No Co2, No (Low) Water Changes

[Chelsea]

do you know anybody who says they don't do water changes, yet their flora and fauna are healthy?

this article http://www.barrreport.com/showthread.php/2817-Non-CO2-methods gave me plenty to think about not only because the method excludes injected CO2, but because the method claims no water changes.

i spoke wth plenty of hobbyists that were quick to comdemn the method without considering the approach or the author's reputation. a few didn't want to try it because they didn't know anyone who used the method, or they didn't want to get ridiculed for doing something less than mainstream. a handful didn't want to try it because success meant their CO2 investment wasn't the only way to go.

everyone said their plants look nicer since they added CO2. but nobody, nobody said they preferred CO2 because their plants would grow faster. so their real goal is nice looking plants.

here's a couple quotes from the article:

• "CO2 is a bit like a drug addiction that hobbyists get hooked on. [...] CO2 and non CO2 tanks work for all the same reasons, but........ They grow at different rates"
  

plants grow fast with CO2. so they fill the tank faster, we trim them more often, and eventually pull them to get something different more often. add the time and money it costs to setup and maintain and it sounds like CO2, arguable, increases maintenance (but the benefit was not raised by any hobbyist i polled).

• "...assuming 80-90% of the nutrients will come from the fish load."
  

i just about choked on my coffee when i read this one. sounds low maintenance. natural ingredients.

Step One: Feed Fish

Step Two: Repeat Step One

As for no water changes, well, like some of you, i come from a long standing tradition of regular wc. but when someone with dr barr's credentials suggests open-loop fertilization can be simplified to a near closed loop, that's noteworthy. it may not sell as many ro or t5ho, but it does give low-tech hobbyists hope. and as i've read here, in other forums and listened to over a cup of coffee, many hobbyists say they value simplicity.

[Chelsea]

the non-co2 method lead me to this article: http://www.barrreport.com/showthread.php/6972-The-light-limiting-growth-management-method

which really brought me to the crux of the matter.

[Quetzalcoatl]

The best low tech cheap planted tank is setup in a few simple steps:

1. Get some soil from a local creek, river or pond.

2. Pour water in a tank with the soil next to a window exposed to sun light.

3. Put some sturdy plants, if possible from the same creek, river or pond.

4. Add some little sturdy fish (fatheads, endlers, goldfish) and pest snails.

5. An air pump and you are set

Watch your plants and fish grow, reproduce and live happy

[jvision]

It's a good approach until you hear a newb say, "My plants aren't growing, I think I need more light." Then a week later they come on the forum and say,"My planted tank has algae, what do I do? I'm sure I have enough light."

That is why the typical response is, "Add CO2 or reduce your light."

The newb thinks, "My plants don't grow with less light, so I guess you need CO2 to grow plants."

Most newbs aren't patient enough for the approach mentioned in the OP.

[ubr0ke]

the non-co2 method lead me to this article: http://www.barrrepor...nagement-method

which really brought me to the crux of the matter.

I use this method.

Patience is the key. I have mostly fairly easy plants with a few trickier ones. Glosso and hair grass doesn't spread very fast but its healthy.

Plants include: Crypt parva, crypt wendetti, hygro, anubias, glosso, christmass moss, flame moss, hair grass, dwarf hair grass, and rotala wallichii.

its hard to believe but there is around 20 fish and 60 shrimp in there.

Edited July 4, 2012 by ubr0ke

[Chelsea]

It's a good approach until you hear a newb say, "My plants aren't growing, I think I need more light." Then a week later they come on the forum and say,"My planted tank has algae, what do I do? I'm sure I have enough light."

That is why the typical response is, "Add CO2 or reduce your light."

The newb thinks, "My plants don't grow with less light, so I guess you need CO2 to grow plants."

Most newbs aren't patient enough for the approach mentioned in the OP.

that means the new hobbyist is thinking. and most (a quantity based on nothing emprical) doesn't mean all.

people know it takes light to grow plants. how do new hobbyists know anything about t5ho or co2? they walk into a lfs or look online.

• advertisements promote co2 to make your plants and, therefore, your tank healthier.
  
• high intensity lighting makes your tank brighter
  
• forums are peppered with hobbyists who ascribe to both
  

so coming to a forum asking "how do i...?" is an informed step that forums should welcome. after all, hobbyists encourage hobbyists to a higher level of hobbicity.

but when a new hobbist says, "My plants aren't growing, I think I need more light," how many not-so-new hobbyists are willing to say, "be patient. aquatic plants take time to grow" over against "add light and co2"? when that happens, the solution can be just as nebulous as the problem. add to that being called a newb and the whole experience can be disheartening. and isn't that not the point?

so far, i see planted tank as a single category in forums i've surveyed over the years. i wonder if subdividing the category would help people tailor their advice toward low and high tech tanks, and demonstrate, as dr barr indicates, that both schools of thought are viable and rewarding.

[Chelsea]

the non-co2 method lead me to this article: http://www.barrrepor...nagement-method

which really brought me to the crux of the matter.

I use this method.

Patience is the key. I have mostly fairly easy plants with a few trickier ones. Glosso and hair grass doesn't spread very fast but its healthy.

Plants include: Crypt parva, crypt wendetti, hygro, anubias, glosso, christmass moss, flame moss, hair grass, dwarf hair grass, and rotala wallichii.

its hard to believe but there is around 20 fish and 60 shrimp in there.

impressive! that's what new hobbyists need to see. so tell me it's stock 30w t8.

[ckmullin]

I had said in the past this method is the 'smart' way to keep a planted tank but then was flamed for my view. I'll say my opinion again about this method being the smart way and see if this post gets flamed as did the 1st. lol

[jcgd]

I think it's a mistake to divide the forums myself. The methods are the same, only with one the light level should be low enought that co2 is not limiting, and isn't an issue. You increase the lighting and now co2 runs out stunting the plants.

The method has not changed. Only the rate of growth, and as a result, the rate of nutrient uptake has increased. You are essentially keeping everything in balance.

[jcgd]

I don't think one or the other is the "smart way". The only reason I personally use higher might and co2 is that there are many species that just don't do well without it. If you want these species, it's not really an option. You can be as patient as you want, but you still end up with the same species that do well in such a setup.

[Chelsea]

I'll say my opinion again about this method being the smart way and see if this post gets flamed as did the 1st. lol

doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results?

I had said in the past this method is the 'smart' way to keep a planted tank

i posted two methods. which one you are referring to?

[Chelsea]

I think it's a mistake to divide the forums myself. The methods are the same, only with one the light level should be low enought that co2 is not limiting, and isn't an issue. You increase the lighting and now co2 runs out stunting the plants.

The method has not changed. Only the rate of growth, and as a result, the rate of nutrient uptake has increased. You are essentially keeping everything in balance.

if the methods are the same, then there would be no exceptions, and you identified two; light levels and plant selection.

the science behind each method is the same; the methods vary based on which variable the hobbyist manipulates, knowingly or not.

dr barr is simply restating history to the reader (exactly what quetzalcoatl pointed out); ei/co2 augmentation isn't necessary for healthy plant growth. vary light and plant selection and you must alter the aquarium enviornment accordingly.

light levels moderate co2 demand. growth rate moderates nutrient demand, and nutrient demand (keeping plants fed) is the premise behind ei because there isn't an aquatic plant food guide.

i learned that regular w/c 'was the right thing to do' like changing the cat box, cutting the grass or taking a shower - w/c was also necessary to reduce the symptoms of overfeeding fish. dr barr explains that water changes in the ei regiment are a symptom of intentionally overfeeding plants.

he also indicates that water changes (the subject of this thread) is not necessary to be a good hobbyist. it actually takes good husbandry to get to that point.

[ubr0ke]

the non-co2 method lead me to this article: http://www.barrrepor...nagement-method

which really brought me to the crux of the matter.

I use this method.

Patience is the key. I have mostly fairly easy plants with a few trickier ones. Glosso and hair grass doesn't spread very fast but its healthy.

Plants include: Crypt parva, crypt wendetti, hygro, anubias, glosso, christmass moss, flame moss, hair grass, dwarf hair grass, and rotala wallichii.

its hard to believe but there is around 20 fish and 60 shrimp in there.

impressive! that's what new hobbyists need to see. so tell me it's stock 30w t8.

yes it is...sorta..

It has a decent reflector.

[jcgd]

if the methods are the same, then there would be no exceptions, and you identified two; light levels and plant selection.

the science behind each method is the same; the methods vary based on which variable the hobbyist manipulates, knowingly or not.

dr barr is simply restating history to the reader (exactly what quetzalcoatl pointed out); ei/co2 augmentation isn't necessary for healthy plant growth. vary light and plant selection and you must alter the aquarium enviornment accordingly.

light levels moderate co2 demand. growth rate moderates nutrient demand, and nutrient demand (keeping plants fed) is the premise behind ei because there isn't an aquatic plant food guide.

i learned that regular w/c 'was the right thing to do' like changing the cat box, cutting the grass or taking a shower - w/c was also necessary to reduce the symptoms of overfeeding fish. dr barr explains that water changes in the ei regiment are a symptom of intentionally overfeeding plants.

he also indicates that water changes (the subject of this thread) is not necessary to be a good hobbyist. it actually takes good husbandry to get to that point.

he light level, it's the plant natural demand on co2. Some plants are co2 hogs and will always win out in a "low tech" tank. Other plants do well with little co2, like java fern, anubias, crypts, etc. Some plants, regardless of the light level, need more or less co2 than others.

I suppose what I wrote above isn't explained well. People think that it's always light that determines what they can and can't grow when really it's a combination of light AND co2 limitation. Enough light and little co2 and you'll have plants that do well and others that don't. The co2 hogs are good at getting at the available co2 while others can do well with less light and lots of co2. Some need both.

Low light high co2 is a safer bet than low co2, low light and low co2 and moderate light. The first will likely be easier to balance and grow more plants well. Low co2, low light will work fine, but limit your plant selection even more. If you have low co2 and start bumping your light levels up you are starting to push your light. I'm not sure if I'm even making sense, just woke up and I'm slow...

My point is, you have to understand the limitations of every method and how they apply to you and your goals.

Just thought I'd note, it's Mr. Barr. He's a graduate student.

[Chelsea]

The methods are the same

My point is, you have to understand the limitations of every method and how they apply to you and your goals.

Just thought I'd note, it's Mr. Barr. He's a graduate student.

i'm glad we can agree that methods really are different, that understanding the variables is vital, and that plant selection is a variable. you also did a wonderful job destinguishing between planted tanks. tanks.

tom's thesis is directed towards physical weed control methods of cell destruction in aquatic systems, one in particular. but in some circles, his current level of contribution to aquatic science would garner him a d.d. the difference between mr and dr is purely academic. he will be a doctor in title, but in practice, he's a doctor already.