|
Posted by Dean A. Markley on March 13, 2005, 7:40 am
Please log in for more thread options
You are worrying too much and are overthinking the issue. The big secret is
not how much water to change or how often. It is to NOT overstock and NOT
overfeed.
Dean
> The thread a few days ago, started by the chap who said that his setup
> worked better without any water changes for over a year set me to
> thinking. Just how bad will things get in my own betta tanks, even
> *with* water changes?
>
> Having no idea what to expect, I wrote a simple computer model and was
> surprised by the results: If there are no other mitigating processes,
> (filters, plant converters, etc.) involved; only water changes, then
> the concentration of pollutants, (urine, feces, etc.), appears to
> asymptotically stabilize to a fixed value after a few weeks of water
> changes. (The number of weeks depends upon the percent of water
> changed, and the rate of fish excretions; but if these stay the same
> then the concentration of pollutants stabilizes.) This seemed
> counter-intuitive to me, but at least comforting.
>
> Oh,... yes, I am assuming that the mulm is "stirred up" at the time of
> water changes -- you don't get all of it, just a proportionate amount
> of it.
>
> If anyone is interested, here are some results:
>
> %WaterChange, StableConcentrationMultiple, #Weeks
> 25, 4, 20
> 33.33(one third), 3, 15
> 50, 2, 7.5
> 100, 1, 1 ... (of course)
>
> Interpreted: if one does 50% weekly water changes, the concentration
> of pollutants will stabilize at 2 times the initial concentration
> after eight (7.5) weeks.
>
> I feel better now, as this is what I have been doing. The bettas are
> in gallon jugs, and (very surprising to me), the ammonia levels have
> remained at zero for eight weeks now. But the jugs are stuffed with
> plants so that, I am assuming, is the explanation.
>
> However, since both fish and plants seem happy, I guess that I am
> concluding that a stable concentration of two weeks worth of feces and
> urine is acceptable to both... But I will be happy to hear anyone's
> thoughts!
>
> Regards, David
>
>
|
|
Posted by Dick on March 14, 2005, 5:00 am
Please log in for more thread options
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 12:40:53 GMT, "Dean A. Markley"
>You are worrying too much and are overthinking the issue. The big secret is
>not how much water to change or how often. It is to NOT overstock and NOT
>overfeed.
>
>Dean
>
The problem is what you make it!
It seems to me there are many interests out in the world tied together
by a tank (or tanks). Thus some go all out to have fine plants,
others like to measure and control the chemistry, others....
This is an interesting thread, quite unique. Modeling any "universe"
is questionable to my pedestrian mind, but I acknowledge many
decisions are made that way. As for the immediate question, I know
what I know until catastrophe strikes my fish. Having elected to not
make any chemical changes to my tap water, having removed all
charcoal, having removed bio wheels from the filters having them,
having the fish I have, the tanks, the lights and making the water
changes 25% twice weekly and having the results satisfying to me, what
more can I want? Only that my fish die before I do.
dick
>
>> The thread a few days ago, started by the chap who said that his setup
>> worked better without any water changes for over a year set me to
>> thinking. Just how bad will things get in my own betta tanks, even
>> *with* water changes?
>>
>> Having no idea what to expect, I wrote a simple computer model and was
>> surprised by the results: If there are no other mitigating processes,
>> (filters, plant converters, etc.) involved; only water changes, then
>> the concentration of pollutants, (urine, feces, etc.), appears to
>> asymptotically stabilize to a fixed value after a few weeks of water
>> changes. (The number of weeks depends upon the percent of water
>> changed, and the rate of fish excretions; but if these stay the same
>> then the concentration of pollutants stabilizes.) This seemed
>> counter-intuitive to me, but at least comforting.
>>
>> Oh,... yes, I am assuming that the mulm is "stirred up" at the time of
>> water changes -- you don't get all of it, just a proportionate amount
>> of it.
>>
>> If anyone is interested, here are some results:
>>
>> %WaterChange, StableConcentrationMultiple, #Weeks
>> 25, 4, 20
>> 33.33(one third), 3, 15
>> 50, 2, 7.5
>> 100, 1, 1 ... (of course)
>>
>> Interpreted: if one does 50% weekly water changes, the concentration
>> of pollutants will stabilize at 2 times the initial concentration
>> after eight (7.5) weeks.
>>
>> I feel better now, as this is what I have been doing. The bettas are
>> in gallon jugs, and (very surprising to me), the ammonia levels have
>> remained at zero for eight weeks now. But the jugs are stuffed with
>> plants so that, I am assuming, is the explanation.
>>
>> However, since both fish and plants seem happy, I guess that I am
>> concluding that a stable concentration of two weeks worth of feces and
>> urine is acceptable to both... But I will be happy to hear anyone's
>> thoughts!
>>
>> Regards, David
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap
> worked better without any water changes for over a year set me to
> thinking. Just how bad will things get in my own betta tanks, even
> *with* water changes?
>
> Having no idea what to expect, I wrote a simple computer model and was
> surprised by the results: If there are no other mitigating processes,
> (filters, plant converters, etc.) involved; only water changes, then
> the concentration of pollutants, (urine, feces, etc.), appears to
> asymptotically stabilize to a fixed value after a few weeks of water
> changes. (The number of weeks depends upon the percent of water
> changed, and the rate of fish excretions; but if these stay the same
> then the concentration of pollutants stabilizes.) This seemed
> counter-intuitive to me, but at least comforting.
>
> Oh,... yes, I am assuming that the mulm is "stirred up" at the time of
> water changes -- you don't get all of it, just a proportionate amount
> of it.
>
> If anyone is interested, here are some results:
>
> %WaterChange, StableConcentrationMultiple, #Weeks
> 25, 4, 20
> 33.33(one third), 3, 15
> 50, 2, 7.5
> 100, 1, 1 ... (of course)
>
> Interpreted: if one does 50% weekly water changes, the concentration
> of pollutants will stabilize at 2 times the initial concentration
> after eight (7.5) weeks.
>
> I feel better now, as this is what I have been doing. The bettas are
> in gallon jugs, and (very surprising to me), the ammonia levels have
> remained at zero for eight weeks now. But the jugs are stuffed with
> plants so that, I am assuming, is the explanation.
>
> However, since both fish and plants seem happy, I guess that I am
> concluding that a stable concentration of two weeks worth of feces and
> urine is acceptable to both... But I will be happy to hear anyone's
> thoughts!
>
> Regards, David
>
>