# my (beaslbob build) methods



## beaslbob

Once every 10-20 years or so I get a request for a link to my methods.

So I let my head shrink down to more normal size and decided to start a thread I could link to.

material needed:

tank
something to set the tank on.
a room heated/air conditioned comfortable to humans.
Canadian Sphagnum Peat Moss 1ftx1ftx3ft plastic wrapped cube ($11 building supply stores)
play sand ($3 for 50 pound bag building suppply stores)
pc select ($7 for 50 pound bag contact: Pro's Choice Products)
tap water from a commonly used cold faucet that has been ran for 30 seconds before collecting.
1.5-2 watts per gallon of flourescent 5500-6500k lighting (not the equilivant incandescent rating of the spiral bulbs).
plants and fish per instructions below
no chemicals
no filters
no mechanical filtration or circulation

setup

1) add 1" of peat moss to tank.
2) fill with water to just the top of the moss with nothing "floating".
3) level the moss and clean the tank sides.
4) repeat 1-3 with 1" play sand
5) repeat 1-3 with 1" pc select
6) add: (for 10g tank) 4-6 bunches of anacharis (back), 4-6 vals (back/sides) 4-6 small potted plants (crypts, small swords) left right of center, 1 amazon sword almost centered.
7) fill tank with water poured over a dish.
8) let set 1 week with normal (8-10 hours) lighting
9) add a single fish (male platy or tetra are my favs)
10) wait 1 week with no food being added
11) add more fish (2 female plattys or more than 4 tetras)
12) start feeding 1-2 flakes per day.

if the tank clouds up kill the lights and stop adding food until it clears.

Replace water that evaporates only. No water changes.

ignore the snails (they will be almost unnoticable in a year or so)

(if you use platys you will have a tank full of fish in 6 months to a year with a more or less stable population that lasts for years and years.) Neon tetras will last 2-4 years but will not breed so will have to be replaced.

So there it is now ya'all can comment and I can link when I get questions. *old dude

my .02

Added:

Here are typical cycle parameters I measured on a 20g long


----------



## KG4mxv

What about LED lighting. or is that too progressive LOL (sorry I just had to trow that in. )

One of theses days I will have to try that method just as a experiment. 

is a 10 gallon too small for this build?


----------



## JoannaBanana

Thanks, Beaslbob. This information is terrific. I can attest that, no, 10 gal. is not too small. Mine's been set up 6 mo. and thriving. People ask me all the time how I set up my tank. So glad to have a link to refer them to. Also, I used regular aquarium gravel rather than PC Select.


----------



## beaslbob

JoannaBanana said:


> Thanks, Beaslbob. This information is terrific. I can attest that, no, 10 gal. is not too small. Mine's been set up 6 mo. and thriving. People ask me all the time how I set up my tank. So glad to have a link to refer them to. Also, I used regular aquarium gravel rather than PC Select.


for what it is worth here is a quote from joannabanana's intro thread:



[url]http://www.aquariumforum.com/f13/10-gallon-tank-build-15551-2.html[/url] said:


> So, update on Derek, the Platy: a miraculous recovery. So he was just sitting on the bottom, next day he's zipping around again. I returned the PH balanced, picked up four more bunches of anacharis (snail city?) and planted those. Left and when I came home again, 4 hours later, he's the peppiest pup I've ever seen, zipping to and fro, nibbling off of the plants. I was beaming ear to ear! I'm not a serial killer after all! I guess it was just a little ammonia spike, probably brought on by the addition of himself to the tank, coupled with not quite enough plants? Sound about right? I am looking forward to adding some girlfriends for him next Wednesday


While I know these methods work great for me it is very rewarding to see such positive results with new aquariumist's tanks as well.

Thanks for posting and glad your tank is doing fine.

my .02


----------



## jrman83

Just a FYI, this method does not:

- support heavily stocked tanks or even close to what people may call the limit. Filtration and water changes are required for that. 
-Without filtration or water movement, you will not be able to properly heat a tank either so the room it is in needs to be kept close to the required tank temp. 
-Also will not be able to medicate fish properly in this tank and will definitely need a hospital tank or a usable container to medicate fish.


This method *will* (if carried to the full extent with no filters or water movement of any type) cause an extremely high ph of approx 8.5. Refer to this thread for more info: http://www.aquariumforum.com/f15/plants-ph-36166.html You should be very familiar with the needs of the type of fish you intend to have and consider what ph the breed in, if you intend to breed any of your fish. Having a filter or providing a powerhead for water flow _*may*_ keep the ph from rising to a high level, but that has not been tested.

Just something to think about.


----------



## beaslbob

jrman83 said:


> Just a FYI, this method does not:
> 
> - support heavily stocked tanks or even close to what people may call the limit. Filtration and water changes are required for that.


I have had 20-30 fish in a 10g tank for years and years. Guess that's a low bioload. *old dude


> -Without filtration or water movement, you will not be able to properly heat a tank either so the room it is in needs to be kept close to the required tank temp.


 correct. I added a heated/air conditioned room comforatble to humans under material needed.


> -Also will not be able to medicate fish properly in this tank and will definitely need a hospital tank or a usable container to medicate fish.
> 
> Just something to think about.


While you could be correct that is also true for any display tank. IME the healthy environment created eliminates the need for medications.

agreed. just something to think about. 

worth at most .02


----------



## jrman83

Of course the intention is to not to need to medicate fish, but if you have to you really have no method without at least adding a powerhead or getting a different container. This was recently witnessed by chillwill who lost quite a few of his fish and uses your methods. A powerhead may be best to have standing by in those instances. The "healthy environment" in your tanks is no different than most all planted tanks with thriving plants.


----------



## navigator black

It's interesting - I've been an aquarist for (gulp) 45 years now,. and your method is how I started. I had an aquaintance who kept fish from when he was 17 until he died at 96 ten years ago, and he held to that method - light stocking, heavy planting, no filtration. As I read your posting, I felt I was reading advice from 'back in the day'. It works, too.

I don't use this method, as my kick is more fish behavior than plants, and except for some killies, small rasboras, gouramis and bettas, very few of our fish live in stagnant, unmoving water. I've watched platies in nature swimming in good strong currents, as river fishes. They do, however, spend the rainy season in still ditches. The adaptation to low oxygen and low current is there. You have to choose your fish for a set-up like this with some knowledge of their natural lifestyle.

You have to know your water too. If it comes out of the tap medium hard, this would be fine. I have rainforest soft tap, and peat with no water changes adds up to velvet outbreaks, really quickly here. It was never an issue when I had hard tap water. 


The behavioral changes a current can make in a tank are well worth it for me, although that can't work in a tank less than three feet long.

As for needing to medicate - I feel the biggest reason for disease is poor stock from the store. I get fish from local breeders, wild imports and a store that is very selective and doesn't base its purchases on cost, and I just had to use medications for the first time in 2 years (internal parasites). If you stock lightly, feed well and change water (sorry beaslbob), you should not have to use meds more than once every few years.


----------



## beaslbob

jccaclimber said:


> So Bob, do we get pictures of these tanks you keep talking about? The only pictures I've ever seen of your tanks were on another forum and I don't think you want them to be a representation of your work.


I think this one look's nice enough.*old dude


Aunt Pearl's 10g video by beaslebob - Photobucket


----------



## beaslbob

and here is one of my ugly tanks showing the "light" bioload. a 10g with little maintenance and the glass has not been touched in 2 years.


Aquarium Gallery - 2006021210glotsafishcentersmall


(all of the guppies are descendants of the original cycle fish from 5 years earlier. Plattys were new.)


----------



## jbrown5217

I kinda want to try and see if my parents would use this method. I miss having a fish tank that was visible to everyone (mine sits in my room at school and at home). My dad had an issue with them because he was doing all the maintenance and this would essentially eliminate the need for maintenance.


----------



## jrman83

lol, a 5sec video titled Aunt Pearl's 10g. Convincing. Is the mention of the glass not being cleaned for 2yrs just letting everyone know why it looks as bad as it does, or just a mention of how little maintenance it gets. Either way, who would want something that looks that bad in their house? It looks abandoned. I would rather spend 15-20min a week and keep it looking nice than look like some type of experiment.

Just my .02


----------



## JoannaBanana

jrman83 said:


> lol, a 5sec video titled Aunt Pearl's 10g. Convincing.


Sounds like sarcasm. However, 5 seconds of video are just as informative (or "convincing") as a photograph, if not more so. The other one he admitted was his "ugly tank" for whatever reason. Why you gotta be a hater? ;-)


----------



## jrman83

lol, hater. I was just saying that Aunt Pearl didn't sound like him. My other comment meant that why have a tank if you don't want it to look nice? Its like the ugly chair in the living room detracting away from your otherwise nice decor. If they looked that bad and I was married I am sure they would have to be pushed outside if I wanted to keep them.


----------



## JoannaBanana

navigator black said:


> If you stock lightly, feed well and change water (sorry beaslbob), you should not have to use meds more than once every few years.


@ Navigator Black: What is your recommended water change ratio and schedule?



navigator black said:


> very few of our fish live in stagnant, unmoving water. I've watched platies in nature swimming in good strong currents, as river fishes. They do, however, spend the rainy season in still ditches. The adaptation to low oxygen and low current is there. You have to choose your fish for a set-up like this with some knowledge of their natural lifestyle.


What other fish do you know of that live in stagnant unmoving water? Are there any ideal tank mates for those conditions?


----------



## majerah1

I dont even see the point in wanting a tank that you ignore for the most part.If you dont want to do the maintenance get a screensaver or one of those hangy pictures with the lights and leave the aquarium keeping to responsible people.

Also no way in hell would i let an ugly tank in my house.If people saw that as a representation of my scaping skills i would be embarrassed.


----------



## navigator black

I keep killies, which come from the margins of streams in West Africa - overgrown with plants but with moving water. They can persist for years in a set-up like the one photographed here, but with a slow bubbling sponge filter and regular 25% water changes, they flourish. They become active, and breed.
An unfiltered, dirty tank is low in oxygen, even with the plants. Fish will hover, conserving energy - they will hover for a lifetime if that's how you want to go.
There are natural hoverers - Betta splendens is a famous one as its low oxygen, naturally polluted environment will only support air breathing fish. Bettas have a labyrinth - to simplify, their inner ear has evolved into a breathing structure and they don't rely on oxygen in the water. 
There are other fish from swamps and peat bogs (the tiny sparkling gouramis for example) that are adapted to low oxygen, stagnant water, but they are hard to find. Most hobbyists like fish that move around.
Go on Youtube and search for underwater clips of swordtails in the wild (search "Xiphophorus"). It'll take five minutes, and it will show you where platys, swords and mollies live. Look at the fish, but then look at the water movement. 
I actually like beaslbob's build (if the glass were wiped) as a natural plant tank. It could have one betta splendens in it. But as a fishtank, I'll respectfully disagree with his methods, as it is too far removed from how the fish in it live in nature, and I believe we should at least try to replicate a natural environment. I used this technique when I started, when I was a kid who couldn't afford a filter, and I produced magnificently stunted variatus that were full grown at one inch. I regret that.


----------



## jrman83

I've mentioned a number of times that whomever used the methods mentioned here probably wouldn't work with all fish and certainly not all plants. A Cardinal Tetra is not the test of "if that fish works, they all will", like what is believed here.

I also agree that water unfiltered is low in oxygen despite plants. Plants do put oxygen in the water, but not even close to what a filter will do or even a powerhead causing surface movement. It is easy to understand why dechlors, or any other chemical is vehemently pushed against since they can deplete oxygen levels in an already low oxygen tank.

The substrate scheme is pretty sound. Some things I disagree on it, but it works and similar layering and putting peat as the first layer has abeen around for many years.


----------



## beaslbob

jrman83 said:


> lol, a 5sec video titled Aunt Pearl's 10g. Convincing. *Is the mention of the glass not being cleaned for 2yrs just letting everyone know why it looks as bad as it does, or just a mention of how little maintenance it gets. * Either way, who would want something that looks that bad in their house? It looks abandoned. I would rather spend 15-20min a week and keep it looking nice than look like some type of experiment.
> 
> Just my .02


Just for clarity the "unmaintained" tank was not aunt pearl's---- two seperate tanks.

sure you can spend a few minutes to keep it looking nicer.

And it is not really the "correct" substrate as it was just play sand.

but still that doesn't look like a light bioload and there is no algae on the glass. 

the point really is a heavy bioload with little maintenance can be successful for years. Which to me is exactly what a new aquariumist should strive for.

Bob


----------



## Summer

I got a dog when I was little, and my mom didnt like how big he got or how much he shed so she banned him to being chained to a dog house for life. He ended up having to be put down at the age of 16. My point is, he had "little maintenance" and still lived for many years. BUT he hardly had what a dog SHOULD have to live a happy life. Just because something works for years doesnt mean it is done the right way.


----------



## jrman83

beaslbob said:


> the point really is a heavy bioload with little maintenance can be successful for years. Which to me is exactly what a new aquariumist should strive for.
> 
> Bob


Why is that the point that you seem to push? Not the smartest thing with someone new to all of this. What can be wrong with a heater and a powerhead to push water around and keep it circulated - at least? Why not? Is the point that it "can" be done? Or is it that you can set up a tank and not do anything if you don't want to? Is it that you can do it all and avoid cost of filters, heaters, or extra water? Why is that the point that should be pushed to a new aquarists...that here you go a great new hobby, and oh by the way, it doesn't require anything from you except to feed and top off water? Why even call it a hobby or something that you like? Its more like a piece of furniture that only gets care when dust settles on it. 

Your tanks appear like something similar to a science experiment where you are out to prove to the world what "little" can be done while the majority of the people that do it waste their money. I am fairly confident the link to the pic that the tank looks more like an algae cave is what the true picture of your tanks look like over time and the video is shortly after a setup of one of your tanks, if it really is one of yours and not someone who may have used your methods. Everything in it is just too clean to be anything like you say, or maybe Aunt Pearl doesn't exactly like hideous looking things in her house either, not sure.

Why not a filter? I added 57 fish in one day to a tank that already had about 50 that never saw an ammonia spike or anything - not something you could do without a filter.

Why not a heater? I keep my house at 65 in the Winter. My Angels who like their water around 82 would put me in the poor house trying to keep my entire house the same temp. I don't get forced by a spouse to keep all of my tanks out of my house and kept in a small room that I could singularly control the heat/air condition to the room.

Why not water changes? It is proven that this is what keeps your water safe and healthy - whatever the reason may be. It may not be for you - in an unfiltered, no water change, no dechlor use, tank. 

There are a butt-load of reasons to why you should do some of these things, but I only listed one. Only a few why you shouldn't and really only apply to a tank that is very delicate in its balance with low oxygen, non-moving water where it is an issue adding dechlor because it will deplete some oxygen or throw off the balance it took weeks to months to attain because the water is stagnet. If someone doesn't have the money to forego the extra expense and wants to prove to themselves that it "can" be done, your method may be worth a shot. It is a proven method many years ago before filters were around, but if it was the "best" way filters may have never been invented in the first place. 

I don't believe however that it is something for new aquarists to attempt.


----------



## beaslbob

Gee I guess we just disagree. *old dude

Clear water, no ammonia or nitrIte spikes ever not even in cycle. High oxygen low carbon dioxide, nice stable forgiving environment, the ability to go on vacation for up to 2-3 weeks and doing nothing special, the use of untreated tap water, in fact not using any chemicals at all. and all that with a very heavy fish load with most materials but in bulk from home supply stores.

So I guess we just disagree. *old dude

but then my stuff is only worth at most.


.02


----------



## Gizmo

0.02%


----------



## jrman83

beaslbob said:


> *Clear water* - same with filtered and can even stir up the bottom (if you wanted) and watch it go away minutes later.
> 
> *no ammonia or nitrIte spikes ever not even in cycle* - same with filter, both require sensible stocking.
> 
> *High oxygen low carbon dioxide* - same with filter, but a much higher level of oxygen.
> 
> *nice stable forgiving environment* - same with filter, but more forgiving because the water is cleaned and circulated.
> 
> *the ability to go on vacation for up to 2-3 weeks and doing nothing special* - what is different here - same with any tank.
> 
> *the use of untreated tap water* - only because oxygen levels are lower in your tanks. Not an issue where the oxygen levels are many times higher and MUCH safer to add in the first place.
> 
> *in fact not using any chemicals at all *- user choice, tank setup doesn't dictate use of chemicals. Your method couldn't use - no means to circulate them.
> 
> *all that with a very heavy fish load with most materials but in bulk from home supply stores *- same with filtered.


 All of this with plants, of course. To each his own I suppose. 99% of the comminity can't be wrong.


----------



## navigator black

We're all set in our own ways, and I doubt anyone will be convinced here - unless it's a new aquarist looking to move forward. I'd suggest, to the new aquarist, that you take beaslbob's approach with a grain of salt. If you are prepared to do a little research and choose species that have evolved to cope with low oxygen swamp environments, and you are prepared to stock those species at a one fish per five gallon ratio - this is a solid project.

Now, you can stock beyond that, you can keep some (limited) species alive. You can also put on a spandex body suit and air guitar around the room, but I wouldn't reccomend either, the first for the quality of life of your fish and the second for the quality of life of your family.

Everything beaslbob reports with an unfiltered tank is true of a filtered one - I go away for two weeks and my fry actually grow, technically unfed but foraging in planted, living (filtered) tanks. They grow twice as fast fed, and five times as fast with regular large water changes.

You can enjoy fishkeeping without heaters, without filters, without chemicals, without expensive lighting and without spending a fortune. You can't keep every fish that appeals to you, and you might not keep as many of your favorites. You can't avoid doing a little work though.

Then again, what's the use of a hobby where you can't fiddle around, do a few mindless easy jobs and make a few adjustments every week? You can run a really nice fishtank with no more than 20 minutes a week needed to change water as you should and clean your front glass.


----------



## beaslbob

jrman83 said:


> All of this with plants, of course. To each his own I suppose. 99% of the comminity can't be wrong.


Geee.

does that mean I finally made it to the 1% *old dude


----------



## beaslbob

FWIW

Here is cycle parameters of a 20gl I started with these methods only using aquarium gravel instead of the peat/sand/pc select I now use.

In this tank kh and gh did rise to 30 degrees. Later tanks with the peat moss had the kh at 4 degrees and gh at 9 degrees for over two years.

IMHO this is the almost classic silent cycle a planted tank experience.

Again straight untreated tap water, no circulation, no filters, no water changes.

The pH was probably higher as I was using the api low reading test kit with a max of 7.6. A couple of years later the pH was measured at 8.4-8.8 with the high range test kit.

the fish added were platys and 6 months later the tank had 20-30 fish.

I also added 5 silver hatchedfish which lived of amost 2 years until The tank temperature dropped to 55F (it is on a back porch and I forgot to plug in the heaters. LOL)


----------



## navigator black

The problem Bob is that your method seems almost an experiment in chemistry. I'll come from another extreme - I don't own a test kit anymore and I couldn't care less about the cycle. I stock very lightly and change a lot of water, and nothing dies.
My concern is fish behavior, which interests me a lot. From observation of nature, I can tell you that water moves. It flows, it splashes and it rolls over. In a stagnant tank like yours, it sits.
Since fish behavior comes from the evolutionary history of the creature, you have to assume it responds to an environment. If you want to see a reasonable facsimile of the behavior it would show in nature, then you have to examine water movement.
What you are doing certainly works, and I have no questions about that. But it is a system with a very limited application - to those rare fish that have evolved in stagnant, non-moving water. Since nature seems to lack lids, such water tends to evaporate, and rarely provides a real environment for our fish. A water body that doesn't regularly get refilled vanishes. 
In a seasonal rain environment, fish get trapped in stagnant pools as the rivers recede, and they can usually survive for a period in the hope of rain or flooding saving them. 99% of the unlucky trapped fish either eat each other, get eaten by water bugs or birds, or dry out. They can _survive_ until then.
But they breed, grow and flourish when they aren't in the trap, but in the moving, vibrant environment. 
Fish from planted environemnts should be in planted tanks, from softwater in softwater tanks, hardwater in--- etc. Moving water fish should be in moving water tanks. Other than a few labyrinth fish and annual killifish, you aren't going to be able to point out too many stagnant water species.


----------



## beaslbob

navigator black said:


> The problem Bob is that your method seems almost an experiment in chemistry.
> 
> ...
> .


I would guess that to some extent all aquariums are. *old dude


----------



## beaslbob

navigator black said:


> The problem Bob is that your method seems almost an experiment in chemistry.
> 
> ...
> .


I would guess that to some extent all aquariums are. *old dude


my .02


----------



## ZachZaf

Is there a way to do this without fishes? I would implement this with my 10 gallon. Long story short i would use the 10 gallon for natural filtration and have my 20g up top with the fishes pump water between the two (after the 10g stabilised) so could i substitute a little of the bottom level fish water/vacuum suck off for the fishes themselves in there every so often...?


----------



## jrman83

Your kh went to 30 due to lack of water changes. I love how you talk about how extreme of conditions you have put your fish through and brag as if it is a feat you took them to half of their normal lifespan. Maybe thriving is not the word you should use for most of your descriptions.


----------



## pH7

beaslbob said:


> and here is one of my ugly tanks showing the "light" bioload. a 10g with little maintenance and the glass has not been touched in 2 years.
> 
> 
> Aquarium Gallery - 2006021210glotsafishcentersmall
> 
> 
> (all of the guppies are descendants of the original cycle fish from 5 years earlier. Plattys were new.)


Yep, that's dirty glass alright. Unhealthy plants too.


----------



## beaslbob

ZachZaf said:


> Is there a way to do this without fishes? I would implement this with my 10 gallon. Long story short i would use the 10 gallon for natural filtration and have my 20g up top with the fishes pump water between the two (after the 10g stabilised) so could i substitute a little of the bottom level fish water/vacuum suck off for the fishes themselves in there every so often...?


Yes you can do that and in fact reef tanks do exactly that only for a marine environment with macro algaes. 

It's called a refugium/sump setup.

I have heard of one doing that for a 120g discus tank.

my .02


----------



## beaslbob

jrman83 said:


> Your kh went to 30 due to lack of water changes. I love how you talk about how extreme of conditions you have put your fish through and brag as if it is a feat you took them to half of their normal lifespan. Maybe thriving is not the word you should use for most of your descriptions.


KH of 30 was when I used just sand for a substrate. With peat moss which I now consider part of the beaslbob build, kH stayed at 4 degrees and gh at 9 degrees for over two years.

my .02


----------



## jrman83

beaslbob said:


> KH of 30 was when I used just sand for a substrate. With peat moss which I now consider part of the beaslbob build, kH stayed at 4 degrees and gh at 9 degrees for over two years.
> 
> my .02


Gravel doesn't raise kh quite that bad. My point was, with water changes kh doesn't continue to climb. Peat, just like any other method out there (driftwood, oak leaves, etc) is only temporary. It may affect the tank for a couple of years but eventually will wear off, even without large water changes.


----------



## navigator black

Peat's great - and it removes metals and other sources of hardness from tapwater. I used to treat hard tap of 140 ppm for breeding Apistogramma by putting it in 20 gallon tubs over 8 inches of peat, and it would drop to 40-60 ppm in a day. The pH would fall from 7.4 to 6-6.5 in that time. The peat was good for about 3 months before it had to be replaced.
Ditto for spaghnum moss Bob - give that a try. It does really interesting things.

Now, your platies come from Mexican and Belizean rivers over limestone. I tested water from a Belizean stream at pH 7.8, and a hardness up around 300 ppm. It was hard, clear water (flowing steadily). I also saw platys swimming around logs in a green river, just as hard water and flowing steadily - a boat would drift at a good clip on it.

So Bob, please give a shot at this inconvenient question. Why would you keep a hardwater riverine fish from flowing oxygenated water in the kind of stagnant, peaty, acidic conditions your build produces? You understand your chemistry - I have no problem with that. But you could do these experiments in a glass of water.

Why involve inappropriate fish choices? Why not take the extra step, do some reading on fish ecology, and make decent choices of tank inhabitants? Why not go after South Asian peat swamp fishes to see if it would work? You're spending energy as a saleman for your idea and playing the devil's advocate, but does your system offer anything to anyone who wants to learn about fish, and not about readings on a dipstick?


----------



## beaslbob

navigator black said:


> Peat's great - and it removes metals and other sources of hardness from tapwater. I used to treat hard tap of 140 ppm for breeding Apistogramma by putting it in 20 gallon tubs over 8 inches of peat, and it would drop to 40-60 ppm in a day. The pH would fall from 7.4 to 6-6.5 in that time. The peat was good for about 3 months before it had to be replaced.
> Ditto for spaghnum moss Bob - give that a try. It does really interesting things.
> 
> Now, your platies come from Mexican and Belizean rivers over limestone. I tested water from a Belizean stream at pH 7.8, and a hardness up around 300 ppm. It was hard, clear water (flowing steadily). I also saw platys swimming around logs in a green river, just as hard water and flowing steadily - a boat would drift at a good clip on it.
> 
> So Bob, please give a shot at this inconvenient question. Why would you keep a hardwater riverine fish from flowing oxygenated water in the kind of stagnant, peaty, acidic conditions your build produces? You understand your chemistry - I have no problem with that. *But you could do these experiments in a glass of water.*Why involve inappropriate fish choices? Why not take the extra step, do some reading on fish ecology, and make decent choices of tank inhabitants? Why not go after South Asian peat swamp fishes to see if it would work? You're spending energy as a saleman for your idea and playing the devil's advocate, but does your system offer anything to anyone who wants to learn about fish, and not about readings on a dipstick?


Already have.

a 1g tank tank with peat moss/soilmaster select did start out with a pH of 6.7 or so. Then a day later pH was 7.2. A few weeks later it was over 8. neon tetra lived for over 2 years.

I also did a test with quart jars with various substrates (sand, peat, crushed coral) with some jars plants in light and others kept in darkness some planted.

In the lit planted jars ph rose to over 8.0 with all substrates.

In unlit jars it stayed way way under 8. 7.-7.5.

Feeder guppies lived for over 1.5 years in the planted jars.

I simply do not agree these methods produce low oxygen sulfur filled tanks.

but in order to accept that you have to realize there are other methods of oxygenating water then by mechanical circulation or by fast moving currents.

Additionally neon tetras, silver hachetfish, anglefish have lived for over 2 years with these methods. 

my .02


----------



## beaslbob

jccaclimber said:


> So you took a fish (neon tetra) that lives 10 years in good conditions and killed it in 2. I'm not seeing the benefit here. Angels should live 7-9, not 2. I'm not sure about the others.


Tanks/jars were torn down and fish given away after 2 years.

funny I hear neons are considered annual fish in the wild but in aquariums can live up to 4 years. First I've heard of 10 year old neon tetras.

my .02


----------



## jrman83

No way is the oxygen as pelentiful as it is in a tank that is filtered. You obviously consider the amount of oxygen in your tanks an issue. Otherwise, you wouldn't worry so much about what little oxygen a dechlor product would lock up.

I can see your tank actually having dead spots in it with absolutely no flow. Stagnet water in rivers/ponds always have low oxygen - that is a fact. Despite the fact that plant life around those spots are plentiful. I used to read about it all the time when I kept track of certain water types when doing freshwater fishing. Ask any marine biologist. Your plants put off oxygen when your lights are on and consume it when they are off. 

There is no doubt your tanks are low oxygen.


----------



## beaslbob

jccaclimber said:


> Neon Tetra
> There's a source claiming 10 years as an upper limit. I've seen 8 year old neons that were still happy and lively. I suspect that most have very short lives in captivity due to the fact that most are kept by inexperienced beginners. People only achieve the ages we do as a result of arguably un-natural conditions as well. However, I'd still be concerned if a large population only lived to be 30 years old.


Thanks.

If dh is degrees kH then I do wonder about the article.

After all mine live in a pH of 8.4-8.8 and kH of 4 degrees.

But then I find that "discrepancy" true on all such fish.

Perhaps some overriding factor is at work in my tanks.

like low carbon dioxide for instance. *old dude

my .02


----------



## beaslbob

jrman83 said:


> No way is the oxygen as pelentiful as it is in a tank that is filtered. You obviously consider the amount of oxygen in your tanks an issue. Otherwise, you wouldn't worry so much about what little oxygen a dechlor product would lock up.
> 
> I can see your tank actually having dead spots in it with absolutely no flow. Stagnet water in rivers/ponds always have low oxygen - that is a fact. Despite the fact that plant life around those spots are plentiful. I used to read about it all the time when I kept track of certain water types when doing freshwater fishing. Ask any marine biologist. Your plants put off oxygen when your lights are on and consume it when they are off.
> 
> There is no doubt your tanks are low oxygen.


Gee you mean my doubt doesn't count? *old dude


*r2


----------



## Auban

trivia question: what do you get when you cross a beaslbob build with good filtration and water flow?








[/url][/IMG]

i DO change the water though... about every 6 months. my experience shows that dissolved salts tend to build up over time. i dont know of a good test for low levels of salinity, so i usually just drop 1cc of water from my tank on a microscope slide from time to time and let it dry. you can get a good idea of what type and how much salt is in your water by looking with a microscope at the crystals they form when it dries, just be sure to put them in the same drying conditions every time(humidity, temp).

too much salt is not good for the plants.


----------



## KG4mxv

Nice tank. (green with envy)

but a specific gravity meter will tell all. Including total dissolved solids. 

I have a really nice one that I use to use at work but it was out of calibration by 2% and the cal service said it was not fixable. 
so I am using a 3000.00 specific gravity meter that can take the temp also and do trending.


----------



## navigator black

If you are going for this old standard method beaslbob calls his own, beware of one key factor (which may be a good thing).
A fish is not a 'fish' - they aren't generic. A stagnant tank will work for swamp species, and species that are periodically trapped during dry seasons in stagnant ponds. Both groups will have evolved the ability to conserve energy and hover in filthy conditions. They often become quite jammed together as the natural pond evaporates, and can tolerate crowding for periods. In nature, if the rains don't come, they die. In a beaslbob, if the water changes don't come, they go into energy conservation/survival behavior. However, if you do a lot of reading and identify swamp species, you can be in business. Jtst don't plan on breeding anything.
90% of fish species react to current as a key part of how they live. They have evolved shapes to manage water movement, and lifestyles involving current. They absolutely love and often need water movement in order to thrive. The 'beaslbob' method denies the history of the fish. 
My aquarium interest is watching fish behavior, and the beaslbob set-up is for looking at fish. You can have a garden with water flow, or cut flowers with this method. I've used variations on it for specific projects, but as a way of fishkeeping, it doesn't apply except to extreme specialists.

Walk to a river. Look at the water. Still as glass and unmoving? Walk to a lake. No waves? Look at a ditch - there you have it - no wait, ripples...


----------



## navigator black

Bob chose to interpret my previous posting by narrowing in on oxygen - a factor, but not the key. A tank is not just a chemistry experiment, Bob - it is supposed to be a dynamic artificial system. 

Fish have tens of millions of years of evolution is flowing water, and still water isn't fish friendly. To me, with a stagnant tank with no water flow, you might as well dry the fish and hang them from monofilament for all you'll learn from the tank. Or, you can go one step beyond, become serious and research swamp fish and species that have evolved for dead water. They exist. Do your homework and include that information when you go on selling newcomers to the hobby on this brilliant build you've borrowed.

Right now, the main argument you advance is laziness - no maintenance. Have you got anything on Bororas, wine red Bettas, Parosphromenus, Rivulus, Umbra and the other (very few) fish that would flourish in a tank like you believe in?


----------



## em1y386SX

Just read this entire thread and I don't agree with any of the methods used by beaslbob, sorry.

It's just that stagnant water is nasty for the fish and for your house, personally I wouldn't want stale water stinking up my front room, whats more if any of my friends or family came and saw anything like in your picture, they'll probably report me to the RSPCA for keeping fish in filthy conditions.

Regarding the vacation issue. I can leave my dual filtered 24.9 gal (29US gal) tank for about 2 weeks, come back and it will be fine.

Water changes and glass cleaning take about 20mins max out of my day, which is nothing.

To recommend this method to budding aquarists who are just starting out is plain irresponsible IMHO.


----------



## jrman83

And he would say....Everyone that uses Prime has a stinky tank already, lol. As if that was really true.

And now you know the reason he has never been allowed to keep a tank in the house.


----------



## Auban

i for one have set up numerous tanks without any form of circulation except what is caused by convection from a shop light heating only one side of the tank. while i would never recomend this for a regular fish tank, it tught me more about entropy and the process of ecological collapse than any text book ever did.

my favorite fish to use in these experiments was heterandria formosa. i measured the amount of energy going into the system, the rate of evaporation, the dissolved gas levels, nitrogen levels, etc. and just documented the the tank untill it seemed a balance was reached. to me, the whole process was fascinating, and the equilibrium the tanks reached was a beautiful state to behold. the tanks were certainly not thriving, barely eeking by would be a better description, but they werent dying either. i wouldnt even feed the tanks, as i had a constant culture of wolffia columbiana growing on the surface of the water that i trained the fish to eat, as well as a some species of ostracod(never could get a positive ID) that i found growing in a jar of cuttings in a local high school agricultural center. the population was able to sustain itself at about 20-30 fish in a ten gallon tank for about five years before i tore it down. now, i love the sight of a beautiful and healthy tank, but despite myself, i do believe that my "experiment tank" was my favorite. i learned so much from it, not just about ecology and entropy, but also some unexpected lessons in genetics. the environment certainly played a part in the expression of genes of the heterendria formosa. by the time i ended the project, the fish were less than half their normal size, but would actually live longer that they were in my circulated tanks. they would grow slower, reproduce slower, and reach smaller adult sizes. when i moved the fish into a 20 gallon tank with plants, circulation, and regular feedings, they would remain small for two generations. the fish i moved from tank stagnant to tank awesome would not grow, they would just color up a little. their offspring would reach slightly larger sizes, and by the third generation they were practically identical to the origional pre-experiental stock. from what i saw, it seemed that the females favored the smaller, more brightly colored males to the larger males during the time they were in the stagnant tank. 

today, i am able to stock tanks well above what most would consider safe, with no loss of fish. the fish seem healthy, are extremely colorful, and typically live longer than average lifespans. i attribute my success today directly to what i learned through many years of "heartless" experiments. i have absolutely no problem setting up a tank from day one, fully stocked with fish and plants, because now i know how the tank will react. i know what kind of plants will pull out what kind of nitrogen, and i know how much CO2 and light they need to effectively do so. 

right now i have a tiny blue spotted sunfish(Enneacanthus gloriosus) that is in a tank that is stagnant with nothing but green water for plants and a healthy culture of ostrocods, daphnia, and fairy shrimp. when the live food culture crashes, i will simply move the fish to another similar tank and "recharge" its last one by replacing most of the green water with distilled water. after a couple weeks, the fish will go back in. what is the result so far? this particular fish is growing faster and is showing more color than any of my other gloriosus fry, even the ones kept in similar conditions but with circulation added.

what was the point of this whole rant? just this: despite the way a stagnant tank looks, and despite the apparent affects it has on the fish that live in them, there is a lot that can be learned by simply observing a tank that breaks every rule that we as aquarists try to follow. on top of all of this, i for one am very proud of what i have learned in the process.


----------



## navigator black

An excellent read. I think that where Bob gets a negative reaction from myself and others and you don't is that you present what you are doing as an experiment. You document the size difference in the Heterandria (fascinating) and the low stocking levels. You present what can be learned from the system, and what the drawbacks are. That makes your posting a really good read, and something to seriously think about.
Bob gets on and tells beginners, who always want to overstock and generally ignore advice on fish load, to use "his" system. He presents it as ideal for all aquarists and _all_ fish species, instead of as an experiment that demands careful fish choice and a recognition of limitations. 
The "Aubanbuild" (sorry, could not resist) is really interesting as a narrow application. Your use of Heterandria in it is perfect they're an excellent fit. I'm really intrigued by the return to normal size of these already tiny fish, as I saw something similar when I kept them in lightly filtered and fed tanks for a few years. They are the fish that has withstood the densest population numbers I have ever seen, as my five became a huge colony in a small space in no time, and then maintained a stable, overcrowded population for years. The were becoming smaller, but growing to good sizes in other tanks with fry predators.
I'm sure you don't care how I judge your experiment, but hey, it was a very good one. You aren't on a crusade, but on an exploration. Thanks for sharing and analyzing it for us.


----------

