# My beaslbobish build



## navigator black (Jan 3, 2012)

I set up a tank last week to follow the basic tenets of the system we keep getting a hard sell on from member beaslbob. It is a 10 gallon full of plants, with no filtration, no water changes and light feeding. I want to see how it works - not in terms of test kits, but in terms of fish behavior, colour and breeding.
I very rarely test water, and while I do test hardness TDS and pH, nitrite, nitrate and ammonia are not that important to me. With experience, it becomes easy to see from the fish how the water is, and I have long been a water change fanatic. 

So, at the end of week one, I have a first observation. The plant growth is good, and the anacharis has grown. When I did my water changes yesterday morning, I stayed away from that tank. 

The fish in the tank, two killies, are a species I know very well as I have kept them for several generations. Unlike the fish usually suggested for these set-ups, they are genuine swamp fish. I don't think there is any cruelty in keeping them like this.

So far, I can say this unfiltered, no current tank is placid. Occasionally, a snail moves. That's high excitement for watching it. The fish are usually slow movers, given to drifting and darting in the filtered, low water flow tanks I have been breeding them in. In this no water movement tank, they seem to have dialed down their activity level. 

It will be another week before organics begin to build in the tank and the pH begins to move, so right now the behavior of the fish is just their version of living in a place with still air and no breezes. They have really slowed down as a result of no water movement.

So, unless miraculous changes happen, observation one is that this is a boring tank to watch, compared to how they were in lightly filtered water movement set-ups. It is early days though, and it remains to be seen how they will react as they live in unchanged, topped up water. The plant filtration has to go to work, and maybe that will increase oxygen as bob says it does. 
Breeding is the key indicator of whether these fish are comfortable in such an unnatural set-up, and there can't be any fry for another two weeks.


----------



## jrman83 (Jul 9, 2010)

No water changes? Use peat?


----------



## FishFlow (Sep 13, 2011)

Hey! Finally get to see this build! Woot!

We will need pictures! and would love to have you detail out what/how you did it ?


----------



## Manafel (Sep 4, 2011)

Don't forget to avoid using dechlorimnator! *old dude

I will be watching this thread, I find it interesting.


----------



## majerah1 (Oct 29, 2010)

Very true, you would need to use unconditioned tap when topping off, so be sure to keep that in mind.


----------



## Summer (Oct 3, 2011)

Glad to see someone else attempting this and reporting back the details.


----------



## navigator black (Jan 3, 2012)

I'm doing this seriously. It's not the beaslbob build (tm), it's the real thing - a 1930s tank. I'm clearly very skeptical, and am first to admit that. But I am also skeptical of my own skepticism, so I have to test it.
I took an established tank with old peat in the sand substrate, removed all water and filtration, refilled, dechlorinated, filled it with a mix of slow and fast growing plants and carefully chose a swamp fish for it.
I believe no animals will be hurt in this experiment. The species is Rivulus hartii, which comes from still side pools in Venezuela. I'm not trapping hatchets in still water or stunting platys - I'm using a species that should like the conditions. 

Part of what has me thinking is a friend's tank. She wanted fish for a 15 gallon, and I had bought a large group of cardinals very cheap, at a wholesalers, a year or more ago. So I gave her ten of them, and sat down to explain my theories on water changing, etc.
I visited recently and all ten are still swimming. She confessed she had done one 30% water change in six months. The tank has an Aquaclear and a lot of plants - I filled it with Anubias sp. when I set it up for her, and they have done well. Two Bettas have died on her, as have all the tiny Bororas she added. The cardinals are in great colour, but are exactly half the size of the ones I kept from the same batch. I feed six days a week with a day of fasting - she feeds every morning. I've been supplying her with fish-food (she's a teenager with no budget) and so, the diet has been the same.
The fish are alive though, and that made me think. They are healthy, if stunted, and the Anubias is huge. But the filter is a good one and Anubias is a slow user of resources. 
If it works, I promise I'll say so, as I will if it doesn't. I'll know about what I am trying by October (breeding the fish and having them grow to the standards I'm used to with them). I'll never convince bob if the tank doesn't work - he's always right. But either way, I'll be able to post a view that newcomers can have a look at, and decide about. 
I expect the tank to work, after a fashion, but not miraculously and not as well as a filtered and water changed tank. I say that because I have done this before - I've had fish continuously since 1966. I'd had fish for 18 years before I got a motorized filter, and I was taught to never change water, in the 'old water is good water' days of the aquarium hobby. 
I am experimenting with a specialized niche tank set-up exclusively for swamp adapted fish though, and not a community for platies, hatchets and neons.


----------



## beaslbob (May 29, 2009)

Nav

glad to see the experiment. even if you did dechlorinate the initial water.

But at least you are keeping a somewhat open mind even if the tank is boring. 

FWIW perhaps people can refer to this thread where the term "beaslbob build" was actually coined:
http://www.aquariumforum.com/f15/my-beaslbob-build-8208.html

and a followup tank:

http://www.aquariumforum.com/f15/my-beaslbob-build-next-generation-10014.html

my .02


----------



## jrman83 (Jul 9, 2010)

Is that as high as you plan to fill it?

I'll be interested in watching your ph and the slow creep to mid-8, if yours gets as high and whether the process is duplicated. I already know it stays where it starts in a filtered planted tank that doesn't get water changes.


----------



## navigator black (Jan 3, 2012)

It has to be shallow because Rivulus hartii likes to leave the water. They stick to the glass and just hang out.

I'm curious about how the pH will play out too. I have soft, acid water from the tap. 

In the past, acidity has been a problem. I expect that it's going to take a long time to harden this water, starting with 60ppm GH tap. I started at pH 6.8 and can get as low as 6.6.
My biggest worry is that great parasite of dirty softwater, Oodinium. I'll be watching like a hawk, as it tends to hot no water change softwater after a few weeks. But maybe this heavy planting will keep the water too clean for it. I hope so.
With a 'one size fits all', there can be some variables someone who generalizes from his own experience alone isn't going to present.


----------



## glog (Jul 17, 2012)

surely interesting...
Was curious since you have lot of plants, what kind of lighting? or natural?


----------



## Nereus7 (Jun 13, 2012)

If this doesn't work out can you give me all the plants and snails when you're done with them? Thanks, just pm me, I'll tell you where to ship them it shouldn't cost you too much  - N

p.s, is that algae and whatnot on the upper sides of the tank? You can hold on to that.


----------



## navigator black (Jan 3, 2012)

You guys are so good to me.
I have a lot of low light plants but I can't share with my US friends - border controls....
There's no major algae. Above the water, I have some duckweed, and in a modification of the beaslbob (but in honour of another plant filter fan on the forum) I have two terrestrial plants trailing roots through tiny holes in the cover. They sit on top of the tank.
It's sideways (the 11 inch depth side) out, as you see in the photos, because it is on a rack of seven ten gallon tanks I usually use for killie breeding. There is a fluorescent shop light suspended above, lighting all the the tanks (the ones at the ends rather dimly), This has given me excellent growth of my low light plants.
With low light rhizome plants, all I do is occasionally cut the longer rhizomes to 'make' new plants, and add ferts only if I see yellowing. That's maybe 3-4 times per year. I have an excessive number of tanks in my garage, around 40 - and with that regime and no new low light purchases in the past 4 years (when I added ten Anubias), I have all my tanks seriously planted. Actually, I should say 'vegetated' rather than planted, since the roots of these plants attach to the substrate and can't be buried. They draw nutrients directly from the water, and need to be exposed.
I admit, I have bought a few wisteria and such for the brighter lit fry tanks. Anacharis is actually illegal in pet stores here, and I have mine from a legal laboratory supply store, left over from school science class experiments on photosynthesis. It is seen as an invasive plant here.


----------



## jrman83 (Jul 9, 2010)

Nav - how goes the tank? Have you experienced a rise in ph?


----------



## navigator black (Jan 3, 2012)

No rise in pH. Not much of anything. It sits there. the plants are showing no growth and no death, the fish are hovering and it is dull as ditchwater. I am so tempted to do a water change and drop in an air driven filter. 

This tank is quiet. Too quiet.


----------



## SuckMyCichlids (Nov 5, 2011)

Very excited to finally get an idea for this type of setup from a trust worthy source, thank you Mr. Black


----------



## Auban (Aug 8, 2010)

the ph rise will likely come if the plants start to die. something i noticed from similar tanks i have kept. from what i can tell, an over abundance of carbon dioxide forms carbonates that dont get used by plants fast enough. the only way i could prevent the slow ph shift was to leave my lights on 24/7. a 24/7 photoperiod is not exactly the model your going for though...

with your aerial growth plants, you may not have this problem. ill have to try that.


----------



## BBradbury (Apr 22, 2011)

navigator black said:


> No rise in pH. Not much of anything. It sits there. the plants are showing no growth and no death, the fish are hovering and it is dull as ditchwater. I am so tempted to do a water change and drop in an air driven filter.
> 
> This tank is quiet. Too quiet.


Hello nav...

Your post has prompted me to put in a pitch for adding some Aglaonema, Philodendron and Pothos to the tank. The roots in my tanks have kept the water pure for the last couple of months. Only small, weekly water changes to service the HOB filtration. The land plants are slow growers, but the leaves are large and healthy. I've noticed more blooms in my emersed plants than I've seen on the same plants grown in potting soil, interesting. The combination of the strong aeration near the root balls, the natural and liquid ferts and the 12 hours a day of low, ambient light makes for a near perfect plant environment. 

Just a suggestion to possibly liven up that boring tank!

B


----------



## katanamasako (Jun 29, 2012)

that tank looks INCREDIBLY boring, I'm eager to see how long it survives though.


----------



## FishFlow (Sep 13, 2011)

It's been 10+ days, how about some updated pics? Fish too.


----------



## navigator black (Jan 3, 2012)

B Bradbury - I added philodendrons from the get-go. 

So, my ph dropped to 6.5, but predictably with evaporation and top ups, the GH and KH rose slightly. The plant growth has been decent - slow with the plants I use, but steady. Nitrites, nitrates and ammonia were fine.
There is one wrinkle that shoots down the project though. 

The fish died.

I barely saw them in the stillness, and when I last did two days ago, the bane of softwater tanks high in organics had hit - oodinium. That meant the use of salt in my failed attempt to save the fish, and the experiment is pretty well shot down. I have to do a water change now.

So now I have a lot of plants dumped in a tank - the beaslbob project never seemed to consider other aquarists might have different water than he started with, and therefore might face other problems. One size fits all makes the different look badly dressed. 
The problem with dogmatic systems is that they don't adapt well to different conditions. I have most likely stopped the velvet from lingering with salt and darkness, but I no longer have my tap water untouched (or my unlucky killies).

Someone else might have better luck - ideally someone with harder water from the tap. The jury's still out, but I am not impressed with how the "first 48" (I watch crappy cop shows sometimes) played out here. I'm going back to water changes and filtration, as this is the first pair of killies I have lost to the parasite in three years. I haven't had to treat for velvet in a long time. In that long time, I never went more than 10 days without a water change on the Rivulus. Here at two weeks and a day, kaboom.


----------



## coralbandit (Jul 29, 2012)

Sorry to hear of the loss(I presume you of all were aware of risk). I appreciate your effort and attention to try something"foriegn". Almost on cue , I started "water change " thread.I hope it wasn't a curse.My curiosity with camallanus and many peoples ills seem to indicate water quality issues.Camallanus was not water quality orientated but with the proper med step 2 always seems to be change x water. Sorry for you and your fish. HOW MUCH WATER DO YOU USAULLY CHANGE?


----------



## katanamasako (Jun 29, 2012)

coralbandit said:


> Sorry to hear of the loss(I presume you of all were aware of risk). I appreciate your effort and attention to try something"foriegn". Almost on cue , I started "water change " thread.I hope it wasn't a curse.My curiosity with camallanus and many peoples ills seem to indicate water quality issues.Camallanus was not water quality orientated but with the proper med step 2 always seems to be change x water. Sorry for you and your fish. HOW MUCH WATER DO YOU USAULLY CHANGE?



you do know this was a test they were doing ob beaslbob's 'advice' of no filter, no water change, no oxygen, etc. that he's been giving to new comers? they were doing this to prove that his claims were way out of line. Black takes very good care of his fish otherwise, he chose a swamp dwelling species for this stagnant tank in hopes they'd survive, they did not, honestly, i'm not surprised.


----------



## Nereus7 (Jun 13, 2012)

buzzkill, sucks the fish were sacraficed for the sake of a ghetto project... I guess they were bad in a past life maybe. What a buzzkill.. -N


----------



## Nereus7 (Jun 13, 2012)

......it almost seems like you're trying to prove something, beasl's not around anymore so we can't get his input but yea... the fish dieing for no reason, dikmove..what a buzzkill


----------



## whitetiger61 (Aug 2, 2011)

Nereus7 said:


> ......it almost seems like you're trying to prove something, beasl's not around anymore so we can't get his input but yea... the fish dieing for no reason, dikmove..what a buzzkill


Like Kat said ..this was an experimennt..I was curious about it, because i knew if anyone could pull it off Nav could.. His test was better than the other persons, as he did give the fish a chance.. he choose fish from swampy-stagnant waters,so i beleive this experiment was good for newcomers coming into the hobby, although it is a bummer for the fish

Rick


----------



## navigator black (Jan 3, 2012)

It was a calculated risk. What I was trying to do was deal with my own annoyance at how bob sold his system. The question "yeah, but what if he is right and you are the rigid one?" kept popping in to my head, and I thought it would be worth a test. I'm a very skeptical person, and I can be skeptical about my own skepticism sometimes. It seems a good way to learn.

I expected the tank to acidify, and for the Rivulus killies to grow more slowly and breed less than they did with well maintained water conditions. I didn't expect the very healthy fish I put in to croak 15 days in. If I had started with harder water it probably would not have happened. I just would have had less activity and slower reproduction due to the dissolved organics in the water. 

So all my little project proves is that if you start out with a softwater source, a non mechanically filtered tank without water changes is an excellent habitat for Oodinium parasites. 

I can't speak for bob, but I doubt he would have addressed the problem - inconvenient facts get in the way of perfect systems.

Even with bob banned, the points are worth investigating because it is a 'borrowed build' - it's what aquarists did before the invention of mechanical filtration and the understanding of the pollution cycle. Bob put his name on something really old, but it wasn't his invention or a new approach. Pick up a pre-1960 fish book in a second hand store, and it'll probably explain his build as how to do things, so the ideas keep returning to the hobby. You have to have a degree of experience and have done a lot of reading on fish species and habitats to pull it off, but it can be done. I don't know why as it is boring and limited for the average newcomer. Dirtydutch, who seems to be a forum casualty of the fighting, has a great system going with fish from his local waterways, and a good idea of the habitat he's trying to copy. That works.


----------



## whitetiger61 (Aug 2, 2011)

navigator black said:


> It was a calculated risk. What I was trying to do was deal with my own annoyance at how bob sold his system. The question "yeah, but what if he is right and you are the rigid one?" kept popping in to my head, and I thought it would be worth a test. I'm a very skeptical person, and I can be skeptical about my own skepticism sometimes. It seems a good way to learn.
> 
> I expected the tank to acidify, and for the Rivulus killies to grow more slowly and breed less than they did with well maintained water conditions. I didn't expect the very healthy fish I put in to croak 15 days in. If I had started with harder water it probably would not have happened. I just would have had less activity and slower reproduction due to the dissolved organics in the water.
> 
> ...


I understand that people had to keep fish without mechanical filtration back in the days, but im sure they did watrer changes to keep their water as healthy for the fish as possible. So yeah it can be done, i wont even try to argue that point,but water quality still must have been maintained in a prestine condition..just like ours are now with filters.

Rick


----------



## BBradbury (Apr 22, 2011)

Hello nav...

Sorry for your loss. The land plants need backup filtration for the period at night, when there's no lighting. I keep mechanical filtration running 24/7 and still do small, 10 percent, weekly water changes to service the HOBs.

My tanks have been running for over two months, with the roots balls of the land plants emersed in the tank water, with no water chemistry problems. In fact, I have new fry in the tanks about every couple of weeks. That tells me the water is pure.

The system works best with Aglaonema (Chinese Evergreen), but you still need mechanical filtration.

I have no answer for the water issue you had, the lower pH should be ideal for the plants and most aquarium fish do fine with a pH in the 6 to 8 range. So, you see the need for a backup filter system of some kind.

B


----------



## Auban (Aug 8, 2010)

should you try to repeat this experiment, try heterandria formosa if you can get any. i find them in some of the most acidic waters in florida and also in some of the hardest alkaline waters as well. they seem to do fine in both. from testing water quality by the hour in the past, i learned that the ph actually starts going up after the first couple hours of dark. the ph would swing down at first as oxygen was used up the ph would swing down to 6.0-6.5. my guess is that the oxygen was used up and carbonates started being formed after the tank became saturated with CO2 and dissolved organics. eventually, the ph swings would get quite dramatic, going from 6.0-6.5 to over 8.0-8.5 in the first few hours of night. in the morning, the lights got turned on, the plants used up the CO2 and the carbonates, and the ph swung dramatically back down to about 6.5 before rising back up to about 7.0 in the afternoon. as time went by, the swings became more and more pronounced. very few fish can handle those kinds of ph swings. heterandria formosa seems to be one of them.

i really think the key to keeping fish in those types of tanks is keeping a fish that can handle wild swings in water parameters.


----------



## navigator black (Jan 3, 2012)

Rick - they didn't do water changes. That's what's amazing. We were constantly counselled never to change water, and "old water" was seen as almost magical. I was one of those kids who liked talking with old guys my grandfather's age, and I was taught fishkeeping by guys who had worried about their tanks while they were off fighting World War Two. One of them got his first fishtank in 1933. Some of them would have been horrified at me 'throwing away' old water now.
Fish were much shorter lived in the average tank, and oftentimes smaller. People kept a very limited number of species compared to twenty years ago. We tend to have gone backwards on species availability because of the chain stores all selling the same fish that were popular in the 1950s again - that is a weird and unecessary development. But with water changes and mechanical filtration (and at least for a while, independent fish stores that competed with each other), a whole world opened up for aquarists.
If you stay with a certain number of the 'old school' fish choices, you can go with an unfiltered tank. I see no intelligent reason not to do water changes - that is just willfully ignoring facts. The no water change rule was the fixation that drove me to argue with bob anyway.
The 1933 fishkeeper I mentioned kept tanks into his nineties, and as the research had come in, he had kept an open mind and read it. He had changed his direction and was teaching the kids to change water long before he passed away.


----------



## Auban (Aug 8, 2010)

navigator black said:


> Rick - they didn't do water changes. That's what's amazing. We were constantly counselled never to change water, and "old water" was seen as almost magical. I was one of those kids who liked talking with old guys my grandfather's age, and I was taught fishkeeping by guys who had worried about their tanks while they were off fighting World War Two. One of them got his first fishtank in 1933. Some of them would have been horrified at me 'throwing away' old water now.
> Fish were much shorter lived in the average tank, and oftentimes smaller. People kept a very limited number of species compared to twenty years ago. We tend to have gone backwards on species availability because of the chain stores all selling the same fish that were popular in the 1950s again - that is a weird and unecessary development. But with water changes and mechanical filtration (and at least for a while, independent fish stores that competed with each other), a whole world opened up for aquarists.
> If you stay with a certain number of the 'old school' fish choices, you can go with an unfiltered tank. I see no intelligent reason not to do water changes - that is just willfully ignoring facts. The no water change rule was the fixation that drove me to argue with bob anyway.
> The 1933 fishkeeper I mentioned kept tanks into his nineties, and as the research had come in, he had kept an open mind and read it. He had changed his direction and was teaching the kids to change water long before he passed away.


there are a few aquatic and marine critters that actually do better with less water changes, given that you set the tank up right to begin with. take zebra mantis shrimp for example. most people i have talked to try to avoid wate changes too much because it seems to cause poblems with them when they molt. nobody has figured out the cause of this problem yet. i have not yet done a 24/hr water test series on my salt tank, so i have no idea if it goes through the same wild swings i see in salt water. at the same time, raising their young is nearly impossible and has only been accomplished once by Dr Roy Caldwell of Berkely University. he did 100% water changes on their rearing cups two or three times a day. he only managed to raise two or three out of hundreds. i believe if i can solve the problem of heavy feeding without the need for constant water changes, and maintaining a stable water quality while doing it, i can solve the problem of raising the nauplii in captivity. considering that they MUST be kept separated from each other or they will all eat each other, and that they need to eat small live pelagic foods, this becomes problematic. 
my kinda challenge.

again, i really think that keeping fish without water changes or water flow can be completely viable, but only for those few species evolved to live in such conditions. 

i would expect an obligate swamp species, wich comes from waters that are heavily saturated with organic solids like humic acid and tannins, as well as large surface areas, would be in a far more stable environment when in the wild than they would be in a tank. i have never actualy gone out to a swamp and done the hourly tests i did on my stagnant tank though. eventually, im sure i will.


----------



## Auban (Aug 8, 2010)

another thing, back in the old days, fish were all kept this way. only those genetic lines that had adapted to stagnant tanks were being bred, so your chances of coming across a fish that exhibited the necissary gene expression to be able to survive in those tanks was much higher than it is today, even in the same species of fish. 

when i first put heterandria formosa in my tank, several of them couldnt handle the conditions and died off. none of the offspring of the survivors died, however. i believe this was due to gene expression promoted by natural selection.


----------



## Nereus7 (Jun 13, 2012)

Wow, dirty dutch really never came back huh.. I'll be glad when this whole topic, in all it's forms, dies.. It will be a good day. - N


----------



## Auban (Aug 8, 2010)

Nereus7 said:


> Wow, dirty dutch really never came back huh.. I'll be glad when this whole topic, in all it's forms, dies.. It will be a good day. - N


i wont. ill probably be resurrecting it for the rest of my life. however, i do want to see it go back to being a method to be tested and used like any other method. it has very limited applicability, and anyone who condiders attemting such a tank should have free access to accurate information regarding this type of tank. 

i for one love seeing people actually experiment with it. it just adds to our knowledge of what will actually work in it. i feel the same way for all setups. it not only teaches us what does and does not work, but when we look for explanations for our observations and experiences, it can give us the why, whick translates directly into knowledge we can work with.

just think about the first person who pouredvodka into his marine tank. to most people, that was probably the dumbest thing he could have done. 

or consider the correlation between using ultraviolate sterilizer bulbs over a triops longicaudatus tank to improve hatch rates and decrease larval mortality(my own contribution). 

my point is, it should be viewed just like anything else to the hobbiest who is plagued by those three questions: why, what if, and would it work. for certain fairy shrimp and seasonal killifish, a stagnant tank can work well. we will never really know untill we try. thats how a "beaslbob build" should be considered, in my opinion.


----------



## whitetiger61 (Aug 2, 2011)

im sure it would work, but not with the species we try to keep in our tanks now, and im talking about discus, rams, apistos , neons,, fish like this..and nav did this experiment and he told everyone that would read it that he was doing it and how he was going to do it..did he promote this on anyone..noe he didnt.. did he suggest people to do this to their tanks..no he didnt..and i do agree, although im not a fan of losing fish..it is a learning experience, and i for one will stay tuned in to see if i can learn more about the aquatic husbandary..dangit gary now you got me interested on how they did it in the old days..

Rick


----------



## Auban (Aug 8, 2010)

just to be clear rick, i have the utmost respect for navigator black for doing this and posting his results. if he was promoting the method, we would get some bogus story of the fish thriving, complete with pictures of the tank that just had the fish added for photos, or just had a filter removed. 

this is the kind of thing i like seeing. this is the kind of stuff doesn't promote the hobby, it advances it.


----------



## navigator black (Jan 3, 2012)

I think it will regularly come back as a debate. 
When it was being presented as a miraculous 'never do any work' system, it was not a debate. It was The Only Way, and that always fails. 
It just failed here, but then again, I could be accused of making it fail. Maybe I have the world's finest unfiltered tank as my own special secret. It would be just as easy as claiming it to be a great success, a la bob. The Internet is not the best place for experiments, since we can all lie like rugs.
If we don't and if we respect what others report and try, then it's not a bad debate. If there's give and take both ways, then it all works out.

I really liked reading dirtydutch and I hope he returns. He did it his way and told no one else what to do.

I was hoping my experiment would say that the tank type could work with limitations and for a very few species, but that it shouldn't be either sold as perfect or spat at. I proved nothing, except that velvet is always a problem in very mineral poor water when it gets dirty....

I'm doing a water change tonight, taking out half the plants and dropping in a corner filter, adding some salt to kill any velvet and giving it over to a few Trinidad wild-type guppies from my backyard pond. I'll keep it hardwater for a bit.


----------

