Yeah the only problem is a water change is beneficial in every tank as long as you dose, you can't say the same about a tank that doesn't receive water changes. Any seasoned hobbyist here knows that and for you to argue any differently simply exposes your lack of experience and your desire to simply argue for arguments sake. Thats probably the reason @roadmaster
didn't want to discuss with you further.
re: "Any seasoned hobbyist". B.S. Walstad didn't invent her method - it is in fact the more traditional way of keeping an aquarium, and a lot of old LFS folk still swear by it. People just started caring more about having water that looks super crystal clear than keeping a balanced ecosystem.
You and roadmaster continue to just insist on dogma rather than provide real support for your arguments.
A) Just because something "is beneficial in every tank" doesn't mean everyone has to do it. You have very specific, high end goals for your aquarium in terms of the plants you want to keep (in part, semi-aquatic plants that would not typically survive fully submerged). Asking everyone to subscribe to the same maintenance routine that you have is like a cigar aficionado turning their nose up at someone for not keeping their Marlboros in a humidifier. Sure it wouldn't hurt
, but it's completely unnecessary
B) As it so happens, dissolved organics are
in fact beneficial. In nature, humic substances are the
source of carbon for aquatic plants. You might be surprised to learn that paintball canisters are very rare in the wild. There is also extensive academic research (in the wild and in aquaria) on the metal-binding benefits of dissolved organics. Finally, Diana Walstad points out that allelopathic chemicals released by plants are among the many organic compounds that accumulate in our tanks. Infrequent water changes allow these chemicals to reach levels which can strongly inhibit algae.
As for fish health, if my fish show good color and are successfully breeding, I assume I'm doing something right.
I'm still waiting for an explanation on this one. The last time I asked, you pivoted faster than D. Trump
Sorry, there was a lot to respond to.
My explanation for this comes from having tanks that I used to change the water in as frequently as you say I should. When I started going low tech, the tanks kicked back at first: algae, bacteria blooms, etc. But once you get over that first hump, the tank adjusts to infrequent water changes and things stabilize. I assume this is a combination of many factors: more snails to break particles down smaller, more surface area for efficient decomposition; more bacteria to further decompose those particles into dissolved organic carbon and nitrates that plants can eat up; plants that are adapted to take advantage of the organics in the water column (as we know, many plants will change or even shed their leaves to adapt to an aquarium's specific parameters). But if you change the water frequently, none of those adaptations will happen because the environmental conditions for more bacteria and dissolved-organics-loving-plants will not exist (granted, conditions for more snails might exist regardless). That's why I say that people who change their water a lot might be misled by their own experience that frequent water changes are a must: because their tanks aren't adapted to infrequent water changes, so any deviation from weekly 50% change is going to cause problems.