I was just discussing this with my wife last night. We both agreed
that this would be a *better* approach for newbies.

Only if they were disciplined enough to stick to the plan, which many of them
aren't. Heck, many of us experienced fishkeepers aren't.

However, I'm quite confident that I could add more without a problem.
Why? Because I can't maintain my nitrate levels. When I set up the
tank, my NO3 was about 1.5 ppm. (This is the level in my tap water.)
It took less than a week for my NO3 to hit zero.

Nitrate, IME, isn't the problem in a filterless tank. The problem is oxygen.
It may not be an issue in a planted tank during the day, but it can be at
night.
And it can be a total disaster in an unplanted tank that's overstocked.

When you say "We need our filters," I have to disagree. It's only in
the past few decades that filters became common.

True, but now the whole trade is set up for them. The fish offered, the advice
given, the photos of tanks, etc., are all geared for a filtered tank. The
person who posted the question that started this thread wanted a tank full of
fish, right away, and I'm afraid he's typical. The low bio-load of
Victorian-era filterless tanks would look barren to him.

Think about it this way: would you rather have a filter that helps
process toxins, or plants that actually remove toxins from the water?

I want both. :-)

This may be heresy on this newsgroup, but I actually wouldn't recommend a
planted tank for a total beginner. It adds expense and an extra learning curve
that most people setting up their first tanks don't need. As it is, the vast
majority of people who start keeping tropical fish give up. I'm all for
anything that adds to a newbie's chance of success, including fishless cycling
and powered filters.


Leigh

http://www.fortunecity.com/lavender/halloween/881/