aquabillpers

You are assuming that CO2 is the limiting factor. What if it isn't? Lots of aquariums with plenty of CO2 have algae problems.

Algae doesn't need as much nutrient as do macrophytes, and they are faster to respond to changes, like the addition of a limiting nutrient. The myth is that plants can outcompete it.

How do you know that? Who was that myth starter? Did he say anything about plants outcompeting algae?

Some of us have a tendency to develop a hypothesis and then state it as if it were a fact, even though it hadn't been tested. There has been research done on this subject; check out that Barr Report thread I quoted earlier to read about it.

LOL. Being slow, it took me a while to get that!

Bill

Tex Gal

Sorry Philo. for speaking for you. I know you can surely defend your own arguments. Glad you're speaking up again.

So many of these debates continue over and over again. I guess if the hobby turned into a lab full of scientists with control tanks and such we may be able to settle some of this. Since my goal is to have healthy algae free tanks, I try to do what has worked for others, despite the science behind the method. Some of these methods just work most of the time, as Philo. said. That's good enough for me. My tanks are healthy, my plants are growing like weeds , and my fish are spawning. The world is a good place!

Philosophos

Don't worry about it Tex; plenty of people know how I feel about allelopathy as a column-wide issue. This localized leaf level thing is new to me; it's a hole I've seen in Ole's refutation to allelopathy.

Actually Tom Barr spent a crapload of time trying to induce various types of algae, in part to refute the PO4 myth, and at the same time did some good work showing that algae didn't thrive on plants with non-limiting levels of CO2. This is somthing witnessed repeatedly, and reproduced in many high tech tanks. This relationship between the two is something I would be shocked to see disproven. The exact methods may not be precisely known, but there are some theories out there based on knowledge of plants that already exists.

I'm not sure who got the hairbrained idea that CO2 is directly toxict to algae; there's absolutely no evidence for it. The relationship between CO2 and algae is definitely indirect, and almost definitely through the plant. High CO2 and non-limiting nutrients doesn't help to eliminate the spread of algae on driftwood or glass after all

-Philosophos

Zapins

Problem with not changing your water ever is that organics build up. While plants suck up certain nutrients there is still some organic waste that doesn't get used up by the plants. In fact, there is quite a bit of this waste type, and it builds up rather fast.

I don't believe never changing the water is a healthy tank practice, even with NPT. Some water changes should be done on a regular basis, be that daily, weekly, or monthly.

Dustymac

I felt the same way until getting Diana's book. I've been changing water on and off for nearly forty years. Back when I was a teenager, before de-chlorinators were commonplace, I would fill the bathtub on Friday night with hot water and then run an aerator all night to get water for changing on Saturday. Water changing is in my blood.

Now I'm free of all that nonsense and I find it highly suspect when confronted with such skepticism. I'm not trying to hurt you, I'm trying to liberate you.

I'm out of town right now but after getting home, I'll upload a couple pics of these two tanks so you can see how wonderful freedom can be!

Jim

Philosophos

Do you think that this is the end method then? That some sort of solution has been found to keeping all macrophytes? Or are you just saying that there is room for both?

I would not hand 3wpg of light, compressed CO2 and discus to someone who doesn't want to take the time for it. I would not hand El Natural to someone who wants fast plant growth, high CO2 demand plants and sensitive fish.

I have yet to see a nice HC mat with spawning apistos or CRS in a system that receives water changes every 6 months with top-offs. Most people I've known deeply into the hobby wouldn't want to keep every tank to these standards though. I certainly don't; I have high and low tech tanks, and they are that way for a reason. Both work.

There are different methods for different purposes. Depending on your perspective on anything in life, freedom to one person is slavery to another.

-Philosophos

Dustymac

Phil,
I get back to real keyboard tomorrow and will respond more specifically. Generally speaking, yes, I think hi-tech is on it's way out. None of the dire scenarios you portray has any validity that I can see. Eventually El Natural will realize widespread adoption and hi-tech will become obscure.

Why? Economics. It's simply a lot less expensive and a lot less time consuming. Ferts, 3wpg and CO2 are expensive. Testing water, changing water and vacuuming gravel takes lots of time.

Of course, there will be lots of push-back from the powers that be. Widespread adoption of El Natural would be bad for business. Half the stuff for sale in the lfs will be unneeded. Manufacturers, distributers and retailers will likely attempt to cast npts as too difficult or scientifically unsound even though just the opposite is true. The outlook is so bleak, I wouldn't be surprised to see some entrenched entities will send their minions out onto the web to nip this El Natural movement in the bud, so to speak. Where would be a better place to start than here?

Jim

queijoman

Update.

I have changed the light schedule to have an extra break during the day. For the past couple of weeks I've seen no new carpets of algae, and it apppears that some of it may be disappearing from my anubia's leaves. I might be going crazy though, I didn't know that anything I had eats it this kind of algae....

I haven't tried adding new fish yet. With the newly arrived cold weather I'll be needing to get a heater to set up with a quarantine/acclimitization bucket. I don't want to hurt any more fish.

Philosophos

I'm looking forward to a more in-depth explanation. Please do reply when you have time.

-Philosophos

dwalstad

Organics are continuously decomposed by bacteria, because organics are "food" for bacteria. Organics can also be photo-oxidized and degraded by light.

Therefore, the accumulation of organics is continuously counter-balanced by its decomposition from bacteria and light.

I don't see organics as "waste" that needs to be removed via water changes. I see organics as potential plant nutrients-- carbon dioxide, nitrogen, iron, etc.

If organics accumulate, it may be due to a new tank getting established or poor plant growth.

Once a healthy planted tank is well-established, the generation and decomposition of organic matter should reach an equilibrium where water changes are quite infrequent or unnecessary.

I use conductivity measurements (salt accumulation) to determine whether my tanks need a water change. Some do after about 6 months.