johnsmith Posted November 3, 2006 Report Share Posted November 3, 2006 I have a betta alone in a 10g with 3 stems of lucky bambo (the leaves are emmersed), duckweed, najas grass and a powerhead with a prefilter containing ceramic bio-rings (from an est. tank). Due to evaporation I'd say I'm "replacing" 100% of the water every month or so. I know evaporation doesn't take care of nitrates but with all that plant matter and only one little fish do you think I could get away with topping up the water but never doing any actual water changes? I guess a test kit could answer this question, but until I get mine back from my friend what do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatpuffer Posted November 3, 2006 Report Share Posted November 3, 2006 How about fry tanks...would enough plant make the water safe for the fry or do they release pheromone for that can or may reduce growth? THANKS. Js SORRY FOR THE HI_JACK! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willfishguy Posted November 4, 2006 Report Share Posted November 4, 2006 I think this would do well for a while, but other things like urea, fecal composites, silicates and phosphates would accumulate, creating an environment ideal for pathogens to thrive. I will say however that Tunze is revolutionizing equipment (filtration) using plants and bacteria to filter tanks. Their intention is to develop a system that when hooked up to a tank, water changes will not be required. They published a great little paperback on the science of this subject, if you can find it, it makes for a fascinating read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvision Posted November 4, 2006 Report Share Posted November 4, 2006 There are a lot of people who keep low-tech, planted tanks that exact same way - no WCs. BTW, a lot of the water is moving from the tank into the bambo - not all the water loss is evaporation... some is transpiration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tetras_corys_loaches_oh_my Posted November 4, 2006 Report Share Posted November 4, 2006 I think this would do well for a while, but other things like urea, fecal composites, silicates and phosphates would accumulate, creating an environment ideal for pathogens to thrive. I will say however that Tunze is revolutionizing equipment (filtration) using plants and bacteria to filter tanks. Their intention is to develop a system that when hooked up to a tank, water changes will not be required. They published a great little paperback on the science of this subject, if you can find it, it makes for a fascinating read. well, in all honesty, i have done a water change once in one of my tanks... added bad fish and the ecosystem started to crash... i have 4 tanks running, 3 for the last 3 years straight (75G, 40G and a 22G). maybe its the fish I keep? -roll- i only add more water due to evap. and some of my fish have had a longer span than the average from what i have heard... who knows... maybe its all my whimpy fish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toirtis Posted November 4, 2006 Report Share Posted November 4, 2006 I will say however that Tunze is revolutionizing equipment (filtration) using plants and bacteria to filter tanks. We already have that....a planted tank with a sponge filter....or a FW fuge. Their intention is to develop a system that when hooked up to a tank, water changes will not be required. Cute concept, but pretty much impossible in a closed system. They published a great little paperback on the science of this subject, if you can find it, it makes for a fascinating read. Read it...the hypothesis is great, but it is simply not feasible for home aquaria. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willfishguy Posted November 5, 2006 Report Share Posted November 5, 2006 I think this would do well for a while, but other things like urea, fecal composites, silicates and phosphates would accumulate, creating an environment ideal for pathogens to thrive. I will say however that Tunze is revolutionizing equipment (filtration) using plants and bacteria to filter tanks. Their intention is to develop a system that when hooked up to a tank, water changes will not be required. They published a great little paperback on the science of this subject, if you can find it, it makes for a fascinating read. well, in all honesty, i have done a water change once in one of my tanks... added bad fish and the ecosystem started to crash... i have 4 tanks running, 3 for the last 3 years straight (75G, 40G and a 22G). maybe its the fish I keep? i only add more water due to evap. and some of my fish have had a longer span than the average from what i have heard... who knows... maybe its all my whimpy fish. Three years old for Rivulines! Now that would hold my attention, but three years old for regular old aquarium fish in general is pretty common stuff. There are thousands of people in this city that keep Bettas alive for 3-10 years in one gallon bowls. It's nice to see you're successful! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willfishguy Posted November 5, 2006 Report Share Posted November 5, 2006 (edited) "We already have that....a planted tank with a sponge filter....or a FW fuge." We? Are you and johnsmith a couple? Revolutionizing was the key word there. If you look back up to my original reply you'll see the word between "is" and "equipment"; I said "is revolutionizing equipment." See that? "Cute concept, but pretty much impossible in a closed system." Cute?! *laughs* Cute is a word I would never use to describe German technology *shivers*. Now as far as Mr. Tunze and his cute impossible concept goes... *bows* to him for doing the impossible. *laughs* Cute! Cute like a corycat! *laughs* "Read it...the hypothesis is great, but it is simply not feasible for home aquaria." Which version did you read? *bows* to Mr. Tunze for making the unfeasible, feasible for the home aquarium. Do you work at Riverfront? Edited November 5, 2006 by Willfishguy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toirtis Posted November 5, 2006 Report Share Posted November 5, 2006 We? Are you and johnsmith a couple?Revolutionizing was the key word there. If you look back up to my original reply you'll see the word between "is" and "equipment"; I said "is revolutionizing equipment." See that? See my being unimpressed at your attempts to be clever? "Cute concept, but pretty much impossible in a closed system."Cute?! *laughs* Cute is a word I would never use to describe German technology *shivers*. As a German myself, I can get away with it. Which version did you read? Some or another...I was unaware that there was more than one. *bows* to Mr. Tunze for making the unfeasible, feasible for the home aquarium. Spare your articulations for when and if he does. Do you work at Riverfront? In my spare time, yes....helps feed the beasties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOSStile Posted November 7, 2006 Report Share Posted November 7, 2006 I knew there was an easier way, just hook a 55 gallon tank as a FW fuge to keep the water clean in a 10 gal. Probably wouldn't work for gold fish though cause they poop up a storm. Where's the smilee for tongue in cheek? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nandopsis Posted November 7, 2006 Report Share Posted November 7, 2006 :P :tongue: :P :& Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvision Posted November 7, 2006 Report Share Posted November 7, 2006 It would be pretty easy, if you kept a refugium, actually. Just use terrestial plants instead of aquatic, and you'll remove almost all nitrogenous waste - as well as just about any other contaminant. There are a few aquatic plants that can take Carbon from Carbonate hardness (Valisneria sp.), so you could even get away with using partial plain-old tap water for top-ups. Of course, you'd still want to do at least some WCs to get rid of accumulated mulm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willfishguy Posted November 7, 2006 Report Share Posted November 7, 2006 It would be pretty easy, if you kept a refugium, actually. Just use terrestial plants instead of aquatic, and you'll remove almost all nitrogenous waste - as well as just about any other contaminant. There are a few aquatic plants that can take Carbon from Carbonate hardness (Valisneria sp.), so you could even get away with using partial plain-old tap water for top-ups.Of course, you'd still want to do at least some WCs to get rid of accumulated mulm. That's what the Tunze filters use; terrestrial plants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toirtis Posted November 7, 2006 Report Share Posted November 7, 2006 It would be pretty easy, if you kept a refugium, actually. Just use terrestial plants instead of aquatic, and you'll remove almost all nitrogenous waste - as well as just about any other contaminant. There are a few aquatic plants that can take Carbon from Carbonate hardness (Valisneria sp.), so you could even get away with using partial plain-old tap water for top-ups.Of course, you'd still want to do at least some WCs to get rid of accumulated mulm. Precisely...and your fuge would need to be relatively quite large, and such a system would require far more power and maintenance than would a large canister. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvision Posted November 7, 2006 Report Share Posted November 7, 2006 It would be pretty easy, if you kept a refugium, actually. Just use terrestial plants instead of aquatic, and you'll remove almost all nitrogenous waste - as well as just about any other contaminant. There are a few aquatic plants that can take Carbon from Carbonate hardness (Valisneria sp.), so you could even get away with using partial plain-old tap water for top-ups. Of course, you'd still want to do at least some WCs to get rid of accumulated mulm. Precisely...and your fuge would need to be relatively quite large, and such a system would require far more power and maintenance than would a large canister. Yes, it would be like a reef system, cost-wise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.