We are ScapeCrunch, the place where planted aquarium hobbyists come to build relationships and support each other. When you're tired of doom scrolling, you've found your home here.
I only keep non-CO2 injected tanks and have found 50% weekly water changes to be beneficial. I've done more frequent ones as a way to mitigate a problem. I can't say I've heard many people complain that water changes make things worse, but there may be an exception out there. Large, frequent water changes can be superfluous in a very stable tank - I don't do so many on my oldest tank and it never seems to make a difference, but that tank has been a rock for years.
As for fertilizer, I don't think a particular regime is as important as making sure you've got your bases covered generally, at least with a low tech tank. The demand is so low it's harder to bottom out on stuff, and fish waste provides a larger proportion of the available nutrients you can't really micromanage nutrients ratios even if you wanted to. A decent AIO is fine, and you can always adjust the dosing to be richer or leaner as needed. I have no idea if Easy Green counts as decent though. I'd be mindful of the iron chelate at your ph.
If you continue with Easy Green you might want to bump the dose up a bit.
Would you consider a few gallons of ro water during water changes to lower KH and PH some? Edta iron starts getting bound up in ph above 7.0 and iirc by 8.0 you are down to about 10% of dose. And Easy Green doesnt dose much iron…
Rather than cutting back on water changes, if you are concerned about CO2 in the water you could let it age in an open bucket with an airstone. Nothing I have ever done though in my low tech tanks.
If cutting the replacement water with RO is a non starter, I would stick with the new light schedule and consider dosing Easy Green at least double and hold things steady for at least 3-4 weeks. Look for the new growth to evaluate how the plant is responding, the old growth will only likely get worse…
Plants reprogram for conditions they find themselves in. The reprogramming primarily occurs in new growth. The old growth often gets sacrificed so the leaves may get worse.
Clipping and removing older infested leaves have a lot of benefits. It removes a fair anount of algae from the tank reducing bits that can spread. It allows better flow and removes shading, it stimulates new leaf production…
Irrigating or gravel vaccing the substrate during water changes helps too…
If you continue with Easy Green you might want to bump the dose up a bit.
Would you consider a few gallons of ro water during water changes to lower KH and PH some? Edta iron starts getting bound up in ph above 7.0 and iirc by 8.0 you are down to about 10% of dose. And Easy Green doesnt dose much iron…
Rather than cutting back on water changes, if you are concerned about CO2 in the water you could let it age in an open bucket with an airstone. Nothing I have ever done though in my low tech tanks.
If cutting the replacement water with RO is a non starter, I would stick with the new light schedule and consider dosing Easy Green at least double and hold things steady for at least 3-4 weeks. Look for the new growth to evaluate how the plant is responding, the old growth will only likely get worse…
Plants reprogram for conditions they find themselves in. The reprogramming primarily occurs in new growth. The old growth often gets sacrificed so the leaves may get worse.
Clipping and removing older infested leaves have a lot of benefits. It removes a fair anount of algae from the tank reducing bits that can spread. It allows better flow and removes shading, it stimulates new leaf production…
Irrigating or gravel vaccing the substrate during water changes helps too…
I would certainly consider getting a smallish RO unit versus buying gallons of bottled DI water every week. I would only need 8 to 10 gallons per week if I did a 50/50 mix of tap and RO.
I do irrigate with a turkey baster when I do water changes.
If I increase to dose of Easy Green, what would be more effective, adding more to each dose or dose more frequently?
You have a 36 gallon you are dosing 6 mls per week. While the tank says 36 gallons on the box you are likely closer to 30 gallons of water in it than 36……
I would look to double that to 12 ppm weekly. I would do 3 pumps per 10 gallons, or in your case9 pumps, after the water change and another 1 pump per 10 gallons(3 pumps in your case) 4 days later.
I would test nitrates and log them before water change and a few hours after dosing, and again midweek before and a few hours after dosing for a few weeks to get a feel for how this is affecting nitrate levels.
You have a 36 gallon you are dosing 6 mls per week. While the tank says 36 gallons on the box you are likely closer to 30 gallons of water in it than 36……
I would look to double that to 12 ppm weekly. I would do 3 pumps per 10 gallons, or in your case9 pumps, after the water change and another 1 pump per 10 gallons(3 pumps in your case) 4 days later.
I would test nitrates and log them before water change and a few hours after dosing, and again midweek before and a few hours after dosing for a few weeks to get a feel for how this is affecting nitrate levels.
Perfect. I'm basing everything off the fact that with substrate, wood, rocks, I have somewhere around 30 gallons of actual water.
When I first set up this tank last fall I didn't have a python yet so I did water changes with buckets. (Major PITA) I have my 5 gal buckets marked in 1 gal intervals. So I measured the water and put little pieces of tape on the side of the tank with water amounts. 5 gal, 10 gal, 15 gal, so when I do a water change with the python now I know exactly how much water I'm changing.
Thanks for the responses. Looks like we are going in the right direction.
BDBS can be found locally very inexpensively. I've seen it for around $13 for a 50 pound bag. Probably cheaper per pound than you aquarium gravel. Just a thought. Again, while I think this would help, I don't think it's the cause of your problems.
To continue our detective work, you have adjusted light levels down and now are using a full 8 hour photoperiod. I assume 1 pump of your fertilizer is putting in 1 ml so that the 3 ml you dose twice a week will match the table above. I would continue the fertilizer routine for now to see what the consistent but reduced light does. In a couple of weeks, re-assess.
On the KH and GH, I don't think it works that way. KH looks at carbonates in the water whereas GH is looking at total calcium and magnesium (for the most part). Your tap water plus what you're adding seems to be adding enough magnesium though.
With all due respect for @plantbrain and his comments, which I'm sure were scientifically true, I would suggest reading @sudiorca's journal entitled Sudiorca's Non-CO2 Supplemented Softwater Tanks and, perhaps, reaching out to them. I always like to speak to someone who actually keeps the type of tank I'm interested in and I can see their results.
He discusses this topic and @*Ci* references Tom's article in this post on Rubisco.
I have no where near the scientific understanding or knowledge, however, I have learned that plants adapt well to consistent actions. I would suggest that weekly water changes will do more good for your ecosystem than less frequent ones. I tested that theory back in the day and got lambasted on Facebook. Your plants will adapt to the rhythm of your husbandry.
As far as water changes.....and non CO2. It's a good idea to do big ones(50-90%) 1-2-5x a week and expose plant leaves. It's also a good trick to use the DSM to grow things in 1st...............then flood the tank later. But WC's are often the reason we do not use CO2 to begin with. If you do that, may as well just quit fighting it and get the gas.
I fought not buying CO2 gas tanks for a good 10 years. Amano certainly fought it for years as well. Most folks do actually. Having come out the other end of the pipe decades later, non CO2 as a method has really good lazy aquarist attributes. I agree with you about WC's. CO2 or non CO2. Sudiorca's tank and frequent water changes, super soft water etc.......sediment also, small tank with good aeration, likely a sweet spot for the light intensity, it can be done. Will most folks pull it off? No, perhaps folks with a lot of skills would. New folks looking to side step CO2, (always this issue over and over again), such tanks and partial reading of the method........ it is like a moth to the flame. I encourage folks to try both methods. If you are lazy, use CO2 and less light. Choose low care plants. Tropica suggested this as did many folks in late 1990's. Lighting was fairly weak back then. Hitting the sweet spot for CO2 was MUCH easier when you have 3-10X less light back then vs today.
Still, what is the OP's goal? A nice garden? Growing more species and not having to settle there? Irrational CO2 fear(we all have had it to some degree), lazy methods? They are poor or just plain frugal and Believers of the Church of the Cheap?
The answers to these questions dictate the method. Not us or anyone else.
Is changing the water say 2x a day 50-95% and exposing the leaves of the plants "Natural?
Yes, actually. Freshwater tidal systems(I live right next to one) have this happen 2x a day on the nape and neap tides. Many locations in Indonesia and South East Indo China have Crypts and many other species. Same for CO2 rich lakes and rivers/streams from ground springs. We find abundant plant growth in those areas.
This SEA biotope tank is maybe 25 years old, fish, plants etc, all from South East Asia. 30 gallon cube. Non CO2, no water changes. Shrimp. Vals, Crypts, Hygro, moss, and Lilies. Plain sand. Used the water column method for dosing, (basically)1/20th EI(but dosing once a week, not every 2-3 days etc or divided by 7 for a daily routine etc) and feed the fish well daily. 2 x 20 W T12 lights. I think many looking to do a non CO2 tank have something like this in mind. No water changes for a year. Well run tank. All the parts were considered well. Did not add a high light LED, did not add a bunch of random fish, used good sand for plant roots*(soil or clay ADA aqua soil like materials could be subbed , I would), decent scaping. The other huge thing is topping tanks off for evaporation if you do not do water changes or do them very often. That's key as it changes the CO2 ppm and plants then chase to adapt. Keep the water level stable.
Since that time it has been established that the primary trigger for algae proliferation is the presence of dissolved substances that have been ejected from the surface of injured and aging plant leaves, as the plant withdraws support from those leaves.
The substances are literally a chemical signal in the water that tells algae spores there's food out there, and it's a great time to wake up and start making baby algae cells.
Removing those signaling substances from the water reduces the ability of algae spores to germinate and turn into algae outbreaks.
That's what your water change buys you, you are removing those organics from the water.
Now, in a slow growing tank, without a lot of opportunity for big CO2 fluctuations causing leaves to constantly internally rewire themselves, leaves get stressed less. And if you regularly prune your leaves as they age, you don't have a lot of dying plant mass.
There is an EASY method to test this claim. Large water changes for one. Activated carbon specifically removes dissolved organic substances. Nutrients are EASY to test also over wide ranges. Carbon is not going to remove them except for perhaps chelated iron etc.
Algae grow when the plants do not. Where plants grow well, algae does not. This has been show in Florida lakes leading the authors(Bachmann et al) to posit: nutrients do not control the trophic status of the lakes, rather, plants control the system(clear water, no algae blooms). If you remove the plants, then you get algae and pea soup. If you add CO2, high light have a nice well run tank and then suddenly remove it, you get hair algae mostly.
For non CO2 tanks we could just add Activated carbon if the claim made is true and that would address the issue..... but it does not. It' be such an easy fix and a good control. This same claim is similar to the Allelopathy claim to suppress algae. It's also testable and has not been found to be true either.
Algae spores need a good cue to know when to germinate and bloom. It's not likely one thing. In the case where the CO2 gas tank runs out, you miss it for a couple of weeks and get hair algae: you have a lot of healthy roots pumping O2 into the sediment. There's no mycorhizzal aquatic relationships really in the submerged soils. There is a lot of bacteria and bacteria on the plant surfaces. If you suddenly slow down the bacteria's source of O2, they die off in mass, same with old dying leaves, organic matter etc. Healthy plants keep the bacteria going nicely. Poor growth, they die off or do not establish well enough. Think new tank syndrome.
That time period where we start up the tank and generally, folks do large 2-3x a week water changes for the first 1-2 months, then relax on the WC's. Why? It prevents algae a great deal. Why? Lack of bacteria? Probably. Unstable systems are good for algae. We see that in nature and in the tank. I've added extra O2 to see if that can suppress algae. 7 ppm as a control, 15 ppm as a treatment. 4 tanks, 1 year, used Chl EtOH extraction. No significant differences. Tried NH4, same. If you kill the bacteria off, then allow to grow back, then kill it off.............this does cause algae issues. We do this when we uproot and replant a large area, say 50% or more of the tank and then replant, but do NOT do a large water change. If we do the large water change or two right after, then we do not get the algae issues.
Algae germination seem linked to bacteria and plants help stabilize the bacteria and enhance their growth. You can have ample DOC and no algae with health plants and good care. You can also have the same DOC and algae blooms with poor care. Folks need to test their ideas and see if they are true so they avoid correlation as a cause.
Almost no one does that in the hobby. While I have falsified 10-20 hypotheses over the years for algae, I still have not found with certainly/significance why algae is caused generally. New tanks, poor care, high light and no CO2, no water changes in the start up phase.....all seem to suggest bacteria linkage. Where we take good care of the plants in both systems, we do not get algae or hardly any. Taking good care of plants also takes good care of bacterial colonization. Algae and bacteria have lived together FAR longer than plants and algae.
Thoughts to ponder. Get that AC and try it. Do the water changes, then do not do them and see. Uproot, WC's or not. Measure O2 when we you uproot also(it drops a lot).
So if someone with a non-CO2 tank is having an algae problem, but they want to conserve water, would it be almost as good to pump water out to expose the leaves for awhile and then pump the same water back in?
Is changing the water say 2x a day 50-95% and exposing the leaves of the plants "Natural?
Yes, actually. Freshwater tidal systems(I live right next to one) have this happen 2x a day on the nape and neap tides. Many locations in In
Could set this up automatically pretty easy if you didnt mind a little extra hardware in the tank. Have another tank to catch the water with a return pump on a timer, another pump on a timer in the main tank to drain it. Calculate the time it takes and have the pumps kick on a couple times during the photo period. Drain the water from the main tank into the other one. Let it sit a few minutes, the other pump kicks on to fill it back up
Logistically and space-wise itd be like having a sump. Somebody should totally do that, hah
Minor update.
I took a glass of tap water and let it sit for 24 hours and re tested the KH and GH.
Both tests took 5 drops to change color. So that's 5 degrees of KH and GH or according to the API conversion chart 89.5 ppm.
I guess it's safe to say it under 100 ppm, softer than I remembered.
Testing the tank water again now.
Not to take away from your effort and thoroughness with those tests. But its pointless to try to narrow NO3 down to 5 ppm increments using those liquid drops. For one thing that api no3 is notorious for reading high. And two, its impossible to judge what shade of red youre looking at. Even the temperature of the room light your in has an influence on what you see
The best you can do is make a stock solution with 10 ppm no3 and see what color it shows. Do one with 5 and 20. Then you'd have known reference points for what those numbers look like. But even then the difference in color between 10 and 20 is gonna be so slight it will remain a pretty big guess
The macro tests can show if you have none, some, or a whole lot. Beyond that its a waste of time
And really if you think about it, whats that number gonna tell you anyway? Lets say you had a true 7, what can you do with that information?
My advice is forget all those test kits, except KH. That one is useful but you really only need it once. GH cant tell you how much is Mg and how much is Ca so it isnt worth much either
Ultimately youre gonna be looking at the plants to tell you what's good. Theyre the only test that matters, not a number
For macros just know what you add to the tank, either ppm or x ML of brand x. There's youre reference point and let the plants tell you whats good or bad
Not to take away from your effort and thoroughness with those tests. But its pointless to try to narrow NO3 down to 5 ppm increments using those liquid drops. For one thing that api no3 is notorious for reading high. And two, its impossible to judge what shade of red youre looking at. Even the temperature of the room light your in has an influence on what you see
The best you can do is make a stock solution with 10 ppm no3 and see what color it shows. Do one with 5 and 20. Then you'd have known reference points for what those numbers look like. But even then the difference in color between 10 and 20 is gonna be so slight it will remain a pretty big guess
The macro tests can show if you have none, some, or a whole lot. Beyond that its a waste of time
You have a point, but I feel the API nitrate test to still have some value to give you an idea of how much your plants are utilizing nitrate over the course of a week…
I have also had success in sussing differences in shades of a test sample by doing dilutions of tank water…. Ie, 10 and 20 ppm is hard to discriminate between. Doing a 50% dilution of tank water can help bring clarity. Ie if the result looks similar to furst test, then first test is likely closer to 20 ppm, if result looks closer to 5 ppm, then tank is likely closer to 10 ppm…
Having said all this, Easy Green is a bit Nitrate heavy and micro light. Enough people have reported increased growth with dosing excessive nitrates to cause me to suspect the results are from dosing enough to finally take care of limiting nutrients, and not from the extra nitrates…. I also noticed improved results from increasing dosage of Easy Green.. I don’t think the nitrate levels of 50 ppm in a non injected tank that some Easy Green users recommend is driving the growth, but rather that is the proxy that is eliminating the deficit of other nutrients…
I probably should have noted I was a bit limited on time, there were a few points I meant to touch on but ended up forgetting to mention due to limitation on time.
Absolutely agree waste organics are probably one of, if not THE biggest contributing factor for algae growth. Did not mean to give the impression Co2 fluctuations were the primary driver of algae or that you should cut back on water changes at this stage.... OP had asked about cutting back on water changes, which IME has been beneficial to my low tech tanks (w/ light fish stocking), but during an active algae infestation you should absolutely be changing your water, vacuuming your gravel, removing any unhealthy plant growth religiously, the key right now is to remove the waste organics. I would only reduce the frequency of water changes once I saw significant reduction in algae proliferation. This is one of those things that is going to be something that comes down to you and your tank. How much work are you willing to put into maintenance & how does the tank respond. Does the tank looks great only changing water once a week, or every other week, etc.
Toms article it helped me significantly, probably more than any of the other solution I was chasing. If we are running high light in a low tech set up the plants will deplete the co2 concentrations very quickly, once they run out of available co2 they quite literally "run out of gas." In this scenario, especially if it occurs early into the photoperiod, algae has the ability to use all the excess light while the plants struggle to compete for any co2 that becomes available for the remainder of the day. The point I intended to make from the excerpts I quoted from the article was not that Co2 fluctuations were the of cause algae, but simply that algae is able respond more quickly in a low co2 environment if the conditions (like decaying organics) are present. My fault for not writing a more thorough response & explanation, but in terms of OPs algae problems, I'm still leaning toward too much light with low plant mass as being a very large contributing factor. Going back to look at the pictures and the original post... Do the plants look bad? Is he over stocked? Plants don't look bad, I really don't see any obvious deficiencies. He's lightly stocked. But what really stands out to me is how bright that tank is. Another factor to consider might be tank placement. How bright does the room get during the day? Ambient lighting of the room was something I had to take into consideration. My tank is located in a room that gets very bright during the day. While its not receiving any direct sunlight, there is enough light to "wake up" the tank before my actual photo period begins.
Dunno how it might be accepted here, but spot treating algae with a small amount of hydrogen peroxide during each weekly maintenance can be very effective. I have a nerite, amano, & cherry shrimp, and none of my livestock ever seemed to show any negative effects. How certain plant species might be impacted I cannot say, sensitive species could very well be damaged. I used it to spot treat an area one week, then another area the next week, etc until I was satisfied with the results. I did not bomb the tank with peroxide which would disrupt the cycle. Filter off, lights on, air stone running for a couple hours after treatment before restarting my filter. I tried spot treating algae with excel previously but saw very little if any improvement. I just saw the video MJ Aquascaping posted a couple days ago titled "How Aquarium Design Group Maintains Top Level Aquariums for big clients" and was kinda surprised to find out how much excel they are dosing in the tanks they maintain (in their gallery as well) to prevent BBA .
Unfortunetly, alot of this is just anecdotal (and where would the aquarium hobby be today if not for anecdotal evidence? )
SOOOOO true, thats one thing I hate about those tests. Even just the way different individuals perceive color. Me calling my wife over, "hey do you think this color is closer this color or THIS color?" Half the time we disagree which shade its closer to. Walking around comparing it under different lights around the house.
You have a point, but I feel the API nitrate test to still have some value to give you an idea of how much your plants are utilizing nitrate over the course of a week…
When I first started mixing my own ferts without nitrate my plants were doing great, after a few weeks I noticed a decline. I broke out the test kit, and low and behold, the plants had become healthy enough that they were using up all the nitrates from my tap water by mid week, so I had to begin adding nitrate back into my fert mix. But ultimately it was the plants that told me something was wrong, the test only confirmed my suspicion. When I visted ADG they told me they don't test. He explained it as a recipe. If you follow the recipe, you should end up with an expected result. The test kits have their place, especially starting out, but ultimately the plants will let you know when something is wrong.
Another thing we should probably mention is to make changes 1 at a time and observe. If you change 2-3-4 things at once, you will never know which of those changes were beneficial or detrimental. I undertstand wanting to have the tank you envision, but it really takes patience more than anything else. Make 1 change at the time and give it a couple weeks to see if it has made a positive or negative impact. This will help you determine what changes to make just through process of elimination. Small improvements are still improvements and get you one step closer to the result you want.
Another thing we should probably mention is to make changes 1 at a time and observe. If you change 2-3-4 things at once, you will never know which of those changes were beneficial or detrimental
I am not sold on the wisdom of that. If you do studying and determine 3-4 changes really are reasonable to make, do them together…
Esp with a low energy tank.. the plants are going to expend energy reprogramming. Might as well have them expend the energy once rather than 3-4 times…
Honestly I dont care which one fixed it. If it gets fixed I am going to keep doing the change anyways…
Lets say you determine you calcium is too low and your nitrates are too low…, you increase nitrates only to do just 1 change? Then your plants arent really thriving, so you drop the nitrates and go for calcium? And if they still are t doing well you drop the calcium and do something else playing whack a mole of limiting nutrients?
I know its commonly accepted wisdom, but I just dont buy it….
I would rather dial conditions in known to be beneficial for growth and keep them steady and stable. With a non injected tank wait at least three weeks and look for good changes to new growth…. If old growth gets worse with changes clip them off. New growth can give you new plants soon enough…
Could set this up automatically pretty easy if you didnt mind a little extra hardware in the tank. Have another tank to catch the water with a return pump on a timer, another pump on a timer in the main tank to drain it. Calculate the time it takes and have the pumps kick on a couple times during the photo period. Drain the water from the main tank into the other one. Let it sit a few minutes, the other pump kicks on to fill it back up
Logistically and space-wise itd be like having a sump. Somebody should totally do that, hah
It certainly can be done. A simple reservoir roughly the size of the tank below or a larger sump. MBA has several tidal tanks. You certainly need over flows for the sump and auto float switch valves. Done 2x a day or just once in say 1 hour after lights come on..............that would be ideal. Plumbing would just need a solenoid timer for the drain and then an overflow. 5-10 minutes of dry time. You could get away without using CO2 gas pretty much if done 2x a day. But I'd still use it.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
hehe
)
SOOOOO true, thats one thing I hate about those tests. Even just the way different individuals perceive color. Me calling my wife over, "hey do you think this color is closer this color or THIS color?" Half the time we disagree which shade its closer to. Walking around comparing it under different lights around the house.
