# Water changes?



## Mavpa (Jan 5, 2015)

What's the most current view on water changes with tadpoles? Do them, not do them, do 50% changes, just suck out the waste, or let it all go au naturale?


----------



## SwampMan (Jun 26, 2015)

I'm interested in knowing as well as I have 3 in the water and 6 on deck.


----------



## Pubfiction (Feb 3, 2013)

I have not done any comparative experiments. However I am busy so I like less work. I use a variety of floating plants to help keep tadpole containers clean I also place one white or red oak leaf in each jar. I rarely do water changes. Once in a long while several weeks to a month, when I think about it I take a turkey baster and suck out large amounts of piled up fecal matter. Then I top off with RODI water. I also top off for evaporation with is highly variable.


----------



## Mavpa (Jan 5, 2015)

Pubfiction said:


> I use a variety of floating plants to help keep tadpole containers clean I also place one white or red oak leaf in each jar.


What type of plants are you using?


----------



## bsr8129 (Sep 23, 2010)

Never do water changes just top off water when needed.


----------



## Pubfiction (Feb 3, 2013)

Limnobium laevigatum 
Ricciocarpus natans 
Salvinia minima 
Duck Weed
Water Lettuce


----------



## Mavpa (Jan 5, 2015)

Pubfiction said:


> Limnobium laevigatum
> Ricciocarpus natans
> Salvinia minima
> Duck Weed
> Water Lettuce


And the obvious follow up question... you know a good place to find these? Particularly the first 3?


----------



## Pubfiction (Feb 3, 2013)

lol well I am a good place. /no shame you can PM me or look up my for sale threads 

There is also the obligatory check the sponsors list.


----------



## Mavpa (Jan 5, 2015)

Pubfiction said:


> lol well I am a good place. /no shame you can PM me or look up my for sale threads
> 
> There is also the obligatory check the sponsors list.


First, thank for the plants!

Second, to get back more the topic... you just have these in your tadpole cups? Right now I have my lone tadpole in a 32 oz cup roughly 2/3 full of homemade (indian almost leaf) tadpole tea with a pinch of java moss in it. What kind of container are you keeping them in?

I was thinking about setting up an extra 10 gallon aquarium I had as a walk out tank where I was gonna set one or two of these plants up as well.


----------



## Pubfiction (Feb 3, 2013)

Yes they are in my tadpole cups which are mostly old salsa jars. I have them anywhere they can get light on window sills etc...

I also raise some tadpoles in a 20 gallon long fish tank without problem. However that tank doesn't receive enough light for plants so they plants are barely hanging on and it has 2 sponge filters. The tadpoles in there are very dense 150 or so.


----------



## Mavpa (Jan 5, 2015)

Pubfiction said:


> Yes they are in my tadpole cups which are mostly old salsa jars. I have them anywhere they can get light on window sills etc...
> 
> I also raise some tadpoles in a 20 gallon long fish tank without problem. However that tank doesn't receive enough light for plants so they plants are barely hanging on and it has 2 sponge filters. The tadpoles in there are very dense 150 or so.


The sunlight doesn't make it too hot for them?


----------



## Pubfiction (Feb 3, 2013)

No it doesn't I do have air conditioning though. Without a top to create a green house effect there isn't going to be enough heat build up. Evaporative cooling.


----------



## tardis101 (Apr 11, 2012)

I keep mine in a well planted 29 gallon tall aquarium with a penguin bio wheel filter. So I don't have to do water changes.


----------



## Mavpa (Jan 5, 2015)

tardis101 said:


> I keep mine in a well planted 29 gallon tall aquarium with a penguin bio wheel filter. So I don't have to do water changes.


This is along the lines of something I was thinking about setting up. You don't happen to have any pictures of this set up, do you?


----------



## tardis101 (Apr 11, 2012)

I don't sorry, and half of my lights are out right now, because my bulbs burnt out (and no one apparently sells this size bulb locally anymore). Anyway a picture would be terrible, but I can describe it.

29 gallon tall All Glass brand tank with glass canopy. Penguin 200 bio wheel. CO2 injected for plants (although I haven't been using it since I have the tadpoles in there). There are 2 neon tetras left and one silver hatchet fish and a lot of red snails (I think Australian red ram horn snails that I started off with only a few back in 1992).

Plants are:
6 Anubus 
2 amazon swords
(a lot) java moss
2 ludwigia
2 java ferns (I think one of these has died; either that or it got covered over by the anubus)
(a lot) duckweed (i have to scoop out regularly otherwise it would cover the surface)
(not a lot) of frogweed (also called frogbit)
1 banana plant

The tadpoles are in labeled (color coded sharpie on each trap and by color sticky tabs on the outside of the tank) floating live bearer traps. One clutch per trap, i have 6 traps right now and about 30 tadpoles. Occasionally one gets out into the tank and I have to wait until it's front legs pop and it hangs out around the surface before I can net them out (because of all the plants).


----------



## ecichlid (Dec 26, 2012)

tardis101 said:


> I keep mine in a well planted 29 gallon tall aquarium with a penguin bio wheel filter. So I don't have to do water changes.


You don't understand the basic principals of water quality. Your closed system is no way impervious to the needs of water changes. There are dissolved organic compounds in your water that can only be practically removed by doing water changes. Just because your water may measure 0 nitrates means almost nothing.

That being said, it's better than the people who just put tadpoles in cups and only top off evaporation. That's laziness or ignorance.

I'm in the mood to tangle on this one. Bring it on everyone.


----------



## Mavpa (Jan 5, 2015)

ecichlid said:


> That being said, it's better than the people who just put tadpoles in cups and only top off evaporation. That's laziness or ignorance.


Right now that's basically what I'm doing... because I couldn't find a definitive answer. So hopefully they'll be some dialog on it.


----------



## Encyclia (Aug 23, 2013)

ecichlid said:


> You don't understand the basic principals of water quality. Your closed system is no way impervious to the needs of water changes. There are dissolved organic compounds in your water that can only be practically removed by doing water changes. Just because your water may measure 0 nitrates means almost nothing.
> 
> That being said, it's better than the people who just put tadpoles in cups and only top off evaporation. That's laziness or ignorance.
> 
> I'm in the mood to tangle on this one. Bring it on everyone.


I'll bite. I don't know whether you are right or wrong, but I would like a link to the the impacts of dissolved organic compounds on tadpoles during the limited time they are in a cup/tank. Assuming ammonia, nitrite and nitrate are all effectively zero (which they should be in a CO2-supplemented planted tank), that would alleviate the worst of the toxic threat to the tads, I would think. Do dissolved organic compounds, in and of themselves, at the concentrations that would be encountered in a cup or aquarium over the time period it takes a tad to morph rise to the level of toxicity? I don't know the answer to this. I am just curious.

Now, if you are talking about NEVER doing water changes in that aquarium, I would tend to agree since other substances will build up in the water column that the plants are not removing. Maybe periodic water changes would be necessary to remove these.

Again, I am just trying to reconcile what you are stating as fact with my experience. I just want to make sure I am understanding correctly and I need some backup other than anecdotal evidence  

Thanks!

Mark


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

ecichlid said:


> That being said, it's better than the people who just put tadpoles in cups and only top off evaporation. That's laziness or ignorance.
> 
> I'm in the mood to tangle on this one. Bring it on everyone.


Actually there is some science behind it. If the pH of the system is low then ammonia is converted to ammonium which is non-toxic. However the low pH can also disrupt the conversion of ammonia to nitrate so testing for nitrate by itself is of little value. There can also be unacceptable levels of nitrite that can also go undetected as the continual addition of water (or foods and supplements) can increase salt content which reduces the toxicity of the nitrite ions. 

The version of this that is commonly known in the hobby as "Old tank syndrome" and it is typified by low pH, and high dissolved organic levels. 

With respect to the tadpole rearing, the plus side of the method is that the cups develop an active biofilm which can complete the conversion cycle of ammonia as well as providing aufwuchs to the diet of the tadpoles. 

There is a continual influx of nutrients and ions with the addition of food items (like flake foods) and there is an export in the form of the tadpoles but depending on the water used for top up there can be excessive buildup of salts over time. On the whole, I wouldn't worry about the humic acids but the other organics are either a problem or could be hiding a major problem. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Encyclia (Aug 23, 2013)

Good stuff, Ed. Thanks for commenting. That was especially interesting about the pH impact on conversion in the nitrogen cycle. Do you know if pH has an impact on the uptake of these forms of nitrogen by plants? It's my understanding that the plants are capable of absorbing urea, ammonia, nitrite and nitrate directly so the conversion rates may not be much of an issue, since, in a system as described, we wouldn't be relying on the bacteria to convert the nitrogen.

I guess you hit on the heart of my skepticism by mentioning old tank syndrome. I completely agree that, eventually, enough nasty stuff will build up that you will interfere with water quality, but aren't we talking about a longer time frame than what it would take a tadpole to morph? I realize that there is a big difference between a simple system of tadpoles in a cup vs. an aquarium with a filter and pressurized CO2. However, it seems like old tank syndrome would happen on a longer time scale. 

Again, if we are talking about the difference between NEVER doing a water and SOMETIMES doing a water change, I don't think there is much discussion. A water change at some defined interval is a good idea. I think the two interesting points of discussing this are what impact the dissolved organic compounds have over short periods of time on a tadpole in a cup and how often water changes should be done in an aquarium as described by tardis. Granted, the tadpole in a cup scenario does not account for nitrogen product buildup unless using floating plants like pubfiction described, so there are at least two potential points of discussion for tadpoles in a cup.

Thanks for your comments, as always, Ed.

Mark


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Ian Hiler gave a great presentation on the tadpole rearing system at one of the earlier IADs. They used alder cones and larger volumes of water but still documented a rise in ammonia but if I remember correctly didn't test for nitrite or nitrate at that time. They documented a rise in ammonia which then peaked and fell and the feeding tracks on the sides of the containers were shown in the slide show.

One of the things a lot of people miss is that the availability of nitrates can prevent the uptake of ammonia (if I remember correctly). So in a system where some level of nitrification is occurring the plants will preferentially absorb nitrate. You can also increase ammonia levels in a number of ways such as low oxygen availability (such as saturated soils), low pH, low temperature. 

As for old tank syndrome, you can speed up the process through the use of high nutrient inputs but keep in mind that the use of tadpole tea, leaves, black water extract all are acidification processes which inhibit the nitrogen cycle. Low pH and high dissolved organics are the hallmarks of "old tank syndrome" so it is possible to get there without having to spend a lot of time doing so..... 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Encyclia (Aug 23, 2013)

I can see how the time frame could be compressed with the addition of fertilizers in the form of tadpole food we are doing to these environments. 

From the days when I put more research into planted tanks, my recollection was that urea and ammonia were absorbed by plants preferentially, but maybe I am not remembering correctly. I know that some ADA substrates ("Power Sand"?) included urea in the recipe, I thought for that reason. Perhaps that was where the Power came from! This could be specific to the artificially low-pH and highly fertilized environments created in pressurized CO2 setups. Anyway, it's not an important point.

I am willing to stipulate that water changes are a preferable way to go.

ecichlid, I am sorry you didn't get your tangle, but you are still welcome to take a few swings when you get on next!

Thanks again,

Mark


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Encyclia said:


> I can see how the time frame could be compressed with the addition of fertilizers in the form of tadpole food we are doing to these environments.
> 
> From the days when I put more research into planted tanks, my recollection was that urea and ammonia were absorbed by plants preferentially, but maybe I am not remembering correctly. I know that some ADA substrates ("Power Sand"?) included urea in the recipe, I thought for that reason. Perhaps that was where the Power came from! This could be specific to the artificially low-pH and highly fertilized environments created in pressurized CO2 setups. Anyway, it's not an important point.
> 
> ...



For those interested I strongly suggest Diane Walstad's Ecology of the Planted Aquarium, Echinodorus Press. 

Keep in mind that under those conditions, it is unlikely that nitrate is present in any quantities and that the conversion to nitrate requires bacterial action. In a planted substrate, bacterial conversion of ammonia to nitrate is going to be slow since there is a lack of oxygen away from the roots so it pretty much ends up being the only source. 

Ed


----------



## Encyclia (Aug 23, 2013)

Good suggestion, Ed. I have that book and can't recommend it enough. However, hers is a low-tech (no CO2 and low lighting) approach - not what we were talking about with tardis' tank. As for the nitrate availability, I agree. In my CO2 injected tank, there is so little nitrate that I have to add it in every day. 

Mark


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Encyclia said:


> Good suggestion, Ed. I have that book and can't recommend it enough. However, hers is a low-tech (no CO2 and low lighting) approach - not what we were talking about with tardis' tank. As for the nitrate availability, I agree. In my CO2 injected tank, there is so little nitrate that I have to add it in every day.
> 
> Mark


The biological and biochemical processes don't change because of the higher tech approach. In a highly planted aquarium with high light levels with CO2 injection, one of the limiting agents is often nitrate (as you noted). Now if the pH is low enough (generally below 6), the conversion of ammonia to nitrite to nitrate gets interrupted allowing ammonia and nitrite to accumulate. The levels of nitrite can poison the system as the conversion to nitrate is inhibited. If the pH gets below 6 then the biowheel and filter media becomes moot as anything but a water movement and somewhat oxygenating system. In addition, the biowheel is going to limit the CO2 injection by aerating the water which can allow CO2 to escape as a gas. 


In a low tech tank, the goal is still for nitrate to be a limiting ingredient but instead you have a greater competition for it between the plants and the microbes (as the plants aren't being having their growth optimized by removing the impact of limited CO2 on the submerged plants). In that case, you want the deep substrate to be anoxic as that prevents the microbes from sequestering the nitrogen sources from the plants as readily and the competition ends up being in the water column. 

Now if in addition, there is a failure to do the water changes, we can also see other nutrients ending up in limited supply such as zinc, iron (to name two easy examples) which are required by living systems to function. If these are taken up and not replenished (say by using only DI water), then the system is going to eventually have issues...... 

Does that help? Its been a few years since I delved into these while setting up tanks. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Encyclia (Aug 23, 2013)

I think I udnerstand, but are you saying that plants will not absorb nitrite and ammonia in the absence of nitrate? My understanding was that plants would absorb any of these forms of nitrogen in the absence of the others. If what I remember is correct (no guarantees there, clearly), then the planted tank relies more on the plants for disposing of nitrogen than on the bacteria cycle. In fact, when I set up a planted tank, I don't even wait for it to cycle (for bacterial equilibrium) before putting a full fish load in. The plants do the job so well that I get no spikes in ammonia, nitrite or nitrate in the tank. I think having a thriving live plant load reduces the reliance on nitrogen-related bacteria. jIn this case, the bio-wheel is, as you pointed out, actually hurting the system. An underwater circulating pump would be better.

I think the distinction between high and low tech planted tanks is important for just the reason you stated. The low tech approach is relying on the substrate to deliver many of the nutrients. The reservoir for different nutrients in this scenario is relatively fixed and can lead to starvation of certain nutrients as you described. High tech will typically involve water column fertilization that includes macro nutrients and trace elements that will supply most of the needed nutrients. No fertilization scheme is perfect, though, and will eventually become either limited or over-saturated with some nutrient. This would necessitate a water change to set things back on course, as you have already said. I think that, if you have your tank dialed in pretty well in terms of fertilization/feeding vs. plant and fish load, this state can be reached more slowly in a high tech setup.

Interesting discussion, Ed, but I feel like I am dragging things too far away from what the intent of the thread is. I won't quibble details anymore. I just enjoy talking about planted tanks ;-)

Water changes are good.

I mention the low tech bent of Diana's book only to let people know that her approach is not what tardis was describing. Her book is still excellent and well worth a read even if you are interested in higher light/CO2 setups.

Mark


----------



## tardis101 (Apr 11, 2012)

ecichlid said:


> You don't understand the basic principals of water quality. Your closed system is no way impervious to the needs of water changes. There are dissolved organic compounds in your water that can only be practically removed by doing water changes. Just because your water may measure 0 nitrates means almost nothing.
> 
> That being said, it's better than the people who just put tadpoles in cups and only top off evaporation. That's laziness or ignorance.
> 
> I'm in the mood to tangle on this one. Bring it on everyone.


Actually I do understand water quality. My masters is in ichthyology, and god help me but I had a lot of water quality classes, and my first job as a biologist was a fisheries biologist. I really wasn't trying to say anything about water quality in my 29 gallon tank. I did however, make an assumption that when the OP asked about water changes he was talking about individual tadpoles in individual containers. So since I didn't specify what I meant I can see the ambiguity. So I see why it sounded like I was saying I don't do water changes on anything. 

Generally speaking the larger the volume of water in question, the easier it is to maintain correct water quality parameters (salinity, pH, nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, hardness, temperature, etc.). My 2 1/2 gallon nano reef required almost weekly partial water changes, and couldn't go more than 2 weeks if I missed one. However, my 55 gallon reef tank can go a few months without a water change (it's a bad idea, but it can manage it). The 800 gallon reef tank I worked with in grad school only had one water change in 2 years. I finally merged the nano and mini reef into a larger tank and gave up the ghost on trying to keep small tanks.

I'm not saying a tank is necessarily the better way to go with tadpoles, but I found it much easier to maintain than 50-60 cups with individual tadpoles. Does that make me lazy...very possibly. 

Edit: I will say I lost tads when I kept them in cups. But that's how I started out and I wouldn't claim I knew what I was doing at the time. I moved to the tank, when I ran out of room with tads in cups and was desperate to keep the tads alive. When my mortality dropped to almost zero in the tank, i moved to the system I have now. Again...was it because I was lazy and not doing enough water changes on the cups. Probably. I'll own that.


----------



## ecichlid (Dec 26, 2012)

Encyclia said:


> Again, I am just trying to reconcile what you are stating as fact with my experience. I just want to make sure I am understanding correctly and I need some backup other than anecdotal evidence
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Mark


 Sorry Mark, my observations are as of a hobbyist. I'm not a scientist nor do am I up to date with the latest scientific periodicals. 



Ed said:


> Actually there is some science behind it. If the pH of the system is low then ammonia is converted to ammonium which is non-toxic. However the low pH can also disrupt the conversion of ammonia to nitrate so testing for nitrate by itself is of little value. There can also be unacceptable levels of nitrite that can also go undetected as the continual addition of water (or foods and supplements) can increase salt content which reduces the toxicity of the nitrite ions.
> 
> The version of this that is commonly known in the hobby as "Old tank syndrome" and it is typified by low pH, and high dissolved organic levels.
> 
> ...


 Good points and well said. One must also consider that if the tad pole cup is new or has been cleaned, than there are no nitrifying bacteria to begin with and the nitrogen cycle must start anew. This all being said, the nitrogen cycle does not remove the DOC's.



Encyclia said:


> Again, if we are talking about the difference between NEVER doing a water and SOMETIMES doing a water change, I don't think there is much discussion. A water change at some defined interval is a good idea. I think the two interesting points of discussing this are what impact the dissolved organic compounds have over short periods of time on a tadpole in a cup and how often water changes should be done in an aquarium as described by tardis. Granted, the tadpole in a cup scenario does not account for nitrogen product buildup unless using floating plants like pubfiction described, so there are at least two potential points of discussion for tadpoles in a cup.
> 
> Mark


 But there are plenty of people who NEVER do a water change in their tadpole cups and are proud to tell us so. But you and I are in agreement, there absolutely is a benefit to a water change. The time it takes for these organics to build into what could be described as Old Tank Syndrome drops dramatically based on the bioload. I raise my Ranitomaya tads in 4 ounce cups and I believe they would quickly get to a condition that would compare to a goldfish in a 10 gallon tank that has not had a water change in a year or so.



Ed said:


> As for old tank syndrome, you can speed up the process through the use of high nutrient inputs but keep in mind that the use of tadpole tea, leaves, black water extract all are acidification processes which inhibit the nitrogen cycle. Low pH and high dissolved organics are the hallmarks of "old tank syndrome" so it is possible to get there without having to spend a lot of time doing so.....
> 
> Some comments
> 
> Ed


 That is what I have understood as well. Side note - When you are using RO or distilled water, there is no buffering capacity of the water (low alkalinity). Since the water has no buffering capacity (it's soft!), the pH drops easily even without the addition of tannins. Simply the respiration of the tadpole would drop the pH. The addition of food and waste from the tadpole would just accelerate the drop.



Encyclia said:


> ecichlid, I am sorry you didn't get your tangle, but you are still welcome to take a few swings when you get on next!
> 
> Thanks again,
> 
> Mark


 Lol! No problem Mark. I love this type of conversation. About 15 years ago I kept a 110 gallon tank with metal halide lighting and an automated CO2 injection system. Some who saw the tank told me it was the most beautiful tank they have seen. After awhile, it became a chore. It was like cutting the lawn. I can't tell you how many plants I would throw out periodically or trim back.

But for the sake of this conversation, I will focus on tadpole rearing. But you guys talk about what you like, I enjoy reading that too. 



Ed said:


> The biological and biochemical processes don't change because of the higher tech approach. In a highly planted aquarium with high light levels with CO2 injection, one of the limiting agents is often nitrate (as you noted). Now if the pH is low enough (generally below 6), the conversion of ammonia to nitrite to nitrate gets interrupted allowing ammonia and nitrite to accumulate. The levels of nitrite can poison the system as the conversion to nitrate is inhibited. If the pH gets below 6 then the biowheel and filter media becomes moot as anything but a water movement and somewhat oxygenating system. In addition, the biowheel is going to limit the CO2 injection by aerating the water which can allow CO2 to escape as a gas.
> 
> 
> In a low tech tank, the goal is still for nitrate to be a limiting ingredient but instead you have a greater competition for it between the plants and the microbes (as the plants aren't being having their growth optimized by removing the impact of limited CO2 on the submerged plants). In that case, you want the deep substrate to be anoxic as that prevents the microbes from sequestering the nitrogen sources from the plants as readily and the competition ends up being in the water column.
> ...


 All correct, I think. That's why I would not recommend starting a planted tank with distilled water. Wait. I just said I would focus on tadpole rearing!



Encyclia said:


> Water changes are good.
> 
> Mark


 Yep. I want to hear from people who don't do water changes and hear why they don't do them. I promise to be nice and I will keep an open mind.


----------



## ecichlid (Dec 26, 2012)

Do people who keep thumbs realize that bromeliads are periodically flushed with a hard rain? I think people who keep bromeliads in their garden are told that it's good for the plant to be periodically flushed out. When we mimic nature, we increase the level of our success. We almost never understand all of the nuances in play. Heck, since you guys brought up the nitrogen cycle, for decades two of the three bacteria's that were listed in every book as being responsible for the nitrogen cycle were incorrect! In wasn't till about 10 years that Dr. Timothy Hovanec (a friend) and some researchers in France coincidedly discovered the real bacteria's in play.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Encyclia said:


> I think I udnerstand, but are you saying that plants will not absorb nitrite and ammonia in the absence of nitrate?


Sorry for the confusion, I probably said it badly. No, in the presence of nitrate, ammonia and nitrite are generally not absorbed by the plants. 



Encyclia said:


> than on the bacteria cycle. In fact, when I set up a planted tank, I don't even wait for it to cycle (for bacterial equilibrium) before putting a full fish load in. The plants do the job so well that I get no spikes in ammonia, nitrite or nitrate in the tank. I think having a thriving live plant load reduces the reliance on nitrogen-related bacteria. jIn this case, the bio-wheel is, as you pointed out, actually hurting the system. An underwater circulating pump would be better.


People often forget that in addition to the conversion of ammonia to nitrate, bacteria can sequester nitrogen (and other organics) to as part of their growth requirements. This is part of what people often forget to include in their bioload assessments as they are absorbing nutrients, releasing CO2..so this adds to the mess when the system crashes. 



Encyclia said:


> I think that, if you have your tank dialed in pretty well in terms of fertilization/feeding vs. plant and fish load, this state can be reached more slowly in a high tech setup.


Too often people exacerbate the nutrient issue with low tech systems because by thinking that they don't have to do water changes as a balanced system should be dealing with the nutrient issues. Too often people also rely excessively on rooted plants as nutrient sinks but fail to remember that these plants don't absorb the nutrients as readily from the water column as floating plants. That is one of the reasons in a low tech system you can set up a second tank under strong lights with lettuce or other plants ala hydroponics and have the potential to remove a greater volume of nutrients. 

One of the side bars that I've played around with from time to time is a plenum in a low tech planted tank. Its had some pretty interesting results on occasion. 



Encyclia said:


> Interesting discussion, Ed, but I feel like I am dragging things too far away from what the intent of the thread is. I won't quibble details anymore. I just enjoy talking about planted tanks ;-)


well in all honestly all of this can apply to tadpole rearing systems. Most people utilize a low tech approach with various modifications to the system like not cleaning the containers to allow a greater volume of aufwuchs to establish themselves. I know at least one person that adds Daphnia to his tadpole rearing containers as a food source, a water quality indicator and to remove some of the clouding of the water. There are a lot of variations and some are surprising and some just make you wonder how? 



Encyclia said:


> I mention the low tech bent of Diana's book only to let people know that her approach is not what tardis was describing. Her book is still excellent and well worth a read even if you are interested in higher light/CO2 setups.
> 
> Mark


I brought it up as its relevant to the original posts and discussion in the thread. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

ecichlid said:


> That is what I have understood as well. Side note - When you are using RO or distilled water, there is no buffering capacity of the water (low alkalinity). Since the water has no buffering capacity (it's soft!), the pH drops easily even without the addition of tannins. Simply the respiration of the tadpole would drop the pH. The addition of food and waste from the tadpole would just accelerate the drop.


If people are using RO water for their top up water, it often has a pH of around 5-6 as the RO system does not remove carbon dioxide that is dissolved in the water. With the removal of all of the ions that could buffer the system the reaction CO2 + H2O >< H2CO3 where H2CO3 + H2O <> H3O+ and HCO3-. This can cause pH shock to sensitive species that were acclimated at different pHs. 

Something for people to keep in mind when setting up animals for the first time. 

With tadpoles and water changes, I suspect that some of the issues with people who lose tadpoles could be due to thermal shock. If you think about it, there can be a sufficient temperature difference when the vertical storage/racks are taken into consideration. I've always kept the water at the same location as the tadpoles to prevent this from being an issue. 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

tardis101 said:


> My 2 1/2 gallon nano reef required almost weekly partial water changes,


I had a ten gallon salt tank back in 1988 that required topping off on a daily basis and water changes every few days. That was a low tech system that was based to some extent on Lee Chin Eng's successes. I had a pair of Hippocampus kuda in it, several peppermint shrimp, a hippo tank that was about the size of a quarter and a pair of pistol shrimp. The filtration was a original whisper I that was modified to reduce the water flow and filled with crushed dolomite as a biofilter. It also had a small protein skimmer. I was able to get the peppermint shrimp to spawn every two weeks which was a good portion of the sea horse diet which was also supplemented with guppies and brine shrimp. I kept it up and running for more than two years and lost it all when I was away and a long power outage let the system crash. 



tardis101 said:


> I'm not saying a tank is necessarily the better way to go with tadpoles, but I found it much easier to maintain than 50-60 cups with individual tadpoles.


There have been a number of different system used by both institutions, breeders and hobbyists over the years. I've seen cups with holes drilled in the bottom resting ontop of egg crating covered with screen mesh with the water level about halfway up the cup. The cups were flushed daily by simply lifting the cups and letting the water drain out. A similar system was managed by using a small pump with a hose and flushing the cups with water from the tank. 2-3 inch diameter PVC with holes drilled in the side could be sat in a pool or tank with a sump setup so the water passes from one side to the other, drops into the sump (or canister filter) for filtration (systems like this are often used for large scale production of Ceratophrys or other species that will prey on each others. there are many variations on these. 



tardis101 said:


> I will say I lost tads when I kept them in cups. But that's how I started out and I wouldn't claim I knew what I was doing at the time. I moved to the tank, when I ran out of room with tads in cups and was desperate to keep the tads alive. When my mortality dropped to almost zero in the tank, i moved to the system I have now. Again...was it because I was lazy and not doing enough water changes on the cups. Probably. I'll own that.


One of the things that has become apparent in the last few years was the impact of vitamin A (in the form of retinol) deficiency has on the survival and growth of tadpoles. After the tadpole stage, anurans have issues converting beta carotene (and possibly other carotenes) to retinol (this does not mean that they should not get carotenes in the diet). As a result there were a lot of issues with survivorship of tadpoles as the eggs weren't provisioned with sufficient retinol. This has a number of consequences that may or may not be apparent in the development of the tadpoles. As a result, I wouldn't rule out other issues that reduced the ability of the tadpoles to survive in the systems. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## tardis101 (Apr 11, 2012)

Ed said:


> One of the things that has become apparent in the last few years was the impact of vitamin A (in the form of retinol) deficiency has on the survival and growth of tadpoles. After the tadpole stage, anurans have issues converting beta carotene (and possibly other carotenes) to retinol (this does not mean that they should not get carotenes in the diet). As a result there were a lot of issues with survivorship of tadpoles as the eggs weren't provisioned with sufficient retinol. This has a number of consequences that may or may not be apparent in the development of the tadpoles. As a result, I wouldn't rule out other issues that reduced the ability of the tadpoles to survive in the systems.
> 
> Some comments
> 
> Ed


I'm pretty certain it was water quality. The primary thing that changed was going from 32 oz cups to being in a tank. Same adult frogs, same adult foods, same adult supplements, same tadpole food, same frequency of feeding, same water source, same water temps, etc. etc. Half the tads initially were from the same clutches. Mortality was always higher in the deli cups. Mortality in the tank has been almost zero.

The bottom line is different setups work for different people, which is likely dependent on a number of local factors. But that's why I'm not suggesting tanks and communal raising of tads is the end all be all. I'm just saying it has worked well for me. Looking back I wish I'd have kept better records, but back then I was more concerned with keeping things alive than documenting.


----------



## Calivet (Aug 12, 2013)

Ed said:


> If people are using RO water for their top up water, it often has a pH of around 5-6 as the RO system does not remove carbon dioxide that is dissolved in the water. With the removal of all of the ions that could buffer the system the reaction CO2 + H2O >< H2CO3 where H2CO3 + H2O <> H3O+ and HCO3-. This can cause pH shock to sensitive species that were acclimated at different pHs.
> 
> Something for people to keep in mind when setting up animals for the first time.
> 
> ...


What are the thoughts on letting the imitator raise the tads in tank? I use RO for my misting system, and have some Varadero imitators that routinely raise tads in a glass pod directly in front of the nozzle (and in some other site I have yet to discover, but two froglets appear like clockwork about every 3 months). Are you recommending flushing the pod with something other than RO?


----------



## ecichlid (Dec 26, 2012)

Good discussion gents. Although I keep my tads in 4 ounce cups, it makes perfect sense to me that a larger body of water (a tank), especially one that has live plants, filtration and has water changes would make a much more forgiving system. That being said, I have not experienced much in the way of tadploe mortality. That may because of my prior expedience with fishkeeping which allows me to be more precise in feeding and perhaps more sensitive to the need of water changes.

I don't like the system I'm currently using (lots of little cups!) and I would love to be shown systems that other people enjoy. 

*Ed,* although I have had concerns of thermal shock with tadpole water changes, I have not seen any issues. There is about a 7 degree difference in the temperature of the water that I sometimes use. The RO water I make is in the basement and the tads are on the 2nd floor. Large water changes with this cool water have shown no detrimental effects so far. This may be because tadpoles come naturally from very small "pools" of water where temperatures can change rapidly. 

I would still like to hear from the people here who don't do water changes for their tads! Where are you guys?


----------



## AbeV (Jul 12, 2015)

Great topic! As a noob getting ready to raise his first tadpoles, the information shared gas been very helpful. I do need some clarification if you don't mind.

From what I've picked up while reading this thread it seems that:
A) water changes are at least beneficial if not necessity.
B) tadpole mortality rates could potentially drop if reared in a planted tank
Am I understanding this correctly?

Is there any information on better success rates depending on the size/type of cup?

I'll use my situation as an example. I'm going to be raising 5 Variabillis month old tadpoles very soon. I will be using either store bought RO/DI or spring water with black water extract, Indian almond leaf, java moss, and duck weed. I have the option to use 8oz and 32oz deli cups, 8oz plastic drink cups, or 6oz glass jars. Could my success rate raise by using one size or shape of cup vs. another?

If I follow a consistent water change schedule, along with waste removal. Is it safe to assume that a bigger container would mean more water, which would lead to better water conditions? 

Thanks everyone!



Sent from my MotoE2(4G-LTE) using Tapatalk


----------



## Encyclia (Aug 23, 2013)

Abe, I can't comment on most of that, but I don't use tadpole tea for my variabilis (but I do use it with most of my large species). I think they like a bit cleaner water, so I do more water changes and don't have pieces of leaf in their water. Could someone else back me up on that so that I don't give Abe the wrong info? Is this true of all Ranitomeya or just some of them (or not true at all...)?

Good luck on raising your tads!

Mark


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Encyclia said:


> Abe, I can't comment on most of that, but I don't use tadpole tea for my variabilis (but I do use it with most of my large species). I think they like a bit cleaner water, so I do more water changes and don't have pieces of leaf in their water. Could someone else back me up on that so that I don't give Abe the wrong info? Is this true of all Ranitomeya or just some of them (or not true at all...)?
> 
> Good luck on raising your tads!
> 
> Mark


Keep in mind that phytotelmata also acquire nutrients in the form of dust washed down from the canopy (and out of the atmosphere) as well as leaf litter, insects that use the phytotelmata (like mosquitos). see for example 
Highly efficient uptake of phosphorus in epiphytic bromeliads

The Mineral Nutrition of Epiphytes - Springer 

This shouldn't mean that the tadpoles don't appreciate a water change some of the issue could be the availability of minerals or the sequestering of those nutrients. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Mohlerbear (Feb 20, 2014)

Pubfiction said:


> lol well I am a good place. /no shame you can PM me or look up my for sale threads
> 
> 
> 
> There is also the obligatory check the sponsors list.



I might have to take you up on this, as I just posted a thread about a tad that I might need to raise outside the tank. If he makes it. 
Plus maybe I could bug you for some more peperomias 😝


Loading bowls and building vivs! Braaap!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tardis101 (Apr 11, 2012)

A) I would say yes. 
B) I would say if this is your first time rearing tadpoles, my gut is telling me a well planted, filtered, and stable fish tank is going to be more forgiving for you in case of smaller errors.

When I was using cups, I was using 16 oz deli cups. And about 8-12 oz of water and a little java moss in each one. 

In the tank, i don't use RO/DI, nor do i use Indian almond leaves or tadpole tea. I tried all those things in the cups. Now I use plain old dechlorinated tap water. *BUT *whether you can do that or not depends on the quality of your tap water. I live in an area where the tap comes primarily from ground water and is really good water. The coral reef stores and nursery around here all tell me this. Even the orchid farmer down the road from me has said this. So I think that's why I am getting good results with pretty plain water.

I think if you follow a good schedule as you said, and you're using a larger volume of water you'll have, generally speaking, better water quality. 

Regarding the shape of the container, really the only thing that I can think of that would impact anything is the size of the opening or mouth of the container. Something narrow is going to (generally speaking) have less surface area and so less oxygen diffusing into it the water.

Hope that helps! 




AbeV said:


> Great topic! As a noob getting ready to raise his first tadpoles, the information shared gas been very helpful. I do need some clarification if you don't mind.
> 
> From what I've picked up while reading this thread it seems that:
> A) water changes are at least beneficial if not necessity.
> ...


----------



## AbeV (Jul 12, 2015)

Thanks for all of the info, its been a great help

Sent from my MotoE2(4G-LTE) using Tapatalk


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Calivet said:


> What are the thoughts on letting the imitator raise the tads in tank? I use RO for my misting system, and have some Varadero imitators that routinely raise tads in a glass pod directly in front of the nozzle (and in some other site I have yet to discover, but two froglets appear like clockwork about every 3 months). Are you recommending flushing the pod with something other than RO?


No, you can continue using RO. One of the things that happens in the containers in enclosures is that there is a transfer of nutrients into them (fruit flies (dusted and undusted), frog poop and so forth. These are going to increase the materials including minerals in the pods. If your getting water into each pod during dusting, then that is going to do the water change for you. 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

ecichlid said:


> *Ed,* although I have had concerns of thermal shock with tadpole water changes, I have not seen any issues. There is about a 7 degree difference in the temperature of the water that I sometimes use. The RO water I make is in the basement and the tads are on the 2nd floor. Large water changes with this cool water have shown no detrimental effects so far. This may be because tadpoles come naturally from very small "pools" of water where temperatures can change rapidly.


When you say large do you mean 50%, 75% or 100% ? I'm curious as the temperature differential maybe less than you expect as the water in the container is going to reduce the temperature shock. 

In the wild, there is generally a gradation in the change of the temperature of the tadpole deposition site which allows them to acclimate to the changes. 

While anecdotal, I've seen people wipe out large batches of tadpoles when using a significant temperature difference (generally 10 F+) before and after. Several entire spawnings of Smilesca phaeota were lost because the tadpoles were kept on the warm side of animal area (80-82 F) when the person used water from the opposite side which generally ran about (60-68 F seasonally variation in the area). 
I can't find it right now but there was at least one study done on the impact of temperature on one of the species of Dendrobates tadpoles in the lab. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## ecichlid (Dec 26, 2012)

Let me first state for any beginners reading this, it's best to use water that is the same temperature of your tad cups. This reduce the chance of causing stress.

Ed, the water changes have been anywhere from 25% to 75%. No problems encountered with 7 degree difference on R. variabilis 'Northern'.

But of course it's anecdotal, this is hobbyist discussion forum, of course.  The vast majority of the success I have have had as a hobbyist is based on anecdotal evidence. Very little of what I do is based on reading research papers, it's based on what I have learned practically and the sharing of anecdotes from others. In my opinion, there is no reason for you to state it's anecdotal here, we're not in the lab.


----------



## AbeV (Jul 12, 2015)

I set this up today to see how the temperature works out. I won't have my tadpoles until next weekend, so I still have time to play around with it.

After going through this thread, I realized that I could have easily made the mistake of having different water temps. Hopefully this will help.










It's a 5.5 gallon tank with egg crate and a small betta bowl heater. There's only an inch or two of water in the bottom to keep warm. Along with the tadpole cups, there is a 32oz cup with tadpole tea that I'm hoping will stay close to the same temps as the tadpole cups. When it's time to top off the cups or do water changes then the treated water is already there and a a similar temperature. That's the idea anyway.





Sent from my MotoE2(4G-LTE) using Tapatalk


----------



## TapDart91 (Jul 7, 2014)

Pubfiction said:


> I have not done any comparative experiments. However I am busy so I like less work. I use a variety of floating plants to help keep tadpole containers clean I also place one white or red oak leaf in each jar. I rarely do water changes. Once in a long while several weeks to a month, when I think about it I take a turkey baster and suck out large amounts of piled up fecal matter. Then I top off with RODI water. I also top off for evaporation with is highly variable.


v Fb hf t Hyun


----------

