Quote:
Originally Posted by sphelps
One could cut the source even further back and decrease the amount of fish but with this logic why not remove the tank all together and eliminate the problem completely? While this may seem harsh I think if someone is willing to spend more on water changes to keep a couple more fish or feed a little more, that's his or her option.
|
Keeping a lower fish load is the easiest way to achieve lower nutrients. That's pretty simple logic, although people really don't seem to link the two for some reason.
Personally, I despise battling nutrients so I keep a small fish load. I am not using any artificial filtration at all; no carbon, GFO, filter socks, skimmer - not even a sump. The only mechanical things in my tank are the Tunze Wavebox, a MaxiJet 1200, and a heater. You will find very little algae in my tank, and my phosphate and nitrate are undetectable using both Salifert and Elos kits. Oh, and I'm one lazy SOB...I have done two 15% water changes since I set the tank up in June.
I have been using Zeo lately (my phos and nitrate were already undetectable before starting Zeo), but really only for the last 6 weeks or so for most of it. I'm not using any of the Zeo biological additives (yet), and I'm not dosing a carbon source. This isn't the first low fish load tank I've had either! I figure there is a simple way and a not so simple way. I would rather my tank is simple than have a large aesthetically pleasing fish load.
So a person shouldn't trivialize lowering the fish load like that!
