Considering Getting Corys

[TallTree01]

Unfortunately, Im not yet bored enough to read all of the above posts. LOL. This is what I gathered:
After my comment someone disagrees with me ( no surprises ther lol )
Someone else agrees with me only with a little different view
The first someone ( lets call him 1 ) disagrees with the second someone ( let's call him 2 )
2 disagrees with 1
1 disagrees with 2
Etc etc etc.


We're all entitled to our opinion
Mine is that it does make a difference
1 thinks it doesn't make a difference
2 is 50/50
Correct?
If so, great! This is good we have different opinions. Let's not get pi$$ed over them though.


Bottom line is cories would be fine in the op's tank.

 

[DreamertK]

  I was agreeing with the person above me.
 
As for OP - gratz on the panda catz!

 

[JenCliBee]

First of all, I would like to say...techen, this is a really nice post, very informative and certainly worth some more research on, I still want to challenge some of the comments because it's in my nature to explore every possible aspect...when I do disagree with certain things that are claimed 

 
 

First of all, if you want scientific evidence, you should set a right example and provide some yourself for your own claims.

 
I don't need to, I haven't been throwing exact science methods etc etc.... I don't need to back up my claims because im exploring aspects to which I disagree on and observations in which I consider feasible from MY experiences.... your challenging me with the science side and for that reason alone, I would have preferred you to give me evidence so I can dissect the info myself.
 
 

Of course there is degradation, but it isn't just one bacteria responsible for it. There are many. There are certain types for example like Actinomycetes that are responsible for large organic compounds degradation. You want as much degradation as possible, as fast as possible, instead of the stuff growing mould around the place and spreading pathogenic organisms. Hence even why shrimp and snails are very good in a tank as they can break down the organics into smaller organics so other bacteria can degrade it further till it reaches it's final form ammonia that will feed the filter. All these processes play a role on the water column as well and availability and toxicity of other compounds like metals for example. Also of course, on the general water parameters like TDS, KH, GH, Ph, etc... So stripping the tank down and leaving just the filter bacteria, even if you keep most of the original water, will lead to water quality fluctuations that are stressful to fish and inverts.

 
I don't dismiss this but what it sounds like your stating is removing and clearing this surface bacteria only and not removing the waste aswell which that waste and beneficial bacteria is/was feeding on?.
 
Removing water/substrate > removes waste/toxicity of other compounds> resetting a tank while still maintaining a high level of the nitrogen cycle..... as to the general params TDS/KH/GH/PH.... leaving a tank to decrease these params can actually lead to serious problems, hence we do water changes to remove compounds which actually directly affect this, having a PH drop to low can actually directly affect the efficiency of the beneficial bacteria.... a few numbers I remember reading....
 
100% effectiveness at a pH of 8.3
7.0 efficiency is only50%,
6.5 only 30%,
6.0 only 10%. Below 6.0 the bacteria enter a state
of dormancy and cease functioning.
 
Yes I know ammonia ionizes to  ammonium below 7 I think, but.... there is reports that it's still not completely safe for fish even if it isn't anywhere near as harmful directly as ammonia
 
You stated that the surface bacteria (wall/substrate etc) is essentially helping the tank..... I don't think I actually disagreed with this just merely disagreed with how much help it actually does when taking into context of what I originally stated.....
 
Ill try to explain (im not very good at explaining in a more scientific way, sorry

)......
 
This bacteria, both beneficial and waste removing bacteria are present almost everywhere within the tank (including the filter), removing the substrate, wiping surfaces etc, relives the need for that/a certain amount of that waste bacteria to be present as it wont have the waste to feast on (your removing the food source while removing substrate and wiping the surfaces)...however, it's still present within the filter, feeding on the waste the filter has drawn in..... this is then producing ammonia directly for the bacteria within the filter itself..... general load in the tank has been removed, so the need for that amount of bacteria of all kinds within the tank is redundant.... however the load within the filter will remain and as stated, be feeding off the ammonia the waste bacteria is producing within the filter..... ie, crude example, removing 25 fish out of the 30 in a fish in a tank, ammonia and other elements produced isn't enough to sustain both waste and beneficial bacteria that once were and dies off.
 
 
 

First of all, oxygen is hardly solubable in water. The amount of available oxygen doesn't depend on the filter only. It depends on the temperature, the surface area of the tank compared to water volume, how well agitated the surface is, or whether the tank has plants for example. If the tank is overpopulated, not necessarily overstocked, there will be more organic degradation, bio filter bacteria population, and more fish to consume this, so depending on all these factors there can be so much oxygen in the water at any given time,so it doesn't really matter that it goes through the filters, if the water isn't saturated with oxygen. Same applies for ammonia availability. In a lightly stocked tank you can have 30x flow and it still won't grow big bacterial population because there isn't ammonia enough to feed it. You said the same yourself, but you are looking at it just from a narrow point of view. Flow plays a role to deliver the chemical compounds needed for ammonia/nitrite/nitrAte conversion but if they ain't there, it just delivers water..

 
Your adding words to my comments, im fully aware how soluble oxygen is within the water column and what things can/will affect this... but this isn't what I stated.... I didn't state that the oxygen was dependant on the filter, what I stated was if there were enough flow within a certain tank, then the bacteria within the filter being starved is very unlikely if the dissolved oxygen in the tank was adequate.... as I stated, if there was limiting oxygen in the water (enough to stave bacteria)...then fish would be showing signs of gasping to surely?...  don't fish require a hell of lot more o2 than bacteria would to survive?..... so what I stated was, the amount of oxygen running through the filter at any given time, would match the amount of o2 within the water column at any given time... as with ammonia availability, if there wasn't sufficient ammonia going through the filter, the filter would only colonise to the amount of ammonia being passed through.... if there was limited ammonia, then the amount of bacteria to deal with it wouldn't need to be more anyways..... im not sure where you were going with your comment but it didn't actually answer my original comment, only explained to me the process IF things were limited.... if it was both bacteria and fish would be suffering and that again would be the responsibility of the tank owner to address that problem... which in all honestly, it's pretty self explanatory if they were.
 
Also..... most waste bacteria do not need "free air" to survive, they are facultaive anerobes (sp).... they can also reproduce as quickly as 15 minutes so essentially removal isn't all hat important as they will colonise at a very quick rate.... however this would be why I mentioned that checking parameters for a 48hr period is actually good practice because it gives time to allow these waste bacteria to colonise enough to actually start producing ammonia in abundance to feed the potentially starving beneficial bacteria.
 
 

There's a lot of info out there about this. Research yourself. I don't have a laboratory if that's what you mean.
For example, filter media like the very famous Sera Siporax has very large surface area, so just a small amount of it is needed to biologically filter a large tank. If enough oxygen reaches is capable of reaching it, then you need a 2l with a fast pump to actually filter 400L aquarium but in reality it doesn't work like that.
 
 "1 liter sera siporax® provides as much settling area for bacteria as approximately 34 liters of ceramic filter material. Therefore 1 liter sera siporax® ensures more than 200 liters of biologically clean aquarium water. sera siporax® is an excellent choice for small filters"

 
In all honestly I shouldn't have to, your making the claims..but, I have tried to find basic evidence of this both generally and scientifically and I haven't actually come across any.
 
 

First of all how did you measure how much bacteria is in the filter and how much in the substrate/decor in each tank? Why are you advising to check the parameters if you are claiming it's all in the filters and little anywhere else? It's like worrying about causing a spike by adding 1 fish to a tank with 10 fish. A mature tank shouldn't even have a hiccup at that even with 10% loss because the 90% surviving would theoretically divide themselves and compensate for that loss and a lot more in less than 12-24 hours, which is not enough time to even think of testing or worrying the fish won't handle if what you are saying is true. Filter bacteria can double in population in a period of less than 24 hours. So if you have stripped the tank down to just leaving the cycled filters, but you experience a small spike lasting 48 hours, then theoretically you've lost way more than 90% bacteria in the first place. For example, to get 25% bacteria back to 100% functionallity needed for the amount of bioload in a tank, it will in theory take 48hours(25% bacs will become 50% in the next 24 hours, which in turn will become 100% bacs in another 24 hours)  So your statement that you can experience a 48 hours spike just proves that way more than 90% bacteria is lost by removing a healthy substrate and other decoration.

 
Advertising to check params ive explained somewhere above.... also beneficial bacteria has the ability to reproduce with a range time of 12-32 hours... so, having an air of caution is never a bad thing just incase it's does happen to be the latter, I never said that you needed and would definitely have a problem, what I stated was with any bare bones strip down, you are essentially removing a lot of stuff which as you say, feed the beneficial bacteria..however, because of the type of bare bones strip down this was all based on, your removing not only the bacteria of many kinds but also there food source.... no food source> not need for an element to feed off it.
 
 

This is a total speculation. The advise adding sensitive fish to tanks at least 6 months old has nothing to do with the Ph, tds, kh, etc...

 
But I could say your method is also speculation..... simply because both ways could result in the end product of a fish death... both unexplained essentially.... however, I have done both methods many many times, never had a fatality nor a drastic rise in ammonia etc etc and ive ran fish rooms with 30+ tanks.... I also have done bare bones strip downs and have had cory's breed many times non stop for days afterwards..... not so much sensitive fish but if this affected them as badly as your stating it could, I doubt very much they would continuously breed near enough straight after...... after all I would imagine a rainy season theoretically would work in a very similar way..... a vast amount of clean water(could be as much as a 60-90% increase) changing parameters and temperature quite drastically including a drastic rise in waste due to more wildlife, rotting knocked down tree,s uprooted plants, sediment be disturbed...general waste etc etc, but the ecosystem thrives..... in the wild this would be there time to breed, if it affected ecosystems this much, wouldn't it have a diverse effect rather than a life creating environment?
 
 

First of all, I need to know whether you are claiming whether a cycled filter on its own provides a mature enviroment or a tank that has been cycled for over 6 months. No one here tried to claim you need to wait 5 years for a tank to mature.
Stripping the tank down and claiming you don't need any of that bacteria is just totally irresponsible. As I tried to explain above it depends on the tank and setup where the bacteria has settled and even the type of bacteria, including the ammonia/nitrite bacteria types can differ from tank to tank. Waste and mulm on its own is not harmful to fish at all. I feed mulm to my fry and actually fed my shrimplets too with it. It contains very nutritious microorganisms I can't grow myself otherwise.  What's harmful, is if there isn't enough bacteria and microorganisms to degrade the waste, whether poop, degrading driftwood, leaves, etc.. to a level where it can be picked up by the ammo bacs, and instead it grows pathogenic bacteria and fungi on it. Also, not all waste is high in nitrogen compounds and it doesn't all release ammonia via additional processes.
 
If you are claiming that a sterile tank with wiped clean walls and bottom and cycled filter is better for fish due to the lack of waste, people have tried it on fry tanks and it works to an extent if you clean it several times a day, which is not practical.  But then again there is evidence that such tanks have harmful effect on fish like corydoras for example, because a bare tank, which in theory should be cleaner, tends to develop a harmful biofilm on the glass that can harm fry that are in constant contact with it, such as corydoras fry and it's recommended to keep a layer of substrate instead. These are completely different type of setups again, hence we can't generalize.
Also, those ammo bacs in the filter like a bit of waste in there to have available ammo at all time.
 
 
And I understand that this is just a discussion and there's nothing personal. I mean no hard feelings either. But I just refuse to go further. Everyone has enough information to try and research for themselves and make up their own mind. At the end, experience will teach you the hard way, no matter what you do.

 
No, again you have not read what I have stated, I wouldn't advise wiping literally every surface in a tank down incuding décor etc with out moving some if not all of the food source these were feeding on (basically a huge amount of decaying and rotting waste).... this obviously would cause problems...however, this was regarding a bare bones strip down which essentially makes a sterile environment in which life has to form again... ie, clean walls, clean substrate...but.... still maintaining a high level of waste bacteria and beneficial bacteria via the filter... which essentially is now dealing with the new much less load of the tank...however, it may not be slightly enough to deal with the load completely until it levels itself back out.... another reason to why I advise people just monitor params as a precaution.
 
 
Again techen, it certainly was an awesome post and ive actually learnt more from doing a little research on the methods your stating.....
 
 
and to TallTree01.... I have to agree, differences of opinion is certainly no bad thing and nothing to get peed off over, we learn at the same time as helping others (hopefully

)
 
OP, glad your all sorted with the swap over and can grats again

 

[snazy]

By the way, corys are often seen going into breeding mode when moved from one tank to another and for the record, mine were laying eggs once when I had an ammonia spike after overcleaning.
As for the oxygen availability, I don't mean all the bacteria starving for the lack of it. I mean there's normally a certain ppm amount of oxygen in the aquarium that limits the growth of huge population of bacteria even if you have media like sera siporax. It's just physics laws.
As for fish showing signs of oxygen shortage, it could be not just gasping, but ill effects, listlesness, sudden death, loss of appetite, etc..There are fish that require more oxygen in the water and fish that require less.

 

[JenCliBee]

By the way, corys are often seen going into breeding mode when moved from one tank to another and for the record, mine were laying eggs once when I had an ammonia spike after overcleaning.

Yes there is reports of cory's actually breeding before they die aswell, considered to be a population control, to spread there genes/bloodline and keep the population to a maximum..strength in numbers.... but, that comment is still irrelevant because my cory's have bred after a bare bones strip down with no peak in params except TDS and PH. Plecs have often been documented in doing the same thing.... most documented reason is believe it or not parameter differences, very much like parameter differences that happen in doing what the whole of this discussion is about lol. This has even happened when somebody brought a group of non breeding L260's from me, removed from a tank which was setup for around 2 years to a tank purposely setup and newly cycled and guess what, they bred within 24hrs (how peed off was I lol)..... but it shows that fluctuations don't necessary affect fish in a negative way (by the way, this person is till keeping and breeding the same group today...4 years on)
 
 
 

As for the oxygen availability, I don't mean all the bacteria starving for the lack of it. I mean there's normally a certain ppm amount of oxygen in the aquarium that limits the growth of huge population of bacteria even if you have media like sera siporax. It's just physics laws.

 
Isn't this considered equilibrium?, you can have a massive amount of surface agitation, but the dissolved O2 within the water will always remain at a certain level?.... simply because of the amount of solubility that can happen in water. But if what your saying is true, I would imagine the huge population  in which your saying is limited would be a limit way above what would ever be needed?.... simply because if it was limited to a to low a point, life in theory in tanks wouldn't actually be able to exist.
 
 
 

As for fish showing signs of oxygen shortage, it could be not just gasping, but ill effects, listlesness, sudden death, loss of appetite, etc..There are fish that require more oxygen in the water and fish that require less.

 
So your agreeing that if a limited amount of oxygen was actually present, enough to affect bacteria, then fish would also show signs of the above?..... well in this case your original comment/theory of limited oxygen couldn't stand up and like I said, if this was the issue (both bacteria and fish suffering), then it isn't a part of the tank itself causing the problem, rather an equipment to aid the tank causing it .....which would lead to lack of understanding of how everything works by the tank owner themselves?

 

[snazy]

You don't get what I am trying to say. It's probably my fault. I am not only pointing out a scenario when there are oxygen issues in the tank that lead to problems with fish health and bio bacteria.  What I am trying to say is that the bacterial population is limited to the amount of ammonia and oxygen available in a tank, yes, due to equilibrium as well in regards to oxygen. 
 If there is a scenario when oxygen deprivation happens for one reason or another, then both bacteria and fish will suffer. Who is going to suffer first is another question that's irrelevant at the moment, because either way it will be either fish suffering by suffocation or suffering by ammonia spike since there won't be enough oxygen for the bacteria to combine with ammonia.
 

So your agreeing that if a limited amount of oxygen was actually present, enough to affect bacteria, then fish would also show signs of the above?.

 
That depends how bad the situation is. I don't know and I haven't seen scientific info who is capable of extracting oxygen first but information I've read points that in a tank with high bioload and build up of organics those processes(not only bio bacteria) can strip the water from oxygen pretty fast causing fish to suffer which leads me to believe that bacteria is more competitive for oxygen than the fish. So yes, I agree that in certain scenarios it can get as bad that fish will show visual gasping, but they may as well show other "mystery" ill signs before it gets as bad.
 

but, that comment is still irrelevant because my cory's have bred after a bare bones strip down with no peak in params except TDS and PH.

 
 A sudden TDS change is most important than anything else. You are clearly stating that stripping down the tank can cause changes to TDS and Ph, which can actually kill some sensitive species and some not so sensitive.  And that's what I've been trying to say all along. The bacteria in the filter on its own won't hold the TDS and PH and other non-measurable parameters as they were before in some cases. And I can tell you from experience too with a 2 year old tank on which I changed the substrate only,  the TDS went up unusually high for some reason and my fishes got sick eventually. The TDS got back down after 3 months but my fish haven't recovered yet.
 
I am aware that some fish are triggered to spawn like this, but that's when you gradually change the parameters, not shock them in the space of a few hours.

 

[livvyy]

May I ask what op is?

 

[DreamertK]

OP = original poster, opening post. The person or post that started the thread, which happens to be you!

 

[JenCliBee]

You don't get what I am trying to say. It's probably my fault. I am not only pointing out a scenario when there are oxygen issues in the tank that lead to problems with fish health and bio bacteria.  What I am trying to say is that the bacterial population is limited to the amount of ammonia and oxygen available in a tank, yes, due to equilibrium as well in regards to oxygen. 
 If there is a scenario when oxygen deprivation happens for one reason or another, then both bacteria and fish will suffer. Who is going to suffer first is another question that's irrelevant at the moment, because either way it will be either fish suffering by suffocation or suffering by ammonia spike since there won't be enough oxygen for the bacteria to combine with ammonia.

 
It's not that I don't get what your saying but rather what your initially now trying to say?..... for me reading all this, it sounds like you have taken a step back in regards to the above comment.
 
This was your initial statement which started the whole oxygen in the water and it being restricted...
 

The limitation of filters is that not enough oxygen can reach there fast enough to keep all the bactetia you need in a tank alive. Hence why trickle filters are more efficient as bio filters as they've got direct access to atmospheric oxygen

 
Now it sounds like your stating more that a problem 'within the tank' would make the filters less effective and not the filters themselves like your initial statement suggested.... and yes it would, however this would be very common knowledge, this is exactly what I stated many posts ago.
 
There are probably many factors why oxygen could be limited, none would be at fault with the filter apart from the lack flow which would be either caused by clogging (responsibility of the owner to ensure this doesn't happen) or a fault, not a direct inability of the filter. 
 
Now as mentioned before, the amount of oxygen within the water would be the same as what is passing through the filter to the bacteria.
 
The restrictions lay with a tank problem itself, however most problems are generally avoiding by good husbandry... water change etc etc... however there are some unforeseen things which could affect it...ie, heater malfunction causing temperature to rise, making oxygen less soluble or even bio film collection on the surface restricting gas exchange..... either way, most waste bacteria wont be affected because they can extract o2 from other things, nitrate is the first thing that comes to mind.... so, basically what the whole point of this is, because waste bacteria is so easy to get to multiply (as quick as 15 minutes) and the fact that it doesn't need free air...wiping and removing it, really isn't a major concern because within hours the colony could be at near full strength again...however it wouldn't need to be because in this whole scenario, the waste bacteria is removed aswell as it's food source..ie the substrate and subsequent  waste.
 

So your agreeing that if a limited amount of oxygen was actually present, enough to affect bacteria, then fish would also show signs of the above?.

 
That depends how bad the situation is. I don't know and I haven't seen scientific info who is capable of extracting oxygen first but information I've read points that in a tank with high bioload and build up of organics those processes(not only bio bacteria) can strip the water from oxygen pretty fast causing fish to suffer which leads me to believe that bacteria is more competitive for oxygen than the fish. So yes, I agree that in certain scenarios it can get as bad that fish will show visual gasping, but they may as well show other "mystery" ill signs before it gets as bad.

 
As I mentioned above.
 
scenarios for this sort of thing need to be drastic or unforeseen, a good, well kept tank wouldn't have any of these problems unless an equipment failure was to happen...... but again it needs to go back to the initial reasons to why this debate is happening, no scenario of the stuff that has been mentioned/suggested would affect oxygen problems.... simply because the things that are being done are encouraging o2/gas exchange.
 
 

but, that comment is still irrelevant because my cory's have bred after a bare bones strip down with no peak in params except TDS and PH.

 
 A sudden TDS change is most important than anything else. You are clearly stating that stripping down the tank can cause changes to TDS and Ph, which can actually kill some sensitive species and some not so sensitive.  And that's what I've been trying to say all along. The bacteria in the filter on its own won't hold the TDS and PH and other non-measurable parameters as they were before in some cases. And I can tell you from experience too with a 2 year old tank on which I changed the substrate only,  the TDS went up unusually high for some reason and my fishes got sick eventually. The TDS got back down after 3 months but my fish haven't recovered yet.
 
I am aware that some fish are triggered to spawn like this, but that's when you gradually change the parameters, not shock them in the space of a few hours.

 
 
I highly doubt this was causing the problem, yes a drastic change in tds could actually be considered bad and possibly lead to problems, however it's the tds itself which is the biggest factor.... for example crs require quite a low tds in regards to health etc.... if this was to rise considerably, the shrimp will suffer.... doing a water change (as long as the tap water is at a lower tds) will lower the amounts considerably.... ensuring optimum conditions for said shrimp.... left to continue to rise and there is a big risk in the shrimp dieing.... ie, yes tds does play a big role but more on the 'out of suitability side' than actually the change in it.
 
As to you removing the substrate and having a huge rise in tds, how did you measure this?...... did you do a full strip down water change at the same time?, did you wipe all of the waste which collected on after disturbing the substrate?..... the only way your tds would rise after doing a complete strip down would be if you tap water was considerably higher than the tank water was before the strip down. Literally everything you add into a tank will cause a tds rise, some rise it more than others, some as they are decaying rise it. Having it rise after stripping a tank down doesn't sound quite right unless you adding a serious amount of fertilisers and additives (even water conditioners raise tds).
 
I have been breeding plecs and cory's for 10+ years and breeding various shrimp (including some considered very sensitive ones) and I have always done the method of a large cool water change which has dropped the tds by a decent amount (not drastic).... and I have only ever had successful results, not illness due to it and certainly no deaths (only deaths I had were when the water board adding extra chemicals to the water supply).
 
So.....to conclude what i'm saying here, drastic changes should really never be needed, if a good tank regime and maintenance plan is adhered to (and it should be anyways).... the rises between water changes should be quite minimal in general even after a full strip down and change..... however, in planted tanks, the additions of ferts does drastic raise tds.... try it yourself, add tap water to a glass, test tds, add a mixed all in one fert and watch the tds rise..... if you do a water change once a week on said planted tank, each day the ferts are added, tds is rising.... this is on top of a normal raise due to organic waste, bacteria waste etc, by the end of the week the change in tds will usually be considerable..... so when you do that water change at the end of the week, your will be drastically changing the tds due to there tap water been considerably lower.... ask most planted tank enthusiast how there fish do, most will say better than they ever did in a none planted tank....even though tds readings are drastically changing by the week.
 
Not to say your wrong with your tank in all this but I would consider other possibilities for the problems.... how did you test your TDS btw?.

 

[snazy]

I haven't stepped back or twisted my comments. But you are trying to twist them. I just presented several scenarios in order to try and explain it to you. Go and ask on any forum whether the substrate plays important role in a tank and see what you get as an answer. Substrate is as important as filters.
 

As to you removing the substrate and having a huge rise in tds, how did you measure this?...... did you do a full strip down water change at the same time? did you wipe all of the waste which collected on after disturbing the substrate?..... the only way your tds would rise after doing a complete strip down would be if you tap water was considerably higher than the tank water was before the strip down

 
I measured it with a TDS meter, what else? Yes, everything was removed while the fish were in another container with the filters, heater and their original water in there.  The tank was wiped clean. I did several water changes in the tank after I removed all substrate and placed the new one, with dechlorinator at each water change. Then I drained the tank one more time and put the original water back in from the container with the fish, and the fish, fil;ters, etc...
As for what raised the TDS, you also claimed that stripping the tank down to filters only raised the TDS and Ph in your tanks. So you can answer that question too.
 
If you are trying to convince me that substrate has no role in a tank, you can't.  So I'll just stop commenting further. You can do it your way, I can do it my way.
By the way, how old is your oldest cory?

 

[JenCliBee]

I haven't stepped back or twisted my comments. But you are trying to twist them. I just presented several scenarios in order to try and explain it to you. Go and ask on any forum whether the substrate plays important role in a tank and see what you get as an answer. Substrate is as important as filters.

 
Firstly I didn't say you were twisting anything lol.... secondly, your previous comments were completely the opposite to what you initially said regarding filter efficiencies and o2 levels.... so yes you have stepped back/change your story or whatever you want to call it..... we will leave others to determine that.
 
Why do I need to go to another forum for them to tell me, I am part of one of the biggest forums here and it seems it's only you that has thrown direct comments..even on a scientific scale which I have challenged and even backed up with science myself.
 
As to substrate is just as important as filter..... go and have a read of what all this is about, ive not said otherwise.... there are scenarios where substrate can be quite important...however we wasn't talking about 'these' scenarios, we were talking about one in particular.... and that's removal and the process of how a tank works after that scenario ONLY. I don't twist words, I haven't stepped back and all my original statements are consistent.
 
 

I measured it with a TDS meter, what else? Yes, everything was removed while the fish were in another container with the filters, heater and their original water in there.  The tank was wiped clean. I did several water changes in the tank after I removed all substrate and placed the new one, with dechlorinator at each water change. Then I drained the tank one more time and put the original water back in from the container with the fish, and the fish, fil;ters, etc...
As for what raised the TDS, you also claimed that stripping the tank down to filters only raised the TDS and Ph in your tanks. So you can answer that question too.
 
If you are trying to convince me that substrate has no role in a tank, you can't.  So I'll just stop commenting further. You can do it your way, I can do it my way.

 
I don't actually think I did but you may have mistaken the following....
 
 
If your referring to this comment.....
 

as to the general params TDS/KH/GH/PH.... leaving a tank to decrease these params can actually lead to serious problems, hence we do water changes to remove compounds which actually directly affect this

 
Then blame punctuation and my rush with typing...... what it should have said or how I should of worded it....
 
as to the general parameters TDS/KH/GH/PH.....leaving a tank to decrease (basically the quality of water, dirtiness etc etc... then there should be a comma..... then..... these parameters can actually lead to serious problems.... hence we do water changes etc etc.....( basically I mean a tank left to mature) (with bad husbandry) and crap left to fester (in tank and under substrate) can directly affect these parameters, PH can plummet (and infact rise), and TDS go through the roof.
 
Basically if you read what ive re-written above and then added it to the rest of that statement, it would make more sense to what I actually meant

 
Have a look at the last part of my previous post, that will explain all about what I mean with TDS...but it looks like you dismissed all what I wrote there to pick up on one tiny part which was punctuated wrongly

 
 
I will admit I wrote that completely wrong and I apologise for the confusion.
 
As to convincing YOU about the substrate having no role in the tank...you seriously need to actually read what I have written and in what context it 'has' been written.... I will say again, I HAVE NOT ONCE STATED THAT SUBSTRATE HAS NO ROLE WITHIN A TANK. lol
 

By the way, how old is your oldest cory?

 
 
I don't keep any fish and haven't for a few months for personal reasons...however my eldest cory was around 13 years old (had it as a 6 months old fry) when it finally bit the bullet (a lot older than most general people that keep cory's I assure you)... I had my eldest breeding group with no losses for nine years (so 11 years old, they were around 2 years old when I obtained them as a non breeding group).
 
Why?, was that your sure fire way of trying to see if my methods are actually detrimental to the fish lol.... as you can see, that's a big no.
 
 
Anyways, I can see this ending in a slanging match and not a friendly debate so I will bow down and let others decide on what they see as correct

.
 
Was interesting techen and sometimes a very interesting read

  

 

[snazy]

This post below is from Tom Barr on another forum and the one below is from another very knowledgeable member:
 

Issues with O2 seem to cause havoc in planted tanks due to higher organic matter, and biomass, if these die back much.....plants.........and their roots......which pump O2 into the sediment............so that sediment is a gaint filter essentially, then like Ady suggest, you(the aquarium) will pay........

Whenever I do large trims etc, I always do large water changes, it might be due to O2, or some other factor, but O2 seems to be a biggy.

If you are a small microscopic bacteria, archaea etc..........NH4 is a hot commodity. So you are going to use a lot of O2 to oxidize and get all that reducing energy out of the NH4. That's fine if there is a stable supply of NH4 and.........plenty of O2 around..........but that's often rare.

Many of these bacteria like to live in the O2/no O2 interface where the NH4 leaches up through the sediment.
They are close to the source of NH4 production..........and right at the limits of O2 to oxidize NH4. So having lower O2 tolerance is typical. While our filters will often have high O2, once we turn them off, in perhaps less than 10-15 minutes, many cnaister filters will have zero ppm in the water.

Sumps seem to have much less issue with shutting the filter off vs a sealed canister, and it's fairy obvious if you consider O2.

 

That is pretty much what I think, it is back to the schematic from the trickle filter

or the Winogradsky column <http/www.biology.ed.ac.uk/research/groups/jdeacon/microbes/winograd.htm>, but instead of the boundaries being the artificial drawn straight lines, they are diffusion gradients of gases and nutrients that move backwards and forwards as conditions change, with the gases and organic compounds being utilised by an ever changing microbial assemblage.

Additionally because inside the canister we are in the dark, we don't have any light utilising autotrophs, everything has to get its energy by chemical means and oxygen is likely to be in short supply.

cheers Darrel

 

[JenCliBee]

This really will be my last post now because this is getting very silly..... the fact you have gone and found evidence which has no relevance to the original topic is preposterous.
 
The quotes you have actually posted are referring to an ecosystem type scenario which revolves round a planted tank base and system. It is a completely difference scenario (substrate wise and o2 wise) to anything that was brought up in the original debate. There is a reason why the substrate is so important in a plant tank scenario..however that's just my point exactly, a PLANTED TANK scenario. I have commented so many times that I have not said a substrate plays no role in a tank when different scenarios are involved.
 
 
Now.... if the original bases from the OP or wherever this debate started from was based on a 'planted tank' then my views would differ from what they had been, but it isn't and I wont.
 
I'm not getting into the whole "why the substrate is so important in a planted tank" scenario because it's erilivent here for this particular scenario and to be quite frank, I really cant be arsed lol.
 
As you said previously, you do what you want and I will also do as ive done for the past 10+, the thread here is for anybody that wants to read it and make the own minds up on what really matters to them, after all,that really is the whole point of a forum, to gain and give knowledge where best. A healthy 'friendly' debate is one thing, trying to prove a point by completely changing the whole original scenario just to have some self gratification isn't something i'm interested in, sorry!.

 

[snazy]

Firstly I didn't say you were twisting anything lol.... secondly, your previous comments were completely the opposite to what you initially said regarding filter efficiencies and o2 levels.... so yes you have stepped back/change your story or whatever you want to call it..... we will leave others to determine that.

 
I think you are digging deep to find something just to keep going and make my comments sound ridiculous in order to show you are right. There is no right or wrong here because each tank and each scenario is different. If for you totally stripping a tank works, for many others it causes issues. It all depends on how the tank was ran previously. Obviously bare tanks will have less issues being "stripped down".  But tanks like mine which have plants, very old substrate, etc.... will experience a set back.
There is a situation when certain filters will not have access to enough of oxygen to develop bacteria to the capacity of the filter media for reasons already explained.  There is a scenario when the water colum itself won't have enough of oxygen. There are a lot of scenarios why not everything important is in the filter. I can't bring it down to one scenario, because there isn't such a scenario to which all of us can stick and call it the absolute law in aquarium.
 I am just touching multiple possibilities in attempt to explain something you refuse to understand. You are trying to convince people with little experience that moving and changing substrate around is totally fine in 100% of the cases. Sadly it isn't. But I agree that in certain cases it doesn't cause a big problem, especially not in tanks that experience total make over every 3 months and are used for breeding purposes and no other decoration or substrate. But attempt that in a 1-2 year old tank that has grown to develop a full flora and fauna of all kinds, inclusind the micro ones.  By removing the substrate, you would cause a total disbalance and I stand by that.
 
Here is some general info about substrates:
http/www.skepticalaquarist.com/substrate
 
As for oxygen, I hope the posts from Tom Barr and Darrel explain something to you why oxygen is in short supply, including in a cannister filter. It also answers the question about trickle filters.

This really will be my last post now because this is getting very silly..... the fact you have gone and found evidence which has no relevance to the original topic is preposterous.
 
The quotes you have actually posted are referring to an ecosystem type scenario which revolves round a planted tank base and system. It is a completely difference scenario (substrate wise and o2 wise) to anything that was brought up in the original debate. There is a reason why the substrate is so important in a plant tank scenario..however that's just my point exactly, a PLANTED TANK scenario. I have commented so many times that I have not said a substrate plays no role in a tank when different scenarios are involved.

 
Now you prefer to stick to the original post. Good. However, from the very beginning I asked that you don't generalize your statements, because people have different types of setups and your "ways" may not apply very well to all.
And with, or without the plants, the substrate pays important role. The quoted posts above answer some of the questions you mentioned you've never come across such info, besides from me...So with a bit of a delay I bothered to give you some info that I said is out there for you to find.

 

[Lilfishy]

How did this thread get to this?
The op's original question was answered within a few posts