viejo;33377 said:
I mean: most of you use the EI method. I've read about it, and there is just a single thing that will prevent me to use it: the water wasted.
I've never used tap water to irrigate the lawn/landscaping plants. Water is also recharging the ground water, none makes to the storm or sewer system, even there, the waste water is still used in many/most cases for other purposes.
Simply installing a low water use shower head, using the dishwasher vs hand rinsing etc, good irrigation of the water and landscaping choices etc, will save 100X of more water.
So if you are honest.............you will focus on those things to conserve and reuse water, not buy into the baloney that EI is this anti ecology based thing. What you do with the post water is really up to you, it's not waste, much like the cardboard, cans, plastic, glass, paper recycled waste.
Stuck in past thinking.
Some are honest about simply being too lazy, not motivated enough to do the water changes, fair enough, but they do not try and say it's about waste and environment either.
We recycled 95% of all the waste I generate. That's right.
We produce about 1 cft of garbage per week. That's about 1 small bag.
Less than a grocery bag(I don't use those either, Canvas thank you, they do not break).
Let me explain, maybe I'm wrong about the whole thing. The EI method is, from what I've understand, an overdosing of plant nutrients in water, with massive weekly water changes.
Let me rephrase this for you: We add non limiting nutrients, then do a 50% water change weekly. Massive and excess have a rather negative meaning. Non limiting and a good sized water change means you are taking good care of the plants and being preventative and providing high quality and stability for the fish/plants.
You should look at the benefits, not just the negative trade offs, which can be reduced or eliminated. Other methods suggest test kits and no water changes, yet the testing and the chemicals used for those test kits are hardly healthy and virtually never disposed of properly.
Go figure.
What about electrical waste?
You should also go after the folks that use or advocate high light, because clearly it is not required or needed either.
How about fish tanks in general? We do not need them either and they waste electric etc. Point is, this and the hobby are luxury items.
Don't kid yourself.
Look at the trade offs and benefits fairly, be honest with yourself, don't fool yourself
We do it more than we often think.
It's not the work (albeit I'm a lazy guy) that scares me, it's all that wasted water.
Let's return to my project: 300 liter tank, with weekly 50% water changes will mean 150 liter wasted each week. 7800 liter per year.
Let's switch out the shower head to a water saving type and you will save far more than that. Still come out clean too. What about the landscaping outside, can it use water? Do you own a lawn? Lawn waste far far more water than any aquarium can. They use an average daily volume of 450 gallons per day, per person in Sacramento where I live. This is due to lawns in a dry hot area, not fish tanks or pools.
2000 gallon per year is very little and can be used to irrigate the landscape, water plants etc. The shower head:
Most water saving types use 1 gpm less, so say 1 shower per day for 5 minutes(pretty quick shower for some) per person: 5 gallons, x 365 days 1825 gallons, or about 6900 liters. If you have more than one person in the home, which you must, then now you have saved far beyond the aquarium volume for the year.
Such math and use does not lie.
If you are really wanting to do better:
Replace the toilet and the clothes washer with low water models.
H2ouse.org
Do you know a way to prevent that water waste? I mean, some way to keep the water in a different place until it regenerates. You must make all those changes because with the excessive fertilizations and so the water will become a "danger" (I cannot remember the reason, but I suppose will be algae-related, with all those excessive nutrients floating around). How can we clean that excess from water?
The non limiting nutrients are added to grow the plants well, without having to waste time, $ and chemical by products by doing the water changes. You can slow the rates of growth down and go for a more sustainable approach, but folks do not like those trade offs either, "too slow".
We add CO2 and ferts and then higher light to amplify the rates of growth in these systems, that is where the issue starts...........
That's not sustainable nature conservation based approaches..........that's impatience and most everyone in the aquatic plant hobby is kidding themselves if they think differently. We want it now. That's the trade off, you do not get something for nothing.
Let's suppose it exists a way to do that.
- Week 1: fill the tank: 300 liter
- Week 2: put 150l of "EI" water to another (empty?) tank, add 150l of "new" water
- Week 3: put 150l of "EI" water to a third (empty?) tank, put the week 2 water into tank
And so on.
I don't know how the water flows where you live, but we had water restrictions this year because the lack of rain, and waste a single liter of water hurts me more than an ugly tank.
Any thoughts? Maybe algae tanks could do the work...
I'd do other things about conserving water, it seems where you are at, water is far far more important than just doing the aquarium, you need to go whole hog on this. Spend the $ there first(see above) if you have not already done so.
In CA, this will start to really hit home dramatically in the next few years.
I'd go non CO2, see how the method I described for this does:
Hardly the ugly old tanks shown above
Well scaped, good choice of plants, good design and maintenance.
No water changes, just top offs.
DW is not good at scaping, but this does not mean the method does not work, eg: the method does not define whether you are a good scaper or horticulturalist.
Likewise, a nice aquascape does not imply that a method is that great either, this applies to EI as much as ADA or any method.
Given the issues you have, I'd go the non CO2 method and use T5 lighting at about 1 watt/gal.
You will not get to use some species, but you still have a lot to chose from and it will require much less work than these other higher light/CO2 enriched systems.
Regards,
Tom Barr
