Thinking about an EcoSphere.

beaslbob

and one can read the article and apply "my" equation above and make appropriate conclusions.

IMHO the question is whether water changes are more effective in maintaining water quality then creating an balanced stable environment where thing just don't change.

my .02

Byron

With respect, if you carefully read the article it makes it very clear that with regular partial water changes an aquarium will have a more stable environment.

An aquarium that receives no water changes gradually declines; this is not stable, and it is not healthy.

The evidence is overwhelming.

Byron.

beaslbob

then we agree to disagree.

Your article has no analysis whatsoever. Just statements of opinion. Again one can look at the equation above and determine whether or not preventing the builds up is more effective then doing water changes. That is unless you do 100% daily water changes should you have an unlimited source of acceptable water. But in that case we are maintaining an open system which is entirely dependant on the source water-- not a closed system that is totally dependant on the conditions of the tank itself.

Your article also does not address how the stability works. For instance what happens to the system should ammonia bump up suddenly. With a planted tank the plants consume the ammonia directly breaking the dangerous spikes and preventing tank crashes.

Stability by definition is how the system reacts to deviations from some steady state. Not whether or not the environment is constant. It is entirely possible to have varying stable systems and constant unstable systems.

Comparing a planted tank with no water changes to a human living in a non planted room with no air changes is a false misleading and inappropriate analogy making an emotion appeal to people. A much more appropriate and realistic analogy is comparing such a tank to the entire ecosystem of the earth. And even that is not totally correct as the tank would be a much healthier environment.

But then all people have to do is run a unplanted tank with 10% weekly water changes and observe how the nitrates rise to 100ppm or more. And them observe the heathy planted tanks where nitrates and phosphates are unmeasureable.

So I guess we agree to disagree. I do notice that I'm the one with the numerical analysis. So again you may want to determine why nitrates/phosphates are unmeasureable, pH is high, in all my tanks fw and marine. Plus kh and gh constant in my fw. And cal, kh, mag kept up with dosing in my marine tanks. All with no water changes using untreated tap water. Perhaps that stupid equation of mine might help.

But who am I? I just ran tanks for 8-9 years with no water changes. So all this must be worth at most.


.02

Byron

We will agree to disagree, but when others are going to perhaps be led into either method because of information then it has to be accurate. Water changes prevent the build ups, that is the whole point. Ammonia is not going to suddenly bump up in a stable system. In 25 years of aquaria I have never seen this occur. And the fact that you think all is well in a tank with no water changes does not mean it is; there is more involved than what we can test. And fish can "manage" with poor water, but that does not mean we should force them into it just because we can't be bothered doing water changes. And I can see n reason for not doing them, given the facts.

You cannot say that an aquarium is a healthier environment than nature. Water changes are occurring in nature almost 24/7, this we cannot even hope to match. No closed system is even close to nature.

I was going to attach an article from the November and December 2009 issues of TFH which looked at this mathematically, but I see it will be too long for the software, so I'll just attach the first page. If you can't track this down yourself, I can send it via email if you PM me with your email. I thought more could be made of the evidence than mathematics so I left this out of the article. I don't fully understand the mathematics, but I do understand the reality.

Byron.

Attached Images

001.jpg (62.3 KB, 33 views)

beaslbob

I have read numerour articles ofver the last few decades and suspect that will be yet another. After all the equations are well known.

I notice the highly scientific term "Crud". Pretty well summarizes the theme of the article.

So send me a copy. beaslbob@aol.com

I'll add it to the dozens of similiar articles I've read over the decades.


Now would you please consider the equation I submitted and explain how nitrates for instance are 100ppm+++++ in water change tanks and 0 in planted tanks?

Why fish supposedly needing soft acid water with a pH of 7 or less live for years and years in my tanks with a pH of over 8.4?

why gh and kh remain constant.

Why this has worked in 1/2 dozen cites in the US since the late '70's with water sources from river water, to limestone aquifers with varying levels of calcium/magnesium. Some the chlorine some with chloramines?

the only possible reason to me must be that the planted/balances/stabilized/leiden methods being used results in the best , stable, and healthy environment regardless of what aqaurium magazine articles say about "crud".

Gee a fish swims by a plant which immediately consumes it's carbon dioxide and returns oxygen. and nitrates and ammonia as well. sound pretty healthy to me anyway.

Oh I have been running these tanks for decades. Guess I have a different prespective.


So we agree to disagree.

my .02

thekoimaiden

I've snipped what I needed to make this as short as possible. About Byron's article not containing analysis. It does, but you just didn't look for it. His article is not meant to interpret data such as you would find in a scientific article; it is meant to compile the data in an easy-to-understand method for the layman such as yourself. His sources are what contain the analysis. Let's look at the last reference "Is Nitrate Toxic? A Study of Nitrate Toxicity" which itself references peer-reviewed articles from world-renowned journals such as Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology and Aquaculture. I implore you to seek out the articles from the writings and contend their finding as this is what Byron is basing his article on. Bring up your problems with the original peer-reviewed works.

This bolded statement is entirely false. If this were true then we should be able to keep all species of fish alive in aquariums. We simply cannot make a better world than the space for which the fish evolved to live. We have created something artificial and closed, and it ultimately will fail. It doesn't appear to matter what size the system is either. An experiment called Biosphere 2 supports this; scientists attempted to create a fully closed "ecosystem" but it ultimately failed because of numerous problems both with the biota and the construction.

beaslbob

Although not a biologist I would like to think that an engineer (from my profile) would indicate someone who does have a basic understanding of static and dynamic behaviour of systems over and above the "layman" level.

It is not about under what conditions nitrIte is dangerous to fish. But rather how to render nitrItes and other things in our systems safe and healthy for our fish.

Again have you considered the equation I submitted?

And the biosphere did have the problems you mentioned.

But not our tanks.

So the real question is how do we say limit our tank conditions to the say the daily change.

Do we

1) do a 100% daily water change. Like diverting a stream through our tanks and return the tank water to the stream.

or

2) setup a system where the tank itself limits the daily change to such a low point to where fish live and reproduce for years and years with no water changes.


I am not aware of any fish that cannot live in an aquarium providing the aquarium has sufficient size for the fish. Obviously great whites require a little larger tank than neon tetras. perhaps you can fill me in on some examples.

Finally, duplicating the exact environment of nature for a given fish is impossible. First, because the environment vaires so we don't exactly know what to duplicate. And by taking a fish from that environment and introducing them to an environment free of preditors with decreased carbon dioxide, decreased wastes, and increased food and oxygen would probably mean the fish would be better in our aquariums then in nature.


So we agree to disagree.

Still awaiting comments on that stupid, non peer reviewed, equation I submitted earlier.


still just my .02

Byron

I don't understand it because I don't think mathematically. I also don't fully comprehend the mathematics in the TFH article (which I just sent you) for the same reason. But I do grasp the issues, which are far deeper than mathematical equations.

And Izzy made a very pertinent point. This is not something I dreamed up, so there is no point in arguing with me about the science.

And before you jump on this, consider an analogy. The earth is spherical; I accept this and believe it. I can't prove it. There are those who believe it is flat (yes, the Flat Earth Society does exist). I can't disprove that, but I don't believe it because I accept the overwhelming evidence of scientists who do know.

Byron.

Canadian Fish

The Earth isn't flat?

beaslbob

thanks for reply.

I suggest you take a look at the equation and give it a try. For example consider "tying" the water change amount and the time period. Say 1% water change per day. like 10% every 10 days, 20% every 20 days and so on. then assume 1ppm/day increase and 0 in the replacement water. Try several (or a couple anyway) schedules and compute what the ppm is before the water changes.

Oh and BTW I have seen the earth curvature. (Worked at the holloman high speed rocked test track for 6 years.) the track is 10 miles long in a straight line. It did disappear over the horizon as it followed the earth's curvature.


my .02