FishProfiles.com Message Forums

I've been to Diana's house and I don't remember her using a UV sterilizer. She does, however, use a Quick filter. The Quick filter merely polishes the water, it doesn't have biological filtering. She also has a tank approximately 15 years old, so it is a very viable method, long term, if done correctly.

We have three tanks run in this method. The only difference with ours is we have lighting on our tanks as the room where the tanks are doesn't get much sunlight.

Also, before I go any further Diana Walstad's book is not a cookbook. It is a science book. She never tells you what to do, she doesn't want to be held responsible for telling you what to do.

I'm going off the top of my head here, currently on vacation so they're not near me.

Anyway, onto my tanks (going from smallest to largest).

5 gallon (betta, amano shrimp - 2wpg - contains bolbitis, tiger lotus, rotala indica, amazon sword) - been running for a little over year. Current problem is algae from wrong lighting and too many nutrients, combined with slow growing plants, so nothing is competing with the algae much. Slowly overcoming it. Substrate is black gravel. Originally was going to go the high tech approach, but never got around to it.

20 Gallon (incisor rainbowfish, aurelius barbs, female bettas, false khuli loaches, otos, and amano shrimp). Been running over a year. Substrate is dirt, with large river pebbles over the top to hold down the dirt. Plants contain windelov java fern, tiger lotus, rotala indica, bamboo. 2 wpg lighting, open lid so the bamboo is emerged from the water (about 10" out of the water). Had problem with algae due to excessive nutrients, and slow growing plants, but has cleared up.

72 Gallon. Set up 1 month ago. Contains 7 juvenile kribensis. Current plants include tiger lotus (see a theme here?), crypts, rotala indica. Substrate is dirt with small river pebbles to hold down dirt. Will keep you updated on this progress.

Anyway, the only thing we have that isn't diana's method is the lighting as we have no way of lighting the tank naturally. No filters are run on this tank, we do small minor water changes every day (.5% thereabouts) because of the exess nutrients in the water (our tap water is rich). We feed the fish once every two or three days, allowing them to forage for food in the tank the rest of the time.

The Walstad approach isn't all or nothing. If you didn't want to think about it and turn your brain off, go for it, and follow her method, but we don't


(meriadoc)

I would not start with a small tank, as the smaller the tank, the quicker something can go wrong. I would do as large of a tank as I could. This way, if things started to crash, you would see them happening in time to correct things.

_____________________________________________________________

There is always a bigger fish...

OK I know I'm sticking my neck out so please don't chop it off But doesn't Meriadoc keep her tanks in this similar way of the natural approach? Or have I lost my mind and confused someone againwon't be the first time today I know

I would love to try and do something in this fashion someday, but I like you acid seem to have too few tanks with too many fish:%) and am doing 10-20% water changes each day right now to try and keep up while trying to get the flipping 125 back on it's feet...

How small of a tank could I try this with? Would a 10 gallon be too small? Or could I use a 20 long and use it with my corries as a breeding bed?

Would be interesting to try it, for myself...of course isn't this basically how our common ponds work, or am I confused on that also? I know I've lost most of my mind just trying to keep up with the 10% here and 55% there = 1505%, ok so I can't add:%)

"I've got a great ambition to die of exhaustion rather than boredom." Thomas Carlyle

LOL, I have always done over kill on my water changes. But then again, I usually am doubly over stocked in many of my tanks. Like my 125 gal grow out tank, with over 30 6-9 inch fish in it, on top of another 20 5 inch or less fish. Gets 50% water changes 3 times per week, LOL.

_____________________________________________________________

There is always a bigger fish...

If we take another look at the numbers we can see that there is a huge difference between topping-off with and without water changes. Continuing the 100ppm/10% evap rate/50% water change example, starting with water change 2:

[(50 + 55) / 2] + 55 = 107.5
(107.50 / 2) + 55 = 108.75
(108.75 / 2) + 55 = 109.38
(109.38 / 2) + 55 = 109.69
(109.69 / 2) + 55 = 109.85

We can see why Diana found her tank to have three times the salinity level of her tap, with failing plants, and why those who do water changes without top-offs don't have this problem. It's not a matter of cutting the increase in half as we suspected. With 50% water changes, the increase in salinity over tap will never be greater than the percentage of evaporation between water changes.

Yet another good argument for 50% water changes rather than smaller ones. I'm really starting to get convinced that I need to let go of my frequent small water change routine.

I think Diana's approach would not allow for topping with RO water because she depends on the minerals from the top-off water. I couldn't be positive though.

Unfortunetly, the plants don't use all the minerals. This led to the increased salinity in her tanks. And like you point out, it happens to all of our tanks.

The funny thing is, that what you are describing as a build up of

increasing mineral concentration from extended periods of topping off evaporation without water changes.

happens to every tank even with water changes. Because of evaporation, you are always topping off with water, even when doing water changes.

Let's take a tank of water and call it 100gal just for ease of this. Now, over a few weeks and such, your tank evaporates 10% or 10 gal of that water. If you just top it off, then you are adding 10gal of water and more minerals into the tank, on top of what is already there.
Now, lets take the same tank, and the same situation. 100gal with 10gal evaporation. You do a 50% water change of the water that is left in the tank, or 45 gal. However, you fill the tank back up to the original 100gal. OK, you took out 50% of the minerals left, and now added 55% back. OK, this is a little comfuseing, so to make it easier;

Let's say you have 10ppm for every 10gal of water, or 1 to 1. That's 100ppm for 100gal water. Now, 10% or 10 gal evaporation, makes it still 100ppm for the 90gal left. You drain 50% or 45gal water for what is left. That leaves you with 45gal water from the original (half of the 90% left after evaporation), and now 50ppm minerals (half of the original minerals). You add water back up to the original level of 100gal (which is actually 55gal added water). You have now added back 55ppm of minerals. In the end, you now have 105ppm minerals after your water change.
The Math;
50ppm left in 45gal water at water drain
45ppm added with 45 gal new water added
10ppm with additional new water added for 10% evaporation
105ppm new total minerals after complete water change.

Top offs;
10% water evaporation of same tank as above.
Top off with 10gal water, and 10ppm minerals. 90gal left before top off, has 100ppm still. Additional 10gal top off adds 10ppm. Conclusion is tank is now 100gal, with 110ppm.

So, you are just doubling your additional minerals with a top off, compared to a water change.

But, consider that the plants take many of these minerals into use. So, with a heavily planted tank, you would want more added anyway. Just depends on what is in your water to start with. You could also top off with RO water if this is really a concern. As well, you can add the plant required minerals back to RO water, and thus not be adding any other minerals that can build up.

So, in conclusion, this can very well work, and I have to agree with it.

_____________________________________________________________

There is always a bigger fish...

Here are some links. First to the UV sterilizers and then the failing tanks.

http://aquabotanicwetthumb.infopop.cc/eve/ubb.x/a/tpc/f/4686048124/m/8351029831

http://aquabotanicwetthumb.infopop.cc/eve/ubb.x/a/tpc/f/4686048124/m/443106167/r/443106167#443106167
http://aquabotanicwetthumb.infopop.cc/eve/ubb.x/a/tpc/f/4686048124/m/193100828/r/193100828#193100828

Her approach is certianly viable. But like I said before, it essentially only reduces the need for water changes. And even there it is only good to a point.

Are there any members who keep an aquarium based on or excatly the same as Diana Walstad lays out in her book Ecology of the Planted Aquarium? That is, planting soil substrate instead of sand or gravel, heavily planted, no CO2 injection, good but not super-bright lighting, allows the sun to hit the aquarium a few hours a day. And, perhaps to many, most astonishing at all, no filters! The plants uptake all the ammonia the fish produce. Which means she does very few water changes. Another surprising thing compared with most of the advise given out on the forums.

So, I am curious if anyone had completely followed her book? When I move late this year I am so tempted to restart following her guidelines, and I want to know about anyone else's experiences.
Thanks



Last edited by Bignose at 15-Jun-2005 21:42

I do several tanks the "all natural" way. They are not exactly tanks, but tubs. I have a dozen tubs, ranging from 30 gal to 675 gals, outside in the back yard and on the deck. In the early Spring, I fill them with water and just let them go. This way there is plenty of insect foods in them when it gets warm enough to put the fish out. My only filtration is live plants. Mostly floaters. In the smaller tubs, there is not water pumps or anything, just water, plants, and fish. And the live foods too. I rarely even feed the fish in these tubs. Maybe about once a week, or even less. I leave them out for about 5-6 months, and collect the fry from the tank about once per week. I usually use fish that breed in the roots and fine leaved plants. I have had several dozen different varieties of fish breed for me in these tubs, including cichlids, catfish, characins, anabantids, and live bearers. Rarely lost any fish in the tubs. 99% of any fish loss is usually jumping out.

Now inside, during the winter time I bring in the fish and the plants. The plants are kept in a tub with mostly smaller fish, as there are no insects to feed them, and they don't get their normal rainwater water changes, so I so water changes about once per month. And then only a small percentage.

The idea is very sound. After all, how does it work in nature? If you can set up a nature type tank, and give the same requirements, then there is no reason it won't work. The problem, IMO, falls in the stocking of the tank. Many people want a set up like this, but also want the fish. If you have a very low stock of fish, then IMO, you could more than easily have a set up like this work for years and years. Kinda like my SW coral set up. It is a complete eco-system. Has not had water changed in several years now. Corals are growing and multiplying, and fish are great. But, there are only 6 two inch fish in a 75 gal tank. So, the waste of the fish, is easily converted by the corals and live SW plants/macro algae.

_____________________________________________________________

There is always a bigger fish...

Time make an excellent point. (BTW welcome to FP Time..ok that sound like a TV show or somethin')

When I say a tank without water changes it's not strictly true , it does get a big water change every few months and I think that's true of most of the other planted tanks that "don't get water changes".

Problem is when water evaporates it's just the water that goes, the minerals, salts and other thingies get left behind. These will build up over time which can cause problems or big shifts in water hardness. Hence the need to do some form of water change periodically rather then just constantly top up evaporation.

---

Some days you're the pigeon and some days you're the statue.

Remember that age and treachery will always triumph over youth and ability.

I've gone a month with 1 betta in an unplanted 2.5 gallon and I haven't come close to needing a water change.

She doea use filters. Her book is either misleading or outdated to her current methods. She uses Aquaclear Quick Filter attachments in combination with powerheads as well as UV sterilizers. That's not to say that filterless doesn't work. It's that she found the need to fight infection and parasites in her tanks.

Even an unplanted tank can run without filters with the light fish loads she uses, provided it is well established. There is many times more nitrifying bacteria on the surfaces in your tank than exists on the coveted filter media. The plants, however, help keep nitrate down by fiercely competing with the bacteria for the ammonia and to a small extent consuming the nitrate directly. In essence, all her method provides is a reduced need for water changes.

Again, though, there is need for updating. She has found that her tanks have begun to fail over time. The suspected cause was an increasing mineral concentration from extended periods of topping off evaporation without water changes.

For some good updated info from Diana herself, check out this forum dedicated to her approach:

http://aquabotanicwetthumb.infopop.cc/6/ubb.x?a=cfrm&s=4006090712

See the "El Natural" forum.

ben, I think that is a great point. All or nothing, and I suspect that she will tell you the same thing. If you read her book all the way through, you find all the things are in balance. You take one part way (or as you said "pick and choose" the rest of the parts will not work.

I am pleased to hear some of you guys have had success with it, the science behind it seemed pretty well founded, so I am glad to hear some additional success stories

I've kept a planted tank that doesn't get water changes. That's relatively common. But does have filtration.

One word of caution, though, about Ms. Walstead's method. It's all or nothing. You should follow completely. It's not a method where you can pick and choose elements to use and what not to use.

But if her method is followed correctly it's pretty much proven to work.

---

Some days you're the pigeon and some days you're the statue.

Remember that age and treachery will always triumph over youth and ability.

I have read most of her book, and the guy that suggested it to me swears by it. He doesn't have a single filter on any of his tanks and even uses regular soil in his tanks. He seems to have great success with it.

Soon (when I can find some free time, which will be never) I'm going to turn a little 5.5 into a "natural" "low-tech" tank to see how it works with some of my guppy fry.

The only thing that this guy warned me about his tanks and anyone making a tank like this is to NOT stir up the soil and sand as this will up the suspended sediment, clog the fish's gills and cause a fish kill event. If any planting or unplanting has to occur, be very careful about what gets stirred up.

I've successfully run heavily planted tanks with no filters or anything, but I'm not sure about the potting soil substrate. That seems a bit too much...

But yes, if you know how to do it, it is possible to have successful tanks with no filters.

---

I'm not your neighbor, you Bakersfield trash.