I had a really old amonia test kit, that I got from a friend used it on my turtle tank for years. Always read 0ppm. Just out of curiosity I bought a new one and used it. The amonia was at 10ppm. I never let it go over 1ppm so I freaked out. I suggest buying a new kit (assuming your current one is old) and then testing it.
A Tribute to the Under Gravel Filter..
- Thread starter thepotz
- Start date
This is the problem with these threads, you have a couple people debating a topic using experience and great examples and then you have people chiming in who don't understand the basics. If your tank is properly cycled you should never show ammonia. NEVER, not 10ppm or even 1ppm, Zero!
Hello; While the ratio of fish to water is rarely, if ever, approached by aquarists. The point is that the water in a natural system has a load of some sort. That all the new water flowing past is much the same with regard to that load as the water that just went past. Some sort of balance will be reached and the water will have parameters based on that balance. The parameters may vary some under the influence of weather, seasons and such. The volume of water in a natural setting becoming less of a factor than the parameters found throughout any particular portion of that volume of water.
A poor analogy; Often in the fall the woods around my home are set on fire. During those days the air is loaded with smoke and it affects my breathing. It matters little that there is a very large volume of air around me if all the air has similar levels of smoke in it.
Hello; I have not gone to that low level of low stocking density. I have gone to much lower levels of fish density than I had in the past both to make maintaining tanks less of a chore and for what I preceve as a better situation for my fish. My goal is to have good water quality with less effort.
Amen to that, I quite like the "half empty" look my 2000L tank has, though I do plan on adding a few more fish.
I dare say it is the latter in this case. Rays, clown loaches, wild caught discus, and numerous others wouldn't thrive in those conditions. I usually find myself telling people here that I think they change too much water, but in this case I think a little more than zero would help! Your fish may appear healthy at this present time, but the long-term effects of such conditions are much harder to measure.
The pothos are probably saying your rear! A Bio filter is a Bio filter but the only thing that's taking out n03 are the pothos and the ongoing evaporation with top offs!
How about a pic of the setup? And usually red solution mans 80+ppm n03! Obviously goldfish are hardy fish but next to piranha they are one of the most neglected ornamental fish!
Vacing gravel 1x per year in a 35 w/ 3 lg goldies? That makes me cringe....!
And natures wc is a cycle, rain>runoff>evap as well as all the plants in the wild!
×Go S. Vettel #1 Infiniti Redbull! 4x WDC!!! Congrats on another flawless title and 9 wins back to back in 1 season (record!) See you next year in Australia boys!×
__________________________________________________________________
Cheap way to decrease nitrates and keep your fish healthy: http://monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=504763
How about a pic of the setup? And usually red solution mans 80+ppm n03! Obviously goldfish are hardy fish but next to piranha they are one of the most neglected ornamental fish!
Vacing gravel 1x per year in a 35 w/ 3 lg goldies? That makes me cringe....!
And natures wc is a cycle, rain>runoff>evap as well as all the plants in the wild!
×Go S. Vettel #1 Infiniti Redbull! 4x WDC!!! Congrats on another flawless title and 9 wins back to back in 1 season (record!) See you next year in Australia boys!×
__________________________________________________________________
Cheap way to decrease nitrates and keep your fish healthy: http://monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=504763
....And that poor analogy just proved the point. Unless there is some major factor polluting the water, as in your smoke scenario, the volume will have an enormous effect. Of course there is an ebb and flow with Mother Nature, but that doesn't excuse the hobbyist from doing the right thing.
I think we are splitting hairs here. "Some load of some sort" while true to a point, gets nowhere near what the op is currently experiencing in his aquarium. 80 ppm ?.... After claiming ugf superiority, no gravel vacuuming and only top offs? Really?
The "point" really is, water changes are necessary regardless of how inconvienient it may seem to the aquarist. Filters are bridges between water changes...... No more no less. Just because the fish aren't dead doesn't mean they are healthy, especially when exposed to elevated nitrates and DOCs long term. Plenty of science and data to support this too.
Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
Hello; The point I am trying to make is that any body of water has a set of parameters (water quality indicators) that are generally similar over time. Not that only some special event can affect the quality. I have fish local rivers and noted that they carry a bigger load of silt/mud after a heavy rain. A few days later the water is back to "normal" and samples taken from various places will have similar quality when tested.
It was back in the 70's when I did some field work with samples taken from streams over time. Outside of special events there was a baseline of water quality over time. My study was around the construction of a state highway that crossed a stream.
I am not trying to support the notion of no water changes for a year. If you go back to the initial posts on this thread, I believe I was the first to question the lack of water changes and gravel vacs.
My line of questions is about the notion that a large volume/frequency of water changes is necessary if the water quality parameters are good in a tank with less frequent water changes. A member made a statement along the line that we aquarists cannot approach the volume of water around fish in a natural setting. I contend that natural waters have quality parameters that exist thruout and that the large volume is somewhat less of a factor than the actual load the water happens to carry over time.
I look at the quality of water in a tank based on the water parameters rather than some set daily/weekly schedule of water changes. In some setups such frequent water changes can be needed, while in others the water quality can be good for much longer periods of time. I have low fish density with light feeding and a lot of live plants, this allows for stable water parameters over a longer time. i still do water changes.
I also am making the point that water in natural systems is not necessarily of better quality simply due to the volume involved.
Understood. And good discussion! Cheers!
I totally get what you're saying, but by that line of thinking, we can actually provide a better environment with water changes in the aquaria. We cannot really control the load in a river, but we can change water in an aquarium as much and as often as we see fit. Technically, we have the ability to offer something better than nature in certain situations. Or worse, depending on our husbandry practices.
I'm actually about 6 months into a controlled experiment I'm doing on Festae fry from the same parents, born at the same time, fed the same food on exactly the same schedule. The only difference is the amount of water they see changed. The main group is in a tank on a drip which is set to dilute about 30% tank volume daily. The control group is in a tank which gets bi-monthly water changes of about 50% nitrates never exceeding 20ppm. Guess which group has shown more growth?
You got it. The main group seeing more "clean" ie. fresh water and its a noticeable difference.
I've always been a water change fanatic and view filters as bridges between those changes, but it was always just the idea that it was a good thing. Now, I have some actual results to back my suspicions. This is not to say a constant supply of water is the only way to keep fish, or something that's practical for every aquarist, but the growth differences between the groups is all the proof I need for my own personal situation and approach.
A lot of the fish we keep are extremely resilient creatures. Years ago, when I first started keeping fish in metal framed tanks and box filters, old water was considered "good" and new water was "bad". This was because anytime we added a large amount of clean water to a tank that had elevated nitrates and tds, it was a shock to the fish as the water chemistry was so much different. The fish had grown accustomed to the conditions and had adapted to the system.
But just because they weren't dying, didn't mean they were as healthy as they could be. Survive..... Yes. Thrive..... maybe not so much.
Each aquarist has their own approach and beliefs. Some have data to back those theories and practices and others go by heresay or what they've been told it is what they are supposed to do because others have done the same before them. But to start a thread claiming certain types of filtration are inferior to others because your fish stay alive is a little thin for me. Have the op put some rams in that tank and let's see how they do. Actually, put a new goldfish in that tank and I'll bet it might not do so well.
Every type of filtration has its pros and cons and every aquarist has certain situations that dictate the use of them. I've used ugfs in many setups, including fish only salt setups. I choose not to use them any more because they no longer fit my needs, but that doesn't mean they don't work.
They absolutely do, but this thread sends a mixed message and I think gives them a worse wrap then they deserve. A properly setup ugf or rugf is a very functional filter, but like any filter, they do require periodic maintenance.
Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
I totally get what you're saying, but by that line of thinking, we can actually provide a better environment with water changes in the aquaria. We cannot really control the load in a river, but we can change water in an aquarium as much and as often as we see fit. Technically, we have the ability to offer something better than nature in certain situations. Or worse, depending on our husbandry practices.
I'm actually about 6 months into a controlled experiment I'm doing on Festae fry from the same parents, born at the same time, fed the same food on exactly the same schedule. The only difference is the amount of water they see changed. The main group is in a tank on a drip which is set to dilute about 30% tank volume daily. The control group is in a tank which gets bi-monthly water changes of about 50% nitrates never exceeding 20ppm. Guess which group has shown more growth?
You got it. The main group seeing more "clean" ie. fresh water and its a noticeable difference.
I've always been a water change fanatic and view filters as bridges between those changes, but it was always just the idea that it was a good thing. Now, I have some actual results to back my suspicions. This is not to say a constant supply of water is the only way to keep fish, or something that's practical for every aquarist, but the growth differences between the groups is all the proof I need for my own personal situation and approach.
A lot of the fish we keep are extremely resilient creatures. Years ago, when I first started keeping fish in metal framed tanks and box filters, old water was considered "good" and new water was "bad". This was because anytime we added a large amount of clean water to a tank that had elevated nitrates and tds, it was a shock to the fish as the water chemistry was so much different. The fish had grown accustomed to the conditions and had adapted to the system.
But just because they weren't dying, didn't mean they were as healthy as they could be. Survive..... Yes. Thrive..... maybe not so much.
Each aquarist has their own approach and beliefs. Some have data to back those theories and practices and others go by heresay or what they've been told it is what they are supposed to do because others have done the same before them. But to start a thread claiming certain types of filtration are inferior to others because your fish stay alive is a little thin for me. Have the op put some rams in that tank and let's see how they do. Actually, put a new goldfish in that tank and I'll bet it might not do so well.
Every type of filtration has its pros and cons and every aquarist has certain situations that dictate the use of them. I've used ugfs in many setups, including fish only salt setups. I choose not to use them any more because they no longer fit my needs, but that doesn't mean they don't work.
They absolutely do, but this thread sends a mixed message and I think gives them a worse wrap then they deserve. A properly setup ugf or rugf is a very functional filter, but like any filter, they do require periodic maintenance.
Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
