build by an inexperienced aquariumist



This video .. However it am only worked on my laptop 


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## Tolak

beaslbob said:


> Let me see if I understand this.
> 
> Unless I breed fish noone else does or at least is considered very hard to breed, then "my" system is totally useless?


 No, I never said, nor inferred that. I have not been provided with enough data to make that call. I provided you with a method of taking this to the next level, with hopefully repeatable results as well as further documentation. Your methods have been doubted by others in this topic, mainly due to this being lacking. Until this is provided I’m not going to say yea or nay.



> Even if fish live for years and years and I never see a first fish (cycle) type death.


 This is keeping fish, breeding fish, especially more difficult species would prove a more superior system in regards to animal husbandry.




> Even if raw inexpereienced newbies are amased with the results and will always do planted tanks in the future?


 I can do & have done the same with newbies, no plants, some mature media & a bag of junk from the hardware store. I don’t promote it as anything special, I’m nobody special, it’s just a different method.



> I simply reject that.


 I can’t accept or reject this method yet, bring it up to the next level. 



> Besides my saltwater fish did spawn.


 Cool, I’ve never dabbled in marine, plate is pretty full as it is. If I could do something about those 8 hours wasted daily sleeping I might consider it.


----------



## Mikaila31

Flear if you tank its throwing 0.2-0.3ppm ammonia that itself is a sign of a problem. Even filterless properly setup you should always maintain a level of 0ppm per the API kit. 0ppm does not mean absolute zero, not by far. It means below detectable levels. Yes there is always ammonia present but there is a difference between 0.2-0.3ppm which are stress levels to most fish and deadly to some. Compared to 1-50ppb ammonia an established tank should have, which is well out of the detectable range of the API kit. 

Everyones method is there own. For that purpose alone. You could keep for fish in koolaid for all I really care. Their your fish, not mine. Remember tho the purpose of this site. It is to aide others in the methods that best suit their needs. Not your favorite method. My favorite method is high tech planted but I'm not out there advising everyone to buy their own pressurized CO2 system. If someone is inquiring tho on the best way to setup a high tech tank I'm certainly there to help them. They want low tech... okay, no plants at all.... fine by me. 

No one needs proof plants have amazing effects on our tanks, thats been well known for a long time. What is advised in this thread is simply a method. If what you want is to negate fish life and plant life simply due to inability to move some hoses around then thats fine. If you want a tank that manages thats fine. I've yet to see much more being offered here. Since bob started this thread, I've spawned GBRs at least a dozen times, raised and sold some. Plant wise my tanks have produced over $100 since November. I changed water on 2 of my tanks tonight and pulled around 40 boesemani rainbow eggs from my high tech tank to a bare 10. I have over a dozen juvi bows currently growing out already. Are my methods the best... No. They do what I want and thats all really. Honestly flear going by the threads you make here you should take a glance at some of my old threads, might give you some ideas at doing what you wanna do. Theres at least 3 pic heavy threads of setting up soil tanks, which is what I will be doing again tomorrow. Say capless Chesh?

If you think TDS is linked to pH remember I have a range of 6.4-8.0pH though my 7 tanks and TDS isn't terribly different.

@Tolak we both know neither of us sleeps anywhere near 8 hours daily;-). Besides marine is the dark side....


----------



## beaslbob

Tolak said:


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> Cool, I’ve never dabbled in marine, plate is pretty full as it is. If I could do something about those 8 hours wasted daily sleeping I might consider it.


 
In case you ever decide to go over to the dark side



newbie marine another board said:


> I would like to take this time to formally thank beaslbob for his persistent recommendation of macro algae & his perseverance in convincing me that they are beneficial to a productive reef community. As per his suggestion I have added the macros at day one of my cycle & have been dumbfounded at the results. At day 8-10 my levels dropped down to 0/0/0. Nowadays I only see small traces of nitrites (.1ppm), a phenomena which I am further investigating


It's also an expample of one of the new hobbiests feedback i receive. 

If you ever do "go marine" my simplified advice is simply that $5 of macro algae will do more for your tank the $100's of pumps, skimmers, live rock/sand, etc.


----------



## jaysee

No link?


----------



## beaslbob

jaysee said:


> No link?


 
Didn't want to "advertise" another board.

I know you believe a newbie would post that so no need for a link.


----------



## jaysee

Hahahaha so after ALL this time you come up with "something" saltwater, when 99% of this thread is freshwater. Just as unsatisfying as everything else you offer up as proof. Par for the course I guess.


----------



## Flear

Mikaila31.

believe it or not, you are inspiring 

going to keep in mind everything you have mentioned, ... not just to say "hey,there's a nifty idea, but it doesn't jive with what i'm doing", ... i don't know what i'm doing, i don't have a set "method" what i have is an idea to say "it needs more research", and i don't even know what direction to take that research.

soil, .. to have lots of nutrients, and to retain those nutrients in the soil, current thought are a high CEC mineral (yet i know this will saturate then there is the water column, and that will then fill with nutrients)

i have thought "what could i put in there to soak up those nutrients, ... "life" , plants, ... rooted vascular plants, floating plants, algae, phytoplankton (i don't know as much about bacterioplankton, but another one of those ideas.

and once those things have at least 'some' of the nutrients, well adding zooplankton and critters to eat, and they eat, and they poop, and it falls to the bottom, ... and add worms and snails to help process things.

this just follows the cycle of life.

and it ignores something that wasn't really something i was paying attention to till it was brought up in this thread, ... the "life" i have in the tank to soak up those nutrients, ... well they absorbed "some", so that means there's lots left.

and the other one brought up, ... hormones, & other organic chemicals our critters are releasing due to basic body functions.

and this is difficult to consider how to handle at all.

especially in light of the discus comment about massive daily water changes having an apparent improvement in discus health.

i can have guesses, but that's a steep curve that fish are releasing that much so fast, ... sure, things happen in nature to deal with this, ... but that's ... well i don't think there is an ecosystem on the planet that has things as densely populated as our tanks, ... just going through the food-chain, that's a lot of demand on phytoplankton.

and the bacteria that is releasing the nutrients into the water column, ... the only way i can think to limit them is to reduce the substrate , or use larger ... course sand or find gravel instead of fine sand, ... using 1-2" instead of 3"

that's only theory, nothing to back up if it's going to do anything or not.
in the event it does reduce what goes into the water column, ... would it limit phytoplankton from being able to keep up with the demand, or would things start to run out of food till the fish could not survive.

and this goes to point out that i still have a hard time with even where to begin on hormones and other such excretions that are given off by critters in the tank.

the discus thing is a pretty solid argument and massively difficult to consider how to solve that.

Mikaila, good to know that TDS isn't directly related to pH, ... well not good for my personal intents, ... but good to know so i'm not going down a path that isn't helping me out.


----------



## Tolak

I don't think the owners of TFK will have a problem with this link, as they own both sites; First saltwater tank - Aquarium Forum

With a bit of backtracking there's this; limestone rock : Coral, Rock and Sand Hitchhikers - Page 4

As well as this; HAIL beaslbob..... [Archive] - Reef Central Online Community Archives

Different isn't always bad, or good. I like to refer to the first person whoever they may be that tried feeding beefheart. A cow's heart? Discus? When would fish in the Amazon happen across a cow's heart? Over time beefheart is proven to be a very useful food, but there is the proof behind it. The same applies to newly hatched artemia, another proven part of aquatics. 

If you're doing something outside of what is considered standard procedures you do need more lengthy documentation with repeatable results. I would be gearing up for this if I were in your situation.


----------



## Flear

having listened and taken part in marine concerns where coral is concerned ...

macro algae won't help, ... well wait, it will 'help' but when nutrient levels are high enough to upset the coral/zooxanthella algae symbiotic nature, ... one dies off then the other, ... "help" can mean you've prolonged the inevitable. but it's still going to happen

nutrient levels around coral is a much larger issue.

to solve this is then using every effort to ensure any poop is removed ASAP. water flow to prevent any detritus from accumulating anywhere in the tank so it can be removed (finding out you still have areas it's accumulating).

finding that nutrient levels are still higher than desired, algae scrubbers help but that now means you can have more coral types, ... and the most sensitive coral types are still off-bounds because you still can't get the nutrient levels low enough.

and even at this level any kind of algae isn't going to survive because there simply isn't enough nutrients present to keep the algae alive, and you're still above the threshold of the most sensitive coral.

macroalgae doesn't cut it.

DSB, make that a remote DSB so it can be replaced when it's full
skimmers
algae scrubbers
Bare Bottom tanks (no substrate)
water flow, ...
GFO reactor (i forget the other name)
... and likely many more things that are done to keep nutrients down, ... in particular phosphates

and they still can't get them low enough for the more sensitive corals.

macroalgae isn't going to cut it
any organic death is releasing nutrients, and at this point (for most coral, forget the more sensitive ones) levels are already low enough algae has a hard time surviving

what is going on in the wild to allow for this to be maintained, ... it's beyond our knowledge, if it was within our knowledge reefs all over the world wouldn't be dying.

sure macro-algae is fine if you have a marine tank i guess, ... but it's not going to cut it if you add coral


----------



## jaysee

beaslbob said:


> Didn't want to "advertise" another board.
> 
> I know you believe a newbie would post that so no need for a link.



Hahahaha that was said 10 YEARS AGO even older than the pics you post!


----------



## Hallyx

Flear said:


> ammonia, i'm guessing is 0.2-0.3 - no, there is no such thing as a true zero, as that would mean your nitrogen cycling bacteria has crashed due to starvation.


0.2/0.3ppm ammonia is harmful (not deadly) to your livestock. _Most_ keepers would want to KNOW, not just guess.

While there may be no such thing as 0.000ppm ammonia, there is such a thing as unreadable (0.0ppm) ammonia which indicates that the nitrifying bacteria is doing it's job and the colony has grown to a size sufficient to oxidize any but trace amounts of ammonia. This is the condition called "cycled." It's what all keepers should strive for.

Not having the wherewithal to provide a more accurate assessment of your parameters, your input into this thread is apocryphal at best.


----------



## beaslbob

*This post was moved from the beginner section. Please keep your posts as requested by the Mod Team in the Advanced area. Thank you. 
SeaHorse. *

Looks lie you are an interesting type guy.

FWIW I use a natural/Leiden planted method which was dubbed the beaslbob build on another forum.

in that I use peat moss capped with play sand capped with pro choice select which is a baked clay.

I plant the plants then fill the aquarium with water.


I alos use 4' 2 tube utility fixtures over my 55g. They cost like $11 or so at home depot.

then and importantly i let the tank set for a week.

then add 1 fish and not add food for a week.

if I added a live bearer it was a male and I now add two females. other fish I add 5 more.

I then start very light feedings like 1 flake per day.

with live bearers you have a tank full of fish in 6 months and a more or les stable population that lasts for years and years.

no filter, no water changes, no chemicals, just replace evaprotive water with untreated tap.

So sound like some of what you are trying to do is similiar.

the potting soil should work but you may have to kill the lights at first so the cloudy water clears up and algae dies off.

the key to all that is to establish a balanced stable tank that more or less takes care of itself.

Which anyone who has had bonsai should be able to do easily.

best tank ever 

my .02


----------

