[somewhatshocked]

If your tank is partially cycling but still showing positive levels of ammonia and nitrite, how much water would you change how often at this early stage?

Probably wouldn't be doing any water changes unless ammonia was hitting above 2-3PPM and nitrite was above 5. But I would be dosing Prime heavily each and every day if I had livestock in the tank. Though, ideally, you'd move your livestock to a bucket or other container until you get your tank cycled so you don't torture them to death with burned gills.

I guess we agree to disagree lol. Carbon removes pretty much anything that the water absorbs from the air.

There's not really anything to disagree on. Reality is reality. Science is science. No, carbon doesn't remove everything. And you can't account for hormonal, pheromonal and other excretions if you aren't conducting water changes.

I have never had an issue with not doing water changes

You haven't. You aren't everyone and it's important to keep that in mind when giving advice to newcomers who don't fully have a grasp on the basics just yet.

Do you have any info or links that point to fish hormones being released into water causing issues? No trying to prove you wrong...you could be totally correct.

You're welcome to use the search function here on the forum and elsewhere. The easiest way to learn about those excretions would be to start with invertebrates so you can learn how they impact their biological processes. Similar things occur with fish.

i dont care if the guppy fry die or not

Animal cruelty is never acceptable. That's exceptionally terrible advice in 2024. Knowing better and having the means to do better but actively choosing not to is... not great. To say the least.

 

[donrleonard]

Just an update on today’s water parameters:.

4ppm Ammonia
4-5ppm nitrite
15ppm nitrate

Again, because we've been dosing dechlorination fluid for 48 hours now some of those nitrites might be non-toxic.

I also decided to pick up some Tetra test strips to see how they compare to my API Master liquid kit (answer, not bad). These provided our first measurements of:
pH: 7.3
General Hardness (GH) - 200
Carbonate Hardness (KH) - 20

We also got a TDS meter, which is showing 422ppm
(baseline for our filtered, but non-RO tap water is 358)

Based on somewhatshocked's feedback, will hold for now on a water change but continue dosing dechlorinate. Because we don't have a water stone, I've been dosing 5ml or 1.66x every 24 hours.

I'm struggling to interpret these new readings. Any and all analysis appreciated!

 

[somewhatshocked]

I also decided to pick up some Tetra test strips to see how they compare to my API Master liquid kit

Test strips are extremely inaccurate in instances like this.

Based on somewhatshocked's feedback, will hold for now on a water change but continue dosing dechlorinate.

That's not what I suggested. As @Kwyet explained earlier in your thread, Prime =/= mere dechlorinator. Prime is known to help in situations like yours. I can't say the same for the product you're using.

Buy Prime instead of test strips.

 

[donrleonard]

Test strips are extremely inaccurate in instances like this.



That's not what I suggested. As @Kwyet explained earlier in your thread, Prime =/= mere dechlorinator. Prime is known to help in situations like yours. I can't say the same for the product you're using.

Buy Prime instead of test strips.

Copy that! Prime was ordered and is being delivered this afternoon. Still testing with the API Master kit. Just wanted to get readings for my other water parameters.

Do the pH/GH/KH/TDS numbers worry you for my (dwarf) Honey Gourami or Blue Endlers?

Im happy to report that the fish are all eating and looking pretty relaxed around the tank, at least to my uneducated eye.

 

[somewhatshocked]

Do the pH/GH/KH/TDS numbers worry you for my (dwarf) Honey Gourami or Blue Endlers?

They're both incredibly hardy species - Endlers especially - so they can live in a range of water parameters. So I wouldn't worry too much about them.

Test strips are unfortunately, by their nature, inaccurate compared to better calibrated liquid test kits. The hardness testing components of them pretty must expire and lose efficacy upon exposure to air for some reason. So I rarely consider them at all. That said, we tend to measure hardness in German Degrees. If those test strips are accurate, that means you have kH 1 and gH 11. If those are accurate-ish measurements, I don't see anything to stress over.

TDS doesn't really mean anything useful for you right now. It's wildly overhyped as being important and it rarely, if ever, is. It's a measure of all dissolved solids in your water - assuming it's been properly calibrated. So you'd need to know all of the solids dissolved in your water, along with their concentration, for TDS to mean anything valuable. It could be all MG or all CA and you'd never know just by using a TDS meter.

TDS is really helpful when measuring remineralization salts (like when mixing up RO water for a water change) for loosely gauging how much you've added. That's only when you know that a TDS of X results in whatever you're measuring for Y. Some people use TDS meters to help mix up DIY fertilizer solutions and that, too, requires knowing percentages and concentrations.

Beyond that, I pretty much only use a TDS meter to determine whether or not my RO/DI filters are working and producing 0 TDS water.

 

[donrleonard]

They're both incredibly hardy species - Endlers especially - so they can live in a range of water parameters. So I wouldn't worry too much about them.

Test strips are unfortunately, by their nature, inaccurate compared to better calibrated liquid test kits. The hardness testing components of them pretty must expire and lose efficacy upon exposure to air for some reason. So I rarely consider them at all. That said, we tend to measure hardness in German Degrees. If those test strips are accurate, that means you have kH 1 and gH 11. If those are accurate-ish measurements, I don't see anything to stress over.

TDS doesn't really mean anything useful for you right now. It's wildly overhyped as being important and it rarely, if ever, is. It's a measure of all dissolved solids in your water - assuming it's been properly calibrated. So you'd need to know all of the solids dissolved in your water, along with their concentration, for TDS to mean anything valuable. It could be all MG or all CA and you'd never know just by using a TDS meter.

TDS is really helpful when measuring remineralization salts (like when mixing up RO water for a water change) for loosely gauging how much you've added. That's only when you know that a TDS of X results in whatever you're measuring for Y. Some people use TDS meters to help mix up DIY fertilizer solutions and that, too, requires knowing percentages and concentrations.

Beyond that, I pretty much only use a TDS meter to determine whether or not my RO/DI filters are working and producing 0 TDS water.

Thanks again for the input, somewhatshocked. I really appreciate it.

Just for my peace of mind, I'll probably do a 20% water change and another 1.66x dosage of water treatment this evening with Prime when it arrives.

 

[somewhatshocked]

Just for my peace of mind, I'll probably do a 20% water change and another 1.66x dosage of water treatment this evening with Prime when it arrives.

Doing a water change won't do any harm at all. Especially if you're treating the water. Looks like the nitrite is creeping up, so you'll definitely help with that.

 

[donrleonard]

As I'm waiting for Prime to be delivered and, more slowly, for the tank to finish cycling, I'd like to re-raise the issue of water changes, hormones, and fish welfare.

Before starting this thread, I was unaware of the fish hormone variable. My interest in limiting water changes was driven by practicality, but it was also inspired by the perspective that the YouTube personality Father Fish has on the stress and unnatural disruption that water changes cause to aquarium fish. His view, in short, is that one should only change water if it is polluted. And his approach to planted aquariums (a variant of the Walstad method--lots of plants, proportionally fewer fish) minimizes or eliminates water pollution entirely, at least by conventional metrics.

This raises the question of fish hormones. At the suggestion of others here, I performed a search of fish hormones on this site. Finding only one thread on fish hormones related to a specific breed of fish (Discus), for which there was notable dissent, I widened the search to the interwebs. As best as I can tell based on a preliminary search, the phenomenon as it relates to tropical aquarium fish is under-studied and, as a result, quite controversial. Additionally, as best as I can tell the concern seems to be most prevalent among those who use their aquariums as high density breeding tanks.

Ignoring, for a minute, the lifestyle preference my wife and I have for an (eventually) mature freshwater tank that allows for a month or two between water changes, I am wondering what the implications of fish hormones are for an under-stocked tank with a low-density, high plant-to-fish ratio and a rich soil substrate capped by gravel.

Inspired by the myriad "balanced tank" success stories that abound, not just by @Waters but many others here and elsewhere in the hobby, I'd sure like to better understand what the conditions are in which the fish stresses induced by water changes are offset by the health benefits to the fish.

 

[somewhatshocked]

Father Fish

That guy probably isn't worthy of too much of your time beyond being entertainment. He claims water has memory. It's objectively nonsense, to be kind. Specious at best. And his obsession with anoxic filtration is wildly impractical in a way that's been rehashed thousands of times here on this forum alone. Some of the other forums get really nasty about him. We remove personal attacks against him and have removed his attacks on others (some of them kind of scary, to say the least) here through the years. There are still some interesting discussions about it to be found.

His view, in short, is that one should only change water if it is polluted. And his approach to planted aquariums (a variant of the Walstad method--lots of plants, proportionally fewer fish) minimizes or eliminates water pollution entirely, at least by conventional metrics.

First - We probably shouldn't even loosely compare a guy screaming at clouds, so to speak, with an actual scientist and researcher who offers her theories (based in actual science using scientific methods) up in the form of a book for extreme public scrutiny and scientific review. Walstad's hypotheses have changed over time and she's updated and improved upon what she's discovered throughout the years. To the point that she's been on forums, including this one, discussing the importance of water changes. Anything that guy has done is wholly unrelated to her work.

But... neither "method" eliminates or even fully minimizes wastes. They may reduce nitrate but that's not the only thing we're trying to address with water changes.

I am wondering what the implications of fish hormones are

Fish hormones aren't the sole issue here. It's that there are myriad wastes you cannot test or account for with the equipment and resources you have available to you as a hobbyist. You're also trying to replenish mineral content and provide fresh water. That's why it's important to conduct regular water changes. Water is frequently, if not constantly, being changed and refreshed in the wild and that's something we have to account for in our tanks.

Inspired by the myriad "balanced tank" success stories

As you'll discover, there's unfortunately no such thing as a "balanced" tank that requires no effort, no water changes, no nothing. That's why you don't see many of them among the hundreds of thousands of tanks documented here on the forum. They all ultimately fail, look horrendous or are only up for a year or two. It's possible to get to a point where you might only do a water change every 2-3 weeks or so (maybe even monthly) but that won't be the case in the beginning. You'd have to have a ton of relatively fast-growing plants filling the tank and almost no livestock in such a small container of water for that to eventually work well. It will be a hit-or-miss bit of struggle in just 30 gallons. Note that if you went with a shrimp-only tank, you'd likely be able to stretch those water changes out a bit longer.

Important to note that fish aren't inherently stressed by water changes. They're a net positive and are part of their natural life cycle - both in the wild and in captivity. If you're only changing 10-20% of your water every week or so and parameters aren't wildly different, there's next to no impact. Slight parameter variations and temperature shifts are even welcomed by pretty much every species you can keep in your tank, as they spur reproduction, shoaling behavior and molting and hormonal and pheromonal releases for invertebrates like shrimp.

This hobby has been a thing for thousands of years and for at least the past 5-6 decades we've understood the importance of water changes. Things grow and change over time, of course, and every tank is different but we're not exactly reinventing the wheel here. Even with the understanding we've developed in the past 20-25 years about wastes beyond nitrate. Water change necessity is something we can verify with relative ease. If this no/reduced water change thing were something that worked extremely well, you'd find all the millions of hobbyists who've come before you employing those methods on a regular basis.

 

[Kwyet]

I was just reading back over your thread and realized that while focusing on the water change conversation, there were a couple of other things I had questions about.

First, what is this 24 hour plant deadline you mentioned? Plants can last much longer than that before planting, especially low-tech ones like you have. You can put them in a bucket with dechlorinated water where they can get some ambient light and most plants like that will be fine for at least a week, often longer, so don’t feel like you need to rush.

Second, your stocking is fine, but are you going by the old inch of fish per gallon rule? If so, it’s really out-dated. Instead you want to check on the bioload of the fish you’ll keep (at adult size), how much filtration you have, and the temperament of the species. At the moment you actually have pretty light stocking, even with the very light filtration. A useful tool for future planning is aqadvisor.com. You can enter your tank dimensions, filtration, and desired fish and it’ll give you a calculation of how much of your filtration is being used and recommend a water change schedule, temp, etc. It’s not perfect, doesn’t take plants into account, and is pretty conservative most of the time, but still a useful tool.

 

[donrleonard]

First, what is this 24 hour plant deadline you mentioned?

This was the timeframe the LFS gave me to get my plants out of their bags and into the water. It hadn't occurred to me to store them in some in-between vessel. Needless to say, despite the immense amount of research I have done, the learning curve in this hobby is quite steep.

At the moment you actually have pretty light stocking, even with the very light filtration.

This is the organizing principle of a Walstad-type aquarium. Using the old rule, if a conventional 30-gallon tank featuring frequent water changes could manage 30 inches of fish, then a Walstad-style aquarium might only support 20, or even just 15 inches of fish. I have played around with aqadvisor.com trying to see how many cardinal tetras I might be able to add. It's pretty cool. But because I am pursuing a tank strategy that is evidently much more unconventional than I realized, though less so than many here seem to think, I find the results difficult to interpret.

there's unfortunately no such thing as a "balanced" tank that requires no effort, no water changes, no nothing. That's why you don't see many of them among the hundreds of thousands of tanks documented here on the forum. They all ultimately fail, look horrendous or are only up for a year or two.

I certainly would not expect a no-effort tank. The hypothesis that led me to this hobby was that there could be a more-balanced tank that required some effort, less-frequent water changes, and some compromise in terms of the flora to fauna ratio.

I am new to this forum, so I can't speak to the universe of tanks here. Given how frequently this forum came up during my research stage as I was googling various aspects of planted tank development, I had thought that the low-tech corner of TPT might be where I belong. But I can certainly attest that there are many hundreds of aquarists over on Aquatic Plant Central, especially on the El Natural sub-thread, who have successful, attractive, long-running tanks with infrequent water changes. While it seems that @Waters has now left this forum, he certainly counted among them.

That said, I am deeply moved by the care and affection that users here have expressed over their fish. I would be glad to learn of tangible, dangerous toxins that threaten the physical or emotional health of freshwater fish--even those in Walstad tanks-- if water is not changed on some kind of weekly basis. If there is evidence of such, I would certainly make alternative arrangements for tank maintenance during our travel season. If there are additional resources you can point me to for learning about what these "myriad wastes" are and how they impact stable tanks that are dirted, capped with gravel, over-planted, under-fished, and filtered by both plants, bottom-feeders, and traditional carbon-based media, I would be glad to know which those wastes are.

 

[somewhatshocked]

While it seems that @Waters has now left this forum, he certainly counted among them.

Honestly not entirely sure I'd take anyone seriously when they angrily pick up their toys and run because they were politely corrected by other experienced hobbyists for giving bad advice to a newcomer. They've chimed in twice in eight years with personal insults and reactions like that.

But - I reiterate - there are not tons upon tons of no water change tanks existing for the long-term that both look great and that are healthy. As repeatedly pointed out in this thread and documented pretty much everywhere in the hobby? They are incredibly few and far between. All of the tanks that look nice require effort. All of them. Be that weekly/monthly water changes, fertilizer additions, feeding, detritus removal, trimmings, etc.

You can have a low-maintenance, uncomplicated setup. There are tens of thousands of them documented here. Including most of my own tanks and tank journals that document some of them. Water does have to be changed for tanks to remain healthy. There's no way around it.

Note that more often than not, Walstad-type or dirted tanks take way more effort than simple setups using just pool filter sand or other inert substrate.

That said, I am deeply moved by the care and affection that users here have expressed over their fish. I would be glad to learn of tangible, dangerous toxins that threaten the physical or emotional health of freshwater fish--even those in Walstad tanks-- if water is not changed on some kind of weekly basis. If there is evidence of such

Not sure emotional health is a major thing for most aquatic species, since most of these animals don't have anything resembling true emotions. There are natural behaviors we have to account for, obviously, that do seem somewhat emotional(?) or psychological. And some species are wildly intelligent (like Carinotetraodon travancoricus.) But it should be relatively easy to understand why water changes are important and a required part of the hobby - even if not all tanks are the same or require the same level of maintenance.

The evidence you seek is literally on this forum. In tank journals. In millions of threads. Tens of thousands of newcomers showing up with countless issues that stem from lack of water changes. Tons of them showing up because of "Father Fish", even. Many of those threads go into extreme detail examining parameters, feeding, everything you can think of. The information is there.

If there are additional resources you can point me to for learning about what these "myriad wastes"

I'm not going to do all the work for you (for anyone, not you individually), sorry.

But I will give you some anecdotes that should make sense and point you in the right direction: You secrete and excrete all kinds of things in your daily life, you shed skin cells, sweat, release oils, mucus, gases, keratin, even bacteria and microorganisms. Similar things occur with pretty much all living creatures on earth - including those we keep in our tanks. Those are wastes that need to be removed manually - by you - at regular intervals. They are not all used up by plants, they are not all pulled out via chemical and mechanical filtration, they don't evaporate.

 

[donrleonard]

Days 10-13: All happy tanks are happy in the same way...

...as Tolstoy might have said. And all unhappy tanks are unhappy in a thousand different ways.

In hindsight, it was predictable that my tank would experience new tank syndrome. By choosing to start the nitrogen cycle by introducing a light load of fish, I unwittingly triggered a spike in ammonias and nitrites that I've been continuing to battle for the last few days. I had hoped that the refrigerated Turbostart beneficial bacteria would perform as it (and the salesman) suggested, but alas. A 30% water change on day 9 (10/14) brought ammonia (and nitrates) down to zero overnight, but nitrites remain unacceptably high. Here's hoping the Seechem Prime dechlorinate I introduced with the water change will detoxify those as I patiently wait for the beneficial bacteria to convert them into helpful (from the plants' point of view) nitrates.

While I wait for the nitrogen cycle to establish, I have another conundrum: My supposedly death-proof plants are looking a bit bedraggled. Some of this is to be expected, I understand, in the transition from emmersed to submerged. But the Hygro Angustifolia Fans are looking decidedly non high-growing. Many of the leaves are looking quite brown and ill.

Thinking that the roots had yet to establish themselves in the potting soil substrate, I had briefly experimented with a squirt of all-in one liquid nitrogen (Thrive+) and a dose of Seechem Excel on day 4 (10/9/24). This probably explains the stepwise increase in nitrates we observe on 10/10/24. I decided to discontinue the fertilization experiment when the nitrite spike emerged the following day and focus on protecting the fish.

Now that we are in a holding pattern waiting for my tank to finish cycling, I think it's time to return to the puzzle of unhappy plants.

Up until now I've been running our Fluval LEDs (one 24-inch Plant 3.0 LED in back, one 24 inch Aquasky 2.0 in front) at 50% maximum intensity on a pretty standard daylight routine. I arrived at this after reading about those whose planted tanks did not have sufficient carbon to support higher-intensity light, with the result being algae. As I'm setting this up as a low-tech tank, I thought 50 percent might be the goldilocks solution.

As I was taking out the recycling yesterday, I noticed the following table on the side of the Fluval Aquasky 2.0 box:

"My god." I thought. The PAR value of these lights falls off exponentially with tank depth. At 18" the light has lost 85% of its plant-absorbable radiation. And my tank is 24" tall! Even with 3.5 " of substrate, that leaves very little light to reach the bottom. Now this is the weaker of my two lights, but still!

As a result, I've decided to increase the light intensity of both lights to 100 percent. And because I can't leave things well enough alone, I've also decided to implement a siesta regimen in hopes that it will increase the amount of available carbon in the tank and help the plants fight off algae.

Wish us luck!!!

 

[Kwyet]

Your plants may have been grown emersed, or may just be adjusting to your tank and its changing parameters. If you can remove the bad leaves while leaving the best-looking ones, your plants can focus on new growth suited to your tank. Leaving damaged, melting leaves will cause algae. Also, if you change the lighting, try not to change it again for at least two weeks, otherwise it’s another strain on the plants as they have to keep trying to adjust. You may also get some algae with making such a large, abrupt change in intensity. I usually start with 40% and then gradually increase it by 10% increments once the tank stabilizes. I’m not an expert on lighting though, that’s just what works for me.

Walstad’s book was one of the first aquarium books I ever read, and I’ve seen some of her more recent stuff (videos, short articles on some of the changes she’s made). I have great respect for her! I’ve used some of her principles (and other like-minded folk) in my aquariums. I just know from my own limited experience that as I’ve increased the frequency of water changes through the years my tanks have been healthier, more stable and more attractive to view. If I try to pass on what I’ve learned, it’s just to try to help you avoid pitfalls and discouragement, but everyone should do their own research and make their own decisions about what to do with their own tank. I think I (and others here) feel more of an imperative to speak out when we see someone just starting out being given bad advice, and also that’s just the nature of a forum. Hopefully everyone can be adults and thoughtfully discuss the issues!

As for some of the myriad things that can build up in a tank between water changes, just consider what household dust is comprised of (as one example): dead skin cells, dust mites, pollen, dander, non-beneficial bacteria, viruses, molds, ash, cooking and heating residues, other home pollutants. Also, aside from the other things that have already been mentioned, low or no water change aquariums are more likely to experience Old Tank Syndrome, runaway algae, and bacteria blooms (often harmless, sometimes deadly). I’m sure you’re going to do more research, because I can tell you’re that kind of person and want to be a responsible caretaker, so I’m going to leave this topic now and just follow along on this really cool project you’ve started. 🙂

 

[somewhatshocked]

Those plants honestly look pretty good to be in a transition like that. Looks like the usual detritus, sediment, biofilm, bacteria, diatoms that are standard early on. I don't see anything, really, that would be attributable to poor lighting. Not sure it's really been long enough for anything like that to be visible just yet.

Since most are slow-growing, lower lighting options, I'd probably run the fixture below 100%. Maybe 75%? Because that's a lot of par when you get closer to the surface with low light plants like Java Fern and Anubias. 100% wouldn't be the end of the world but increases the likelihood of algae and growth issues.

Those crypts(?) are going to sprout new leaves within a month and they'll look stunning compared to the growth that exists right now. You can kinda see it on newer growth but texture, pattern, color, shape are slightly different.

 

[donrleonard]

That’s correct, @somewhatshocked! Those are Crypt Wendt II Bronze Fans. At least, that’s what it said on my receipt. I’m so very glad to hear that there’s even more to look forward to there.

For the sake of the journal, I should probably list the inventory here. There’s a couple specifics that I don’t have right now: the species of driftwood and the type of rock we used. Next time I go to the LFS I will have to jot those down.

Type Quantity Type Substrate 1 Miracle Gro Organic Potting Soil Scape 1 Driftwood? Scape 3 Rock? Gravel 2 Peace River Super Natural 20lb Flora 2 Anubias Coffeefolia Flora 3 Micro Sword Narrow Fan Flora 2 Java Fern Fan Flora 24 Hygro Angustifolia Fan Flora 2 Crypt Wendt II Bronze Fan Flora 3 Christmas Moss Fauna 2 Dwarf Gourami Honey Yellow Fauna 1 Dwarf Gourami Honey Red Fauna 6 Blue Endlers

 

[somewhatshocked]

I’m so very glad to hear that there’s even more to look forward to there.

C. wendtii 'Bronze' is one of the best. I'm biased but give it a few months and you'll see what I mean. Wild that such a cool plant can grow in low light environments.

To illustrate what I mean about how Crypts change, here's a look at less than great Crypts:

That turn into great Crypts:

(All the brown spots you see on leaves aren't holes but snails.)

 

[donrleonard]

C. wendtii 'Bronze' is one of the best. I'm biased but give it a few months and you'll see what I mean. Wild that such a cool plant can grow in low light environments.

To illustrate what I mean about how Crypts change, here's a look at less than great Crypts:

That turn into great Crypts:

(All the brown spots you see on leaves aren't holes but snails.)

Just beautiful. Especially against that striking black gravel.

 

[donrleonard]

Your plants may have been grown emersed, or may just be adjusting to your tank and its changing parameters. If you can remove the bad leaves while leaving the best-looking ones, your plants can focus on new growth suited to your tank. Leaving damaged, melting leaves will cause algae. Also, if you change the lighting, try not to change it again for at least two weeks, otherwise it’s another strain on the plants as they have to keep trying to adjust. You may also get some algae with making such a large, abrupt change in intensity. I usually start with 40% and then gradually increase it by 10% increments once the tank stabilizes. I’m not an expert on lighting though, that’s just what works for me.

Walstad’s book was one of the first aquarium books I ever read, and I’ve seen some of her more recent stuff (videos, short articles on some of the changes she’s made). I have great respect for her! I’ve used some of her principles (and other like-minded folk) in my aquariums. I just know from my own limited experience that as I’ve increased the frequency of water changes through the years my tanks have been healthier, more stable and more attractive to view. If I try to pass on what I’ve learned, it’s just to try to help you avoid pitfalls and discouragement, but everyone should do their own research and make their own decisions about what to do with their own tank. I think I (and others here) feel more of an imperative to speak out when we see someone just starting out being given bad advice, and also that’s just the nature of a forum. Hopefully everyone can be adults and thoughtfully discuss the issues!

As for some of the myriad things that can build up in a tank between water changes, just consider what household dust is comprised of (as one example): dead skin cells, dust mites, pollen, dander, non-beneficial bacteria, viruses, molds, ash, cooking and heating residues, other home pollutants. Also, aside from the other things that have already been mentioned, low or no water change aquariums are more likely to experience Old Tank Syndrome, runaway algae, and bacteria blooms (often harmless, sometimes deadly). I’m sure you’re going to do more research, because I can tell you’re that kind of person and want to be a responsible caretaker, so I’m going to leave this topic now and just follow along on this really cool project you’ve started. 🙂

Thanks for the kind words, Kwyet, as well as for taking the time to to share your experience. I’m here for the hard truths, even if they put a dent in my initial vision.

That said, I also believe in getting a multitude of perspectives. Reading that Diana Walstad herself frequents Aquatic Plant Central, I raised some of these concerns over there. Two interesting tidbits that emerged were that, first, a heavily planted, lightly populated tank can allow plants to absorb many of the contaminants discussed. And second, that I could also consider deploying a UV internal filter like this.

As I understand it, the fundamental distinction with dirt tanks capped by porous gravels is that the soils beneath can, perhaps with the help of a bottom feeder cleaning crew, also absorb much of the “dust and debris” and recycle it as nutrients.

It may not be a forever tank, but I’m hopeful I can match the performance of others who’ve gotten a year or two or more from their dirted tanks.

Either way, I’m happy to have you along for the ride!

 

[Kwyet]

Thanks! Just be aware that internal UV filters like that don’t do much except help with algae spores in the water. They’re too underpowered to kill off many disease pathogens, and even if they are strong enough to do that, the bulbs quickly lose the power to do that. They’ll advertise for yearly bulb replacement, when they’re really only fully functional for about a month. Just what I’ve read, as I have no way to test it.

If you’re getting a cleaning crew, I suggest relying on snails. Anything like a pleco is going to create more waste than you want to deal with in a Walstad tank. Did you get to talk to her directly? That would be cool!