# LIfespan of a Planted tank



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

Does anyone feel a planted tank has a certain lifespan before the tank has to be taken down and restarted. What I mean by this, is even in a very well kept tank where lifestock, food is kept to a minimum and the water is changed weekly does organic material build up to a point where it's just not as easy or as practical to take care of the tank after a certain time span. 

Although my tank is fine, I notice with my 18 month old 72g, it seems that I notice more organic material on plant leaves, gravel, etc. and the tank is quicker to get BBA on some of the non-growing surfaces and I feel it's more work to keep it looking pristine than it used to be. I know there are some planted tank folks that feel this is true, but I wanted to get some reaction, thanks!


----------



## anonapersona (Mar 11, 2004)

*gravel cleaning*

I recall reading somewhere that even a planted tank ought to be gravel cleaned regularly. The suggestion was to uproot one third of the tank each year, I think, and gravel clean it well, then replant. So, in 3 years the whole thing is done.

I never tried that, but I noticed that the tank did start to decline as mulm built up in the Flourite. I suspect that it is similar to compaction in the lawn where if the soil is compacted, air and nutrients cannot move through the soil.

I nearly lost my Red Wendtii crypts that had been so tall and lush that I sold them regularly with great success. Now that I had to move the tank, and removed all the gravel, rinsed and replanted, those crypts are starting to grow nicely again. I could hardly find them, only stubs left that were hard to ID.

I did lose many plants along the way. That tank had been set up for 5 years or more. I also lost a lot of fish along the way, starting with the cories. The kuhlies were always fine as were the shrimp, but I lost nearly everything else, one by one.

Now, I intend to do the cleaning along the way. Someone remind me next January!!


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

anonapersona said:


> I recall reading somewhere that even a planted tank ought to be gravel cleaned regularly. The suggestion was to uproot one third of the tank each year, I think, and gravel clean it well, then replant. So, in 3 years the whole thing is done.
> 
> I never tried that, but I noticed that the tank did start to decline as mulm built up in the Flourite. I suspect that it is similar to compaction in the lawn where if the soil is compacted, air and nutrients cannot move through the soil.
> 
> ...


Thanks for sharing that. Sounds familiar because I have not found a reasonable explanaton for why my Aromatica has stopped growing after having it lush for over a year. I've tried all sorts of dosing changes, etc to no avail. I actually like that idea to uproot portions of the tank in order to gravel wash.


----------



## Bert H (Mar 2, 2004)

I gravel vack whenever I uproot/replant. In the span of a year, the whole tank probably gets done twice.


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

The question of how long it takes mulm to accumulate is part of the issue, but there are other changes that take place as well. All substrates tend to become inert over time, basically becoming equivalent to using just plain gravel. Also, people's free time, tastes, and circumstances change over time too. I'd be willing to bet that the average setup has a lifespan of somewhere between 1 and 2 years.


----------



## aquabillpers (Apr 13, 2006)

anonapersona said:


> I nearly lost my Red Wendtii crypts that had been so tall and lush that I sold them regularly with great success. Now that I had to move the tank, and removed all the gravel, rinsed and replanted, those crypts are starting to grow nicely again. I could hardly find them, only stubs left that were hard to ID.


Well, just to bear witness that there are always exceptions, my wendtiis have been thriving in a soil-based tank for over two years, along with several other plant types. The substrate has never been disturbed. The leaves of some of the crypts have grown out of the water.

Bill


----------



## Kelley (Aug 27, 2006)

guaiac_boy said:


> The question of how long it takes mulm to accumulate is part of the issue, but there are other changes that take place as well. All substrates tend to become inert over time, basically becoming equivalent to using just plain gravel.


Guaiac Boy, I am puzzled by this statement. Do substrates cease to exchange cationsonce the surface of them has become fully adsorbed. Wouldn't there be a steady state exchange as the plants utilize the cations and then are replaced from the water column? Why would this change over time?


----------



## essabee (Oct 11, 2006)

The life-span of my planted tank rests in my mind. One fine day I will start hating the looks of a tank, inspite the admiration of others. From that day that tank cannot do well. Nothing grows well, the fishes don't look happy, the lights are bad, the decors are funny, the layout is all wrong.

Nothing works unless I reset everything, then starts the forgotten fight and wait to make the new layout look good.

Then the cycle...................................................

Thats the life.


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

Kelley said:


> Guaiac Boy, I am puzzled by this statement. Do substrates cease to exchange cationsonce the surface of them has become fully adsorbed. Wouldn't there be a steady state exchange as the plants utilize the cations and then are replaced from the water column? Why would this change over time?


What I was referring to primarily is the effect of "enriched" substrates such as those from ADA, eco complete, and to a lesser extent flourite & onyx. ADA adds a sizeable load of nutrients & organics to their mix, generally accepted to help plants along in the early stages of a setup. Eco complete is advertised to contain "over 25 elements.....and heterotrophic bacteria."

Any element (nutrient) that is not essentially inert will eventually be consumed. The primary benefit of flourite & onyx is probably their high iron content. I suspect that benefits of this could last a very long time, given the high levels that are trapped within the clay, but I'm guessing that the easily removed iron at the surface of the particles is probably consumed first.

As for the high CEC capactiy of some substrates such as soilmaster & others, my understanding of the chemistry is less clear. I don't believe that this ability is "consumed". A steady-state condition probably does develop. A good vacuuming of the substrate once in a while is probably necessary to remove packed-in mulm, but that isn't a limitting factor in the life-span of a tank.


----------



## Nowherman6 (May 1, 2006)

You mean to say that fine looking 72 G of yours is finally showing its age? I don't believe it. 

Actually, I see evidence of this in my 4G. It depends on the tank really. Some age faster than others. It can be anywhere from less than a year to a few years. But on average, I think if you keep a tank going strong for 1.5 years, you've done well. 

Sometimes a minor makeover will fix it, sometimes I imagine it's necessary to start over with fresh substrate and filter materials etc. to fully remove any organic build-up.


----------



## djlen (Jun 22, 2004)

I just completely changed over my show tank after almost 10 years. Not because it was slowing down or showing signs of 'age', but because it was over-grown the point where the fish had no room to swim, and I just got sick of looking at the thing. I know it could have gone on for the foreseeable future if I had pruned it out and done a deep gravel vac., but I just couldn't deal with the vegetation. I had different varieties of Cryptocoryne growing into each other and it was just a mess. It has received a complete face lift. 

I've got a grow-out tank that gets stuff uprooted and moved frequently and when I move things I deep gravel vac. the void that is left similar to Bert H's description. Then I replant the spot that I just vacced. That tank has 5" of flourite all over and the plants do just fine for me with no compacting that I'm aware of. BTW, there is a grove of C. wendtii in that tank that, for the most part has never been moved. I pull runners off the edges to give away, but the main body of the grove has been in there since 1992 or so.
IMO, a tank will run fine if regular maintenance is given, for as long as you like the way it looks.

Len


----------



## deepdiver (May 30, 2006)

aquabillpers said:


> Well, just to bear witness that there are always exceptions, my wendtiis have been thriving in a soil-based tank for over two years, along with several other plant types. The substrate has never been disturbed. The leaves of some of the crypts have grown out of the water.
> 
> Bill


I have several substrates. I have problems with mulm build equating to slight algae problems in an Eco-complete tank, Schultz's A.S. tank and Schultz's/Tahitian moon sand tank. The most stable tank has been a 25% sand/75% potting soil with laterite on the bottom. I havn't read Diane Walstad's book, but I'm starting to think that type of substrate is the way to go. Plus, it looks really nice. Staring at that tank almost makes me feel like I am snorkeling in a South American river.


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

Nowherman6 said:


> You mean to say that fine looking 72 G of yours is finally showing its age? I don't believe it.
> 
> Actually, I see evidence of this in my 4G. It depends on the tank really. Some age faster than others. It can be anywhere from less than a year to a few years. But on average, I think if you keep a tank going strong for 1.5 years, you've done well.
> 
> Sometimes a minor makeover will fix it, sometimes I imagine it's necessary to start over with fresh substrate and filter materials etc. to fully remove any organic build-up.


Nice to see you over here at APC, nowher! My tank is holding up, but I do notice more organic material on plant leaves, etc and I think after 1.5 years it will eventually led to some problems. I do agree with everyone's statements about the tank needing an overhaul of some sort eventually. I wasn't really referring to the richness of the substrate overtime since I dose the water column requarly. BTW - The aromatica is barely growing even after upping dosage, inserting root tabs, etc. So if the aromatica was a root feeder I would think the root tabs would have given it a boost.


----------



## lildark185 (Jul 7, 2006)

Talking about the mulm settling in and compacting, wouldn't it be possible to periodically stick a powerhead into whatever substrate you have and let it run for a couple seconds to get some water movement through it? By doing this, it could eject the mulm and bring cleaner water to the roots. Another way would be to use an air pump and some tubing and stick it into the substrate at different locations in the tank. Then whatever mulm that isn't cleaned up by the filter could be gravel vacuumed. Just my opinion.


----------



## Bert H (Mar 2, 2004)

> but the main body of the grove has been in there since 1992 or so.


That's amazing, Len! Do you have mts? One of my tanks has 4-5 inches of substrates, and one time when I pulled out the Crypt patch (6months old in my case), I got a whiff of hydrogen sulfide. It concerned me, but nothing happened - of course, I did a large water change afterwards.

Another tank, I have a stand of Crypt spiralis that whenever I uproot that mess, it comes out as a brick of root/substrate. If you ever do pull out that patch of Crypts, take a pic and show us.


----------



## Nowherman6 (May 1, 2006)

> So if the aromatica was a root feeder I would think the root tabs would have given it a boost.


Depends on the kind of root tabs IMO. Seachems have worked very well for me in the past, whereas others have been pretty crummy.

Also, maybe the aromatica is just burned out? You've had that for quite a while, I wonder if some fresh trimmings may do better for you if you were inclined to keep that grouping.


----------



## banderbe (Nov 17, 2005)

My concern about gravel vacuuming eco-complete is that the eco-complete has a lot of fine particulate that is light enough for the vac to pick up. 

I am concerned that over time I will find I have a lot less substrate than before.. 

Great thread though! A not often discussed topic.. very informative.


----------



## karmalotus (May 2, 2006)

I have the eco-complete substrate, I made the mistake of vacuuming it. Not only did I clog up the python tube, I also clogged the pipes in my sink!! So if you do vacuum~~ do so with caution!! 
I also had to cover the top layer with gravel because I could see my loaches and cories stressing due to the small particles in their gills. Poor guys!!


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

banderbe said:


> My concern about gravel vacuuming eco-complete is that the eco-complete has a lot of fine particulate that is light enough for the vac to pick up.
> 
> I am concerned that over time I will find I have a lot less substrate than before..
> 
> Great thread though! A not often discussed topic.. very informative.


Trick i learned when vaccuming any small sized substrate is to use the longest gravel wash head that works with your tank and when you see the substrate getting to high in the head and near the tube you just squeeze the tubing. This will reduce flow and the heavy objects in the tube will fall back into the tank. Even the small size grains of eco are heavier than mulm, etc. This technique is used all the time to gravel wash sand-based salt water tanks.

Nowher, - BTW I did actually use the Seachem tabs to no avail.


----------



## banderbe (Nov 17, 2005)

thanks for the info I'll give it a shot


----------



## AaronT (Apr 26, 2004)

Interesting topic.

I used to believe that I could load up a tank with tons of fish and let the plants do the filtering. I'm becoming more and more of a believer of small bioloads and what some would call overfiltration. Water quality seems to play a large role in keeping algae at bay.

I always try to at least go over the surface of the gravel when I water change to make sure I get any mulm that's starting to build up.


----------



## brennewoman (Feb 6, 2007)

I wish I had a good answer for this, but our tanks have always been taken down after about four years...not because they needed to be, but because we're military and have had to move cross country.


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

AaronT said:


> Interesting topic.
> 
> I used to believe that I could load up a tank with tons of fish and let the plants do the filtering. I'm becoming more and more of a believer of small bioloads and what some would call overfiltration. Water quality seems to play a large role in keeping algae at bay.
> 
> I always try to at least go over the surface of the gravel when I water change to make sure I get any mulm that's starting to build up.


Your preaching to the choir. I've believed for a very long time that the control of organics in the tank is the single best thing you could do to minimize algae problems and give you more breathing room with ferts and light. The reduction of these organics will IMO extend the "life" of the tank because it will take longer for the organics to build up and create a situation where maintenance will just be too much and one will decide to break-down the tank. I also believe as Aaron pointed out that this reduction of organics combined with overfiltration whether that be an large biological filter in the traditional sense and alot of plants will be a win-win. Compare two opposite ends of the spectrum. A nano tank, if done correctly, most have almost no livestock, thus very little waste will accumulate from the fish or the food. Many of these tanks are algae free dispite the fact that they have alot of light and in many cases no filter and no flow. Then compare it to an outdoor pond, where the koi/goldfish are tremendeous waste producers and the pellet food is thrown in, most of these environments have massive algae problems (Granted many are in the Sun, but I've actually seen indoor ponds with little light and lots of algae).

I actually believe flow is extremely overrated. How much water movement does it take to move things (ferts, co2) around 3 or 4 feet (size of most tanks). Think in terms of nature and that is virtually no distance. The fish swimming through the water will move things that far let alone the filter output. Regardless of the filter strength nothing short of a tornado will take the mulm off the bottom of the tank and bring it to the filter intake. The idea is to limit the mulm to begin with.


----------



## AaronT (Apr 26, 2004)

houseofcards said:


> I actually believe flow is extremely overrated. How much water movement does it take to move things (ferts, co2) around 3 or 4 feet (size of most tanks). Think in terms of nature and that is virtually no distance. The fish swimming through the water will move things that far let alone the filter output. Regardless of the filter strength nothing short of a tornado will take the mulm off the bottom of the tank and bring it to the filter intake. The idea is to limit the mulm to begin with.


Amen to that one too. I believe this was the main reason for the increased growth everyone saw back when they were experimented with 'CO2 mist' and I use the term lightly.

In almost every case they had improved the flow in their tank either by changing the pattern or increasing the rate.


----------



## aquabillpers (Apr 13, 2006)

AaronT said:


> Interesting topic.
> 
> I used to believe that I could load up a tank with tons of fish and let the plants do the filtering. I'm becoming more and more of a believer of small bioloads and what some would call overfiltration. Water quality seems to play a large role in keeping algae at bay.
> 
> I always try to at least go over the surface of the gravel when I water change to make sure I get any mulm that's starting to build up.


I think that this is another one of those issues that is best answered by, "It depends."

If one is maintaining a high light, high nutrient tank, water changing and substrate cleaning is much more important than it is in a low light, low nutrient environment, simply because there is more "stuff" generated in the former.

In fact, in low light tanks, water changing and substrate cleaning can cause problems, because of the nutrients that enter the water column faster than the slower growing plants can accomodate them.

Bill


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

aquabillpers said:


> I think that this is another one of those issues that is best answered by, "It depends."
> 
> If one is maintaining a high light, high nutrient tank, water changing and substrate cleaning is much more important than it is in a low light, low nutrient environment, simply because there is more "stuff" generated in the former.
> 
> ...


I have to be honest, I don't really agree with that. Unless I miss understand what you saying, if you have a low light tank your letting waste accumulate by not doing water changes or gravel washes. Add to that the plants uptake is limited. Wouldn't that create a tank with a lot of waste that isn't replenished with fresh water. Low light or high light you will get algae in tank like that. If your not dosing anything, and your trying to keep the waste in the tank I could understand it to a point, but as you said the plants aren't using that much of the organics anyway so water changes would still leave plenty in that type of setup for the plants.


----------



## aquabillpers (Apr 13, 2006)

houseofcards said:


> I have to be honest, I don't really agree with that. Unless I miss understand what you saying, if you have a low light tank your letting waste accumulate by not doing water changes or gravel washes. Add to that the plants uptake is limited. Wouldn't that create a tank with a lot of waste that isn't replenished with fresh water. Low light or high light you will get algae in tank like that. If your not dosing anything, and your trying to keep the waste in the tank I could understand it to a point, but as you said the plants aren't using that much of the organics anyway so water changes would still leave plenty in that type of setup for the plants.


The point that I was trying to make was that there is a relationship between the amount of nutrients that are added to a tank and the speed of the metabolic processes, and the amount of waste material that is generated. The more waste that is generated, the more that has to be removed in one way or another, either by the natural processes in the tank or by water changes.

In my earlier post on this thread I did say that if debris accumulated, it could be siphoned out every now and then (like monthly) but that doesn't take much water.

Bill


----------



## gf225 (Mar 26, 2005)

My tanks (point up to a major overhaul) last as long as my threshold for wanting a total re-scape, generally 6 months max.

I see no reason why a tank cannot last indefinitely providing sufficient maintenance, particularly on the substrate, is carried out. 

If nutrient depletion in the substrate is an issue then water column dosing can compensate (the ADA Step series idea).

Waste matter accumulation in filters can be dealt with by regular maintenace and changing media over gradually for new if necessary (I've used the same for 4 years in my 33 gal.)


----------

