What If?

[Delapool]

Hello Del...

Here's my take on a tank like this...

The filter has media and the bacteria living in the media, use a bit of the dissolved wastes that pass by, but not much. That's why any filtration system no matter how efficiently it runs, can't remove much of the waste in the water. The large water change, however does. I take out the old water with a lot of dissolved fish waste and replace it with new, treated tap water with no waste in it. The waste left in the old water that's left in the tank, dilutes to a safe level in all the new water.

If I remove the filter completely, replace it with a couple of air stones to still have sufficient gas exchange and increase the water change, I don't need the filter, because I've put in place something that will do it's job.

The large, frequent water change is the real filter and the air stone is the means of mixing oxygen into the tank water and allows carbon dioxide to escape.

B

For my tank it just would be either the same or worse. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for water changes and I do appreciate the tread as a very interesting discussion. I'm sure it could be done.

For my tank I know when I clean the canister filters the nitrates will drop. So I know the filters collect a lot of waste. I'm actually struggling with this at the moment as the canisters are off for 7 hours while co2 is on and I'm noticing it is harder to keep the water clean. Of course I'm a shocker at growing plants which doesn't help.

When I do clean the canisters they never seem overloaded. The bacteria are doing their job (both auto and hetero) - I'm just getting too much nitrates. So this is why I say I would end up at par - I would be increasing water changes to compensate for not cleaning the filter. In the past when the tank wasn't planted I found that even gravel vacs each week weren't as effective as a canister clean. The canisters are 10 and 20 litres each so decent sized filters.

So the filters are working and more filter cleans and more water changes would help but I see them complementing each other.

This is why I have shifted to a bare bottom tank for the small tank with fry so I could clean it better. Here I am almost doing this. The tank has a small hob (could use an air stone frankly) and I do large water changes and vac the tank bottom each week. Molly fry are fine with this. Neons didn't seem to appreciate large water changes so much unfortunately (but then smaller but frequent pwc's could still get to 75%).

 

[BBradbury]

The subject of replacing the filter system with a more aggressive water change routine was just a thought. Since the water is the most important thing for a successful tank, I thought it would be important to focus on it. When I got into the hobby, everything I read stressed keeping the tank water free of wastes. One book stated, if large amounts of tank water were changed often enough, there would be no need for mechanical filtration. The constant source of clean water wouldn't allow any forms of nitrogen to stay in the water long enough to harm the fish. I've found this to be true, at least in the tanks I keep.

Add to large, frequent water changes some land plants, like Aglaonema which have roots made to take in all available forms of nitrogen and you have a system that never needs mechanical filters.

Thanks for all the comments. I hope I have another "What If?". This one pushed me to put on my "Thinking Cap". Maybe it helps to think outside the box, sometimes.

B

 

[Mebbid]

Youre absolutely correct on the water changes controlling nitrogen.

I'm thinking more along the lines of Murphys law... if it can go wrong it will.

If something happens and you're called out of town or otherwise indisposed and unable to do those water changes with a setup like this then the fish will suffer.

 

[ImACoolguy]

Hi BBradbury

I think you are correct that it is possible. Like Mebbid said its just taking a time travel to back before filters.

I have to agree with the others as it's just more work and seems impractical when we have filters to do some of the work for us.


Caleb

Sent via TARDIS

 

[friscuba]

It'll work, but you'd basically go back to what they were doing in much earlier days of the aquarium hobby, say like the 1950s and earlier (may be earlier than that, I wasn't around 'til the 60s). There's a reason we've got mechanical filters, mostly less work and a whole lot more stability. It's easier now, and my guess the fish are a whole lot better off for it.

 

[Delapool]

The subject of replacing the filter system with a more aggressive water change routine was just a thought. Since the water is the most important thing for a successful tank, I thought it would be important to focus on it. When I got into the hobby, everything I read stressed keeping the tank water free of wastes. One book stated, if large amounts of tank water were changed often enough, there would be no need for mechanical filtration. The constant source of clean water wouldn't allow any forms of nitrogen to stay in the water long enough to harm the fish. I've found this to be true, at least in the tanks I keep.

Add to large, frequent water changes some land plants, like Aglaonema which have roots made to take in all available forms of nitrogen and you have a system that never needs mechanical filters.

Thanks for all the comments. I hope I have another "What If?". This one pushed me to put on my "Thinking Cap". Maybe it helps to think outside the box, sometimes.

B

This was why I appreciated the thread. Left field or not, I totally agree that extra water changes never usually cause issues. Note - it's been pretty distressing when I read of water companies flushing/dosing lines as to me it all starts with good water.

It's good to know it can be made to work. I really found I had to 'unwind' my thinking and think about it quite hard so always good to have new ideas (or old refreshed ) otherwise it would be a quiet forum indeed.

It would seem that you would regard plants as essential in this sort of setup?

 

[BBradbury]

Hello again Del...

Most of my larger tanks have the benefit of emersed land plants. I got into the Chinese evergreen plants a couple of years ago and was amazed at how efficient a land plant can be at keeping tank water free of dissolved nitrogen. The interesting thing about the leaves is the longer the plant is emersed, the more the leaves adapt to living in water. When I put the plants in originally, any leaves left under the tank water died. However, the new leaves have adapted to their new environment and will grow completely submerged. The root systems become quite large and have grown into the substrate.

The combination of the plants and the large water changes have made a very balanced environment for my fish. The fish provide the nutrients and the plants help keep the water essentially waste free.

B

 

[Autumnsky]

Numerous edits were made here on this thread mainly in the beginning, thank you to those who stayed on topic.

For others... do not respond if you can't follow the rules and be nice. A difference in opinion can be addressed respectfully and on topic.

 

[Delapool]

Hello again Del...

Most of my larger tanks have the benefit of emersed land plants. I got into the Chinese evergreen plants a couple of years ago and was amazed at how efficient a land plant can be at keeping tank water free of dissolved nitrogen. The interesting thing about the leaves is the longer the plant is emersed, the more the leaves adapt to living in water. When I put the plants in originally, any leaves left under the tank water died. However, the new leaves have adapted to their new environment and will grow completely submerged. The root systems become quite large and have grown into the substrate.

The combination of the plants and the large water changes have made a very balanced environment for my fish. The fish provide the nutrients and the plants help keep the water essentially waste free.

B

Gee, they look nice. And low light I assume? (I'm not allowed to hang lights from ceiling but could put some on cross-strut).

What do you do for substrate?

 

[jlk]

Hi BBradbury

I think you are correct that it is possible. Like Mebbid said its just taking a time travel to back before filters.

I have to agree with the others as it's just more work and seems impractical when we have filters to do some of the work for us.


Caleb

Sent via TARDIS

I find it interesting that so many people are questioning "is this possible ?" or stating that perhaps such things were done prior to 1950's (or whatever decades were named).

Just some food for thought here. Not using anything beyond simple aeration (and in many cases this is deliberately not used either), the practice of simply doing large water changes every other day to daily has existed for millennia as part of the art of breeding and rearing fancy goldfish. Hundred percent water changes are routine. It is still religiously practiced by many breeders today. Before any scientific information on the 'whys' of changing water was necessary, Japanese and Chinese breeders recognized it was a must for healthy fish long ago.

Does constant big water changes and ignoring the cycling process work? Yes, just as it did over a thousand years ago, long before electricity and filters. Is it an impractical amount of work or a waste of water? That's a matter of opinion.

IMO, plants are beneficial across the board, regardless of whether filtration is utilized or not. Point in all of this being that opting not to use filtration (and not cycling) in exchange for frequent, large water changes has existed for a very, very long time and is still practiced today though it is definitely not for most people.


Sent from my iPhone using Aquarium Advice

 

[Mebbid]

I find it interesting that so many people are questioning "is this possible ?" or stating that perhaps such things were done prior to 1950's (or whatever decades were named).

Just some food for thought here. Not using anything beyond simple aeration (and in many cases this is deliberately not used either), the practice of simply doing large water changes every other day to daily has existed for millennia as part of the art of breeding and rearing fancy goldfish. Hundred percent water changes are routine. It is still religiously practiced by many breeders today. Before any scientific information on the 'whys' of changing water was necessary, Japanese and Chinese breeders recognized it was a must for healthy fish long ago.

Does constant big water changes and ignoring the cycling process work? Yes, just as it did over a thousand years ago, long before electricity and filters. Is it an impractical amount of work or a waste of water? That's a matter of opinion.

IMO, plants are beneficial across the board, regardless of whether filtration is utilized or not. Point in all of this being that opting not to use filtration (and not cycling) in exchange for frequent, large water changes has existed for a very, very long time and is still practiced today though it is definitely not for most people.


Sent from my iPhone using Aquarium Advice

Its not soo much the big water changes. But instead the removal of filtration that is what most people are commenting on.

 

[jlk]

Its not soo much the big water changes. But instead the removal of filtration that is what most people are commenting on.

The removal filtration (or not even using it in the first place) works if you are willing to do the water changes required is my point. Cycling (which everyone keeps bringing up here) is then no longer required. I am not suggesting though that anyone take this route unless they are willing to commit to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Aquarium Advice

 

[Caliban07]

I find it interesting that so many people are questioning "is this possible ?" or stating that perhaps such things were done prior to 1950's (or whatever decades were named).

Just some food for thought here. Not using anything beyond simple aeration (and in many cases this is deliberately not used either), the practice of simply doing large water changes every other day to daily has existed for millennia as part of the art of breeding and rearing fancy goldfish. Hundred percent water changes are routine. It is still religiously practiced by many breeders today. Before any scientific information on the 'whys' of changing water was necessary, Japanese and Chinese breeders recognized it was a must for healthy fish long ago.

Does constant big water changes and ignoring the cycling process work? Yes, just as it did over a thousand years ago, long before electricity and filters. Is it an impractical amount of work or a waste of water? That's a matter of opinion.

IMO, plants are beneficial across the board, regardless of whether filtration is utilized or not. Point in all of this being that opting not to use filtration (and not cycling) in exchange for frequent, large water changes has existed for a very, very long time and is still practiced today though it is definitely not for most people.


Sent from my iPhone using Aquarium Advice

Breeders methods are different to that of the average aquarist. Also it's the stock and setup that dictates really how much water is actually required to be replaced to maintain stability. It is the aquarist routines also. I don't doubt that this would work but I'm talking about necessity.

Filters do trap waste and siphons do remove waste particles. Having these things in a system does increase the efficiency and cleanliness of a system if the filter is maintained as well as water changes.

The good thing about test kits and devices is that we can see to a certain degree of accuracy what is going on in our system so that we can tweak our practices to pinpoint the volume of water that needs to be replaced. I imagine that the properties of a body of water holding x amount of fancy gold fish would change much more quickly than the average community aquarium?

I know the properties of my tap water and the properties of my tank water after it has been sitting for a week. I know that if I keep my system and my practices stable I can keep my water as stable as possible. Just as stable as changing large amounts of water more often. You don't need a filter to do this. But filters along with a siphon and plants certainly reduce the amount of water I use and time and effort it takes.

Managing your system sensibly reduces the amount of mechanical filtration, biological nitrification and absorption, chemical absorption and dilution required to keep the livestock safe.

I feel that ignoring basic tank maintenance only heightens the necessity of larger more frequent water changes.

My 47 gallon only has an angel a ram, three swordtails, 6 neons and 6 harlequin rasbora. I do 50% water changes that cut my TDS in half. I then add back a smaller amount through my very soft low tds tap water. Because I know all this I know I could change less water if I wanted to maintain stability and reduce fluctuations in parameters that fish don't really seem to enjoy. I change more as a kind of safety net.

I think myself as pretty committed granted the time, effort and money I have spent in order to practice this.

Maybe I am silly, after all B is right, water is cheap.


Sent from my iPhone using Aquarium Advice

 

[BBradbury]

Hello jlk...

I like this discussion and particularly the filtration end of it. Mechanical filtration does an extremely poor job of keeping the tank water clean, because it's not able to remove the toxic water and replace it. The water change is the real filter, because it does remove the toxic water and replaces it with new.

If I change out enough water and do so often, I don't need more than a small filter. Its main function is to agitate the water on the surface of the tank to maintain proper gas exchange.

Thanks for the comment.

B

 

[Fresh2o]

But we should not disregard the value of physical waste removal. Dissolved waste from fish metabolism can be removed via water changes or reduced via chemical/biological/plant processes. But if the physical waste is removed BEFORE it can break down and be released into the water column, then the total amount of waste can be reduced. Take an aquaculture approach to this. Tanks often have sloped or conical bottoms for waste collection. Waste is never pumped into filters; it is drawn in via gravity into settling chambers or screens. There the waste remains intact and is flushed at least once a day. Less contribution to the nitrogen load. SW setups make use of frequently changed filter socks for physical waste removal for the same reasons.
Of course, our tanks are *much* prettier than aquaculture tanks Or we should hope so. Also, not all tanks have plants that can utilize the nutrients from waste that is allowed to remain in the substrate.
Point being, mechanical filters are not a total solution, however, they have value when used properly.


Sent from my iPhone using Aquarium Advice

 

[J.Mcpeak]

Complete the nitrogen cycle.

Then the nitrate removes itself.

All the talk of ancient ways, nobody has mentioned the deep sand bed, this can be safe for use in all systems, it's a forgotten freshwater art, if used/set up correctly it is possible to swap out your filter for a power head. (Common for those that do)

Then you have a safe and functional system. Simple. Also you don't need to do full changes. Just enough to maintain balance of GH/Kh etc.

It's very possible to have a tank that consistently registers 0-0-0 nitrogenous waste, even if well stocked and properly fed.
I would still use the filter though, only because it saves me buying a power head!
(2 tanks running that have this effect, one tank in the past had this effect which I'm trying to replicate by implementing a remote DSB on its current set up, testing underway, see you in three months, if it doesn't work I need a bigger bed but I'll still have a functional sand bed filter, just under scaled for it's intended use)

 

[Caliban07]

Complete the nitrogen cycle.

Then the nitrate removes itself.

All the talk of ancient ways, nobody has mentioned the deep sand bed, this can be safe for use in all systems, it's a forgotten freshwater art, if used/set up correctly it is possible to swap out your filter for a power head. (Common for those that do)

Then you have a safe and functional system. Simple. Also you don't need to do full changes. Just enough to maintain balance of GH/Kh etc.

It's very possible to have a tank that consistently registers 0-0-0 nitrogenous waste, even if well stocked and properly fed.
I would still use the filter though, only because it saves me buying a power head!
(2 tanks running that have this effect, one tank in the past had this effect which I'm trying to replicate by implementing a remote DSB on its current set up, testing underway, see you in three months, if it doesn't work I need a bigger bed but I'll still have a functional sand bed filter, just under scaled for it's intended use)

Easy a enough. I would recommend plants also. They could help utilise ammonia nitrogen. Less for the bacteria to do equals less demand on kh. You could then supplement depleted minerals for the plants.


Sent from my iPhone using Aquarium Advice