Don't you wish you could have what the title here says? Like any myth, the balanced community tank keeps returning as an idea because it offers us something we want. Eternal clean water would be a great thing. I was just sent the latest version by a friend who's a true believer in the method, and it got me thinking about the endless return of a debunked idea.
I was 'trained' in 'balanced aquarium keeping". It was the in thing when I was in my teens, back in the 1970s. You never changed water - indeed - old water had almost magical properties we were supposed to harness. Deep gravel, plants, lots of fish... and we all knew the lifespans of fish were short, right?
You can radically reduce water changing with a modified version of this way of working. I have killie tanks I change 30% of every 2nd or 3rd week. They are heavily planted, bio-filtered and have a startup stocking of one 2 inch fish per 5 gallons. True believers in balanced tanks tend not to mention that issue of numbers and species choice - I only run tanks that way for fish from swamps. The general trend for hobbyists is to ask how many fish they can keep in a tank, not how few.
When I go beyond 3 weeks, the fish lose vitality and seem more vulnerable to parasites, should any get in. They breed less. Based on that, I make basic changes (I never top up tanks - I do water changes to accomplish that).
I have no ammonia testing kits. I suppose I could walk my fish to the edge, delaying water changes until the test kit showed a colour that concerned me, but a pre-emptive routine in a tank that isn't overstocked (in time, that 10 gallon with a pair of killies usually gets up to about 15 adult fish, as they breed and I share out young fish). Test kits can be useful, but there is so much important info they don't give you that they can become hindrances as well as helps. Water hardness, acidity and alkalinity, tds, conductivity - you could spend a lot of time reading data, or you can change water and have 9 year old cardinals and 7 year old Bettas.
So I am being a little bit of a troublemaker with that title, but having started using balanced or natural aquarium techniques, and then having watched better methods replace them, I don't enjoy the return of this busted myth. Our tanks are too small, and our numbers of fish ambitions are too large. I could tell people what they want to here, and if I did it on youtube, I could probably have a good following. I look at natural in fishtanks this way - if I take proper care of my fish by doing regular as clockwork 25-30% water changes in most tanks (all of which are planted, well planted), then once a week I get to be a raincloud, a sewage system (less poetic) and a responsible, successful fishkeeper. It isn't a lot of work. Gardening, farming and raising animals seems to come naturally for many in our species. I can enjoy watching the field behind my house do what it does without my getting too involved. But if I want to grow tomatoes, I have to get into the garden and make it happen. It's the same for beautiful aquariums.
I was 'trained' in 'balanced aquarium keeping". It was the in thing when I was in my teens, back in the 1970s. You never changed water - indeed - old water had almost magical properties we were supposed to harness. Deep gravel, plants, lots of fish... and we all knew the lifespans of fish were short, right?
You can radically reduce water changing with a modified version of this way of working. I have killie tanks I change 30% of every 2nd or 3rd week. They are heavily planted, bio-filtered and have a startup stocking of one 2 inch fish per 5 gallons. True believers in balanced tanks tend not to mention that issue of numbers and species choice - I only run tanks that way for fish from swamps. The general trend for hobbyists is to ask how many fish they can keep in a tank, not how few.
When I go beyond 3 weeks, the fish lose vitality and seem more vulnerable to parasites, should any get in. They breed less. Based on that, I make basic changes (I never top up tanks - I do water changes to accomplish that).
I have no ammonia testing kits. I suppose I could walk my fish to the edge, delaying water changes until the test kit showed a colour that concerned me, but a pre-emptive routine in a tank that isn't overstocked (in time, that 10 gallon with a pair of killies usually gets up to about 15 adult fish, as they breed and I share out young fish). Test kits can be useful, but there is so much important info they don't give you that they can become hindrances as well as helps. Water hardness, acidity and alkalinity, tds, conductivity - you could spend a lot of time reading data, or you can change water and have 9 year old cardinals and 7 year old Bettas.
So I am being a little bit of a troublemaker with that title, but having started using balanced or natural aquarium techniques, and then having watched better methods replace them, I don't enjoy the return of this busted myth. Our tanks are too small, and our numbers of fish ambitions are too large. I could tell people what they want to here, and if I did it on youtube, I could probably have a good following. I look at natural in fishtanks this way - if I take proper care of my fish by doing regular as clockwork 25-30% water changes in most tanks (all of which are planted, well planted), then once a week I get to be a raincloud, a sewage system (less poetic) and a responsible, successful fishkeeper. It isn't a lot of work. Gardening, farming and raising animals seems to come naturally for many in our species. I can enjoy watching the field behind my house do what it does without my getting too involved. But if I want to grow tomatoes, I have to get into the garden and make it happen. It's the same for beautiful aquariums.
