# tank "spiking"



## beaslbob

Just a FWIW, to clear up any misconceptions, and to do the in the advanced section I thought I would explain "my" cycling methods.

There had been posts here that I do not cycle my tanks. And that is simply incorrrect.

What I do is use plant life (FW plants, marine algae) to consume the initial ammonia produced while the aerobic bacteria build up. The bacteria will still build up taking more and more ammonia from the plant life untill that life finally starts consuming nitrates for nitrogen.

So the system is still going through a aerobic bacteria cycle.

But what is different is the initial ammonia and nitrIte spikes are short lived and very small if noticable at. But there can be an initial nitrate spike.

So my tanks do in fact cycle. 

They just don't "spike".

And later the tank will again "cycle" should something go bump in the night like a fish death, over feeding and so on. Instead of ammonia "spikes" the plant life steps up to prevent the "spikes" and return the system to more normal operation. But that does not mean the tank does not cycle, it just doesn't spike.

Here is an example. To me this tank obviouly is going through "cycles" but not "spikes".

my . 02


----------



## Agent13

If your tank "spiking" means you cycle your tank then I guess I don't have cycled tanks . Since none of my current tanks ever have spiked since I cloned my bb colonies . 
What are you using the same chart for ? It only shows us you had a tiny single fish in a 20g a decade ago . Not sure what else I can pull from that chart . 
You've bypassed a cycle really .. And if done right it would work fine . 

There's nothing wrong with doing a planted tank and choosing not to learn about how the cycle works . I don't know why you insist on shoving this down the throats of newbies who are here to actually learn ..


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## jaysee

If we've gotten the wrong idea about your methods it's because we've been left to make guesses and assumptions due to your lack of cooperation in addressing concerns that are raised time and time again, everywhere you share this. Posting the same chart that everyone has seen a dozen times, yet again, is just another example of this stonewalling.


----------



## beaslbob

_Posted via Mobile Device_
The example tank had 60 fish from the originals 6 months later. that population was stable for 5 years.
The tank also supported 5 silver hachetfish for years. they are supposed to require a ph of 7 or less.

Imho the real issue is not my lack of addressing concerns but rather the rejection of my answers by people who have never used these techniques. especially the no chemicals nor water changes.

Along with the almost total rejection of my comon sense mathmetical analysis.

Still i do cycle my tanks, have done so in many cites including chloimins cites, with no fish losses, on tanks that had heavy bioloads for years and years.


----------



## rsskylight04

Bob is obviously experienced and intelligent, and he seems to genuinely belive in his method. I'm sure it works for him. I have a 29 gal with hood empty in my basement, and I would be interested in trying the method. 

If the forum would be interested, I can set up as soon as I can get supplies; about a week of so.(???????)
Bob: if you would kindly explain the start-up procedures I would be glad to report the parameters of the procces. I will be completely objective and only report numbers and direct observation, not theory

As I currently understand it I will need:
Peat moss
Sand
Anacharis
Heater
No filter
No special lights ( have standard flourescent tube)

Thanks, I love experiments!


----------



## beaslbob

rsskylight04 said:


> Bob is obviously experienced and intelligent, and he seems to genuinely belive in his method. I'm sure it works for him. I have a 29 gal with hood empty in my basement, and I would be interested in trying the method.
> 
> If the forum would be interested, I can set up as soon as I can get supplies; about a week of so.(???????)
> Bob: if you would kindly explain the start-up procedures I would be glad to report the parameters of the procces. I will be completely objective and only report numbers and direct observation, not theory
> 
> As I currently understand it I will need:
> Peat moss
> Sand
> Anacharis
> Heater
> No filter
> No special lights ( have standard flourescent tube)
> 
> Thanks, I love experiments!


simply follow the link in my signature.
Anything else i say would would spoil the experiment.

Btw that's the attitude.
You go guy/gal

LOL

.02
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Agent13

Yeah.. Skylight. He listed all that stuff in his thread. Go for it !
Bob, I don't reject that this can be done . I reject that this is appropriate to give out disguised as advice. It's not ideal for a fishes health .. It's extremely lazy fish keeping and not what we endorse here. That's a good portion of the rejection you meet. Had I as a newbie many many moons ago been given such advice and I followed it.. I'd be very disappointed with this hobby.. And likely would have eventually stopped keeping fish. I don't want to see anyone unknowingly being steered into this .

If someone comes here for advice then it's best to give them the best possible chances at success . If later down the road they decide to slack off and not keep up proper tank maintenance then that'll be on them! I'll not be responsible for this .. I know there is a good bit of "overdoing " things with tank maintenance flying around .. But it's best to teach everything then let people figure out what they need to do and what they don't with time and their own desires for their tanks . 

Not everyone wants a planted tank covered in algae with fast growing plants and livebearers . Can you start *if nothing else * paying attention to what fish people are keeping before aggressively pushing your method? I don't have the slightest interest in keeping livebearers .. Is it hard to realize that some other people might feel like this? I love plants .. But not everyone does .. 


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## jaysee

rsskylight04 said:


> Bob is obviously experienced and intelligent, and he seems to genuinely belive in his method. I'm sure it works for him. I have a 29 gal with hood empty in my basement, and I would be interested in trying the method.
> 
> If the forum would be interested, I can set up as soon as I can get supplies; about a week of so.(???????)
> Bob: if you would kindly explain the start-up procedures I would be glad to report the parameters of the procces. I will be completely objective and only report numbers and direct observation, not theory
> 
> As I currently understand it I will need:
> Peat moss
> Sand
> Anacharis
> Heater
> No filter
> No special lights ( have standard flourescent tube)
> 
> Thanks, I love experiments!



The issue isn't now, nor has it ever been, a matter of whether or not it CAN work.


----------



## Flear

hundreds of people have done tanks of one way or another that involve zero water changes.

hundreds of people have done things for different mixes of substrate for exceptional plant growth.

all it shows is how flexible and tolerable everything is to a vast range of differences and still make a tank fish can survive in.

i've got similar, and there's problems.

as i continue looking into self-sustaining, i do not know if there will ever be a solution to some of those problems.

a living water softener ?, ... is there such a plant ? ... or anything ?

one of a half-dozen issues to deal with that zero-water changes creates


----------



## Austin

Flear said:


> hundreds of people have done tanks of one way or another that involve zero water changes.
> 
> hundreds of people have done things for different mixes of substrate for exceptional plant growth.
> 
> all it shows is how flexible and tolerable everything is to a vast range of differences and still make a tank fish can survive in.
> 
> i've got similar, and there's problems.
> 
> as i continue looking into self-sustaining, i do not know if there will ever be a solution to some of those problems.
> 
> a living water softener ?, ... is there such a plant ? ... or anything ?
> 
> one of a half-dozen issues to deal with that zero-water changes creates


Exactly... Most fish are adaptable to a degree.... It's not biologically advantageous to be unadaptive.... 

In my opinion rather than do a bunch of guess work and make things complicated I'll just change water. In nature many of these fish live in rivers and the water is constantly being changes. 

-noms popcorn-


----------



## Flear

what i have seen for freshwater vs. saltwater, ...

freshwater lives a precarious life, always changing, water levesl change drastically, 

many species have addapted to a life of existance, making it through each year to approach winter and to adapt again as streams run dry, or freeze over, ... such is life when everything changes.

---

saltwater things are consistant year after year, month after month, evolution does not need adaptability, it needs survivability, to be smarter than your prey, and to be smarter than your hunter. the water does not change enough to spend evolution worrying about changes in the environment.

---

for freshwater to have tanks of drastically different characteristics shows a versatility of evolution for a species that has survived only because it is adaptable to a very large variety of changes. ... indeed some species going as far as to use those changing seasons to it's advantage for propagation & reproduction.

so a tank does not need to have exceedingly strict parameters, ... for the most part

freshwater evolution has timed itself to be attentive to the changing water conditions, as water conditions change and reach certain optimal ranges breeding seasons are started.

temperature changes (season), cleaner water (large rain falls), ... falling of leaves into the rivers, ...

the optimal for breeding does become strict though, ... and without the tank ever reaching those ranges how safe & happy are the inhabitants ?

many species can exist in zoos on basic needs, ... but breeding requires more then the basics


----------



## beaslbob

It's not about whether or not there are fluxations in the wild.

It is all about maintaining a healthy stable environment for the livestock that is forgiving of operator error.

Which may not result in a constant environment.

Or an environment which duplicates conditions in the wild.


----------



## Flear

i said nothing other than the fish can exist in wildly different conditions and survive

i also said that breeding requires more than near random conditions that are survivable

i said nothing about trying to maintain a specific set of parameters (aside from breeding)

mention of the range of conditions does not inspire one to duplicate those range of conditions in their tanks, it shows the versatility that evolution has allowed these fish to survive in.

---

beaslbob, you are proving your fish are surviving, you are not proving your fish are healthy & happy in their tanks.


----------



## Hallyx

Is there one example in the wild of an environment that does not feature some version of a water change? Even anabantids in bongs and stagnant pools get a rainwater change occasionally.


----------



## Agent13

Hallyx said:


> Is there one example in the wild of an environment that does not feature some version of a water change? Even anabantids in bongs and stagnant pools get a rainwater change occasionally.



There are the lakes in Chile. A large desert near the pacific with lakes and no rain . Hoowweevverr.. I'm pretty certain they don't support fish life .. Or hardly even plant life. 


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## Austin

Agent13 said:


> There are the lakes in Chile. A large desert near the pacific with lakes and no rain . Hoowweevverr.. I'm pretty certain they don't support fish life .. Or hardly even plant life.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com App


And they don't dry up? :hmm:


----------



## Flear

there are lakes that (usually below sea level) they never get water changes, they just accumulate water from rains and fed by rivers & streams, excess water evaporates, ... water never leaves to take with it any buildup of anything out of the water basin.

like agent 13 said, i don't think these places support any fish life or plant life.

ones i heard of years ago, ... salts may buildup in these lakes as water that feeds them dissolves and takes with it what it can leach out of the ground as it flows towards these lakes.

aside from the lake that may appear in death valley (california) after a heavy rainfall will dry up within a few days. other such lakes i have heard of (i don't remember names) don't dry up entirely


----------



## Agent13

Austin said:


> And they don't dry up? :hmm:


Apparently not.. But they do become high in salt.


----------



## Mikaila31

Most lakes and rivers have larger ground water inputs then rainwater. But lakes can vary depending on region and elevation. Typically more acidic conditions in heavily rainwater fed locations, however there must be groundwater input or bedrock leaching to replenish buffers. The amazon is neutral-acidic and predominately rainwater fed which gives it the massive floods that induce spawning and the dry season were many transient rivers dry up along with the fish in them. Compared to the great African lakes that are heavily growndwater fed, very deep and in contact with bedrock. They are basic lakes, most lakes are neutral to basic. The bacterial nitrogen cycle in our tank actually has an acidifying effect over a long term. Despite how adaptive fish are, aquatic ecosystems are not. There are thousands of lakes that have had ecosystem collapses due to acid rain and are now fishless, the actual change of 1-2pH isn't deadly for the fish but it doesn't have to be to indirectly kill them off when they are dependent on the ecosystem. 

Everything has to balance out eventually. That is the issue here. Conditions can fluctuate but it has to be back and forth. No natural aquatic ecosystem can manage that without multiple inputs and outputs. 

Bacteria and plants are in direct competition for ammonia. One can not usually out-compete the other IMO. Plants have a higher affinity to uptake ammonia then nitrates so they will do that until there is no ammonia present. A filtered tank is going to favor BB bacteria more then plants, giving the bacteria a high flow high O2 location. Every tank is different due to the different conditions. These have an effect on ammonia when your comparing plants to bacteria. Silent cycling is nothing new, any planted tank can do it when setup correctly.


----------



## Hallyx

Flear said:


> ...they just accumulate water from rains and fed by rivers & streams, excess water evaporates, ...


Sounds like water changes to me.


----------



## rsskylight04

Let's not forget that most aquariums have much higher density of fish per gallon than most natural systems. Plus disease, low oxygen levels, and algae blooms are a normal part of natural systems that we wouldn't want in our tanks. 
Nature is not always nice, beautiful, and healthy , but my tanks are!


----------



## Agent13

rsskylight04 said:


> Nature is not always nice, beautiful, and healthy , but my tanks are!


Exactly ! I couldn't agree more. 



Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## Mikaila31

Hallyx said:


> Sounds like water changes to me.


Its actually not. Evaporation will remove only water when the whole point of a water change is to remove the stuff that has built up in the water. Nitogen, phospates, carbon, and everything else that adds to the TDS does not evaporate. 

Lakes output nutrients in a number of ways: streams, the water table, evaporation, and seeping back into the ground water. Nutrients(plants/aniamls) can also be removed from the system by terrestrial animals. A lake is not its own ecosystem, thats the issue here. It is dependent on the land, geography, and terrestrial ecosystems surrounding it.


----------



## Hallyx

Sounds like water changes to me.


----------



## beaslbob

Hallyx said:


> Is there one example in the wild of an environment that does not feature some version of a water change? Even anabantids in bongs and stagnant pools get a rainwater change occasionally.


No example that you would accept exists.
How does that apply to our closed systems?
As a reminder:
Before water change=replacement water+[(buildup)/(fraction of change)]
is where the tank winds up.
So if you do a 10 percent change every 10 days with a 1ppm /day increase results in 100 ppm plus replacement water.
And so newbies do weekly water changes then wonder why nitrates are high.
and people wonder why I have unmeasureable nitrates with no water changes.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Flear

our tanks are not a 'closed system', ... water goes in (fine, that's not going to have an effect on open or closed)

any tank where water is removed (not by evaporation) is not a closed system.

like in nature, ... if a lake is being supplied water, and there is no output to remove TDS or any other buildup, ... things are going to become toxic to life in that body of water as any and all water that is added to the system is going to bring in additional material.

in our tanks (those of us who try to maintain a more closed system - no water is manually removed) ... the same situation is going to take place if we are not removing anything.

including plant trimmings, ... if we're not trimming our plants and not removing any water, things are going to build up to toxic levels eventually, ... do i have a guess as to how long this could take, ... well lakes in the world that do this are thousands of years old, ... so ... good question on how long it would take in an aquarium we have at home.


----------



## Agent13

beaslbob said:


> and people wonder why I have unmeasureable nitrates with no water changes.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


How would we have wondered that ?? Seeing as you've told us you haven't checked your water in a loooonng time ? In fact last I remember you needed a new test kit because yours was very old and you hadn't checked your water in years was it ? (Just going by your own words ..not that nitrates are more then small concern I have with your "method")



Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## beaslbob

Flear said:


> *our tanks are not a 'closed system'*, ... water goes in (fine, that's not going to have an effect on open or closed)
> 
> any tank where water is removed (not by evaporation) is not a closed system.
> 
> like in nature, ... if a lake is being supplied water, and there is no output to remove TDS or any other buildup, ... things are going to become toxic to life in that body of water as any and all water that is added to the system is going to bring in additional material.
> 
> in our tanks (those of us who try to maintain a more closed system - no water is manually removed) ... the same situation is going to take place if we are not removing anything.
> 
> including plant trimmings, ... if we're not trimming our plants and not removing any water, things are going to build up to toxic levels eventually, ... do i have a guess as to how long this could take, ... well lakes in the world that do this are thousands of years old, ... so ... good question on how long it would take in an aquarium we have at home.


 
True

But it is a matter of degree and I was only talking about the effect of water changes.

So the question is how much closed and now much open?

a 10% weekly water changes is IMHO almost a totally closed system and acts like a closed system when compared to a tank with a constant water change equal to several 100% water changes per hour.

Which is why that equation I submit and is ignored is so important. With the massive water change senerio the tank does become a reflection of what the replacement water is. By contrast with a 10% weekly water change the tank reflects the processes going on in the tank and not the conditions of the replacement water.

To my our job as aquariumists is to provide quality environments to our fish. With water change schedules convienent to aquariumists, those conditions will reflect the tank actions not the replacement water.


----------



## Austin

Who does 10% water changes every 10 days? Mine are 40-50% weekly, and the only place I see 10% water changes recommended are from petsmart....
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Agent13

beaslbob said:


> to aquariumists, .



Aquarist 


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## Hallyx

In any lake the amount of replacement water flowing through determines the ecology of that lake, from wide spot in a river to a secluded pond, from a rice paddy to a slow stream. Some of these environments get the equivalent of a 50% water change every week. Some more; some less.

Which among this wide range do you wish to emulate in your tank?


----------



## Agent13

Austin said:


> Who does 10% water changes every 10 days? Mine are 40-50% weekly, and the only place I see 10% water changes recommended are from petsmart....
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



Is that what petsmart tells you to do ? I should for fun read up on their suggestions . I know they tell people to put bearded dragons on sand.. Or even worse .. Calcium sand. Which kills dragons . Reduces their life span from 18 yrs to 2months -2yrs.
10% is a gigantic waste of my time. With exactly the same effort I could change 80%. 


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## Flear

a franchise box store, ... unless the associate you're talking to just happens to be interested in whatever pets/animals they are taking care of, ... it's just another job to them, learn on the job, but after that go home to b/f or g/f (or both) party on Friday evenings, and who cares, it's not your fish/pets on the line, ...

even at my local pet store that has a lady who is their 'fish expert' her advice is ... hit & miss, slightly better than average, definitely better than the beginner, but that's about it.

oddly, even online information is hit & miss at times
i remember looking up goldfish, ... how long do they live ?, ... answers range from 5 years to 25 years, ... i would have expected something so common to be a lot more knowledgeable and consistent about how to take care of these well-know fish, ... 

same with plants online, ... fast growing, high light demanding, etc. ... depending on what sites you are looking at you will get wildly different answers.

i have mentioned it to one of the moderators on here (TFK) about allowing us regulars to input their own information and experience on fish (and other) profiles.

there's a huge value in experience over moderators reading from whatever their favorite site is.

---

it would be nice to see a list of comments after each fish of what people have kept parameters for a particular fish in. what allowed for breeding, ... and the ability to edit well after 20 min.

sure, some fish would have dozens of additional entries that would fluctuate wildly, ... but also would be included the parameters of people who have successfully bred their fish, results of how many fry, what live foods they like (including plants - for diet and/or plants to avoid for whatever reason)

---

well that's my rant, ...

sure it becomes a list of wildly random parameters, one person with a high pH, one with a low pH, another who was able to breed under X parameters, ... but out comes some consistency from experience ...

ranges get seen, 5 people successfully breeding a particular fish get to show pH ranges, (and other ranges)
water conditions (high flow, no flow, etc.) water changes, temperatures ... all those details.

just me, it's a little frustrating looking for information and seeing conflicting information that is obtained from a book, or whatever other arbitrary source and seeing these sources conflict with others, ... there's a lack of consistency, and few places allow for comments or input that allow for people to share their experiences.


----------



## rsskylight04

bob does make a good point though. SMALL water changes are as bad as no water changes at all. Since i started communicating with you good people here at tfk, ive increased the amount of water changed from 25% every week to 60% every two weeks. Im considering a once yearly or so 100% water change for all my tanks As bob says, i want my tank to be a reflection of the tapwater, not what happens to the water after it sits in the tank.
Kinda funny that instead of changing less or no water as bob suggests, his arguments have convinced me to change more!


----------



## Agent13

rsskylight04 said:


> bob does make a good point though. SMALL water changes are as bad as no water changes at all. Since i started communicating with you good people here at tfk, ive increased the amount of water changed from 25% every week to 60% every two weeks. Im considering a once yearly or so 100% water change for all my tanks As bob says, i want my tank to be a reflection of the tapwater, not what happens to the water after it sits in the tank.
> Kinda funny that instead of changing less or no water as bob suggests, his arguments have convinced me to change more!


Haha! Wouldnt it be nice if everyone he tried to sell his "method" to walked away with what you did?


----------



## Flear

Risky, ... to help you out.

http://www.theaquatools.com/water-changes-calculator

while it's more of a numbers thing, ... i just type in the % water changed & how often, ... don't really care about the initial values, it will give you an estimate about what to expect over time, ... where things will settle out, ... a good place to start.

Edit:
playing around with it, 10% a week is really wasting your efforts (unless you're doing this daily)
50% a week is great

(just aiming for numbers under 20.

i'm not even sure what to call "dirt" by that calculators estimates, ... but under 20 seems healthy to me. ... not counting the more sensitive fish out there, ... and at that point i'm sure under 5 

i'm no expert at all, it's just guesses & what feels right with nothing to back up my guesses


----------



## beaslbob

Agent13 said:


> Aquarist
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com App


 
noone said could spell. :lol:

Besides what's the plural?


----------



## beaslbob

Flear said:


> Risky, ... to help you out.
> 
> Aquarium Water Changes Calculator - Are your filters up to the job? | Aquarium Tools | Aquarium Tools
> 
> while it's more of a numbers thing, ... i just type in the % water changed & how often, ... don't really care about the initial values, it will give you an estimate about what to expect over time, ... where things will settle out, ... a good place to start.
> 
> Edit:
> playing around with it, 10% a week is really wasting your efforts (unless you're doing this daily)
> 50% a week is great
> 
> *(just aiming for numbers under 20.*
> 
> i'm not even sure what to call "dirt" by that calculators estimates, ... but under 20 seems healthy to me. ... not counting the more sensitive fish out there, ... and at that point i'm sure under 5
> 
> i'm no expert at all, it's just guesses & what feels right with nothing to back up my guesses


and I get way way way under 20ppm with no water changes.


----------



## beaslbob

Austin said:


> Who does 10% water changes every 10 days? Mine are 40-50% weekly, and the only place I see 10% water changes recommended are from petsmart....
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


So it is you opinion that brand new aquarium owners are best served by telling them to change 40-50% of the tank water each week?

I simply disagree with that.

my .02


----------



## Agent13

beaslbob said:


> So it is you opinion that brand new aquarium owners are best served by telling them to change 40-50% of the tank water each week?
> 
> I simply disagree with that.
> 
> my .02



Why?


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## rsskylight04

I've been changing 25%/week for years. Now I think that's a bit too small. 40%/week doesn't seem unreasonable, and occasional80-100% changes are starting to sound like a good idea based on the water change caluculator and the realities of nutrient buildup.


----------



## Flear

beaslbob said:


> and I get way way way under 20ppm with no water changes.


how do you know you have under 20ppm TDS if you have nothing to test your water with ?


----------



## beaslbob

Agent13 said:


> Why?
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com App


Because. 


:lol::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Tolak

beaslbob said:


> Because.
> 
> 
> :lol::lol::lol::lol:


Brilliant.


----------



## Agent13

beaslbob said:


> Because.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :lol::lol::lol::lol:




Lol.. I thought you'd at least pretend to have a reason for a "method" haha

To be honest I like this honest answer most(doesnt mean i'll back this approach but high five for being honest )
Btw the plural is just aquarists .. Sorry some words just get under my skin when misspelled . My mom drilled this stuff into my head


----------



## rsskylight04

Agent13 said:


> Lol.. I thought you'd at least pretend to have a reason for a "method" haha
> 
> To be honest I like this honest answer most(doesnt mean i'll back this approach but high five for being honest )
> Btw the plural is just aquarists .. Sorry some words just get under my skin when misspelled . My mom drilled this stuff into my head


Ha! I have to constantly stop myself from correcting peoples grammar, I annoy myself with that!


----------



## FishyFishy89

I just found this thread.
My conclusion, the OP seems to be nothing but a troll. Really. I've been there and done the whole "self sustaining" aquarium when I was younger. My brother was into aquariums and was far more advanced than I was.
He fully planted my tank and I threw some fish in there. Never once did I have fish last in that tank beyond 3 months.

I don't believe in a self sustaining aquarium without water changes. There simply cannot be one. Every single aquatic environment has some form of water changes. Either through evaporation/rain(you don't know for sure if evaporation doesn't contain TDS), running water or both. To sit there and completely remove this critical part of the aquatic environment's life cycle is equivalent to basically pouring poison into your aquarium(IMHO)

I do, in fact, think that it is VERY reckless to give newbies the OP's advice. I can't tell you how many times I've said "No. You actually should be doing larger water changes until your tank is established" And even then, I am to the point where I have observed my fish thoroughly enjoying their weekly 50% water changes. Even IF my water params are consent and nothing is out of whack. We enjoy a bit of fresh air every now and then. So it wouldn't be surprising if your fish actually enjoyed some fresh water every now and then. Seriously, even suggesting that someone just stopped doing water changes is a waste of time. Might as well tell them to flush their money down the toilet. Because they'll be spending more money to replace the fish that have died than they would in paying the water bill to do the water changes they should be doing.


----------



## Austin

beaslbob said:


> So it is you opinion that brand new aquarium owners are best served by telling them to change 40-50% of the tank water each week?
> 
> I simply disagree with that.
> 
> my .02


Well, yes, that's my opinion. It works just fine for me and many people. A 50% water change removes the amount of wastes that many 10% changes remove. Can't do the math right now, but it's simply much much more effective!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Austin

Agent13 said:


> Is that what petsmart tells you to do ? I should for fun read up on their suggestions . I know they tell people to put bearded dragons on sand.. Or even worse .. Calcium sand. Which kills dragons . Reduces their life span from 18 yrs to 2months -2yrs.
> 10% is a gigantic waste of my time. With exactly the same effort I could change 80%.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com App


I believe my new 75g tank instructions said to change 25% a month.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Agent13

Austin said:


> I believe my new 75g tank instructions said to change 25% a month.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



Oh wow .. Goes to show why I toss instructions . I got my 75 and stand from petsmart . Never looked at anything that came with it hahaa 
I could get away with that water change schedule but I know I don't like how that looks . 


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## Austin

I probably got the same tank as you xD it was either on the free sample of food, water conditioner, or the tank itself. Here is the official petsmart recommendation:


> Maintaining a healthy environment for your fish is an ongoing commitment. You can keep your aquarium in great shape with minimal effort by following this schedule:
> Daily:
> Check water temperature.
> Weekly:
> Remove 10% of the water and replace with dechlorinated water.
> Test the water conditions on a regular basis to be sure that pH, ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, hardness, alkalinity and chlorine levels are normal. Water test kits are available for measuring these conditions in stores and at PetSmart.com. Or, take advantage of our freewater testing.
> Scrub for algae (if necessary).
> Monthly:
> Perform a 25% water change/gravel vacuum and replace with dechlorinated water.
> Perform filter maintenance (i.e., replace filter cartridge, replace carbon, rinse pre-filter, etc.).
> Scrub aquarium for algae.
> Remove plastic plants/decorations and clean (if necessary).
> Replace air stone if used (allows for more efficient operation and makes the air pump last longer).
> Prune live plants (if necessary)."


Even they recommend more changes than Bob!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## beaslbob

For the large less frequent vrs the smaller more frequent crowd: please consider that equation.

you know:

before water change=replacement water+[(buildup between changes)/(fraction of change)]

And assume there is a constant daily change and the various schedules "link" change amount and frequency. so 1/10 every 10 days, 1/20 every 20 days.

then run the numbers.

You will find out that 1/100 every day, 1/10 every 10 days, 1/20 every twenty days etc etc etc all result the the same exact before water change values. Which is 100 times the daily build up.
What does change is the condition after the change.

So more frequent smaller changes results in more constant conditions then larger less frequent changes.

Also 50% weekly change results in 14 time the daily increase plus whatever is in the replacement water.


----------



## Agent13

I don't recommend infrequent large changes. I recommend them every week or two at 50% or more. That's what I do . More often I do 80% though . Are you hauling buckets for water changes ? I don't understand why you think it's so much work. All I do is switch a valve and sip on a glass of wine as I watch. It's not hard no matter the tank size !


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## jaysee

I don't recommend large infrequent water changes either, even though that's what I do - 80% every 4-6 weeks. I DO mention it though, like I am now. Is it something I think others can do? Sure. Am I going to try to get people to do what I do? No, that would be irresponsible. People can settle into whatever kind of routine they wish.


----------



## pop

hello;
those of you seeking truth through numbers consider that there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics so be-careful when seeing nature through statistical or percentage based analysis.

what is a satisfactory definition of an open/closed system and should this notion be applied to aquariums? 

water vapor (evaporation or humidity) is radiant heat.

Bob and others can plant uptake of nitrate be considered an abstract part of the cycle process. 

pop


----------



## beaslbob

Agent13 said:


> I don't recommend infrequent large changes. I recommend them every week or two at 50% or more. That's what I do . More often I do 80% though . Are you hauling buckets for water changes ?* I don't understand why you think it's so much work*. All I do is switch a valve and sip on a glass of wine as I watch. It's not hard no matter the tank size !
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com App


It's not the work.

It's about creating the best and most stable environment for the livestock that is most resistant to operator error and other shocks.

The less the operator does and most expecially brand new, inexperienced operators, the less likely for oppseies that degrade the system.

For instance, more than once people have reported tank crashes after water changes. Several times the operator inadvertantly introduced toxins that caused the crash.

By having a balanced and stable system that does not require water changes, that danger is totally removed.

Not to mention the addition of chemicals that kill fish like ammonia locks and dechlors being added when they are not needed.

my .02


----------



## jaysee

Right because fish never die from laziness and neglect.......


----------



## Flear

Jaysee, 

that's the same reason i don't recommend others to do what i do with my tank, ... 

i've got a subborn thought that treats the tank as more of an experiment.

could my tank be better, yes. could it be healthier, yes.

that's 2 very good reasons i won't advocate others doing what i am doing now.

in the future things may be different, but by then i hope to know a hell of a lot more than i do now.

in the future i'll know if this self-sustaining idea is plausible, and if so, what is needed, 
... and if it's not plausible, i will know i wasn't convincing other people to do things that wasn't good for their tank

all i can say now is water changes are not as big a deal as they are made out to be, ... but i'll never tell someone not to do them, ... i have told people to pay attention to why they are doing them though, as often people make water changes for no other reason than because they always have.


----------



## jaysee

I agree that water changes are not as big a deal as many people make it out to be. The sense I get from some is that they think their fish will die without a weekly water change and that's just not so. Surely there must be a happy balance somewhere between the extremes.....


----------



## Agent13

OMG bob.. Do explain how dechlor kills fish hahahaha . Please ? I'm soooo curious to hear this . 

You do understand "old tank syndrome " don't you ? Where long term neglect then a water change will crash your tank .. Where someone follows your advice till they get grossed out by their tank then change the water .. Where ammonia wasn't toxic because the PH fell then a water change rises the PH changing the ammonium to ammonia and all the sudden your tank is toxic .. Killing your fish .. All because someone blindly takes your advice . I think that's really irresponsible of you to do that to so many newbies. And to top it off by blaming something else for their tanks crashing ....

Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## jaysee

The constant trend I see is you using these freak situations, such as dechlorinator killing fish, as a justification for not doing something that the OVERWHELMING majority of people have no trouble with WHATSOEVER. Makes as much sense as advising people to not go in the ocean because of shark attacks.


----------



## beaslbob

Agent13 said:


> OMG bob.. Do explain how dechlor kills fish hahahaha . Please ? I'm soooo curious to hear this .


 
Sodium thiosulfate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> To dechlorinate tap water for aquariums or treat effluent from waste water treatments prior to release into rivers. The reduction reaction is analogous to the iodine reduction reaction. Treatment of tap water requires between 0.1 grams and 0.3 grams of pentahydrated (crystalline) sodium thiosulfate per 10 liters of water.
> To lower chlorine levels in swimming pools and spas following super chlorination.
> ...
> 
> The thiosulfate anion is tetrahedral in shape and is notionally derived by replacing one of the oxygen atoms by a sulfur atom in a sulfate anion


It locks up oxygen for one thing. MSDS commming next


----------



## beaslbob

msds:

http://www.hillbrothers.com/msds/pdf/n/sodium-thios.pdf




> *
> A: General Product Information​*This compound may be harmful to aquatic life in high concentrations.




This is the most common dechlor ingredient.

Environmentally it is dangerous to aquatic life and should not be released into streams and ponds.

Even if the aquaariumist doesn't overdose, just the fact that such a dangerous to aquatic life chemical is being actively endorsed causes concerns to me. Even if just for possible spills at the factory.

And most especially when it is totally unecessary.

my .02


----------



## Flear

i've heard about dechlorinator locking up oxygen

i've also heard it's like OD'ing on chocolate, ... (which by the way is eating about 20% of your body mass worth of chocolate - i think you'd be throwing up pure chocolate long before you OD'ed)

you have to be absolutely overkill on how much dechlorinator you are adding to the tank before you have to worry about it having any effect on oxygen on the tank


----------



## Agent13

beaslbob said:


> msds:
> 
> http://www.hillbrothers.com/msds/pdf/n/sodium-thios.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the most common dechlor ingredient.
> 
> Environmentally it is dangerous to aquatic life and should not be released into streams and ponds.
> 
> Even if the aquaariumist doesn't overdose, just the fact that such a dangerous to aquatic life chemical is being actively endorsed causes concerns to me. Even if just for possible spills at the factory.
> 
> And most especially when it is totally unecessary.
> 
> my .02
> [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]



Interesting how you pick and choose like this . So this is dangerous yet sodium bicarbonate isn't ? Sodium bicarbonate is far more dangerous then dechlor. 
Did you even read that carefully . Mostly it says don't pour it in your eyes don't drink a bunch of it lol.. And don't boil it. If you did any if the above I'd like to have you take a drug test haha 
For aquatic life it's possibly dangerous in high concentrations yet there's no info on it so it's more of a guess to be on the safe side . Nearly everything can be toxic given you use enough. 
If someone screws up by accidentally dumping a couple bottles of prime in their tank then I'd be worried more about that person then what they do to their fish . This is all highly far fetched . 


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## jaysee

beaslbob said:


> msds:
> 
> http://www.hillbrothers.com/msds/pdf/n/sodium-thios.pdf
> 
> Environmentally it is dangerous to aquatic life and should not be released into streams and ponds.
> [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]



Bob, if you are going to link information, when you draw from that information the least you can do is get it right.

The msds says that "this compound may be dangerous to aquatic life in high concentrations." I imagine that it must require literal tons of dechorinator dumped into a natural waterway all at once to have any impact. 

Since you are SO concerned about this threat why don't you find out what the LD50 number is. You know, REAL information about toxicity. Then we will know what constitutes a "high concentration". Such information would be immensely more helpful than incorrectly quoting the MSDS, which doesn't provide any information on the matter.

For example - "aquatic toxicity - no information available"


----------



## Agent13

Do not smoke your prime ! Lol., and don't try to make crack cocaine with it either! Don't put your fish in a tank of prime with no water and don't sauté fish in it either expecting them to live ... 

I just wanted to make sure people were warned ... ;-)

Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## Flear

yes, things in high concentrations can be toxic, ...

i've heard pot takes about 5 tons, before you OD

dangerous stuff, you might just OD on pot, better not touch it.

(honestly i don't smoke anything, i'm just a sponge for obscure facts and details at times)

so really, 5 tons 

bob, your worried about the toxic effects of dechlorinator that mentions how dangerous the chemical is when applied directly (full concentration) to eyes or swallowed, ... and a dilution of less than 1% that is actually used, ... 

go smoke some pot ... remember 5 tons


----------



## jaysee

I had read it required a monkey to be dosed with the equivalent of smoking 200 lbs of pot in an hour to cause an overdose.

Hahaha even water is toxic in too great of a concentration.


----------



## Flear

chlorine is far more toxic than declorinators

lesser of 2 evils
or let your water sit to gas off the chlorine (if that is what is used in your municipality)

ahhh, but letting your water gas off toxic chlorine for a water change is still water changes, ...


----------



## rsskylight04

jaysee said:


> I had read it required a monkey to be dosed with the equivalent of smoking 200 lbs of pot in an hour to cause an overdose.
> 
> Hahaha even water is toxic in too great of a concentration.


Yeah, lots of things can kill fish if overused. What if i put 50 pounds of gravel in a 10 gal tank, leaving no room for water or fish? What if i dumped a full jar of fish flakes in the tank? What about the peat moss Ive seen recommended for substrate? wouldn't that hurt the fish if i filled the tank with it? 
While i admire bobs attempts at a 100% self sustaining tank, i must condemn his scare tactics and voodoo mathematics. Also i see it as a disservice to suggest experimental methods to beginners . I have a dwarf gourami in my cichlid tank and that works for me, but would i suggest that beginners try that? HECK NO!

So long as were talking about pot... you cant smoke enough to kill yourself, the active ingredient, THC, in 200+ pounds must be administered IN ONE DOSE to kill a monkey. it would take several days to smoke that much even if you didn't sleep,eat, go to the bathroom... it would begin wearing off before you could accumulate enough in your blood, even if you kept one burning 24/7 and never stopped hitting it. 
No, i don't smoke pot. No one should ever smoke pot without a doctors supervision and prescription. Also don't drink your prime or snort activated carbon...


----------



## beaslbob

rsskylight04 said:


> ...
> 
> and voodoo mathematics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


should be fairly easy to disprove the math.

so show how a tank with constant changes does not wind up at:

before water changes conditions=replacement water conditions+[(change between water changes)/(fraction of water change)]

Just calling it "voodoo mathmetics" is misleading and in fact a scare tatic.

So once again where is that equatium incorrect or wrong in any way.

That formula is mathmetacally correct and in fact reflective of results aquariumists have in the real world.


If you actually take the time to respond make sure that response show where it winds up. IE When the amount before a water change does not change water change to water change.

Awaiting your response.


----------



## FishyFishy89

Please, give me an example of how you are using this "equation". Because, last I checked, water conditions aren't described with just 1 number. You state, in short, "Use this equation and I'll be proven right!". Yet you haven't even shown us that you, yourself, are using it. You throw that equation around but I have yet to see a single statement where you actually PROVE your method is healthier for aquatic environments(which in the wild, has actually been proven deadly)


----------



## beaslbob

FishyFishy89 said:


> Please, give me an example of how you are using this "equation". Because, last I checked, water conditions aren't described with just 1 number. You state, in short, "Use this equation and I'll be proven right!". Yet you haven't even shown us that you, yourself, are using it. You throw that equation around but I have yet to see a single statement where you actually PROVE your method is healthier for aquatic environments(which in the wild, has actually been proven deadly)


 
Ok

As an example.

rate of increase=1ppm/day

water change water 30ppm

fraction of water change 1/10

days between water changes 10

before water change= 30ppm+[(1ppm*10days)/(1/10)]
before water change = 30ppm+10/(1/10)
before water change=30ppm+10*10
before water change =30ppm+100ppm
before water change =130ppm


So the tank before a water change is 130ppm, and after a water change goes down to 120ppm, then rises to 130ppm for the next water change. So the system has reached a steady state.


----------



## rsskylight04

beaslbob said:


> should be fairly easy to disprove the math.
> 
> so show how a tank with constant changes does not wind up at:
> 
> before water changes conditions=replacement water conditions+[(change between water changes)/(fraction of water change)]
> 
> Just calling it "voodoo mathmetics" is misleading and in fact a scare tatic.
> 
> So once again where is that equatium incorrect or wrong in any way.
> 
> That formula is mathmetacally correct and in fact reflective of results aquariumists have in the real world.
> 
> 
> If you actually take the time to respond make sure that response show where it winds up. IE When the amount before a water change does not change water change to water change.
> 
> Awaiting your response.


The beauty of it is that you are absolutely right! The math all points toward a system that will become choked with accumulated waste products and dissolved solids. But to discontinue water changes will only make that worse, not better. Ill not touch the math, i majored in English because i hate math and all the lies that it can tell. Your arguments against partial water changes are very persuasive, but instead of going for NO water change I would tend toward more FULL water changes, meaning 80% or more. Your theory and math are very good, but the direction you take with that information, i think, is errant. I do thank you for your participation on this forum, seems like your presence brings out the beast in everyone! i mean the best in everyone!
Best wishes for a beautiful and healthy aquarium.


----------



## beaslbob

rsskylight04 said:


> The beauty of it is that you are absolutely right! The math all points toward a system that will become choked with accumulated waste products and dissolved solids. But to discontinue water changes will only make that worse, not better. Ill not touch the math, i majored in English because i hate math and all the lies that it can tell. Your arguments against partial water changes are very persuasive, but instead of going for NO water change I would tend toward more FULL water changes, meaning 80% or more. Your theory and math are very good, but the direction you take with that information, i think, is errant. I do thank you for your participation on this forum, seems like your presence brings out the beast in everyone! i mean the best in everyone!
> Best wishes for a beautiful and healthy aquarium.


 
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

The main point is to show that reducing the rate of change is more important then the water changes.

IME plants do that for the fish wastes and the peat moss in the substrate dose that that for the hardness.

"My" methods are much more then just stop doing water changes. But rather to not rely on water changes.


my .02


----------



## FishyFishy89

beaslbob said:


> Ok
> 
> As an example.
> 
> rate of increase=1ppm/day
> 
> water change water 30ppm
> 
> fraction of water change 1/10
> 
> days between water changes 10
> 
> before water change= 30ppm+[(1ppm*10days)/(1/10)]
> before water change = 30ppm+10/(1/10)
> before water change=30ppm+10*10
> before water change =30ppm+100ppm
> before water change =130ppm
> 
> 
> So the tank before a water change is 130ppm, and after a water change goes down to 120ppm, then rises to 130ppm for the next water change. So the system has reached a steady state.


You seem to not understand what water changes do. When you change water, you change with an effective amount in order to REMOVE the toxins. If you change a small amount, then the toxins aren't removed enough and build up. That is why we recommend to change atleast 25% weekly. I, personally, recommend to change atleast 50% weekly.

Instead of sitting here and creating math equations to support yourself. Actually DO the work!!! Use the water testing kits. They're created for a very good reason. Test your water before a water change and atleast 3 hours after a water change. Test kits actually tell you what is going on in the water. Math doesn't tell you what is going on in the water.


----------



## beaslbob

FishyFishy89 said:


> You seem to not understand what water changes do. When you change water, you change with an effective amount in order to REMOVE the toxins. If you change a small amount, then the toxins aren't removed enough and build up. That is why we recommend to change atleast 25% weekly. I, personally, recommend to change atleast 50% weekly.
> 
> Instead of sitting here and creating math equations to support yourself. Actually DO the work!!! Use the water testing kits. They're created for a very good reason. Test your water before a water change and atleast 3 hours after a water change. Test kits actually tell you what is going on in the water. Math doesn't tell you what is going on in the water.


 
NO.

The math doesn't tell *you* what is going on in the water.

If you remove toxins soley by water changes you have very very big problems.

My tanks have unmeasureable ammonia, nitrItes, nitrates, phosphates. Low carbon dioxide and high oxygen. KH of 4 degrees and gh of 9 degrees that remain constant for years.

10g tanks have supported 25-30 live bearers for up to nine years.

In 1/2 dozen dites in the US.

Using untreated tap water.

and no water changes.

What the math should be telling you is that water changes will not prevent toxin build up in your system.

What I do is balance out and stabilize operation so that water changes are not only unnecessary but can actually create problems that would not otherwise exist.

my .02


----------



## rsskylight04

beaslbob said:


> :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
> 
> The main point is to show that reducing the rate of change is more important then the water changes.
> 
> IME plants do that for the fish wastes and the peat moss in the substrate dose that that for the hardness.
> 
> "My" methods are much more then just stop doing water changes. But rather to not rely on water changes.
> 
> 
> my .02


:roll:


Reducing rate of change in water parameters is important, but just as important is reducing TOTAL change over time. As water sits in a tank it changes in composition and properties. Most of what is happening is for the worse as far as my fish are concerned; its becoming more acidic, nitrate is building, TDS is rising, buffer is becoming depleted... Meanwhile, my de- chlorinated tap water is perfect for the fish i keep. I want my tank water to be as close to my tap water as possible- that's why i do frequent water changes. There's not much i can do to make my tap water match the tank, so i make the tank match the tap water.
I think reducing total change over time is MORE important than reducing short term rate of change. With your method bob, the tank water is going to become so different than the tapwater that just topping off evaporated water will constitute a large and instantaneous rate of change.Especially this time of year when, because of furnace/heating the air indoors is soooooo dry that a top off for my 75 gal is 5-8 gallons. I have tanks that have been up since 2002- what would the water in them be like if i never changed any water out? Certainly nothing like my tap water.
You're assessments of partial water changes are convincing. But the evidence seems clear that instead of no water changes, a better practice would be partial water changes to hold parameters as steady as possible, then FULL water change periodically to eliminate trace accumulations. I dont really understand how you could read it any other way????????????


----------



## Flear

water changes made simple, ... if you do a 50% water change, the levels in the tank are 1/2 what they were before the water change

if you do an 80% water change, levels in the tank are 4/5 of what they were origeonally

(more than 80% is difficult)

if you are removing medication, ...
80% + 80%+ 80% = <1% of the original concentration remaining

water being removed from a tank is always going to be a higher concentration than just about everything than what is going into the tank.

i've spent the last 6 months looking into and researching whatever i can to keep TDS in the water column down, these can and do create problems

refraining from water changes because your worried about introducing something into the tank ??? 
that's like cutting your foot off because you stubbed your toe, might have broken something, it might get gangrene, ... better be sure that never happens, ... so lets consider something drastic.

beaslbob, your 'no water changes' for such minor possibilities is far more likely to create problems than it will solve.

you're looking at the potential of a possibility of something going wrong during a water change (which would be done by an inexperienced newbie) and you're promoting a system that no sane person in the hobby would consider recommending to someone new, ... especially someone who would make a mistake by inadvertently introducing something that would cause their tank to fail

if they are going to fail with the water they are putting in the tank, you're handing them a grenade and asking them to keep it safe under their pillow at night. but if the grenade ever goes off, they won't complain will they ?

beaslbob, talk with experts about your no-water-change theory
take measurements
buy test kits (or other measuring equipment)
share those numbers, on your current tanks, and share the numbers for the first 3 months (daily) of a new tank you are setting up.

i don't do water changes either, i know it's possible, ... i don't have any testing kits (aside from ph & ammonia) ... that's a horrible thing to promote when the real stuff going on i don't have a clue about, i've got nutrient deficiency problems - and you've mentioned you do as well - your tank has a higher pH than i have in my own tank, and i've got problems

now you are (and have been for a long while) promoting a system that you have admitted has problems to inexperienced newbies who don't have the experience to deal with the issues your 'method' is going to cause them.

i think that's the epitomy of irresponsibility beaslbob

you can't be irresponsible like this, it's not us, it's fish & other creatures that are 100% dependant on our maintaining their health, ... not like a cat or a dog that can get out and stretch or (more for cats) hunt and forage if we're not taking care of them (there are mice and rats pretty much everywhere, and so are there sandboxes)

if we have a tank that needs cleaning and we don't, ... that's on us, 

you are promoting a system to newbies with a small possibility of "it could fail with this one thing" and irresponsibly giving them advice that even experienced people in the hobby cringe about


----------



## FishyFishy89

beaslbob said:


> NO.
> 
> The math doesn't tell *you* what is going on in the water.
> 
> If you remove toxins soley by water changes you have very very big problems.
> 
> My tanks have unmeasureable ammonia, nitrItes, nitrates, phosphates. Low carbon dioxide and high oxygen. KH of 4 degrees and gh of 9 degrees that remain constant for years.
> 
> 10g tanks have supported 25-30 live bearers for up to nine years.
> 
> In 1/2 dozen dites in the US.
> 
> Using untreated tap water.
> 
> and no water changes.
> 
> What the math should be telling you is that water changes will not prevent toxin build up in your system.
> 
> What I do is balance out and stabilize operation so that water changes are not only unnecessary but can actually create problems that would not otherwise exist.
> 
> my .02


It's been a while since I've been in school But I do believe the math you are using is multiplying. Doing water changes doesn't multiply toxins.
I could very easily create my own equation that supports the method of doing water changes to make the healthiest possible environment.
Plain and simple, you're encouraging lazy fish keeping. Which has been proven to be deadly. I'll admit, it is possible to have an aquarium stuffed with plants need very little maintenance. But the fact remains, even aquariums like that still receive a water change once in a while.


----------



## beaslbob

FishyFishy89 said:


> It's been a while since I've been in school But I do believe the math you are using is multiplying. Doing water changes doesn't multiply toxins.
> I could very easily create my own equation that supports the method of doing water changes to make the healthiest possible environment.
> Plain and simple, you're encouraging lazy fish keeping. Which has been proven to be deadly. I'll admit, it is possible to have an aquarium stuffed with plants need very little maintenance. But the fact remains, even aquariums like that still receive a water change once in a while.


 
IMHO there is nothing lazy about setting up a balanced eco system.

My equation does not multiply toxins.

You might want to think a little harder about that equation.

In the 130ppm example the water changes has reduced the toxins to that level.

my .02


----------



## Flear

130ppm of what ?


----------



## FishyFishy89

beaslbob said:


> IMHO there is nothing lazy about setting up a balanced eco system.
> 
> My equation does not multiply toxins.
> 
> You might want to think a little harder about that equation.
> 
> In the 130ppm example the water changes has reduced the toxins to that level.
> 
> my .02


It is lazy fish keeping. You're not setting up a balanced eco. You're setting up a death box and encouraging other users to do so.
numbers between parentheses is indicating multiplication. Numbers between brackets is indicating multiplication.


----------



## beaslbob

FishyFishy89 said:


> It is lazy fish keeping. You're not setting up a balanced eco. You're setting up a death box and encouraging other users to do so.
> numbers between parentheses is indicating multiplication. Numbers between brackets is indicating multiplication.


I guess if you don't want to get then it doesn't make any difference.

FWIW the equation represents condition where increase in toxins are totally removed by the water change.


----------



## Hallyx

Flear said:


> could my tank be better, yes. could it be healthier, yes.


How sad. And to admit this in public on an actual fish-forum.... <sigh>


----------



## Hallyx

pop said:


> ...those of you seeking truth through numbers consider that there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics so be-careful when seeing nature through statistical or percentage based analysis.


Please do not take Mr. Twain's words out of context nor interpret literally what he clearly meant as sarcasm. Were it not for mathematics and statistical analysis, we'd still be living in pre-Enlightenment conditions. 

Are those leaches helping with the bad ethers there, pop? Are your humors in balance?


----------



## Hallyx

jaysee said:


> Hahaha even water is toxic in too great of a concentration.


Beware of hyponatremia. Some dumb radio DJ sponsored a water-drinking contest. Killed a girl and sent several contestants to the hospital.


----------



## Hallyx

beaslbob said:


> before water changes conditions=replacement water conditions+[(change between water changes)/(fraction of water change)]
> 
> Just calling it "voodoo mathmetics" is misleading and in fact a scare tatic.
> 
> So once again where is that equatium incorrect or wrong in any way.


You're right, Bob, that isn't _voodoo_ mathematics. That's non-sequitur math.

You have two unquantifiable terms in your so-called equation. So it's not mathematics, it's sociology or --heaven forfend--- economics.


----------



## Agent13

Hallyx said:


> How sad. And to admit this in public on an actual fish-forum.... <sigh>



No no no.. I don't think you understand what he is doing . flear is looking into the deeper science of controversial things with aquarium keeping . He's not pushing anything on anyone .. Simply experimenting with advanced ideas in fishkeeping . Nothing wrong with what flear is doing at all. I rather like it. 


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## Flear

Hallyx said:


> How sad. And to admit this in public on an actual fish-forum.... <sigh>


i don't think admitting the state of my tank openly and honestly is sad.

i think it's being honest
letting people know exactly what's going on
sharing a little more truth
telling people what is going on all the time instead of only during the good times

if you hear me being honest about my tank is sad, ... i think you may have experienced a life of too many people trying to sell you BS to make themselves feel good when they didn't want to admit they were screwing up.

i can't learn anything by denying i could be doing better

i can keep myself focused on seeing there's an issue and keep myself focused on "something has to be done" by knowing the issues with my tank i can't ignore

so i'm honest about my tank

if you're offended or think i should be offended, ... i can't help you hallyx, i can't offer anything for you.

maybe you want everyone to do everything by the books, ... but well, ... at one point in time that meant living in caves covered in animal skins swinging a stick and in total aww about fire.

then there were those that challenged the status quo, and look where that got us.


----------



## jaysee

Flear said:


> i think it's being honest
> 
> 
> 
> at one point in time that meant living in caves covered in animal skins swinging a stick and in total aww about fire.
> 
> then there were those that challenged the status quo, and look where that got us.



I have to say an honest self assessment is a breath of fresh air.....


Or, aliens manipulated our DNA ;-)


----------



## Agent13

beaslbob said:


> I guess if you don't want to get then it doesn't make any difference.
> 
> FWIW the equation represents condition where increase in toxins are totally removed by the water change.



Because you don't properly explain your deluded logic. Plain and simple . These math equations make no sense as you don't even know how to show an equation . 
And for the 15th time (give or take ) what in the world ppm of what are you talking about . You're out of your league son . You make these claims then don't substantiate them.. You just push poor kids into tank failure .. And why ? What twisted enjoyment do you get off on with this ?
My honest assessment .. You just like seeing how many hits on google you can get with your screen name . Good or bad .. Ehhh. You don't care . It's wrong . And I'll make sure you stop steering people wrong on this site. 

You really aren't far from being done here 

Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## Austin

FishyFishy89 said:


> It's been a while since I've been in school But I do believe the math you are using is multiplying. Doing water changes doesn't multiply toxins.
> I could very easily create my own equation that supports the method of doing water changes to make the healthiest possible environment.
> Plain and simple, you're encouraging lazy fish keeping. Which has been proven to be deadly. I'll admit, it is possible to have an aquarium stuffed with plants need very little maintenance. But the fact remains, even aquariums like that still receive a water change once in a while.


He is multiplying 1ppm/day by 10 to get 10 ppm per 10 days, which is the time between his theoretical water changes.

I agree.


----------



## Hallyx

Flear. I'm not criticizing your honesty or candor. That's not what I find sad.

What I found sad is that you know you're maintaining a sub-standard set-up and would rather admit it than correct it.

We all make cost/benefit compromises when it comes to our fish --- when it comes to our lives. The challenge it to optimize our commitment for maximum safety and comfort, both for ourselves and for our fish. Perhaps most of us could increase our commitment both fiscally and temporally. That's part of the compromise. But to recognize that we are not doing out best and still not take that step.... 

Sorry, but that's the impression I got from your post. And I just can't respect that. 

If that's not what you meant, you'll have to express yourself more clearly.


----------



## Agent13

Actually Hal you have missed what Flear is doing . He is experimenting with self sustaining tanks to see if it's a possibility and trying to learn all he can and discuss with us as he's going . Perhaps it's more something to see when you've seen more then what's on this thread . 
Also if I remember correctly he's trying to figure out the right way to sustain green water in an aquarium. He's had sponges and clams yet they starve when his green water crashes .. And American flag fish that are eating it a bit I think . .. Or was that algae in another tank that they devour ? Idk. 
Flear is here to learn and discuss and share more advanced ideas . I understand your concern Hal .. But we are usually not of the "water puppy " variety in advanced discussions .. I don't condone doing risky aquarium experimenting out of pure laziness like bob... Who makes a million all over the place inconsistent excuses for pushing lazy aquarium keeping . I'm all for learning and finding things others aren't willing to . Cruise through .. You'll see blaring differences in Flear and Bob. 


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## beaslbob

So what happens when a newbie starts a tank with water changes, Prime and other chemical treatements and so on.

With Carlos it results in 2 months of still having "spikes" and now fish developing ich. So in addition to reducing oxygen, adding sulfur, having measureable ammonia and nitrItes we now have fish exposed to raised temperatures. Which further reduces oxygen and stresses the fish.

All of which is contrary to my experience where the fish don't develop ICH, live and thrive for years.


Do you guys think Carlos' tank is a week or two from a total crash with several fish deaths?


----------



## beaslbob

Flear said:


> 130ppm of what ?


 
anything.

the only limitation is that it is a linear measure, a constant increase, constant water change schedule and constant replacement water.


----------



## beaslbob

Hallyx said:


> You're right, Bob, that isn't _voodoo_ mathematics. That's non-sequitur math.
> 
> You have two unquantifiable terms in your so-called equation. So it's not mathematics, it's sociology or --heaven forfend--- economics.


 
Oh how so?

the rate of increase is not quantifiable.

the concentration in the replacement water is not quantifiable?

the days between water changes are not quantifiable?

And how is it non-sequitur?

Does the equation not follow:

1) there is a constant ppm in the replacement water.

2) there is a constant water change amount and schedule.

3) there is a constant rate of change of that parameter.

4) sufficient water changes have been done to that the before water change values are constant water change to water change.

Awaiting your reply.


----------



## Austin

beaslbob said:


> So what happens when a newbie starts a tank with water changes, Prime and other chemical treatements and so on.
> 
> With Carlos it results in 2 months of still having "spikes" and now fish developing ich. So in addition to reducing oxygen, adding sulfur, having measureable ammonia and nitrItes we now have fish exposed to raised temperatures. Which further reduces oxygen and stresses the fish.
> 
> All of which is contrary to my experience where the fish don't develop ICH, live and thrive for years.
> 
> 
> Do you guys think Carlos' tank is a week or two from a total crash with several fish deaths?


Are you joking? -cringe- I won't even begin to delve into the issues I have with this post.

But since you want to take anecdotal evidence as truth, what about my case study?? I cured ich with 87 degree warm water and daily/bidaily 50% water changes with sensitive german blue rams? What do you say to that?

Edit: Note that I was using prime as well, dosing the entire aquarium volume each water change.


----------



## Agent13

Carlos ?? Again ??? Bob, I've been hearing you talk about this Carlos person For perhaps a decade .. 
I'm really tired of hearing about Carlos and all the other random isolated things you talk about as if you the mighty bob were responsible for saving their tank. Fish I'm cycling sure does kill fish , don't know how you think *you* fixed his issues ( years ago !!) 
And all this tank spiking talk .. I don't have that issue ever when setting up tanks . I'll be filling up my QT tank Friday for fish that arrive Friday .. Guess what .. It will be ready and spike free the moment I set it up !
And if I were to listen to your advice my more advanced fish wouldn't do well. I'd lose my electric blue rams . My African cichlids would simply die.. That is the ones who weren't killed by the others first .. And a few others too . 
And if I weren't headed into a meeting is be tackling more of your outright incorrect information 


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## beaslbob

Austin said:


> Are you joking? -cringe- I won't even begin to delve into the issues I have with this post.
> 
> *But since you want to take anecdotal evidence as truth, what about my case study?? I cured ich with 87 degree warm water and daily/bidaily 50% water changes with sensitive german blue rams? What do you say to that?*
> 
> Edit: Note that I was using prime as well, dosing the entire aquarium volume each water change.


I believe you and glad you cured the ich.

Do you believe I don't get ich to begin with?


----------



## beaslbob

Agent13 said:


> *Carlos ?? Again ??? Bob, I've been hearing you talk about this Carlos person For perhaps a decade .. *
> I'm really tired of hearing about Carlos and all the other random isolated things you talk about as if you the mighty bob were responsible for saving their tank. Fish I'm cycling sure does kill fish , don't know how you think *you* fixed his issues ( years ago !!)
> And all this tank spiking talk .. I don't have that issue ever when setting up tanks . I'll be filling up my QT tank Friday for fish that arrive Friday .. Guess what .. It will be ready and spike free the moment I set it up !
> And if I were to listen to your advice my more advanced fish wouldn't do well. I'd lose my electric blue rams . My African cichlids would simply die.. That is the ones who weren't killed by the others first .. And a few others too .
> And if I weren't headed into a meeting is be tackling more of your outright incorrect information
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com App


Funny I only heard of Carlos for the last two months on this forum.

How do you know your more "advanced" fish would die?

have a nice meeting.


----------



## jaysee

beaslbob said:


> With Carlos



Using Carlos' situation as justification for not following mainstream methods is as ridiculous as you using yours as justification for not following mainstream methods.


----------



## beaslbob

jaysee said:


> Using Carlos' situation as justification for not following mainstream methods is as ridiculous as you using yours as justification for not following mainstream methods.


So if mainstream methods don't work then we are not to question those methods anyway?

and when "my" methods do work we still are not to question the mainstream methods?

So what does it take to evaluate "mainstream" methods? to just win a popularity contest? results are irrelevant?


----------



## jaysee

beaslbob said:


> So if mainstream methods don't work then we are not to question those methods anyway?



Using Carlos' situation as justification for not following mainstream methods is as ridiculous as you using yours as justification for not following mainstream methods.


----------



## beaslbob

duplicate


----------



## jaysee

beaslbob said:


> Then how does one evaluate either system?
> 
> By a majority vote?
> 
> Or by results. :lol:



Using Carlos' situation as justification for not following mainstream methods is as ridiculous as you using yours as justification for not following mainstream methods.


----------



## Agent13

You are the only one who cared about a supposed popularity contest, bob . 
One single Carlos a method does not make . Nor do I think you had any hand in what happened with Carlos . Nor do I care about Carlos . What I do care to mention is your tanks are very dirty. I would never allow that in my home .. That's ignoring all the other consequences of your "method ".

I'll also point out. You keep livebearers . They breed like rabbits . If you had a healthy tank why aren't you over run with fish ? Just descendants of previous fish .. Look around this site to others who keep livebearers but with proper aquarium keeping . Their fish live along with the babies and they end up with tons of fish .. Too many really . Why are yours dying off ? I like keeping the fish I purchased for a LONG time .. Not for them to breed so much to make up for my neglect . 


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## Agent13

beaslbob said:


> Funny I only heard of Carlos for the last two months on this forum.
> 
> How do you know your more "advanced" fish would die?
> 
> have a nice meeting.



I heard of your "miraculous" newbie tank fix on another forum .. Years ago . 

I know because .. Well let's talk about first the Africans .. They lose color if you go too long between water changes .. They need extreme filtration and circulation or they kill eachother as well . How do I know that .. Not only from studying them like the full on nerd I am but skis from power outs .. Other African keepers can confirm this easily . A loss of circulation and filtration results in a murder spree really quickly . I have gone out of town as well for 2 weeks them another week after that leaving the tank for no water changes for 6 weeks . Health declines at that point . Also .. You can't plant an African tank .. You simply can't .. Both the water and the fish themselves don't allow it. 
Rams also don't tolerate subpar conditions .. Ask any breeder.. And many keepers . 
Livebearers allow for so much error it's tricked you into thinking this is ok. Start keeping more advanced fish and see what happens. Oh.. And my stiphodon gobies .. They don't tolerate poor water either .. 
Out of our 55k + members .. You are THE only one who actually advocates this insane way of keeping a tank and actually claims it's better . It CAN be done but it isn't even close to the best. I don't like bad advice or subpar advice being freely wielded to unsuspecting people who don't know better .. It's very predatory of you


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## jaysee

I don't think he's ever claimed it was a better way to do it. I know he's refused to answer such questions every time someone asks, though.


----------



## beaslbob

Agent13 said:


> You are the only one who cared about a supposed popularity contest, bob .
> One single Carlos a method does not make . Nor do I think you had any hand in what happened with Carlos . Nor do I care about Carlos . What I do care to mention is your tanks are very dirty. I would never allow that in my home .. That's ignoring all the other consequences of your "method ".
> 
> I'll also point out. You keep livebearers . They breed like rabbits . If you had a healthy tank why aren't you over run with fish ? Just descendants of previous fish .. Look around this site to others who keep livebearers but with proper aquarium keeping . Their fish live along with the babies and they end up with tons of fish .. Too many really . Why are yours dying off ? I like keeping the fish I purchased for a LONG time .. Not for them to breed so much to make up for my neglect .
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com App


You are correct. I do keep live bearers.
and tetras, and angelfish, plecos, goldfish, hacetfish, danios, bettas, even some cichlids. 

And the marine side, tangs, psuedochromas, mollies, coral catfish, plus more.

All of which I have kept for years.


----------



## beaslbob

Agent13 said:


> I heard of your "miraculous" newbie tank fix on another forum .. Years ago .
> 
> I know because .. Well let's talk about first the Africans .. They lose color if you go too long between water changes .. They need extreme filtration and circulation or they kill eachother as well . How do I know that .. Not only from studying them like the full on nerd I am but skis from power outs .. Other African keepers can confirm this easily . A loss of circulation and filtration results in a murder spree really quickly . I have gone out of town as well for 2 weeks them another week after that leaving the tank for no water changes for 6 weeks . Health declines at that point . Also .. You can't plant an African tank .. You simply can't .. Both the water and the fish themselves don't allow it.
> Rams also don't tolerate subpar conditions .. Ask any breeder.. And many keepers .
> Livebearers allow for so much error it's tricked you into thinking this is ok. Start keeping more advanced fish and see what happens. Oh.. And my stiphodon gobies .. They don't tolerate poor water either ..
> Out of our 55k + members .. You are THE only one who actually advocates this insane way of keeping a tank and actually claims it's better . It CAN be done but it isn't even close to the best. I don't like bad advice or subpar advice being freely wielded to unsuspecting people who don't know better .. It's very predatory of you
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com App


 
The few africans I kept a few years ago seemed to have excellent color and health.

Perhaps a tank filtered with live plants is not all that subpar. :lol:


----------



## beaslbob

jaysee said:


> I don't think he's ever claimed it was a better way to do it. I know he's refused to answer such questions every time someone asks, though.


 
I hope whoever is not answering questions will step up with answers.


----------



## jaysee

beaslbob said:


> I hope whoever is not answering questions will step up with answers.



I don't think he's ever claimed it was a better way to do it. I know he's refused to answer such questions every time someone asks, though.


----------



## Agent13

beaslbob said:


> The few africans I kept a few years ago seemed to have excellent color and health.
> 
> Perhaps a tank filtered with live plants is not all that subpar. :lol:



Are you sure what they were supposed to look like ? And do tell .. How long did they live ? Are you saying you planted their tank ?? You must not have had rift lake cichlids . You even have to add marine salt to those tanks for proper health and longevity . 
Exactly what species have you kept of African cichlids . 


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## Agent13

Wait.. A tang? What species did you keep . I don't recall you mentioning owning a tank larger then 55g


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## beaslbob

Agent13 said:


> Are you sure what they were supposed to look like ? And do tell .. How long did they live ? Are you saying you planted their tank ?? You must not have had rift lake cichlids . You even have to add marine salt to those tanks for proper health and longevity .
> Exactly what species have you kept of African cichlids .
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com App


 
No extensive just 3-4 years and admittedly limited experience.

They were in planted tank with a partition to protect the plants.

Perhaps not rift lake as well.

Now suppose this doesn't work for rift lake cichlids.

so what? 

Keep this method away from a newbies first tank? Nawwwww.

Besides (other then just saying it won't work) Why would a tank balanced out with plants or macro algaes not work? It is because the poisionous fish wastes are being removed too fast. Because the heavy ions are not present, because the water is too clear?

After all marine tanks are the further extreme and work just fine with macro algaes.

So I find it very very hard to believe that a brackish tank would not work as well.


----------



## beaslbob

Agent

what you think?

Plants 101 - Plants and African Cichlids


----------



## beaslbob

Agent13 said:


> Wait.. A tang? What species did you keep . I don't recall you mentioning owning a tank larger then 55g
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com App


I had a yellow tang and "dori" regal tang in the 55g. Both grew from a small size to 3" in a year and were in the tank for 5 years. Final size was 4-5 inches. then we took the tank down.


----------



## Agent13

The yellow should have been an 8 inch fish and do you mean a blue tang? Those are foot long fish if properly kept .. 55 was far to small for just one of those . When I had salt I had wanted a yellow tang but couldn't because I only had a 40breeder. You can squeeze the yellow into 55g but it's not ideal for the fish . 
So what African did you keep ?


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## beaslbob

Agent13 said:


> The yellow should have been an 8 inch fish and do you mean a blue tang? Those are foot long fish if properly kept .. 55 was far to small for just one of those . When I had salt I had wanted a yellow tang but couldn't because I only had a 40breeder. You can squeeze the yellow into 55g but it's not ideal for the fish .
> So what African did you keep ?
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com App


The tangs did grow but were probably not "full" size. Seemed active enough and healthy though. they really went crazy over cylopeese.

Can't remember the cichlids I kept. Was long time ago.

I would think that in any lake there is plants or macros, algae and cyano keeping things in balance. 

And that an algae turf scrubber, protected refugium with plants or macro algaes would maintain a tank.


----------



## rsskylight04

First off: I'm not here to bash anyone or to insist on conformity with mainstream practices. Every fishkeeper is unique and every fish-tank can be unique as well. 

I believe the Carlos that bob is referring to is Carlos Puron, who failed to establish a healthy cycle because of unsuitable tap water and very low pH. To use this one very unusual case as an indictment of mainstream practices is misleading. If Carlos' tank does crash, its because of terrible tapwater, not the methods he used to try to fix it. Using mainstream methods Carlos got his ph up to acceptale levels, reduced ammonia and nitrite in his tank, and started producing nitrate. Yes, he has problems with his cycle, but his parameters are improving and to "do nothing" would have made his problems worse:

*He had low pH- your advice to not change water, and to use peat moss would have lead to a further drop in pH .
*He had high nitrite in his tap water- your advice against using Prime would have poisoned the tank, stalling the little bit of cycling that is occurring.
*He had ammonia in his tap water- again, no prime = poisonous tank conditions.
*He already has plants in his tank- so that's not the issue

As much as i love the idea of an all natural no-maintenance tank, I don't believe that it can work for the majority of keepers. Tap water is very different in various parts of the country. My tap water in Upstate New York is very hard, high pH and heavily treated with chloramine. Carlos' water in Houston is very soft, low ph, with ammonia and nitrite right from the tap. Maybe bobs water is suitable untreated , but mine is not, and poor Carlos - even more so.

His tank might crash, but not because he failed to follow bobs experimental methods


----------



## Agent13

beaslbob said:


> The tangs did grow but were probably not "full" size. Seemed active enough and healthy though. they really went crazy over cylopeese.
> 
> 
> 
> Can't remember the cichlids I kept. Was long time ago.
> 
> 
> 
> I would think that in any lake there is plants or macros, algae and cyano keeping things in balance.
> 
> 
> 
> And that an algae turf scrubber, protected refugium with plants or macro algaes would maintain a tank.


Rift lakes are too high salt content for most plants . You can have a refugium with plants but theyll still suffer from the water that those fish need. I doubt your cichlids were africans and if they were hey likely were suffering and you didnt know it because you didnt know what to expect from them.. Or what they needed.

I just saw your link.. Yes some plants in small numbers if secured can survive the water and the abuse but its going to be a far cry from what you talk about. Even i have a couple plants in my african setup. But nothing that could help water conditions. 



To be perfectly honest im mostly talking to you about this stuff because this circular talk that you insist on is really annoying so i'll take this thread any direction I feel at any given moment until I annoy mods lol.

Bob, if someone comes here and asks how to get away with doing no water changes .. Wondering if theres a lazy way to keep a tank and is perfectly OK with a dirty looking tank ... Then have at them. Ill not stop you there.. But when someone actually wants to know how to keep a decent looking tank and wants help cycling .. You'll need to refrain. 



Your "method" is not a method.. Your "logic" behind is scattered everywhere and even self contradicting at times . And youre math isnt math.. Its hypothetical nonsense that resembles ghetto car loan "math"


----------



## beaslbob

Agent13 said:


> Rift lakes are too high salt content for most plants . You can have a refugium with plants but theyll still suffer from the water that those fish need. I doubt your cichlids were africans and if they were hey likely were suffering and you didnt know it because you didnt know what to expect from them.. Or what they needed.
> 
> I just saw your link.. Yes some plants in small numbers if secured can survive the water and the abuse but its going to be a far cry from what you talk about. Even i have a couple plants in my african setup. But nothing that could help water conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> To be perfectly honest im mostly talking to you about this stuff because this circular talk that you insist on is really annoying so i'll take this thread any direction I feel at any given moment until I annoy mods lol.
> 
> Bob, if someone comes here and asks how to get away with doing no water changes .. Wondering if theres a lazy way to keep a tank and is perfectly OK with a dirty looking tank ... Then have at them. Ill not stop you there.. But when someone actually wants to know how to keep a decent looking tank and wants help cycling .. You'll need to refrain.
> 
> 
> 
> Your "method" is not a method.. Your "logic" behind is scattered everywhere and even self contradicting at times . And youre math isnt math.. Its hypothetical nonsense that resembles ghetto car loan "math"


So in your opinion a refugium with macro algaes of an algae truf scrubber with algae and cyano will not balance out a cichlid tank?

Even though it works like gang busters if full marine environments. You know all 'my' usual stuff like no water changes, untreated tap water and the like? And of course a stable forgiving environment with unmeasurable nitrates/phosphates and a high pH.


----------



## beaslbob

rsskylight04 said:


> First off: I'm not here to bash anyone or to insist on conformity with mainstream practices. Every fishkeeper is unique and every fish-tank can be unique as well.
> 
> I believe the Carlos that bob is referring to is Carlos Puron, who failed to establish a healthy cycle because of unsuitable tap water and very low pH. To use this one very unusual case as an indictment of mainstream practices is misleading. If Carlos' tank does crash, its because of terrible tapwater, not the methods he used to try to fix it. Using mainstream methods Carlos got his ph up to acceptale levels, reduced ammonia and nitrite in his tank, and started producing nitrate. Yes, he has problems with his cycle, but his parameters are improving and to "do nothing" would have made his problems worse:
> 
> *He had low pH- your advice to not change water, and to use peat moss would have lead to a further drop in pH .
> *He had high nitrite in his tap water- your advice against using Prime would have poisoned the tank, stalling the little bit of cycling that is occurring.
> *He had ammonia in his tap water- again, no prime = poisonous tank conditions.
> *He already has plants in his tank- so that's not the issue
> 
> As much as i love the idea of an all natural no-maintenance tank, I don't believe that it can work for the majority of keepers. Tap water is very different in various parts of the country. My tap water in Upstate New York is very hard, high pH and heavily treated with chloramine. Carlos' water in Houston is very soft, low ph, with ammonia and nitrite right from the tap. Maybe bobs water is suitable untreated , but mine is not, and poor Carlos - even more so.
> 
> His tank might crash, but not because he failed to follow bobs experimental methods


I simply disagree.

"my" system works with any potable tap water. He would not have had these problems following "my" methods.

His water would have been totally conditioned including chloramine and any ammonia/nitrItes in at most a couple of days and well before that first week before the first fish was added.

He would have been adding oxygen and removing co2 instead of reducing oxygen and releasing sulfur using the dechlor.

the pH would have risen and KH plus gh would gone to and remained at acceptable levels.

In the low ammonia, nitrIte,nitrate and most especially the low co2 environment with the high oxygen environment, the fish would have remained healthy and never developed the ich.

Which is why this system worked for me in 1/2 dozen cites in the US while I moved around in the Air force. some with resevours, some underground aquifiers, some limestone aquaifers, some desert types and so on.


----------



## Agent13

Oh I'm looking back at your Carlos comment .. I skimmed what you said ( as you're known to repeat yourself too much ) . I thought you were talking about that random person you supposedly helped by telling them to put a plant in their new tank that made a lethargic fish perk up lol
Didn't realize you were using Carlos from here as an example of why prime was bad . Water conditioner had absolutely nothing to do with his unique situation. 
If most of the 55k + members here don't have problems from the numbers of mainstream methods then what's your issue with it. Did you fail a long time ago using it and place blame on the wrong thing ? 
You talk about user error being a possible issue .. But what about those who try your way.. Don't realize how bay they've allowed their tank to decline then get tired of the dirty tank look and do a water change .. Which at that point will kill the fish with toxins . Actually saying it like that makes me wonder .. I'm suspicious you yourself did that and just aren't willing to take the blame upon yourself 


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## beaslbob

Agent13 said:


> Oh I'm looking back at your Carlos comment .. I skimmed what you said ( as you're known to repeat yourself too much ) . I thought you were talking about that random person you supposedly helped by telling them to put a plant in their new tank that made a lethargic fish perk up lol


that was in reference to amie's newby thread on the other forum.


> Didn't realize you were using Carlos from here as an example of why prime was bad . Water conditioner had absolutely nothing to do with his unique situation.
> If most of the 55k + members here don't have problems from the numbers of mainstream methods then what's your issue with it. Did you fail a long time ago using it and place blame on the wrong thing ?
> You talk about user error being a possible issue .. But what about those who try your way.. Don't realize how bay they've allowed their tank to decline then get tired of the dirty tank look and do a water change .. Which at that point will kill the fish with toxins . Actually saying it like that makes me wonder .. I'm suspicious you yourself did that and just aren't willing to take the blame upon yourself
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com App


I have had one tank crash since the late '70s. I accdentially added a toxin to a reef tank and lost two fish with high ammonia in 8 hours. I moved the remaining very sick fish to a macro algae culture tank and they recovered in a few hours. I did treat that tank with prime and the result was a very very deep cycle. pH went down to like 7.5 or less. The ammonia was so high the api test kit was almost totally black. Those conditions remained until I rinsed the crushed oyster shells in my wet dry a week later. Then in a day ammonia dropped down. NitrItes spiked and pegged the test kit for a few days then dropped down. Nitrates took a few weeks.

The fish were returned after the ammonia dropped down and even a couple of smaller fish (Pseudochromis) survived in the tank because I could not get them out.

On fish was a large bangui cardinal who was horizontal and breathig heavily when added to the macro algae tank. It was vertical in 6-8 hours and survived.

In that case Prime probably did exactly what it should and I used the multi test kit to insure I had locked up the ammonia. And no more prime was added.

So I am quite capable of blaming myself when such things happen.

My main point is that is the only tank wide crash I have ever had.

I have never seen even a single fish breathing heavy in newly setup tank following the procedures below.

The fish live for years.

GH and KH with the peat moss stay constant (4 dkh and 9 dgh) two or more years.

I have conducted tests with quart gars and measured pH with various substrates with and without plants. those jars kept in the dark showed expected pH values. All the jars with plants plant rose to pH values of 8.4-8.8 even those with peat moss in the substrate.

So I am not only capable of realizing my mistakes but have actually done some simple tests to check things out.

So we come up to today and someone wants to keep an aquarium. I just tell them what works. If they want to try something else then so be it.

And Carlos did not have to have an extended cycles and sick fish.


----------



## rsskylight04

beaslbob said:


> I simply disagree.
> 
> "my" system works with any potable tap water. He would not have had these problems following "my" methods.
> 
> His water would have been totally conditioned including chloramine and any ammonia/nitrItes in at most a couple of days and well before that first week before the first fish was added.
> 
> He would have been adding oxygen and removing co2 instead of reducing oxygen and releasing sulfur using the dechlor.
> 
> the pH would have risen and KH plus gh would gone to and remained at acceptable levels.
> 
> In the low ammonia, nitrIte,nitrate and most especially the low co2 environment with the high oxygen environment, the fish would have remained healthy and never developed the ich.
> 
> Which is why this system worked for me in 1/2 dozen cites in the US while I moved around in the Air force. some with resevours, some underground aquifiers, some limestone aquaifers, some desert types and so on.


How would pH rise with soft water and peat moss in the substrate? Not saying its impossible, i just don't see how and why you would expect it to do that? Do you know that peat moss is acidic and is used to lower ph in aquariums? Canadian peat has an average ph between 3.8 and 4.5 according to a friend in the biology dept @ Syracuse University.


----------



## Agent13

Huh.. My planted tanks don't have higher PH then my tap. In fact n one tank that for a yr perhaps was close to your way is the most heavily planted tank I own. It's PH KH and GH fell all very drastically compared to my tap and all my other tanks . The water was far too soft and the cycle would have crashed if I corrected it too fast . Least amount if water changes in my house . After enough water changes it's now back to normal and looks Better.. Plants are better and the fish are doing better . 
You seem to be leaving out your use of sodium bicarbonate . 
I don't have issues with spikes at any point in any of my tanks lives, no swinging parameters of any sort .. No fish disease issues or deaths . Not even on day 1 day 7 day 14 day anything . I think you have a wildly incorrect view of why people who join forums have issues . It's not from doing the right things and those ways are wrong .. It's from not knowing what they are doing and making mistakes which we guide them back onto the right track.. I don't shove how I do things down newbies throats . I look at what they seem to want to do with their tank and tailer my advice to fit that . 


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## beaslbob

Agent13 said:


> Huh.. My planted tanks don't have higher PH then my tap. In fact n one tank that for a yr perhaps was close to your way is the most heavily planted tank I own. It's PH KH and GH fell all very drastically compared to my tap and all my other tanks . The water was far too soft and the cycle would have crashed if I corrected it too fast . Least amount if water changes in my house . After enough water changes it's now back to normal and looks Better.. Plants are better and the fish are doing better .
> You seem to be leaving out your use of sodium bicarbonate .
> I don't have issues with spikes at any point in any of my tanks lives, no swinging parameters of any sort .. No fish disease issues or deaths . Not even on day 1 day 7 day 14 day anything . I think you have a wildly incorrect view of why people who join forums have issues . It's not from doing the right things and those ways are wrong .. It's from not knowing what they are doing and making mistakes which we guide them back onto the right track.. I don't shove how I do things down newbies throats . I look at what they seem to want to do with their tank and tailer my advice to fit that .
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com App


I only use sodium bicarbonate in my reef tanks along with calcium chloride and magnesium chloride and epsom salts. Not in the FW tanks.

If your tanks have lower pH than mine perhaps there is some operational difference causing that. Like may be the circulation. Which would seem to be raising co2 and lowering o2 in your systems.


I glad you realize that both of us look at what newbies are doing and give appropriate advice.


----------



## Agent13

beaslbob said:


> I glad you realize that both of us look at what newbies are doing and give appropriate advice.


What ?? Are you saying you've stopped tossing your "method " at newbies ? I've yet to see you give tailored advice to new aquarists . I'd be very happy to see the day you do that instead of pushing your "method ". 
I don't push mine onto people . I live how I keep my tanks but it's too advanced to be telling brand new people to do so I don't . 



Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## beaslbob

Agent13 said:


> What ?? Are you saying you've stopped tossing your "method " at newbies ? I've yet to see you give tailored advice to new aquarists . I'd be very happy to see the day you do that instead of pushing your "method ".
> I don't push mine onto people . I live how I keep my tanks but it's too advanced to be telling brand new people to do so I don't .
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com App


I think telling newbies how to setup a balanced stable ecosystem is the best help I can give.


----------



## Agent13

beaslbob said:


> I think telling newbies how to setup a balanced stable ecosystem is the best help I can give.



That would somewhat acceptable if that's what you were doing . Mainly though if that was even what they're asking . However what you're doing is telling them how *you* set up your dirty tanks . That's not okay .. That has absolutely nothing to do with what they're asking .. Unless it's a poll asking people to explain how they personally set up their own tanks . Do you understand what I'm saying yet ? 


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## beaslbob

Agent13 said:


> That would somewhat acceptable if that's what you were doing . Mainly though if that was even what they're asking . However what you're doing is telling them how *you* set up your dirty tanks . That's not okay .. That has absolutely nothing to do with what they're asking .. Unless it's a poll asking people to explain how they personally set up their own tanks . Do you understand what I'm saying yet ?
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com App


 Yep

You disagree with "my" methods. :lol:


----------



## Agent13

beaslbob said:


> Yep
> 
> You disagree with "my" methods. :lol:



Well ya! Hahaha
But no.. That's not even what I'm saying . I'm saying ( this is ubur simplified ) you offer advice that nobody asked for . You focus on newbies that make a post with the word cycle in their post title ... And then tell them " forget about that and just throw plants in your tank and livebearers .." Well that's not exactly your words but close enough . You aren't answering their questions .. You are telling them to forget about their questions and do what you do 


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## Austin

beaslbob said:


> I believe you and glad you cured the ich.
> 
> Do you believe I don't get ich to begin with?


I do not spontaneously get ich to begin with either. It is always from a newly introduced fish that already have it. Maybe you get yours from excellent sources, are very lucky, or do not buy new fish. I never have had it spontaneously in my main aquarium, only quarantine. 

I'd like to know how you would treat ich? Do you think that fish infected are magically cured once they enter your tank? That goes against all the science done on the disease.


----------



## rsskylight04

Ich does not arise spontaneously . It is a protozoan parasite that cannot survive drying and does not reproduce by spores or any other dispersal mechanism. The only way ich becomes established in a tank is if it is physicaly introduced with fish, water, gravel...


----------



## beaslbob

Agent13 said:


> Well ya! Hahaha
> But no.. That's not even what I'm saying . I'm saying ( this is ubur simplified ) you offer advice that nobody asked for . You focus on newbies that make a post with the word cycle in their post title ... And then tell them " forget about that and just throw plants in your tank and livebearers .." Well that's not exactly your words but close enough . You aren't answering their questions .. You are telling them to forget about their questions and do what you do
> I
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com App


And you are not even close

Just for starters i don't recommend just livebearers. and taking a look at those procedures is not pushing
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Agent13

beaslbob said:


> And you are not even close
> 
> 
> 
> Just for starters i don't recommend just livebearers. and taking a look at those procedures is not pushing
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



I'm telling you what not just what I think but MANY others both experienced and not experienced have PMd me about you . You need to really evaluate what others are feeling when you say the things you do . 
I promise you I get concerns from members of all walks of life PMing me about your predatory behavior with noobs 


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## Flear

2 thoughts come to mind,

beaslebob likes the attention he is getting, even bad attention as he is doing nothing to change how little info he has about his tanks. i don't see this changing.

Hallyx, if i corrected my tank at first sign of problems, i wouldn't know what problems i am up against.
-high ph, i'm using buffers to correct this
-nutrient deficiencies caused by ph issues, i'm very much rather at a loss about how to deal with this, things are geting worse, .. i am looking into suppliments to correct this, and suppliments (like buffers) show this is not working.
-greenwater in the main tank - greenwater crashing, unable to replicate this outside of the tank (even using water from the main tank, ...

you would think there are people out there that know how to take care of greenwater, ... all i hear is nutrient deficiency, ... i call BS on this as tank water supports greenwater without issue, turning off the HOB filter in the tank does not change it (so whatever is killing the greenwater is ... gotta be in the substrate

i hessitate about the fish, ... i had the tank getting really green (could not see through it), then it crashed, ,.. and as much as i search, no answers 

---

could i correct the problems with the tank and move to water changes and regular maintenance, yes, would i learn anything more, no

i am still wringing my hands about the issues and starting to think, i may have to do all the water change and vacuum stuff for a little bit at least to give the tank some sort of 'reset' (or whatever you want to call it) ... i dono

the plants are going from pale green to new growth being yellow ... and i'm really worried, sure 'iron' that sounds like it, i doubt it's calcium

as for random thoughts, ... i have (well had) some assassin snails, i can't do a head count in the substrate so i dono, just more and more dead malaysian trumpet snails keep showing up.

---

i look in "advanced" for more answers and insight, ... but the sad part, the saddest part, i'm looking to people who are 'advanced' or 'experienced' on maintaining the status quo on regular tank maintenance, ... nothing i'm doing is regular, almost every question i pose in here is on an issue that steps well outside the average, and even the experienced aquarium hobbiests knowledge

so as much as i'm looking for answers, as much as i know my tank has problems

i keep the tank to constantly remind me "hey, keep looking into this, don't give up"
the same reason i come here, ... because as much as it seems no one here has any answers to help out, it reminds me of the same thing "hey, keep looking into this, don't give up"

as the alternative is to give up, do things like millions of other people in the hobby and become an expert in maintaining the status quo.

i might need a lot of convincing before i believe that's as good as it gets though.
just because there are no answers not, does not mean it can't be figured out, it only means no one knows how now.

so far, the only ideas i have are bioogical for everything, if there's a trail of problem in a tank that cannot be solved with biological process then it's only technology and maintenance and that's the point to realize self-sustaining isn't possible

but to deal with my current tank (only have one) to consider 'self-sustaining', well currently, there's a lack of information. and that's all, it's not that it can't be done, it's that it hasn't been done.

so far, with the plant nutrient/pH problems, ... there is no fixing issues ones the tank is established.

it's a complete tear down and restart

with fertlizer nutrient issues ...

the basic fertilizers ...

the reality and the joke

phosphates do not cause algae
but the myth has created such a strong cry most every tank and aquarium fertilizer is low on phosphates

potassium, ... (beaslbob will love this) sounds like it's water soluble at every level and water changes will only remove this from the system
but ...
potassium is in such a deficiency and so few know a thing about it's value and or importance snails are blamed for holes in their plants. and potassium suppliments are not common enough to be easily affordable it seems or not talked about freely, ... either way this is just a flipping frustration 

other deficiencies, ...

a simple question with such a little area of knowledge

what does pH do to nutrients ???

well iron turns into a form that isn't avaliable to plants about pH 8.4 so well, who do we know who has issues with iron deficiency.

and does this ever reverse ?, ... what else goes on with various nutrients at different pH ranges ?

that i thought would be a simple answer to experienced people in the hobby, ... 

the existance and difference between ammonia & ammonium, ... the lack of knowledge about how different these two substances are, how basic and critical the basis of our whole 'cycling a new tank' is, .. you would think people would know the difference and speak about it free-er.

---

i don't ask questions here thinking anyone will have answers
because ... well as people can see from the responses to the questions i have asked, ... there's very little information on these things in the hobby ... and those are all areas i'm looking into to find answers for self-sustaning tanks.

or this one i haven't asked yet (might consider joinging a gardening forum and being dissapointed there.

CEC & AEC, they help retain nutrients in soils, ... but they are also responsible for deficiencies before those minerals are filled with the nutrients we want ...

do they help ? dono, 
i honestly don't know

i have recently found that nutrient avaliability is different based on the soil type (organic vs. mineral) no one talks about the nutrient avalability in an organic soil, ... 

bob may have something to his peat substrate, ... it starts out (generally) the right nutrients in the right ratios to support plants (well it was origeonally a plant so it should be able to do the same.

it is also an organic soil (soil vs. substrate, close enough) ... actually 20% organic material is all that's needed, bobs peat idea is 100%

organics in the substrate have a natural ability to retain nutrients, i don't remember if it's CEC or AEC. 

substrates typiccaly try to move more acidic, ... organic substrates are weird in nutrient availability (this dead spot in the middle instead of the reverse for many nutrients

but still the issue of retaining nutrients in the substrate, keeping nutrients out of the water column.

a pH of 8.4 is not healthy for a self-sustaining idea

so far so good bob, but that one simple conclusion in his tanks is a problem he is not addressing or even acknowledging.

a question i would love to ask here, but is beyond everyone i am sure, ... once nutrients are not available due to pH range, how do they become available again ...

i don't think iron does, onces it's removed, it looks like that's it, it's done, no more, end of story 

bob suppliments iron, he's mentioned, he knows he has to, that's a broken system, end of story, does not work, .. or needs a bunch of work to figure out how to solve it.


----------



## rsskylight04

Great post flear... so much that is known in the hobby, but oh so much that is still mystery! Keep up that never-ending quest for knowledge!
Are you SURE phosphate does not accelerate algae growth? There are several published reports that indicate otherwise. I personaly don't know. But most fish flakes/ pellets will add phosphate to the tank.

Bob-Will you at least admit that your method is experimental?


----------



## Flear

the phosphates added in fish foods are to act as a preservative (another word for toxic)

or ...

basic building blocks in organic life
oxygen, carbon, hydrogen
... then ...
nitrogen
phosphorous - 

without phosphorous, things die, and limiting phosphorous is relatively easy

then algae dies

maybe i'm biased, but i see it as a myth

what is also known is that to eliminate algae is healthy plants without deficiencies (means having phosphates)
- this isn't promoted much as people are too impatient and want instant fixes, ... so cut out phosphates


----------



## rsskylight04

I love the idea of live plants to combat algea growth. Also love that we're kinda hijacking bobs thread! Just kidding, no hijacking allowed, so sorry!


----------



## Hallyx

beaslbob said:


> Oh how so?
> 
> the rate of increase is not quantifiable.


The simplistic equation is set-up to handle only one variable at a time. The rate of increase applies to several variables at once, each to a different degree. So, while it may be quantifiable, it takes a lot more sophisticated math than you propose. Actually, I know it's not your proposition. I've seen that formula around. It proves little.



beaslbob said:


> the concentration in the replacement water is not quantifiable?


In the replacement water. But not after several hours in the living environment.



beaslbob said:


> the days between water changes are not quantifiable?


THat's the only variable that is not multiplex and undefinable or only vaguely definable.



beaslbob said:


> And how is it non-sequitur?


Any logical propostion, mathematical or otherwise, that is so poorly framed, inadequately defined, or non-inclusive of all variables, dissolves immediately into nonsense. It no longer applies critically to the discussion. It becomes a non sequitur.

Here comes the good part:



beaslbob said:


> Does the equation not follow:
> 
> 1) there is a constant ppm in the replacement water.
> 
> 2) there is a constant water change amount and schedule.
> 
> 3) there is a constant rate of change of that parameter.
> 
> 4) sufficient water changes have been done to that the before water change values are constant water change to water change.
> 
> Awaiting your reply.


1) There is a constant ppm of any given compound in the replacement water . But there is not a constant _percentage_ of any given compound. If you change 10% water, you may change 10% of one compound, 5% of another 15% of another. The percentage varies. There is no compensating algorithm in that simple formula.

2) While this may be true, as explained in #1 above, it doesn't matter.

3) There is a constant rate of change of any given _single_ parameter. There is not a constant rate of change of all parameters. Some compounds will remain steady, unchanged over time, with set-percentages water changes. Some will increase; some will decrease. That formulas is too simplistic (not just simple) to predict any but a small part of that.

4) I've read this over and over. Even compensating for typos, I can understand it only as being some kind of tautology, disprovable by neither the scientific method nor the application of logic.


----------



## beaslbob

Agent13 said:


> I'm telling you what not just what I think but MANY others both experienced and not experienced have PMd me about you . You need to really evaluate what others are feeling when you say the things you do .
> I promise you I get concerns from members of all walks of life PMing me about your predatory behavior with noobs
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com App


Then I suggest you actually look at what I actually post. We all have different experiences and all I do is explain and make suggestions.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Agent13

Pure curiosity here
I imagine your quite over run with fish . Do you sell them ? 


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## Flear

beaslebob, your equation is wrong by the way,

plants will lower those numbers that you so love as proof you don't have to do water changes

and a water change itself will lower those numbers even more than plants will

any bacterioplankton will lower those numbers as well, but you have no idea what you have in your tank at that level ... well till equalibrium was reached, then it won't change anything

you have nothing in place to convert any plankton into larger life forms to truly lower levels

any leaf that dies if going to drastically raise levels beyond your wrong formula

---

beaslbob, you are quick to show how water changes give no net improvement on water quality, maintaining a status quo

yet that same formula should show your tank to be in the hundreds of thousands as by your own equation those numbers will continue to rise without limit as you are not removing anything.


----------



## Agent13

Bob is a politician .. Admit it bob.. You must be one . 



Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## beaslbob

Agent13 said:


> Pure curiosity here
> I imagine your quite over run with fish . Do you sell them ?
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com App


On the old livebearer tank I did give away 1/2 dozen or so to family and friends every now and then. Some of the descendants were still in a doctor's tank 12 years later. :lol:


----------



## beaslbob

Flear said:


> beaslebob, your equation is wrong by the way,
> 
> plants will lower those numbers that you so love as proof you don't have to do water changes
> 
> and a water change itself will lower those numbers even more than plants will
> 
> any bacterioplankton will lower those numbers as well, but you have no idea what you have in your tank at that level ... well till equalibrium was reached, then it won't change anything
> 
> you have nothing in place to convert any plankton into larger life forms to truly lower levels
> 
> any leaf that dies if going to drastically raise levels beyond your wrong formula
> 
> ---
> 
> beaslbob, you are quick to show how water changes give no net improvement on water quality, maintaining a status quo
> 
> yet that same formula should show your tank to be in the hundreds of thousands as by your own equation those numbers will continue to rise without limit as you are not removing anything.


the formula is precisely and correct within the assumptions presented. and it does reflect real world experiences.

I does contain many simplifying assumptions with the objective of determining how effective water changes are.


Care to show any experiments or measurement to support you assertions like any leaf that dies makes drastic level rises?

Hmmmm kinds like peat moss in a new tank.


Oh yea. dern I already submitted those measurements on post one of this thread.


----------



## beaslbob

rsskylight04 said:


> Great post flear... so much that is known in the hobby, but oh so much that is still mystery! Keep up that never-ending quest for knowledge!
> Are you SURE phosphate does not accelerate algae growth? There are several published reports that indicate otherwise. I personaly don't know. But most fish flakes/ pellets will add phosphate to the tank.
> 
> Bob-Will you at least admit that your method is experimental?


I have successfully experimented with this methods for the last 40 years.


----------



## rsskylight04

But how is peat moss in the substrate going to help Carlos' already acidic tank? And I hope there's not another nonsense formula for that!


----------



## beaslbob

rsskylight04 said:


> But how is peat moss in the substrate going to help Carlos' already acidic tank? And I hope there's not another nonsense formula for that!


 
Probably not at all.

What will help is the no water change, no prime, and plants.


----------



## Agent13

Let's get off the Carlos subject . I'm genuinely worried bob will screw up things for him worse then they already are .. 
Please guys ..


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------

