# stagnation and an argument for filtration



## navigator black (Jan 3, 2012)

I've started this thread to discuss a tangent from another thread, on dechlorinators. I don't want it to be a battle about high-tech, low-tech, or the merits of individual favourite methods. Let's assume everyone's methods work for what they wish to accomplish. It doesn't mean we can't learn from each other. Here's what I wrote there:
_ A lake or pond is only stagnant if it is "eutrophic" - dying from the decomposition of the plants within. I've seen partly eutrophic lakes where huge amounts of agricultural or livestock run off have tipped the balance and destroyed the oxygen levels of the water.
A normal lake or pond turns over regularly, evaporates, receives volumes of fresh rain and usually has streams running into it with fresh nutrients from the surrounding soil.
I'd argue that 90% of tanks are eutrophic from the get-go, and we keep them alive by regular 25% plus water changes. The volume of water in tanks is tiny, the filtration paltry, the bioload enormous and the consumption of the water's resources massive._
_Certain species will adapt - anabantoids like gouramies and bettas breathe surface air, swamp Rasboras are tiny, many livebearers evolved to handle seasonally stagnant pools in the dry season react to year round stagnation by dwarfing, etc. _

Now, I would propose we look at this from the point of view of wind, water minerals, decay, fish and light. If we are working together to suggest the best possible set up for a new aquarist who is ambitious enough to want a habitat aquarium, what do we suggest? 
I'll start:
*Wind*: it affects natural water bodies in many ways, and doesn't blow through my house. I compensate for that lack with mechanical filtration. I try to have an agitated surface by keeping tanks full to close to the filter outlet. I use large filters, and sometimes supplement them with powerheads, to try to emulate rushing water (which is its own form of wind, if you think about it). Anyone else have tricks for that?

*water:* it always moves in nature, through evaporation rain and flow. My fishtank has no tributaries, so I remove 25-40% weekly, depending on the fish in the tank. The fresh water has minerals my plants use (I have undemanding plants in every tank) and is unpolluted. 


*Decay*: I rarely vacuum gravel, but use sand gravel mixes.I manually remove dead leaves, dead fish, and empty snail shells as soon as I see them. I do water changes through siphoning, and remove water from all caves, crevisses atc in the tank. I deal with the wastes from the cycle and my bacterial filtration by removal and replacement of water.

*Fish:* I choose carefully, matching the water requirements of the species with the tank's chemistry. I try to match current with fish that love it, and to control the very important and often misunderstood issue of fish releasing growth and sexual development controlling hormones through water changes. We know fish communicate hormonally, and that adult fish influence the development of younger rivals through chemical release. Again, water changes help.

*Light*: This is my absolute weak point as an aquarist, since I like low-light plants and am horribly cheap. I'll bounce it over to someone else.

Okay, so this thread can die as an honest attempt to answer Zero's question about what to do with eutrophication, but it could also generate other people's better solutions. I'd personally like to read that.
If you don't care about these issues or ignore them, then I'd say don't bother. But I think a lot of aquarists who get beyond setting up a pretty tank (an accomplishment in its own right) get curious about these issues, and we're a problem solving lot. 
I don't want this to be a fight with bob, who has his own ways. Let's address the issues of wind, water, decay, fish and light, plus specific points others consider important. It could make a nice little thread for new aquarists who want to dig deeper... or not ;-)


----------



## Nereus7 (Jun 13, 2012)

I started typing an answer to this and so far I've deleted and started over 4 times. Each time a process leads to another one, etc. Hence the "circle" of life saying I suppose.

To get to the fat though. I'm voting water changes are mandatory. NO way around it. Any situations you find, where you can avoid chemicals made by man do it. Anything further is going to be more species & "system" specific, and I can't figure out a way to generalize. -N

I have come up with two questions so far though....


----------



## beaslbob (May 29, 2009)

*my take*

Thanks for post.

Very interesting.

I did look up the wikipedia definition and eutrophic and it was the reaction of an aquatic environment to changes. With the bad things being increases in say nitrates, ammonia, phosphates that result in low oxygen, algae/cyano blooms that result in sometimes massive fish deaths.

Obviously the earth as a whole does not need water changes circulation and so on as only outside input is sunlight.

There are fish swimming around the titanic at a deapth of 12,500 feet. So most of what we do for aquariums with a maximum of 4' or doesn't apply as well. Even with no circulation, water changes and so on the oxygen levels are still much higher then at titanic deapths.

So what is important in maintaining an aquarium is insuring that oxygen level is maintained plus ammonia/nitrite/nitrate/phosphates/carbon dioxide are reduced to safe levels.

And further that toxins are hopefully not added to the system or exported to prevent buildups.

Can you maintain an open system to accomplish that. You betcha!!!

All you have to do is take safe water from a source like a stream or lake, pump it to the tank and take the old tank water back. You do that with a 10 times turnover each day and you can maintain just about any aquarium environment the water source can provide. For as long as the input water remains safe.

If you do a 10% water change the tank's condition will be the water condition+10 times the tanks changes between water changes. Nitrates IMHO can easily build up a 1ppm per day to the tank would become 70pm nitrates plus whatever is in the replacement water.

And ditto for everythig else in the tank.

So I simply just balance out the tank with plants and nitrates remain at 0.

And ditto for everything else in the tank. It just maintains a good environment constantly, making water changes not only unnecessary but actually dangerous. As the water change itself would upset the balance and stability the plants provide. Not to mention the occasional possibility you might get bad water or accidently add some toxin with the water change.

So to me it is not that "my" tanks are unfiltered uncirculated but rather whether or not the plants provide better filtration and conditions than any mechanical means or water changes.

Afterall plants will consume ammonia directly preventing dangerous spikes and resultant fish stress and death.

The tank will become a net consumer of carbon dioxide and producer of oxygen even with no circulation. So that oxygen in the water is higher and carbon dioxide lower then if the plants were not there. Basically that tank water becomes very much like an oxygen tent for the fish.

And when something goes bump in the night the plants step up, remove the ammonia, and carbon dioxide while returning oxygen. Breaking up the dangerous parameter spikes and tank crashes.

So what exactly should we encourage new aquariumists to do? To me the answer is very very simple. You are much better off spending your money on live plants than any mechanical device or chemicals most of which are actually dangerous to the fish and reduce oxygen levels to boot.

Although I have not done actual measurements, I am fully confident that my aquariums have more oxygen then the fish around the titanic. Even with 30 fish in a 10g tank with 6-10 reproducing adults. for 8-9 years with no water changes and straight untreated tap water.

my .02


----------



## beaslbob (May 29, 2009)

Nereus7 said:


> I started typing an answer to this and so far I've deleted and started over 4 times. Each time a process leads to another one, etc. Hence the "circle" of life saying I suppose.
> 
> To get to the fat though. I'm voting water changes are mandatory. NO way around it. Any situations you find, where you can avoid chemicals made by man do it. Anything further is going to be more species & "system" specific, and I can't figure out a way to generalize. -N
> 
> I have come up with two questions so far though....


yea I made several starts as well.
and your questions are?

my .02


----------



## Nereus7 (Jun 13, 2012)

The fish around the Titanic compared to yours isn't a fair comparison though. That's what I'm saying about specific "systems". Put your fish under the same pressure the fish around the Titanic are, or vice versa and problems would start happening. Different enviro's, systems, different needs.- N


----------



## ElChef194 (Dec 25, 2011)

i agree with a water surface that is constantly being disturbed. i do not have fish that like fast currents so i employ airpumps. the diffusion bubbles break the surface tension wonderfully. i always try an keep the airstone on the opposite side of the tank from the filter so i get opposing waves and the currents negate each other keeping the water under the surface calm. however if i wanted to create a slightly more direct current i could always move the airstone. again,my fish do not care for power heads, so i do not care for power heads. 


with the chems, such as dechlor, i do use these, as reccomended, dosing the water in the bucket and allowing the water to sit for an hour after filling it. though we do have a filter on our water line, it is still treated at a processing plant and i do not trust it completely. i would rather treat it with dechlor than run the risk of poisoning my fish.


i wanted to try bob's method but i do not trust my water enough with out chems. i do not think that those ph balance tabs, algae-rid, and all the other chems are at all beneficial, but the dechlor works for me.


----------



## Nereus7 (Jun 13, 2012)

Well in a nutshell. With these planted tanks I'm crunching the numbers on mineral and benefical bact counts. With plants added there's less food for the b bacteria to live off, reducing your colony. I'm just figuring the numbers on the tug of war between plants, and b bact in electric filters when combined. Also, is a mineral still in it's orignal state once it's passed through a plant/animal. Plants in pots have to have theroots flushed of salts etc. In nature the ground is big enough for rain to get it out of the immediate area. In the ocean/ponds etc the boundaries are the same, big enough to flush the fish etc and get it far enough away the original animal plant isn't poisioned, and it can enter into another cycle, which will ultimatly "transform" it back into a usable form to complete the circle. So in a tank, minerals get used but I'm thinking going from point A to B, once they hit point C they're not the same anymore. So I'm thinking water changes are mandatory 1)to remove hormones, protiens (and in my case nitrates because I have no live plants), and 2 to refresh mineral content. 

When you said you didn't do a water change for I think it was 7-8 years, what happend with the minerals? I'm thinking you can't just have them run through a fish, circle back, and run them through again and again right? - N

Hopefully this makes sense, I'm kind of typing on the fly right now... 

- yea I'm kind of bouncing back and forth between minerals and fish "wastes", but long story short I'm thinking the "no waterchanges" thing is like catching a unicorn. I'm thinking there's more to it than just a nitrate count.


----------



## navigator black (Jan 3, 2012)

I like to sit and look at rivers and lakes. If you jump into them, even a still lake will move around you. Do it at night, and the movement of "still water' is disconcerting.
Stand in a quiet looking river and it can knock you over.
The Congo River moves 50,000 cubic feet per second into the Atlantic, the Saint Laurent at the foot of my street moves 30,000, and the Amazon moves 28 billion gallons per minute. My biggest filter moves 300 gallons per hour. yeah, water is not invented as it goes, but it is replenished at a good clip. 
I think we need water changes.


----------



## jrman83 (Jul 9, 2010)

@beasl - your tanks have more oxygen than another tank with no plants and no water movement. but, don't even pretend that your tank can equal the oxygen content of a tank with plants and surface movement. surface movement will put more oxygen in your tank better and more efficient than any amount of plants. You can find that info in numerous places on the net and even mentioned in well known books like Walstad's - even she was a huge proponent to having plants and still conceded that water movement was the best way to oxygenate your tank.

It is a good thing you don't advise to do water changes because you only mention the water percentage that works for your reasoning. 10% water changes are worthless....nobody here that does water changes will argue that point with you. Hell, evap rate is near 10%. Do you really think everyone is that stupid? But, your logic goes out the window when you do 30-50% and why is it that nobody else can be as tight as you are with food. Assuming everyone is stupid on that subject also?

Your tanks are not stable by most people's definition. If I said my ph started at 7 and kept climbing until it reached 8.5, that is not stable. It doesn't matter what caused it. Plants dont cause the exterme high ph in your tanks, it is the methods in which you choose to run them. All the testing you did never included any with water movement and you yourself admitted that if your tanks had water movement the ph would drop. You know what, stagnant ponds don't have a ph of 8.5 or higher.

Lastly, stop thinking the thread is about your horrid tanks and move on! It's not always about you!


----------



## Puppylove (Jun 10, 2012)

I don't understand how it fish survive in completely still water? Mine will start gasping for air when there is no movement, and I even have plants. Is this normal? I'm pretty sure they would eventually die if I kept the water still.


----------



## zero (Mar 27, 2012)

im not sure if im getting this but seeing as every one else is starting with i think water changes are needed because...ill add my 2cents:

as nav said rivers and lakes are always getting there minerals replensihed and thats what we have to do with water changes. with redox (please tell me if i get this wrong) but one electron loses an molecule, atom or ion and another electron ganes one and with out that they cant be absorbed by the fish properly. and so, if regular water changes to fit the size of the fish are not done the electron that has lost their molecule, atom or ion cannot be recharged therefore not allowing the fish to use them....leading to ill health. like prime will give a reading for ammonia when its been turned into its non toxic form, a kH test (i think thats the right one) will give a false reading if the minerals haven’t been replaced, as there still there just not in there useable form.
and going on from people saying about surface movement, the redox can be balanced by good dissolved oxygen and the correct positively charged minerals.

and lastly to quoat nereus "Any situations you find, where you can avoid chemicals made by man do it." i second that.....because of the guys on here (namely nav and susan), ive never added any chemical to my tanks save for ich treatment once (my oscar came with ich  ) and so far that same oscar has been beaten twice up to the point that his skins came off and you can see his muscle and water changes have cleared that up, also a internal parasite thing has cleared up on its own and a pleco left in dirty green water with no light for months and no food has made a full recovery with.....you guessed it, water changes and good food!





please tell me if ive missed the point of this totally.


----------



## navigator black (Jan 3, 2012)

In some ways, humans are just bottom feeders in thin water. The water a fish lives in is denser than our air, but the needs are similar. We want oxygen, and we don't want pollution. Put me in a closed room with no window and no ventilation, and I will live a long time. I'll doze, get lazy, maybe watch reality tv, and not think very well, but I'll survive. Add in some elements - make it a 1970s house with smokers indoors, perfumed air fresheners etc, and I''ll get nasty.
Open the window, stick in a fan or bring in a sea wind, and I'll leap like a gazelle (well, not really, but you get the point). We need fresh air, because air is our element.
Fish need fresh water, because water is their element. 
I don't think we need a detailed study of water chemistry to see that.
But I also don't want to see us turn this into the world against bob. Bob is just one guy with his own schtick going there. He is not going to change for any argument, because his system accomplishes whatever goals he has set for it. We don't share goals.

I'm interested in what we do to deal with the common sense issues of 'faking' nature enough to give our fishes decent environments, as close to reality as our techncal faking will allow. I think it's evident that the stagnant tank is not natural in any way shape or form. So far, this discussion has added air pumps to the equation.

BTW - I use chemicals. I use salt, magnesium salts and such for water hardening, I use 'rid-ich' and medicinal dyes for Ich, and have used copper for velvet. I use tannins as spawning triggers for rainforest fish, and colour foods chemically derived from algaes. There's always a bottle of methelyne blue in my fishroom, and I always have dechlorinator on hand for extra large water changes. I'm just very careful not to treat a disease unless I can identify the disease and be sure I am using a well targeted med.


----------



## zero (Mar 27, 2012)

if were talking about trying to mimic nature as best as possible, i have apple snails in my SA tank to eat the decaying leaves and plant matter, in turn making fertaliser for my live plants. i watched a very interesting program on apple snails and have since stopped removing dead leaves and my plants are looking greener and stronger than before and the snails are growing beautifully! i think maybe a good life circle is necessary? if thats the correct phrase to use?

"I'm just very careful not to treat a disease unless I can identify the disease and be sure I am using a well targeted med." thats what i meant when i said i dont use chemicals....my thoughts are, someones not going to dose the amazon with melaflex (spelling?) when fish have a fight! let them take care of themselves untill a time when they physically cant. do you know what i mean?


----------



## Nereus7 (Jun 13, 2012)

Nav -"But I also don't want to see us turn this into the world against bob" I second that, can't reach the summit if you're throwing blows at the base..

Zero - That's what Im talking about, I need to figure out the ion changes etc. I'm thinking they have to be replaced. I can't keep reusing a bottle of gatoraid etc, a new source has to be present. 

ElChef - "i agree with a water surface that is constantly being disturbed" - I do too, and some movement underneath it. Even if I set a glass of clean water out, within a few days bad things start happening. To take it one step further, when you do a water change if you don't get rid of the water and let it set all the cream (protiens etc) rise to the top and you start seeing a film. I did this by accident and left a "used fish water" bucket with a lid on it in the corner. I went to grab it and found out it was still full, needless to say when I took the lid off it was a little funky. Nav, good comparison with the air circulation. I can survive in a stale room, but definatly liven up during spring cleaning when ALL the windows come open, and the ceiling fans roll full force. (I'm under a ceiling fan right now  )

As far as chems, I ro/di to cancel out chlor/heavy metals etc. I find to remove them works better than treating with more chemicals. Luckily the times I got ich in the beginning heat and salt worked, and my fish have been healthy since so no needs for meds. I was on anti's and steroids a while back, I wouldnt want to know what happend had the doc not gave them to me, I'd be in trouble. That I would consider unavoidable. When I say avoid man made chems, I'm saying why dump rid-ich when you can heat and salt etc. When talking about dechlors, I'd say it's better to dechlor than to just throw the chlorine/chloramine water in with fish but, why not take it one step better... ro/di  ...healthy


----------



## WhiteGloveAquatics (Sep 3, 2009)

Both my tanks appear to be sheets of glass on top but thats what a overflow does.


Nav, it depends on types of pumps and filters too. Like I just stated above my tanks look like glass from the top and the overflow does all the work getting the water down to the sump which segregates and aerates then pumped back up to the tank, down the inside of the tank and discharges at the gravel level like a natural spring, I dont remove anything but large debris from the overflow openings, I set them up like a independant body of water with a spillway(overflow) and a spring(substrate level supply) creating a "circle of life" in the tank itself. I do 50% PWC's weekly on the 210g its biweekly.

Thanks for getting the brain working for the day, now I got something to do when I get home now, research this thread more indepth.



Disclaimer-I only speak from personal experiences.


----------



## coralbandit (Jul 29, 2012)

Now were talking and I know I'm late. Light Nav is important why cheap there? Surface movement is what it is all about. No dummy here and understand there answers to this but just think ; where does the oxygen come from. Surface or substrate. Totall water movement is important as well as quickly forgotten wind.I have dual mega overflows power heads for circulation ( in tank and 2 places in sump) and fans to cirulate air on 2 out of three of my tanks. The one that doesn't have fan in hood has fan blowing across my three sumps ( 1marine land biowheelmodel 2 [wheel removed] that series to 2 29gallon sumps [refugium and another].Some one said to me "wouldn't it be nice to have a 180 gallon filter on a 50 gallon tank instead of vice versa?" Sorry for you hang on the back OR LESS I like big! Big tanks, big filters , brightlights oh oh give me more! You can't short cut mother nature no matter how smart you think you are. If you were just alittle smarter you'd try to replicate nature not replace or negate. WHEN I SAY "YOU" I'M NOT SPEAKING TO A INDIVIDUAL IT'S HOW I TALK. So no one get upset or think I'm debating ones paticular technique.The process of keeping individual species will vary .Eveyone puts water in the tank, I hope.


----------



## navigator black (Jan 3, 2012)

Water in the tank? Dang, now I get it....

This weird thread may look obvious to some, but hey, things are coming out of it some new to tanks might appreciate. I hope so. I'm just trying to stir the water without stirring up the mulm by starting this.

Overflow systems are amazing, and I wish I were set up like that. I have a couple of homemade top of the tank filters, ugly but effective. I pump water up to large plastic boxes on top of two (basement) 75s, and gravity carries it back down through drilled holes. That doesn't disturb the surface much, come to think of it, but it dumps a lot of oxygenated water in.

Research has shown Apistogramma dwarf cichlid mothers to take their babies to the areas of the tank with the highest oxygen, and to keep them as far as possible from low oxygen zones, The fish know...

coralbandit, are you a saltwater keeper? Freshwater keeping really has to look to salt more and see what can transfer.


----------



## coralbandit (Jul 29, 2012)

I keep both. I once ran a red sea C skim protien skimmer on my fresh180. Everyone said protien skimming wouldn't work on fresh but when I look at streams or lakes there is skum (organic protiens) on the surface off to the side after the waterfall in the still area. This work to a limited degree(how much can be considered working ? alittle a lot thats volume not effect. Also this skimmer was for salt no old school lime wood diffusers the new 2500 fancy pump with fancy pin wheel/venturi..... I was told in the old days maybe still today anglefish/discus breeders enjoyed good result with ozone.Ifilter both salt and fresh the same multiple sumps, same mechanicall pads down to 100micron rinsing them every week or so. Water changes are healthy even with massive fitration many salts spend more than necessary on supplements when they could put fresh water with supplents in it. On to dechlorinate? I mix ro/di with tap right in sump #2. 1:4 ratio . Itry for25% every week on the 180 fresh. The rest of ro/di is for salt trying 30% on 75 reef and 50% on slow 29 that receives massive feeding for filter feeder. I probably overfeed all but 75 gallon .Food quality affects water quality. I use dry in fresh every day and thus receive phosphates enough to treat with phosban. I use phosban in salts but only feed frozen or liquid foods. Both systems are very similar. Salt is aliitle tighter but like fresh cycled and filtered managable for all who pay attention. And their water bill.


----------



## navigator black (Jan 3, 2012)

I've seen freshwater skimmers are work in importing facilities. The problem is the density of the water. They end up being quite expensive as what you have to do to compensate for the less dense water seems to make them really large and pricey. They worked really well, and removed a lot, but they were bigger than the average freshwater tank.


----------



## WhiteGloveAquatics (Sep 3, 2009)

I run a skimmer on my sumped 75g freshwater tank. Too much oxygen makes it a bad place for real plants to thrive in a FW tank. My 210g is also sumped but there is ALOT of aeration between the wet/dry trickle effect and the MD9.5 that powers the UV and Co2 reactor. With a overflow equipped tank it creates the "spillway" effect where that water is oxygenated via the overflow box and its baffles and bulkheads, water flowing thru at a good clip gets very oxygenated and turned then when it hits the sump it goes thru pads and bioballs which are not submerged creating turbulation that oxygenates the water. I do not run powerheads or fans on any of my tanks due to the rapid rate of evaporation. I change the water at 50% every 48-54 hours. 
I found it easier to plumb in pumps then having equipment in my tanks, I like my tanks with nothing but water,flora and fauna not equipment in there. Im not arguing but over 2 years now without a issue on oxygenation makes it a very successful tank.

I use the skimmer to do exactly what it does in a salt tank, remove the surface solids(solids I mean muck) and its amazing how much you dont see that the skimmer shows you is there. Its kinda nice because all we have to do is add salt to switch to the marine side of things.


----------



## Gizmo (Dec 6, 2010)

I don't mean to shift gears here, but you mentioned light was one of the factors affecting natural habitats and I agree it has a lot of bearing on manipulating the habitats we like to create in our aquariums, but in the long run what it boils down to is that if there is a day/night cycle where the lights are turning on and off intermittently, then the fish should be perfectly fine.

The science behind aquarium lighting is very in-depth and often times confusing. As if nuances between different bulb types weren't hard enough to grasp, things like angles of refraction, attenuation, heat loss, etc. are at play. Chemical composition of the water also determines how the light is utilized, everything between CO2 to water clarity plays a part.

What I'm getting at here is that I don't think light should be considered when talking about stagnation and eutrophia (sp?). When light plays a part is when you're talking about plants and/or algae. When you think about it, aside from photosynthesis needs of plants, the only other big thing lighting affects is the coloration of the fish.

Thoughts?


----------



## dirtydutch4x (Jun 16, 2009)

I am currently running 3 tanks with no filtration, heavily planted and almost no water movement. I have an air pump working on all 3, they are dirt(Miracle Grow Organic) capped with sand and tiny river rocks. The fish I keep are Natives that come from bodies of water with little to no movement in the water and swampy smell to boot. I have had them running for well over a year this way and went over a year with no water changes and just topping off. My water was clear and fish brightly colored and active, my issue came when my water started to smell like the lakes my fish came from, my thinking was similar to Bob's thinking, that is where I got the idea, a self sustaining tank with little to no intervention, just could not tolerate a swamp in my home. So at this time I do a 20-30% water change monthly and that is it. I know my lighting is inadequate on all 3 but the plants seem to be growing fine and I use a diy co2 on 2 of the tanks.
So from my experience I would say everything we do is dependent on the fish, plants and tank size that we intend to keep. I still think that all noobs and even experienced keepers continue to do research on whatever it is you are going to keep before diving in. I did before my attempt and I will be honest here, I love my tanks and fish, may not be as attractive as some but they are mine and I enjoy them, and one of the people I have to thank is Bob. Great thread Nav, Its nice to to have an open discussion with shared ideas and no arguments which is what I originally enjoyed about this forum.
*go team


----------



## Gizmo (Dec 6, 2010)

Wouldn't a stagnant tank like Bob's with no circulation be a better candidate for, say, a 55 gallon with a DIY CO2 system? The less surface agitation, the less gas exchange and off-gassing of the CO2, making a DIY feasible in a larger tank. Is that too bold of an assumption?


----------



## beaslbob (May 29, 2009)

FWIW we might consider this concept.

(and be sure to click on the little picture and critique those tanks).

Self-contained Microcosm


----------



## Nereus7 (Jun 13, 2012)

...will do - N


----------



## jrman83 (Jul 9, 2010)

A jar with a few shrimp or snails says nothing to me. Neither of which would require much oxygen. You'll see no fish in those jars and you'd be a total idiot to try and put fish in them. Even if, only very small fish would work. It is not to say that the plants will give anything living in them oxygen, just not an adequate amount IMO. To live yes, but just because it can live doesn't always tell a full story. Water movement will still create more oxygen and the fish will be much more active and healthy.


----------



## navigator black (Jan 3, 2012)

I had a look, and some guy has a few jars in a panelled basement. He sells them. But what cramped environments!

Show me one species of fish that has evolved to be totally still for a lifetime in low oxygen water. The closest we come is Betta splendens, and only because its fins have been deformed by selective breeding to the point it hovers from the drag. It isn't a natural form, it's a man altered one.
But if we stick with 'eco-jars', we are far from any of the questions asked at the start of the thread. We are trying to make aquatic life adapt to our convenience or needs, not emulate nature for the needs of a fish. So this one is a total tangent, and a throwback to the goldfish bowls of the past.

The thread's about us adapting to nature, not how much we can get away with by ignoring ecology.

Wind.
Water.
Decay.
Fish.
Light.

Unless someone adds to that, those are the essentials. Discussing only one, as we do in most beaslbob system discussion threads, is looking at a tree stump and missing the forest. We can't see how this works with a test kit, either. 
Dirtydutch is emulating swampy water bodies in Florida, and he has looked at them pretty closely. Cool. Eco-Jar seller is selling jars. 

A sealed jar eliminates wind. Water conditions will depend on bioload. Decay is eliminated if nothing new goes in. Fish can't thrive in there - they move in real life. It may be okay on light. But that tangent's a fail.


----------



## beaslbob (May 29, 2009)

navigator black said:


> I had a look, and some guy has a few jars in a panelled basement. He sells them. But what cramped environments!


that link is on the inland aquatics site. They are hardly "some guy in a panneled basement". And maintain their marine systems with algae turf scrubbers which are very much like FW planted tanks and very similiar to the ecojar concept I referenced. 

From what I understand they do not sell eco jars .

see:

Inland Aquatics - About us




> The thread's about us adapting to nature, not how much we can get away with by ignoring ecology.
> 
> Wind.
> Water.
> ...


Perhaps the wind, water changes, filters, air stones, water canditioners are the "tree stumps" and not the forrest.

my .02


----------



## jrman83 (Jul 9, 2010)

If it were just about plants, it wouldn't matter. Whatever site or company that is, who are they to anyone here but beasl? May as well be someone selling jars with ships in them.


----------



## zero (Mar 27, 2012)

I have a question that's just hoped into my head after reading the ship in the jar comment. If you was to take lake Malawi for example and scale it down to a tank manageable size, with the exact mineral content water movement etc, just everything, would that make the perfect mimic? Is that even possible?


----------



## beaslbob (May 29, 2009)

zero said:


> I have a question that's just hoped into my head after reading the ship in the jar comment. If you was to take lake Malawi for example and scale it down to a tank manageable size, with the exact mineral content water movement etc, just everything, would that make the perfect mimic? Is that even possible?


Of course it's possible.

and can apply to any lake in the world.

But one must first be able to accept that plants balance out and stabilize the environment, remove toxins, ammonia, nitrate, phosphates, and carbon dioxide while providing oxygen. *old dude

my .02


----------



## jrman83 (Jul 9, 2010)

Who would argue that plants do that? But you cannot mimic any lake without water movement from wind unless you added a powerhead or filter. This would put the right amount of oxygen fish needed. That can't be done without.


----------



## susankat (Nov 15, 2008)

This thread was started as a valuable tool to help understand the concepts of keeping fish in as close as possible as to what they are in nature. 

Bob this isn't a thread about your tanks even though most people know you keep stagnant tanks. Most of your fish probably don't come from those kind of conditions, unike dirtydutches tanks mimic the area from where the fish are from. And he has learned to do water changes at least once a month and can probably go longer. When I had my walstead tank up and running I did a water change on it once every 6 to 8 months. It aides in refreshing the minerals in the water. There were powerheads on the tank for movements and the tank was 95% planted.

An example of the lake malawi set up. Plants are not added to those tanks because there are very few that survive in that enviroment and what does is usually vegitation that is eaten by the fish. Even if plants were put into a sump or refugium it would have to be able to thrive in the harsh water that is contained in that lake.


----------



## Gizmo (Dec 6, 2010)

jrman83 said:


> You cannot mimic any lake without water movement from wind unless you added a powerhead or filter. This would put the right amount of oxygen fish needed.


+1


----------



## coralbandit (Jul 29, 2012)

white glove ; nice tanks. Dig the discus. Have 3 in my 180. If you don't have surface extrction , you don't know what your missing. I dream of a 6' tall protien skimmer with out the price tag. Do you use ozone? I didn't see skimmer in pics(maybe my bad but) how big is it? I know my skimmer was effective in fw , but I think it more (or less) could have or should have been more efficent. I'm not sure (density, salt really is a solid{it affects light compared to fw} that pin wheels or venturi pumps can be suitable replacements for limewood air stones in a fw application. More than how big , how? Due you use air/pinwheel? what kind is it? Do you feel co2 is necessary or more efficent means to your goal. I don't use co2 but my tank is packed and my filter gets water from dual overflows and then to 4 filter drawers all mechanical for each. In the old days "wet dry" had spray bars instead of drip plates(being only one plate per drain) and was considerd by Thiel to be a way to conserve or promote co2 retention in massively oxgynated systems. My plants grow , but nothing special(not being ungrateful) and no harder to keep or demanding types. But I'm happy my plants are real for fish. I'm die hard about strong lighting will co2 make a noticable difference? And really ,50% that often? Automated or by you? I have pump in sump#1 to drain and water fill (tap) in sump #2. I mix my ro/di 1:4 twice weekly and change about 40g straight ro/di.


----------



## coralbandit (Jul 29, 2012)

not clearly stated but the drip plates were supposed to be better than spray bar for co2.


----------



## beaslbob (May 29, 2009)

Nereus7 said:


> Well in a nutshell. With these planted tanks I'm crunching the numbers on mineral and benefical bact counts. With plants added there's less food for the b bacteria to live off, reducing your colony. I'm just figuring the numbers on the tug of war between plants, and b bact in electric filters when combined. Also, is a mineral still in it's orignal state once it's passed through a plant/animal. Plants in pots have to have theroots flushed of salts etc. In nature the ground is big enough for rain to get it out of the immediate area. In the ocean/ponds etc the boundaries are the same, big enough to flush the fish etc and get it far enough away the original animal plant isn't poisioned, and it can enter into another cycle, which will ultimatly "transform" it back into a usable form to complete the circle. So in a tank, minerals get used but I'm thinking going from point A to B, once they hit point C they're not the same anymore. So I'm thinking water changes are mandatory 1)to remove hormones, protiens (and in my case nitrates because I have no live plants), and 2 to refresh mineral content.
> 
> When you said you didn't do a water change for I think it was 7-8 years, what happend with the minerals? I'm thinking you can't just have them run through a fish, circle back, and run them through again and again right? - N
> 
> ...


As far as minerals are concerned with a sand substrate kh and gh did rise over years. But that didn't seem to bother the guppies much. But it did bother neon tetras.

But with peat moss in the substrate kh and gh remained constant for 3 years and neone thrived.

my .02


----------



## coralbandit (Jul 29, 2012)

must have read only page one , sorry. What plants survive in lake T orM or the really toxic one OH vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv. possibly co2 would have help my T's years ago. They were fine and I kept them 6 or 7 years(after the rainbows 5 or 6 year gig). But never had one lick of success with plant in such harsh water.They really are the link between salt and fresh. Brackish in the wild is position or behavior. Not the link. Those three lakes are a little special. Back to start , I know there are some plants, but in comparison to fw or salt?The lakes are special,harsh ,and acceptably toxic in some respects (lake victoria). Is that healthy because it exists?


----------



## beaslbob (May 29, 2009)

susankat said:


> ...
> 
> Bob this isn't a thread about your tanks even though most people know you keep stagnant tanks.
> 
> ...


If by stagnent you mean low oxygen, anaoxic or anaerobic tanks full of foul smelling sulfur compounds then most people are incorrect.

Your right this thread should not be about "my" tanks but rather how to keep the best possible environment for our fish.

So the question is or at least should be what methods and techniques best possible environment.


All I am saying is that environment is best maintained by establishing a balanced stable eco system that requires as little maintainence (interferrence?) by the operator as possible.

I guess that is a hard concept to understand.

still just my .02


----------



## navigator black (Jan 3, 2012)

You could not mimic Lake Malawi properly in an average home set up. You have too many zones. Yes the water moves at the surface and the chemistry is stable. You can do that. But try a wave zone. Imagine how much oxygen rushes into water with breakers on a lake that wide? You are approaching a freshwater sea with such lakes. 

If you plant heavily, you hit a problem. The lake is rich in thick algae, full of tiny life forms. Most of the Malawi cichlids would mow down an average aquarium plant because each is specialized for a different niche in the food chain around these algal mats. Most are herbivores.

There are zones with Vallisneria like plants, but not enough to filter the lake. And the lake is too deep for most plants. So once again, nature doesn't read the rule books.

Let's get out of our comfort zones of test kits and our own set-ups. Let's say beasl is right and people with pumps, conditioned water etc are missing the forest for the trees. Okay. How do you deal with wave movement and current without those devices? What do you do?

Do you train your anacharis to do the wave? Put the tank on a rocking chair?

We have some of us using power/canister filters with or without additional power heads. We have people using air driven systems. We have overflow systems in drilled tanks, and drop systems from top of tank filters. We see a lot of people here trying to grapple with the issue. We also have people denying the whole basis of the discussion, but still participating. Why turn it all back in the same old same old direction like that? Lots of things work.
Plants are a major element, and jrman's plant set-ups put mine to shame. 

Anyone have solutions for big filtration and current messing up planted tank plans? coralbandit has cool questions I can't get anywhere with, with my low-tech philosophy.


----------



## beaslbob (May 29, 2009)

coralbandit said:


> must have read only page one , sorry. What plants survive in lake T orM or the really toxic one OH vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv. possibly co2 would have help my T's years ago. They were fine and I kept them 6 or 7 years(after the rainbows 5 or 6 year gig). But never had one lick of success with plant in such harsh water.They really are the link between salt and fresh. Brackish in the wild is position or behavior. Not the link. Those three lakes are a little special. Back to start , I know there are some plants, but in comparison to fw or salt?The lakes are special,harsh ,and acceptably toxic in some respects (lake victoria). Is that healthy because it exists?


I use these techniques with full marine tanks using macro algaes.

Plus algaes and cyano bacteria occur in all environments.

So if nothing else the FW plants would be replaced with various algaes to provide the same balanced stable environment regardless.

One thing to consider is the algae truf scrubbers which would also provide the circulation everyone seems to think is mandatory.

my .02


----------



## Nereus7 (Jun 13, 2012)

I'm still thinking about the self contained link. 

Hey bob, you said you had your fish making babies right? Well they say if your animals are making babies you're doing something right. Are you keeping tanks right now? Throw up some pictures so we can see what you're doing, make sure some babies are in the pictures. I'd like to see what you're up to

Everyone else, post a picture that best represents your tank! For the sake of the beginners, they'll be able to read our philosphies as well as see them represented in the flesh!! Different styles, variety, spice... 

I would lead by example but I have no pictures haha  .. that's how I roll.. I'll see if I can do something about that. - N


----------



## coralbandit (Jul 29, 2012)

this I'm sure falls into water catagory but what about global warming? The earths water doesn't change ? my *** .Those glaciers were formed millions of years ago. Where the water come from? Did it leaving the active water column change the remaing waters make up or chemistry? Is it melting now not changing the water.I hear the tempature is going up. Or is it still the same?The water doesn't change because it's trapped( if you believe that ) here with us ?Doesn't change? Really? You look the same as when I saw you 30 years ago!


----------



## beaslbob (May 29, 2009)

Aunt Pearl's 10g video by beaslebob - Photobucket

<a href="http://s492.photobucket.com/albums/rr284/beaslebob/aquariums/20%20FW%20Leiden/?action=view&current=20070919overallsmall.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i492.photobucket.com/albums/rr284/beaslebob/aquariums/20%20FW%20Leiden/20070919overallsmall.jpg" border="0" alt="overall sept 2007, overall view of 20g long leiden"></a>

start u parameters:


----------



## coralbandit (Jul 29, 2012)

I came here to learn and hoped to help. I'm not to deep for you nav. You get it. But not knowing all Bob did just ring a bell so I have to ask; is cyano good?It may well serve as replacement to nothing, but beside nothing all that ever grew in my Tang. tank was that----cyano. ONLY fw tank I had to ever grow cyano. Was it good?


----------



## susankat (Nov 15, 2008)

Bob how about pics of your own tank and not aunts tank.


----------



## dirtydutch4x (Jun 16, 2009)

20 gal. long E. okefenokee tank. Dirt bottom capped with PFS, air to add as little movement as possible and WC every month or so. I do use dechlor to treat the water but never any other chems and I do not test my water, this tank has been setup and running for around 18 months. Okefenokee have been in there for about 3 months, formerly H. Formosa and bluefin killi's.
left side


right side


----------



## jrman83 (Jul 9, 2010)

susankat said:


> Bob how about pics of your own tank and not aunts tank.


That video is BS anyway. Easy to see it hasn't been setup very long.


----------



## jrman83 (Jul 9, 2010)

Nereus7 said:


> I'm still thinking about the self contained link.
> 
> Hey bob, you said you had your fish making babies right? Well they say if your animals are making babies you're doing something right. Are you keeping tanks right now? Throw up some pictures so we can see what you're doing, make sure some babies are in the pictures. I'd like to see what you're up to


Here is a closer representation of what his tanks look like.....any tank can look fresh just after you set it up.


----------



## jrman83 (Jul 9, 2010)

I just grabbed my first pic, I have better ones.

As beasl said:


> All I am saying is that environment is best maintained by establishing a balanced stable eco system that requires as little maintainence (interferrence?) by the operator as possible.
> 
> I guess that is a hard concept to understand.


Amazing that you would believe it is a concept that people "can't understand" and insult their intelligence, instead of believing that there are better ways to suck an egg. 

Your methods carry your opinions and my methods follow mine. Both have healthy fish and plants, although no proof your method produces healthy plants - your pic shows otherwise. So if just *one* of the differences is something that is incredible to look at or such an eye-sore that your wife makes you move them all out of the house (something you said you've had to deal with), I'll take a room centerpiece vs a tank that looks like an unattended experiment. I'll take the extra work over looking at your mess any day of the week.

Your system is no more balanced than mine is and I perform large weekly water changes, have high light, inject CO2 and add micro/macro/trace ferts. There is water movement so I know that the oxygen in my tank is at a much higher level than it would be if it were just plants.....so it could support large populations of larger fish if I wanted. A bunch of live-bearer sized fish is not a test of any tank when it comes to the need of higher oxygen to support higher activity.

You claim balance in your systems, but with a ph that climbs no matter where it started to extreme high mark is not balanced by any book or article I have read. Plants alone *do not* cause that condition. It is more the extreme condition of your tank, near barren in oxygen, although enough to sustain life, lack of water movement, excessive high TDS (speculation) very little flux in anything that causes it. Regardless, if there were any type of documentation that showed that was the state of any planted tank, I would not say such about your tank. Ph fluctuates in any planted tank, but *does not* continue to move higher and higher. If that is stable....then I wonder what the definition of an unstable tank is in your mind. Stable - CANNOT - be the eventual value your tank's ph stops climbing at. You can argue this forever and a day - still doesn't change the fact that what your tanks experience is *NOT* the norm.

Bottom line: you have your methods you believe in and that is okay. I'll keep mine. Stop trying to make everyone believe that your methods are better. I assure you they are not. Try going to plantedtank.net and selling them there. If you get into this thing we may call a hobby and you don't want to do any work with it at all and don't care how the tank looks over time....I might agree with most of your methods. But until then....*I'll take the results I get over the results you get anyday.* They don't lie.


----------



## navigator black (Jan 3, 2012)

I assume everyone has tanks that please them. A picture doesn't answer any more questions than a test kit result. Here's my 120. You see low light plants badly photographed and some large-ish grey/silver fish. 
Why?








Technically, I have issues there. The grey fish is a Satanoperca species that feeds by sifting sand. Every grain in that tank has traveled the length of the tank many times over. It needs extremely clean water - one missed water change, by even 2 days, and it develops head lesions. In regularly changed water, it's a healthy active fish. It needs soft water and warmth. In the wild, it comes from flowing water. It would die gasping in an incredibly limited application like a beasl tank.
I have modified the tank since - with a shoal of Congolese tetras. That's a new problem, as they are unidentified species and I have no reference for them.There are 2 inchers with red bodies and average sized eyes. They like to live in the plants. There are 3 inch silver ones that rolled about the tank looking unstable for a couple of weeks till I added a large powerhead with a venturi to create a storm of bubbles and flow. Every plant moves. The fish regained their form and are now racers, shoaling into the current. From this, I'm assuming they were caught in pools beside the great rapids of the Congo, and have huge current (from the camouflage and shape) needs.
I have another species now in a breeding tank - big moon bodied reddish blue tetras with filaments. They lay eggs in the plants closest to the powerhead. There's a lifestyle clue.
I did not make this tank and just put fish in it. I have adjusted constantly. It has twice the filtration, more wood and more powerhead resources than it had when I first arranged it years ago as a South American tetra/Geophagus tank. 
A picture can show "What". A discussion says "why".

I could show you tanks with intentionally cultivated hair algae, white sand and gravel, limestone and shells. I breed wild-caught Central American livebearers in a tank like that - no showcase but really interesting. 








Going to this place changed my fishkeeping approach radically. This had Xiphophorus swordtails (similar needs to platies), mollies, Gambusia, Heterandria bimaculata and some large, pretty cichlids in it. The fish were in pools at the base of the waterfalls (overexposed photo - it was sunny, sorry) and in pools through rapids farther down. That picture of a wild stream in Guatemala doesn't look stagnant to me. That's my "why". I think aquarists have to go to the needs of the fish, not fold and staple the fish into containers for our convenience.

As an aside, food for thought, I walked that stream for close to 3 km downstream of the waterfalls, fishing my merry way along. There was not one submerged plant. There were huge amounts of overhanging vegetation, and a nice canopy that shaded the water strongly in places, but the plants were around the water, not in it.


----------



## navigator black (Jan 3, 2012)

The prettiest mollies I have ever seen were in here, swimming with the alligators. It was full of mollies, cichlids, swordtails, platies, merry widows and Astyanax tetras. It's kind of green, from agricultural run off, and had a good current - a boat would drift as fast as we would generally ride a bike down a street.










Here's a side pool with baby livebearers sheltering in it. Clear, cool, fifteen feet from a waterfall.









This looks stagnant, but there was a mountain stream dropping into it about 100 meters back, and an ocean a stone's throw away. It was mainly freshwater with salt infiltrating - a lightly brackish stream (Difficulty Hill Creek in Honduras) that turned salty at high tide - even brown like this it got 100% water changes several times over in a day. I caught Gambusia nicaraguensis in it, and saw Poecilia orri mollies.

Okay, I'm showing vacation photos from 2008, but these are habitats of the kinds of fishes we consider the easiest - livebearers, and look how they vary, ripple, cascade and flow.


----------



## WhiteGloveAquatics (Sep 3, 2009)

coralbandit said:


> white glove ; nice tanks. Dig the discus. Have 3 in my 180. If you don't have surface extrction , you don't know what your missing. I dream of a 6' tall protien skimmer with out the price tag. Do you use ozone? I didn't see skimmer in pics(maybe my bad but) how big is it? I know my skimmer was effective in fw , but I think it more (or less) could have or should have been more efficent. I'm not sure (density, salt really is a solid{it affects light compared to fw} that pin wheels or venturi pumps can be suitable replacements for limewood air stones in a fw application. More than how big , how? Due you use air/pinwheel? what kind is it? Do you feel co2 is necessary or more efficent means to your goal. I don't use co2 but my tank is packed and my filter gets water from dual overflows and then to 4 filter drawers all mechanical for each. In the old days "wet dry" had spray bars instead of drip plates(being only one plate per drain) and was considerd by Thiel to be a way to conserve or promote co2 retention in massively oxgynated systems. My plants grow , but nothing special(not being ungrateful) and no harder to keep or demanding types. But I'm happy my plants are real for fish. I'm die hard about strong lighting will co2 make a noticable difference? And really ,50% that often? Automated or by you? I have pump in sump#1 to drain and water fill (tap) in sump #2. I mix my ro/di 1:4 twice weekly and change about 40g straight ro/di.


With the discus and our water supply's prefiltered parameters make it a nessecity to maintain the Ph but also feed the plants. 50% that often, yes and have to use a few seachem buffers to maintain it as well, without it the tank gets down into the high 4 ph range although it hasnt effected the fish less started a spawning frenzy it makes me uneasy letting it sit there, the 210g is a high tech tank with over 10k in equipment alone its not for most but it makes us happy and thats what matters in the end with me.

I used to have line lock fan tips on the return bar at the top but the twin MD12's were really moving it around and caused the Ph levels to fluctuate due to the Co2 being released too rapidly out of the tank not in it.

The skimmer is off the 210g has been since I set it up, I got it on my 75g and it doesnt do much due to how clean my water is now and the secret filtering method to keep it that way im lucky if I get one dump out of it a month.

my wet/drys are sealife systems with the trickle plates, I owe Susan some pics so Ill get on it and get em up, got laid off from the seasonal job so Ive been playing catch up on property maintenance,fish tanks and my video game lol
Ill take some great shots of my filter set up for you too. its a remote set up, put two large holes in two perfectly brand new walls for it.


----------



## Nereus7 (Jun 13, 2012)

Found a pic of beelze's cat


----------



## Nereus7 (Jun 13, 2012)

Ahhahah, just bustin' chops buddy. I definatly agree with the "you" bending over backwards for said animal you're taking care of, and not said animal bending over for you. - N


----------



## beaslbob (May 29, 2009)

jrman83 said:


> ...
> 
> Ph fluctuates in any planted tank, but *does not* continue to move higher and higher. If that is stable....then I wonder what the definition of an unstable tank is in your mind. Stable - CANNOT - be the eventual value your tank's ph stops climbing at. You can argue this forever and a day - still doesn't change the fact that what your tanks experience is *NOT* the norm.
> 
> ...


Just to facilitate this and future discussions. And you're free to counter with actual dictionary type definitions.

constant is unchanging. (I know you know that but just a reminder)

balanced is the point at which inputs/outputs or competing forces are in balance so the system is unchanging at some point.

In the stability world, balanced is also called the steady state.

stability is the reaction of a system when something caused it to deviate from steady state conditions. If the system tends to return to the steady steady that is positive stability (or stable). If it tests to deviate further from the steady state that is negative stability (or unstable). If it tends to stay at the deviated state that is neutral stability.

In any system it is entirely possible to have constant conditions that are unstable. And stable varying conditions.

my .02


----------



## dirtydutch4x (Jun 16, 2009)

once again here is a good thread being destroyed with anti-Bob posts and ongoing rants of how wrong he is. We have all heard you say how wrong he is , point made and taken, now can we move back to a discussion and get over it already!! you can not keep bombarding his posts because you do not agree with him and end every post with how right your way is and if it works for him great, we get it, you dont like him or his methods, that does not mean he can not share opinions! I thought Susan put an end to this Bob bashing? Read the first post on this thread and take it back to what it was started for, A DISCUSSION.


----------



## susankat (Nov 15, 2008)

Yes I have tried, but for some reason Bob and Jr will always butt heads. It had better stop now.

Bob stop trying to explain how much better your way is and Jr stop pushing your point. Everyone already knows each of your points and if the thread don't stop being derailed I will delete the un-needed posts and go from there.


----------



## Nereus7 (Jun 13, 2012)

I'm thinking bob's representing his case rather well, answering questions etc with a cool head and logical answers. - N


----------



## beaslbob (May 29, 2009)

coralbandit said:


> I came here to learn and hoped to help. I'm not to deep for you nav. You get it. But not knowing all Bob did just ring a bell so I have to ask; is cyano good?It may well serve as replacement to nothing, but beside nothing all that ever grew in my Tang. tank was that----cyano. ONLY fw tank I had to ever grow cyano. Was it good?


FWIW I started a cyano thread here:

http://www.aquariumforum.com/f2/cyano-fw-marine-38944.html#post192684


my .02


----------



## navigator black (Jan 3, 2012)

I was hoping we could get away from the jrman and beaslbob fight, because it goes nowhere. I tried to start a different type of discussion, not about API test kits or dogmatic systems. I'll try again.

So bob and jrman and everyone else. Here is a debate stretcher. A new tetra has arrived in the hobby. It was captured in Congo, in a pool along the massive rapids of the Congo River. 
Due to hydro-electric development plans, it may soon be extinct. We should try to breed it, to learn.
It seems to run in currents, with reflective camouflage on a four inch, heavy body. You have received seven of them (possibly the only ones in captivity), and from what you can see, it may actually school as much as shoal. The group is very tight.

It is an omnivore, from what you can see, but it nibbles plants. It may eat some algae. 

You are skilled aquarists. What do you set up to learn about this newly discovered species? I'm not just being a troublemaker - I have this situation and I'd like to see how others would go at solving it.


----------



## susankat (Nov 15, 2008)

I would use at least a 4 to 6 foot tank, with sand and some river rock maybe. Add a couple of good filters and at least one powerhead. There would be driftwood piled up in the tank also. Food would be varied, between earthworms, bloodworms, brine shrimp, add some fruitfllys to the mix and hope for the best.


----------



## jrman83 (Jul 9, 2010)

I will leave Beasl alone in this thread as long as he doesn't start talking about things that are just flat out wrong....not an opinion baseditems, but just flat out not true. He will usually get to them, but hasn't yet.

And for your information, although I may appear be the more consistent anti-beasl poster, I am not alone. I leave most of the crap he posts alone believe it or not. But like I said, I will flat out attack his non-factual beliefs that are biased on his own tanks.


----------



## Nereus7 (Jun 13, 2012)

Awesome Nav now we're getting to the real talk. I LOVE time crunch pressure situations. Jr, the pic of bobs tank, the drops that didn't get cleaned look at the residue, the tds must have been insane on that tank to leave that much "left overs".

Nav, I don't know that much about tetras, so I'd have to sit in the background and watch. - N


----------



## Nereus7 (Jun 13, 2012)

In a nutshell, recrete its enviroment so it doen't think its in a tank


----------



## beaslbob (May 29, 2009)

navigator black said:


> I was hoping we could get away from the jrman and beaslbob fight, because it goes nowhere. I tried to start a different type of discussion, not about API test kits or dogmatic systems. I'll try again.
> 
> So bob and jrman and everyone else. Here is a debate stretcher. A new tetra has arrived in the hobby. It was captured in Congo, in a pool along the massive rapids of the Congo River.
> Due to hydro-electric development plans, it may soon be extinct. We should try to breed it, to learn.
> ...


just outta curiosity what is the problem. *old dude

I would think the very fist thing to do is to provide a low carbon dioxide high oxygen stable environment. Where the fish wastes are immediately being converted to plant life.

my .02


----------



## navigator black (Jan 3, 2012)

The problerm is evolution - the elephant in the corner of all fishkeeping issues. You've described the water needed, but not even taken a stab at the tank needed.
The fish is evolved to need flow. It is slightly large for an aquarium tetra and it is active as can be. It clearly needs tons of oxygen, and to feel water resistance. It's wired for current.So what would you put in there?
It's a new problem for your style of tank, and I can't see how you can adapt your style to such a fish. I'd be interested to see if there were a way to use your system - I can't see it. But it could exist. 
I see us needing dozens of approaches each - different approaches for each individual species based upon our knowledge of their ecology and history. The unfiltered tank is good for maybe 5% of the fish in the hobby, in my view. How can it be adapted for fish like this?
Or, what technology could make me a better keeper of these creatures?
Susan's on the thread, and I self-servingly like her answer because that's what I'm trying ;-) . But that's only two of us with that idea...
Here is the problem tetra:


----------



## navigator black (Jan 3, 2012)

Here are some of the other species it arrived with:


----------



## jrman83 (Jul 9, 2010)

Fish don't need low carbon dioxide any more than we do. Unless CO2 is being injected it will never get to a point where a fish is being harmed from CO2.


----------



## coralbandit (Jul 29, 2012)

the fishes appearance is similar to congo tetra( comes from congo , and is a tetra) hum. I'd take any other inside infoand run in that direction. You said tank not addressed by others. It's assumed no other fish would be present( with exception of known or thought to be dither. As you said current goes without mention.I'd create different levels(depth) to give them the diversity they were found in. Gravel / sand (substrate) ranging from mere 2"to hills up to 12" deep. Swells so to speak.Temp also I assume is predetermined( with exception to variation to encourage spawning possibly).If caught close to inlet or outlet of river I would want to know water quality for either also. Cardinals breed in darkness provided by forest canopy. I wouldn't be sure how much light , but probably standard 12 hrs.Tank min for spawning 4'x18" but would like 4x2 or 6'x18"or 24". Tree branches(wood) and plants seem like a wise idea , possibly some decaying organics. As far as food you got do what you got to do with wild fish. As susankat said A myraid of food , who knows .Trial and error ,don't waste time errors means death.Hopefully if they lived a time ,I'd also adjust( as they must) to make things better,who knows how now , thats what the time is about. Clean fresh water with abundant food of choice( or choices till time tells).


----------



## navigator black (Jan 3, 2012)

I think it is possible to form a conclusion here. I just reread the thread, and here's what I take away.
The unfiltered option is presented without specifics. There is no info on what species flourish in such a set-up, no info on what plants other than Anacharis work, and no info on how the system could be modified to deal with different ecological needs. It seems a static system that fish are forced to adapt to or die - very limited and totally centered on the needs of the fishkeeper, and not on the needs of the animals inside the tank.

Filtered tanks seems to offer a lot more adaptability. There is debate about personal preferences in filter types, ranging from low tech air, hang on the back filters, canister filters and higher tech drilled and plumbed systems. There seems a consensus that filtration not only 'filters', but also moves water in imitation of nature.

Water changing was favoured by all but one poster, and the arguments seemed well founded and well backed up.

And so, if anyone actually reads these things, the conclusion seems clear. Learn about your fish and prepare tanks for them. Do a little work and enjoy them. Keep their water clean and keep their human-made habitat oxygenated and active. Try as much as is reasonably possible to give them an aquarium based on their natural history.


----------



## beaslbob (May 29, 2009)

Gee nav.

My take away is everyone only believes what works for them. *old dude

my .02


----------



## susankat (Nov 15, 2008)

Yes but all of them are opposite of what you believe Bob. So quit being sarcastic


----------



## beaslbob (May 29, 2009)

susankat said:


> Yes but all of them are opposite of what you believe Bob. So quit being sarcastic


No sarcasium meant. *old dude

my .02


----------



## navigator black (Jan 3, 2012)

My problem, bob, is that you never explain your 'system'. When you are asked a direct, pointed question, you make like a politician and duck. So it's hard to take away your point of view, as you never elaborate it.

So here are some questions, the answers to which might allow me to take away something different:

a) if I have a fish species that has adapted to a rushing river - let's say to quick moving pools along the bankside rocks of such a common sort of river, how can you adapt your unfiltered system to accomodate them? This question covers the keeping of all silvery or flashy tetras, barbs, rasboras, danios, river cichlids, rainbows, silversides, suckermouth catfish and Corydoras. So it's not an academic question;

b) if I have some mbuna, evolved just outside the wave zone of a great lake and used to receiving the wash of oxygen waves bring, how can I adapt the beaslbob system to care for them?

c) if I have a rainforest fish evolved in soft, acidic water with very little resistance to hardwater bacteria species, how can I keep it in a tank with no water changes, an increasing mineral content due to evaporation, a high level of TDS (Total Dissolved Solids) and a high pH? Research shows that rainforest cichlids are keenly aware of oxygen saturation and guide their young to areas of the tank where it is highest. How do you work with that?

d) Why don't you mention to new aquarists who want herbivorous, plant eating fish that your system is a bust for them? They don't always have enough experience to know to look up the diet of their fish.

e) Exactly which species of fish have been able to thrive in your system longterm? And which plants? That's info I have looked for for a long time in your postings. 

f) Finally, if the types of fish listed above (90% of what is popular for aquariums) would not be able to thrive in your no water change, no filtration system, why do you continually suggest your 'system' to new aquarists without telling them that? Why not list the species for which it is appropriate out of respect for the fact they are asking for broad information they can use to enjoy this hobby?

Every time I have sent questions like that your way in other threads, you've ducked. If your experience of these tanks is different from mine (remember, I had such tanks in my teens), fire away. I can see uses for your ideas. Define the applications for your build. Give me some data for me to change my opinion with.


----------



## beaslbob (May 29, 2009)

navigator black said:


> My problem, bob, is that you never explain your 'system'. When you are asked a direct, pointed question, you make like a politician and duck. So it's hard to take away your point of view, as you never elaborate it.
> 
> So here are some questions, the answers to which might allow me to take away something different:
> 
> a) if I have a fish species that has adapted to a rushing river - let's say to quick moving pools along the bankside rocks of such a common sort of river, how can you adapt your unfiltered system to accomodate them? This question covers the keeping of all silvery or flashy tetras, barbs, rasboras, danios, river cichlids, rainbows, silversides, suckermouth catfish and Corydoras. So it's not an academic question;


I can't. 
(see a direct answer. *old dude) 

Just for the record my tanks are not unfiltered.

I have kept neon tetras and danios. they do just fine.

I also believe that those fish will do just fine in an environment that is low carbon dioxide and high oxygen where the fish wastes are immediately consumed in a balanced stable environment.



> b) if I have some mbuna, evolved just outside the wave zone of a great lake and used to receiving the wash of oxygen waves bring, how can I adapt the beaslbob system to care for them?


 I give up can you?

I wouldn't.

(part of the 'beaslbob' system is insuring the plants are protected from the fish in some kind of refugium if necessary

The main overacrhing global aspect is to take care of the plants and the plants will take care of the fish.)


> c) if I have a rainforest fish evolved in soft, acidic water with very little resistance to hardwater bacteria species, how can I keep it in a tank with no water changes, an increasing mineral content due to evaporation, a high level of TDS (Total Dissolved Solids) and a high pH? Research shows that rainforest cichlids are keenly aware of oxygen saturation and guide their young to areas of the tank where it is highest. How do you work with that?


 You mean like the neon tetras, silver hatchetfish, and angelfish I have kept for years? With no increases in kh and gh? In high pH water.

I guess your research is absolutely correct. They are keenly aware of oxygen saturation. And that my tanks have lotsa oxygen.



> d) Why don't you mention to new aquarists who want herbivorous, plant eating fish that your system is a bust for them? They don't always have enough experience to know to look up the diet of their fish.


because it is not!! I routinely mention refugiums. I have used these methods in marine tanks where the primary diet of the fish is the exact same macro algaes I maintain the system with.


> e) Exactly which species of fish have been able to thrive in your system longterm? And which plants? That's info I have looked for for a long time in your postings.


neon tetras, silver hatchetfish, angels, danios, glofish, platys, mollies, guppies, plecos, some simple cichlids,(marine) yellow and blue regal tangs, coral catfish, purple psuedochromis, yellow watchman gobies,clownfish,Mollies (again for salt), fire angels. Long term being at least 2 years and usually longer.

All commonly available plants with the most common being those listed in my signature. Marine macros tented to favor various light conditions and what other macros were in the system.


> f) Finally, if the types of fish listed above (90% of what is popular for aquariums) would not be able to thrive in your no water change, no filtration system, why do you continually suggest your 'system' to new aquarists without telling them that? Why not list the species for which it is appropriate out of respect for the fact they are asking for broad information they can use to enjoy this hobby?


Because they do survive breed, thrive, and live long lives with these methods. 



> Every time I have sent questions like that your way in other threads, you've ducked. If your experience of these tanks is different from mine (remember, I had such tanks in my teens), fire away. I can see uses for your ideas. Define the applications for your build. Give me some data for me to change my opinion with.


I think if you check back you will discover that rather than asking me a direct question you were responding and making a statement instead. While I do try within time limits to give a direct answer to a direct question, I also do not want to have a back and forth where viewpoints are constantly being just repeated.

As your questions above have shown, you come with biases just as I do. 

all we can do is exchange ideas, do whatever analytical analysis is possible (for instance on water changes), report results. You're free to reject those. 


my .02


----------



## navigator black (Jan 3, 2012)

Good Bob - that is the most precise you have been in any thread I've read of yours, and I appreciate it. I don't agree with every point, but I no longer have the sense you are just stirring the pot. 

And of course I have biases. 

I'll also freely admit that my interest in how current affects fish behavior in tanks means I can't keep Betta splendens, and a bunch of the Gouramis I used to really like in my tanks. My set-ups are also really inappropriate for Rivulus killies, and most annual killies. No long-finned mutant forms can do well in my tanks either, as I would tell any newcomer who asked.

I have next to no interest in the cycle, and never test the water except when I am setting up to breed something highly adapted. For a run of the mill tank, I can see where the water is by watching how the fish react in their environment. When I have tested as a backup to see if I was in the ballpark, I have been.

And those weren't my tests on low oxygen and cichlid fry. I don't have that kind of lab equipment - that's info from the scientific journals.

For me, the ultimate analysis of water is from breeding difficult egg-layers. If you can coax a highly adapted egg into hatching, then you have passed the water chemistry test. An API test kit is a very imprecise tool, compared to that. Your focus is on the plants and mine is on breeding fish, and fish behavior, so we play with different 'data'. Fair enough. We have different goals.

But I don't link to newcomers with a 'one size fits all' system. My killie tanks are one bubbling air driven filter away from a sand-bottomed version of your tanks, and I have found I can triple the lifespan of the fish and increase fry growth rates radically by doing large water changes weekly. I'm never going to tell someone to set that type of tank up for danios, however. 

Remove half the water from one of your tanks with a healthy group of Danios in it, and add super oxygen saturated water 2-3 degrees celsius cooler in a rush. Drop in a high powered airstone, just for 48 hours. Tell me what changes will happen in the behavior, colours and energy levels of those fish. It's an interesting sort of test.

I'll take a ten gallon, put more peat in it under gravel and plant the bejeebers out of it. I'll use no filter and add a pair of Rivulus. I have some breeding. I will reduce water changes to ten percent and see how that classic swamp fish reacts. I'll report my results in a few months.


----------



## susankat (Nov 15, 2008)

Most of the fish posted do prefer more water movement and cleaner water. What happens is the fish will survive and they will breed but in no way thrive. Fish will breed constantly for the survival of the species, but that don't mean they are thriving in the best conditions.

Very few fish come from an enviroment to where there is no movement of some sort. Even in stagnant ponds will after a time become dead to where even plant life will not live. With no exchange of water mineral buildup becomes so high that nothing can live in it.

I've seen pics of Bobs tank, and of his aunts tank, aunts tank was a recent setup. Bobs plants look spindly at best. The fish look smaller than they should be. The fish breed to survive. I have had livebearers that had stopped breeding when the tank got to limit till I pulled some out. Not that they are dieing to make room.


----------



## navigator black (Jan 3, 2012)

I set up a tank, for the fun of it. I'll first ask Bob if it seems to respect his ideas.
The tank is a ten gallon, half filled. It is profusely planted with hornwort, java moss, java fern, Anubias sp and Anacharis. The substrate in playground sand with old peat mixed in. I did not layer.
I have removed all filtration, and will do no water changes until mid October. It has been in use, although I did a water change this evening. It is as cycled as it can be. 

is that close enough to a beaslbob build?

Now, there is an ethical issue, easily solved. I see it as an oxbow tank - when the dry season hits, many tropical water systems drop by more than the 12 feet I saw in Belize. Sections of river are turned into ponds. The open river fish trapped deal with heavy predation, warm water and an increasing mineral content, and some manage to survive until the rains come. It's that survival instinct that I believe Bob plays on with the way he keeps his fish. They hang on as their ancestors did, waiting for the rain he never provides.

There is an exception though - fish that specialize in those habitats - Rivulus killies. I have Rivulus hartii here, captured by a friend five generations ago in Venezuela at a bankrupt biblical theme park. There were Springs full of an undescribed softwater livebearer, and in the trapped ponds along the margins and among the trees, Rivulus. 
So we have a fish evolved for bob's type of tank. They breed very easily, and I have maintained them in small colonies for five years without ever removing a fry. They grow fast and are prolific. As they age and mature, males tend to be hard on each other, which controls numbers. 
Their past pattern says that in a lightly filtered tank (they like slow water) with 20% water changes every two weeks (they dislike too much clean water) over two months, I can easily expect to find 5-7 two cm juvies at the end of the time. That's a low number, but if you guys trust me, I'll give it as a baseline. They have never stopped breeding for me, and they love the temperatures at this time of year.

So I will reporrt back on this tank in mid October. We will see if there are fry, and how big they are. I give my word that they have never failed to breed in summer and early fall. In winter (I don't heat their tanks) it would be different. But this is captive breeding season for an easily bred egg-layer. If they follow their pattern, the as yet unhatched will be 2 cm long. The female I am putting in is heavy with eggs.

Does this sound fair? I'll test the unfiltered, no water change tank with a fish I see as perfectly adapted to it, and I will focus on fry production and growth as a comparison. It's not a scientific study - just one for fun. We'll see what happens.
Here is my naviblack build:



















I put some terrestrial plans on top with trailing roots, to add to the plant filtration.


----------



## jrman83 (Jul 9, 2010)

beaslbob said:


> I can't.
> (see a direct answer. *old dude)
> 
> Just for the record my tanks are not unfiltered.


 Nothing mechanical. I think it should just be considered flowless, which coincidentally where most of the oxygen in a tank would come from....plants WILL not provide the same amount. This info can be found on the net and in numerous well known books, like Walstad's.



beaslbob said:


> I also believe that those fish will do just fine in an environment that is low carbon dioxide and high oxygen where the fish wastes are immediately consumed in a balanced stable environment.


Low CO2, or zero even, is no more required by the fish than you. CO2 is only about 2-4ppm naturally in a tank. Injected tanks shoot for 30ppm and still don't kill fish or affect them in any way.



beaslbob said:


> The main overacrhing global aspect is to take care of the plants and the plants will take care of the fish.)


If you have other pics of your tanks that show healthy plants that wasn't just set up in the last few weeks (long term) other than the one in your gallery that doesn't show you have healthy plants I would love to see them. Those pics don't quite cover it. Hard to believe someone that has kept tanks as long as you hasn't provided numerous pics on the many sites you have tried to sell this method on. If they look like the one we've all seen, I understand.



beaslbob said:


> You mean like the neon tetras, silver hatchetfish, and angelfish I have kept for years? With no increases in kh and gh? In high pH water.


 Nothing to do with your methods....I have kept Angels and Cardinal Tetras (some say more sensitive than any you list) in 8.2 (my tap), 10gh and 10kh water with no problem before I started planting my tanks and adding 50% RO water. Not sure what your point is when you mention this....as if it can only be done with your method or something.



beaslbob said:


> I guess your research is absolutely correct. They are keenly aware of oxygen saturation. And that my tanks have lotsa oxygen.


 Its too bad you can't measure the oxygen content in your tank. Walstad's point about planted tanks took into consideration that her tanks were planted, but didn't deny that filters or powerheads would provide more oxygen than the plants alone would. Your tank would NOT compare to the same size planted tank with surface movement.



beaslbob said:


> neon tetras, silver hatchetfish, angels, danios, glofish, platys, mollies, guppies, plecos, some simple cichlids, Long term being at least 2 years and usually longer.


And yet....on other forums where you have tried to sell your methods you warn that you would not try it on other fish except Platy type fish. I think you exaggerate a little to sell your methods. Again, some pics with those fish would be good evidence and seriously doubt you had egg-laying fish breed, but if you say so. Livebearers will breed in a toilet....or maybe you proved that.


----------



## jrman83 (Jul 9, 2010)

navigator black said:


> I think it is possible to form a conclusion here. I just reread the thread, and here's what I take away.
> The unfiltered option is presented without specifics. There is no info on what species flourish in such a set-up, no info on what plants other than Anacharis work, and no info on how the system could be modified to deal with different ecological needs.


For the most part, as long as the light will give enough light for the plant needs you can grow just about any kind of plant (with a caveat) in a stagnated system - I think. These plants would have to be sort of in the easy and low need territory. Plants that need higher levels of lighting, ferts, or CO2 it would not work. Higher levels of light may force water movement, ferts, CO2, etc.

Where they will not do well is where the nitrates get very low or at levels that don't register. Plants that suffer from nitrate starvation will exist or maybe survive, but they will loose their color and will not be as vibrant - not exactly thrive. Some of beasl's pics have shown exactly what I refer to if you have seen the plants. Most plants would probably like more fresh water than just topoffs also.


----------



## navigator black (Jan 3, 2012)

Experience suggests similar things for the fish as you suggest for plants. They can survive, but in the dry season type holding pattern. Still, I'm curious to see how a fish I would consider ideally suited for the stagnant tank set-up will do, in comparison to how it has lived with filtration. The colourful three inch male has vanished. He's in those plants and he isn't coming out. That's not abnormal for a swamp fish, as movement is always economical in low oxygen environments. 

If bob would just state what his tanks are and what uses they have for aquarists, I wouldn't challenge him. It's the attempt to take a very specific application and say it works for all tanks - the one size fits all approach that I question. So if bob won't take that approach, I will. I go into the experiment expecting success, but I'll be surprised if the fry growth will be as fast. We'll see, in time.


----------



## coralbandit (Jul 29, 2012)

Navs test or trial for bob(or of bobs idea)is to be admired and repeated by those who want to know. Some of us don't know it all.Some are OPEN to suggestion(doesn't mean obligation)' Any one can say it doesn't work. Without proper baseline(provided by nav) and test or trial to reach conclusion it all seems like a gang bang. Opinions are like. Answers come from study,research and info. If your not open, your incapable.I don't agree with bob ,nor appreciate info he gives newbies(should we beat him up{more}). Or possibly INVEST a little time ,effort or open thought to reach real legitamate conclusions.And does it matter if no one knows. Facts are more impressive than opinion.THANKS NAV .


----------



## jrman83 (Jul 9, 2010)

navigator black said:


> If bob would just state what his tanks are and what uses they have for aquarists, I wouldn't challenge him. It's the attempt to take a very specific application and say it works for all tanks - the one size fits all approach that I question. So if bob won't take that approach, I will. I go into the experiment expecting success, but I'll be surprised if the fry growth will be as fast. We'll see, in time.


I think he states it perfectly..."here is how you can keep a tank with as little work as possible...." or "here is how to get your spouse to make you move all of your tanks out of the house...."

What really is the purpose of getting into aquariums if you didn't plan to have to at least a little work to get the best out of it? I don't get it. I'll take a little work and a lot of wow over neglect and nausea any day.


----------



## navigator black (Jan 3, 2012)

bob has made me think more about the concept of the'niche' tank. You can take a glass box of a reasonable size and build very different things with it, as we all know. I know Discus keepers who swear by bare, almost sterile tanks - filtered to the nth degree and cleaned constantly. We have the no plant, tons of rock mbuna tank, the no plant torrents of filtration rapids fish tank, the heavily planted shrimp tank, the jungle plant tank with fish as an afterthought.
Stick a Discus in a well designed rapids tank and it'll be plastered to the wall by the current. People who build these tanks tend to think about the bigger picture.
You have to figure, if you look at fish outside the pet shop, that these creatures come from a wide variety of habitats. If you can look at a fish shaped like a zebra danio and tell me that body is not an adaptation to fast moving water, you are not thinking. A neon is streamlined, but squat - that's no fast water fish. A hatchet is adapted to grab surface insects while cruising the surface. The mouth points up and the keel hangs down. Corys have the opposite build to hatchets, and all but those strange, in transition dwarf corys are bottom fish.
One shape doesn't fit all so how can one tank?
The common fish in the hobby are the resilient ones that adapt to poor treatment. The aquarist who never looks at fish and tries to figure out what environmental forces shaped that fish, and what that shape means is missing out on something interesting, and is more likely to settle for a one build fits all.

I want to try the beaslbob build with Rivulus hartii because it makes sense. I have an energy conserving swamp fish that regularly sits above the water line looking down into the plants and water, and that is legendary for its toughness and its ability to survive. Like all the beaslbob build fish I can think of, it isn't sold in pet shops, but with a little looking you can get 'Rivs' of various species through the Internet. 

if it doesn't work with this fish, it isn't going to work. But I am still working it in a limited application that I think it is well designed for, and won't suggest it to new aquarists who are unlikely to have easy access to swamp fish. That's the bottom line for me, when it comes to bob's postings. Any fishkeeper who travels and gets to spend ten minutes watching platys in nature will never put them in a stagnant tank with only plant filters and no designed water movement. It just would not make sense.


----------



## beaslbob (May 29, 2009)

gee nav. Better watch out. that niche tank may really surprise ya. 

The question is not how we duplicate all the environment of where the fish are found in the wild. The question to me is much more basic then that. How do we provide a good enviroment to meet the fishs' needs? So the very first question is what are exactly those needs? First and foremost would seem to be consuming the fish wastes and recycling them into things fish consume. Protecting them from preditors. Providing food.

So we take a fish from whatever environment and put it is a glass rectangle with big ole humans on the other side of the glass watching every move. In that environment duplicating the streams the fish came from is impossible.

But we can provide an environment the is better then the habitat it came from. By simplying consuming the ammonia/nitrates/phosphates/carbon dioxide and filtering out toxins while returning food and oxygen. An environmment that recovers from an shocks in a stable manner. 

All that could possibly happen is the fish are healthier and live longer then in the habitat it came from.

But if one's assumption is that those things can only be provided mechanical filters and circualtion with water changes, then IME this methods violate all those assumptions.


my .02


----------



## dirtydutch4x (Jun 16, 2009)

It really is funny to me to read these threads and the discussions back and forth, and yes everyone jumps at the opportunity to BeaslBash, I would agree that Bob should not recommend to noobs that they use his methods without educating them on the pro's and cons to it, and adding "just my .02" does not free you from the negatives that you set them up for with out proper education. I am one of those noobs that jumped in to try his method with a twist. The one thing that I learned from my experience was that PW is needed once in a while at least to avoid swamp like conditions(stinky tank). Now I am one of those that will do what he wants, but that is based on research, which everyone should do regardless. Now I have been keeping my tanks like this for almost 2 years now and have had egg layers reproduce as well as live bearers, both tropical and native and if I would have gone with most of what I was "recommended" 4 years ago I would have spent hundreds of dollars and have done 20 times the work and probably put my head through the wall several times. I have read tons of posts here and on other forums of all kinds of crashed systems and diseases that have killed hundreds of fish for both experienced and noobs. I have never tested my tanks, I do quick cycles, barely any water changes, I do add dechlor, low light and no heaters(and not just for natives). I have not had 1 disease or crashed tank in 4 years, 2 years with these unfiltered planted tanks. So what is proper and what is not? I applaud Nav for actually experimenting with this and being open to the idea, rather than join the others with bashing because your way of doing things has to be the right way, so thank you Nav, and to everyone else with one way thinking, either join in and prove that it wont work by trying it or finally accept that your way is not the only way. Its nice to tell others "if it works for you great" but it means nothing if you do not believe what you are saying, just admit you believe your way is the only way and move on.


----------



## susankat (Nov 15, 2008)

I kind of resent that, I have done both types, in the bob type tank, plants began to look spindley and not near as healthy as they did in my other tanks. Same plants, different tanks. I kept livebearers in said tank, The fry was smaller than normal, There was all types of other problems that popped up. Smell, algae, ugly and unkempt. It was a tank that I wouldn't be proud to show other people.

After 30+ years of keeping fish and trying different methods, I have become a firm believer that if the plants in the tank are healthy the fish are healthy. I have also became a believer that fish are happiest and healthier if kept in conditions similar to what they are from in the wild.


----------



## dirtydutch4x (Jun 16, 2009)

No shot at you Susan, I have followed threads by you and read numerous posts on others that I can say have been very broad and less demanding for the most part. The ones who read this and get angry are the ones it is directed at. I do not now and I hope I never reach the point of telling others that my way would be the right way and present it as law. The one thing I have learned in my still short time in this lifestyle is that there really are no set in stone rules to fish keeping, only guidelines to help us to establish a method that will work for us and the fish we keep. I do not disagree that there are fish that require certain things to thrive but at the same time if there were not people like Bob and myself for that matter, hell even you Susan and Nav that would try these things to see not only if they work but what can we tweak by using somebody else's method to possibly make it work then there would be no further learning. Everyone should just go out and obtain the most luxurious tank with the best filters heaters and substrate and proceed to slap together identical tanks with identical equipment and we can all have the same boring tank with the same boring fish following the same mechanical routine as one another and we can all be fish keepers instead. 

Just my 0.02k:*r2


----------



## navigator black (Jan 3, 2012)

One of the things we have to get by is calling this the beaslbob build. That's bob who started that, and it's unfair to the generations of aquarists before him.
It could as easily be called the pre-world war two tank, as that was what the books I inherited from my grandfather proposed. The system was popular into the sixties, when I started fishkeeping, and "bob"s" version is what everyone did back then. I had massively overpopulated guppy tanks as a kid, using the pre-tech versions. I also raised variatus, platies, mollies and swordtails, and kept zebras, neons and Corydoras aeneus. They survived but were curiously prone to ich (which I rarely see here now), fungus and tail rot. I was really good with the medications in those days.

Water was holy back then. You not only didn't change it, you took it with you when you moved. It was seen as having ill defined 'properties' because it was 'old water'. New water was called "raw".
I started using my first Aquaclear power filter in the 1980s, and suddenly fish grew faster. I thought it interesting, and decided to try water changing, a new fad, a few years later.
Meanwhile, everywhere but in the chain stores, there was a species explosion. It was a fun to be an aquarist, because every trip to a large store let you see a new tetra, or cichlid. The hobby changed, and the technology improved. Rapids fish became possible, as did larger cichlids. These fish had been impossible for old school aquarists following the old methods.
Some of the new technology was money-grasping overkill, but a lot of it was wonderful. 
The old ways hung on, because they worked. Since they didn't work as well as filtered tanks, they shifted back and became the domain of the some keepers in the plants first, fish second crowd. 
bob has simply tapped into the old techniques and relabeled them. I knew how to set up that tank of mine because I'd done it before. So have a lot of people who see the limitations of the technique and are critical not of bob's technique as much as of his way of selling it.
I rarely use heaters. I use hob power filters and powerheads (and central air with box filters). I've never spent hundreds on technology. I'm not even going to drop 30 bucks on an API kit that doesn't measure much of interest. Give me the tank and a way to move water, and I'm in business.

Dirtydutch - you have not had crashes because you get your fish from a good source. If you get fish from the wild, either through a dealer or with a net, you get healthy fish. A huge part of what causes trouble for new aquarists is the poor quality of the stock they buy. Fish farm standards are not good, and the push to produce fish cheaply isn't just rolling back species availablility, it's giving people lousy, sick fish to start with.


And I expect the tank will be what it is - a 1967 Rivulus tank. If I put my Congolese tetras in there, I would be cruel. And, frankly, stupid. That's why bob sticks with the fish from the 1950s catalogue. He understands his build is not for them.


----------



## coralbandit (Jul 29, 2012)

Lee Chin Eng I believe is the name of the man who first created the"natural system"approach. He is noted,mentioned in many fish keeping books of the 1980 period.He did make water changes as he lived near ocean and used only ocean water for replacement.It wasn't a bb system then.But do to not being OPEN to suggestion ,new info, or technology its no dis service to lee, to say a bob system,lee did it before he knew better or could afford to. Anyone serious or that cares would not stay CLOSED to such advances. The only thing more expensive than an education is ignorance(Ben Franklin).Microbial balance in natural aquaria; Lee started this in 1950-1960.Link failed(outdated) search Lee aquarium natural system.Microbial balance in natural aquaria.Dirtydutch;It only hurts if it's true,stay OPEN ,you'll go farther faster.


----------



## navigator black (Jan 3, 2012)

The late Lyle Hayter, an ordinary extraordinary aquarist who founded our local club in 1933 and stayed a member until his death in his nineties, used methods like this. So did the entire club, at the start. People may have gathered stuff together and claimed methods, but for decades, there were no filters, heaters or ways of testing water. There was no other way of doing things.
Mr Hayter brought a prewar pump to a talk he gave on early aquarium technology. It had a huge flywheel, and produced a bubble every 3 seconds. Even filtered tanks were not filtered in modern terms.
He became a killie keeper, by the way, and always worked with air driven filters. He changed water, and told me he thought power filters had opened doors to our learning about species early aquarists couldn't consider keeping.

The aquarists of the era were obsessed with 'balanced aquariums". I have fish magazines from the 1940s that are striking for two things - their racism (which really jumps out all over the articles - creepy stuff), and their almost mystical focus on water.
Bob wrote "But we can provide an environment the is better then the habitat it came from. By simplying consuming the ammonia/nitrates/phosphates/carbon dioxide and filtering out toxins while returning food and oxygen."
He's wrong, as wrong as can be. His aquariums are tiny hells for any fish not evolved for swamp conditions. Mine may be too. You spend 30 seconds at a platy stream watching them , and you realize no tank could be better than that. Even with the predators, no aquarium fish has that volume of clean, flowing water and diverse food. It makes you feel kind of guilty about having fishtanks.

It's getting carried away with rhetoric. No one's aquarium set up is that good, outside maybe of a public aquarium.


----------



## coralbandit (Jul 29, 2012)

sometimes doing the best you can is just that.It's not better than nature and no-one should think it is.The raw power of moving water is almost unmatchable(with exception of ;wind, sun) Hey isn't that just about how the first page of this went?I don't try to do the best I can(losers try) Ido the best I can.Probably not that great , but good enough?I always want to do better.QUALITY NOT QUANITY.


----------



## jrman83 (Jul 9, 2010)

dirtydutch4x said:


> No shot at you Susan, I have followed threads by you and read numerous posts on others that I can say have been very broad and less demanding for the most part. The ones who read this and get angry are the ones it is directed at. I do not now and I hope I never reach the point of telling others that my way would be the right way and present it as law. The one thing I have learned in my still short time in this lifestyle is that there really are no set in stone rules to fish keeping, only guidelines to help us to establish a method that will work for us and the fish we keep. I do not disagree that there are fish that require certain things to thrive but at the same time if there were not people like Bob and myself for that matter, hell even you Susan and Nav that would try these things to see not only if they work but what can we tweak by using somebody else's method to possibly make it work then there would be no further learning. Everyone should just go out and obtain the most luxurious tank with the best filters heaters and substrate and proceed to slap together identical tanks with identical equipment and we can all have the same boring tank with the same boring fish following the same mechanical routine as one another and we can all be fish keepers instead.
> 
> Just my 0.02k:*r2


If you think that anything I have ever said to beasl is "my way" is the only way then you must not have done well in those things in school where you had to read a paragraph and then answer questions to its meaning.

I never try to say that "my way" is the right way in anything because I know there is more than one way to skin a cat in 99.9% of all things done in this world.

I only tend to speak out against beasl when he post things about ph, CO2 or whatever he may say about the environments in his tanks and try to tell everyone how it also applies to theirs....which in no way is true. When he says things in "new to.." section to a noob that is having issues with a high ph and his remedy is to plant the tank because it will drive up your ph, he will get something from me every time. It is one of the most rediculous things I have ever heard and yet, no matter what you say he keeps trying to plead his case. When the simple truth is everything as he knows it is based off of his experience with his tanks, and their seemingly extreme conditions, that drive things to the way they are in his tanks. He pushes it to every noob that has a question as gospel and it is flat out wrong.

This is what I fight against in what beasl post. I could give a **** what he does with his tanks, but if it endangers some new person just trying to get answers he and I will always conflict.

Funny how easy it is for you to take up for him, but not for the noob that he is giving bad advice to. This isn't just about "the link in my sig". This is much more bigger stuff like recommending not to use de-chlors. Where was your opinion then?

I have said it before and I will say it again...ask beasl why he has been banned on least 2 other aquarium sites, if not more. Don't take my word for it. I sent a PM to one of the mods on one of those sites and got the full skinny. It was for doing the same type pf thing he has done here, but the mod style is not so tight as some sites. He would have been banned on TPT or APC a long time ago, but they have thousands more members than we do here. I believe he has the right to express his opinions here as well as anyone else, but not at the expense of putting a person's fish or whatever in danger. 

You go ahead and keep stating your opinion about me and next time be man enough to say who it is you mean. You have that right here. Next time speak up for the person that may need you and not know better if you see them getting bad/dangerous advice.


----------



## coralbandit (Jul 29, 2012)

coralbandit said:


> Navs test or trial for bob(or of bobs idea)is to be admired and repeated by those who want to know. Some of us don't know it all.Some are OPEN to suggestion(doesn't mean obligation)' Any one can say it doesn't work. Without proper baseline(provided by nav) and test or trial to reach conclusion it all seems like a gang bang. Opinions are like. Answers come from study,research and info. If your not open, your incapable.I don't agree with bob ,nor appreciate info he gives newbies(should we beat him up{more}). Or possibly INVEST a little time ,effort or open thought to reach real legitamate conclusions.And does it matter if no one knows. Facts are more impressive than opinion.THANKS NAV .


as jrman said and I'll repeat;I don't agree with bob,nor appreciate info he gives newbies. Last week one of his"new followers seemed panicked and looking for help.Bob was nowhere to be found for 2 days of newbies cry for help.If thats not bad enough(your not obligated to be on 24/7 call if you give advice ) after others attempted to help newbie ,he(newbie)passes along the same bunk info bob gave him to another newbie! I lost it!If you saw my post you know, if you didn't see my post you never will.Mod pulled it and told me not attack others!I appreciate mods actions(not proud of my reaction) but newbies don't know crap when they hear it .There not only OPEN but niave to say least.It's not irresponsible for bob to do what he does(the way he does it)IT'S WRONG!Someones fish is going to get hurt.He doesn't suggest, he advocates practices experienced keepers have problems with(in theory and practice).Thought someone would have seen the ban him sugestion made by another?This shouldn't be a ongoing problem. There is a solution


----------



## dirtydutch4x (Jun 16, 2009)

pretty petty to start an argument out of this JR. I made my statement and like I said if it upsets you... yeah I will be fine. I have read many of your posts here and I do not draw my opinion based only on your comments of him but things that have been posted by you, and yes I know the childlike response will be "show me", but I don't need to, you know it. You have criticized others opinions before in this forum and have the tendency to defend yourself quite a bit over a couple years, great MOD. I have been a member of this forum for 3 years and have always sat back and watched the petty nonsense when it occurs, I have seen others banned, and yet you all have been caught up in this same argument for a long time, it really is like groundhogs(Bill Murray) day. Keep attacking and draw attention to an exchange that can happen peacefully or turn it in to grade school(good job). My point is and will continue to be the same. As far as reading and answering, your a mod on this site do you not think you should conduct yourself as such? Can you? Hell get rid of Bob already, its been stated over and over how he should be banned then do it and everyone can move on from this keyboard diarrhea that we endure every couple weeks or so. I never said Bob was right or wrong that is for a "MOD" to decide not me, but I am not jumping on the ban-wagon either. 
Where was I when he gave advice? I was doing my research and learning, which is what this site helped me with, I can not speak for the person that took his advice nor do I agree with that advice, but the noob takes some responsibility as well, again I found most of my advice while researching and learning on this site as anyone could with a quick search. Also I am not following Bob around the forum probing him, you may but I don't. Im not sure if you ever really read any of my posts or not? I would say not because you seem to think I am defending Bob, I have never defended his practices, when in fact I am defending him against an onslaught that could be avoided sooner but instead turns into a public beating, again, BAN him and move on or back the hell off when he is involved in a discussion that is with in the guidelines. Again great job JR, way to represent the "WAY" we as members should conduct ourselves here, thanks. Better yet you could ban me and move on. Whatever you do just stop the ignorance and grade school tactics and lets stick to the actual discussion on a thread.


----------



## Auban (Aug 8, 2010)

Here is a scary thought: i kept a tank for five years that i never filtered, did water changes on, or even fed. It had a breeding population of heterandria formosa. I learned a lot about the tank, a lot about the ecology of a tank, and how things degrade over time. It would be unethical to suggest such a tank for almost any other species though. Hell, as a fish tank, it was downright cruel, even with the species involved. 

Mine was an experiment though. I was testing a system i came up with. I found the fish to be magnificently stunted, and over several generations, i suspect that it played a part in gene expression. When i finaly returned the population to a normal tank, it took a few generations for them to return to normal. They never did get their vibrant color back though. It seemed that the fish actually started selecting males based on some other characteristic, and over several generations, the coloreful males just lost out.


----------



## jrman83 (Jul 9, 2010)

DD, if you think I have been alone in the times I have criticized his methods, then you really can't see the forrest for the trees. 

If that is your opinion of me...okay. Next. If you think I get upset over something you say against me, not so. But, I will defend myself. Very few things would upset me on the internet and especially a forum. I don't think I have to explain myself to you. My conduct as a mod is the site admin's and mine to worry about, but I appreciate your advice. I plan to remove myself as a mod soon enough.


----------



## jrman83 (Jul 9, 2010)

Auban said:


> Here is a scary thought: i kept a tank for five years that i never filtered, did water changes on, or even fed. It had a breeding population of heterandria formosa. I learned a lot about the tank, a lot about the ecology of a tank, and how things degrade over time. It would be unethical to suggest such a tank for almost any other species though. Hell, as a fish tank, it was downright cruel, even with the species involved.
> 
> Mine was an experiment though. I was testing a system i came up with. I found the fish to be magnificently stunted, and over several generations, i suspect that it played a part in gene expression. When i finaly returned the population to a normal tank, it took a few generations for them to return to normal. They never did get their vibrant color back though. It seemed that the fish actually started selecting males based on some other characteristic, and over several generations, the coloreful males just lost out.


Sounds like the same thing that Susan was talking about. I know stunting occurs from mal-nourishment, parasitic issues, etc, but wonder why it occurs from having that type of tank?


----------



## Auban (Aug 8, 2010)

Mal-nourishment mostly. The whole population ends up stunted when smaller males start becoming sexually mature at a smaller size. At first, only one or two do this, but within a few generations of the smaller males and females breeding first, they end up replacing the population. In my case, the genes that gave them their bright color faded away. They just happend to be lost and could not be recovered.


----------



## navigator black (Jan 3, 2012)

Auban - your experiment talks about the elephant in the room on any debate like this - evolution and adaptation. The bob fights are on several levels, from water chemistry testing to why we even keep fish.
You had heterandria formosa, a swamp fish that scared me with its populations when I had it - I had hundreds in a 10 gallon after starting with five of them, and the more I changed water, the more they bred. I was selling them off til there was no market any more, and I couldn't dent their numbers. They were beyond perfect for the unfiltered set-up, yet you saw how they modified as a population to cope with bad conditions. In my tank, they crashed, believe it or not, after I took on some extra work and missed a few changes. They had responded to clean water by breeding to the point that when things got lean, the tank wiped out. That was not a 'balanced' tank, but it was a fish that took advantage of its artificial environment... It was almost human of them.

The bob idea is to focus entirely on water, and to make the fish fit the evironment he makes. A tank is a tank is a tank, and it is set up one way and that's right! I have to wonder when the last time he looked into his tanks and had a "holy &&&" moment when he learned something amazing about how fish interact etc. I keep fish for those moments of learning.

It's fun to find a new species, study its shape, feeding behavior and social behavior - to read about its environment, and maybe even youtube it for any video of the habitat, or take a google earth ride down the river. Then you can try to figure out how to react to that. I received some Geophagus argyrostictus a few years ago, and their aggression among themselves was awful. I had a standard Geo set-up as I saw it, but this one species was constantly picking and fighting - really out of the box for its group. A friend returned from their habitat and talked about how wild the water was, and how the fish expended huge amounts of energy in the current. I popped in a couple of powerheads and made that tank just this side of a swirling toilet bowl. I was rewarded with a peaceful, more colourful Cichlid that suddenly showed a really complex social life. The fish that had done nothing but fight were coexisting in very interesting ways. Since then, I have used current with a lot of rowdy cichlids, and have realized that when a fish is wired to have a lot of energy to flourish in its environment, it gets simply bored or understimulated in your tank, and it squabbles. 
I think it's a lot more fun and educational to try to understand why a fish has evolved as it has, and to try to meet its needs. I have a multiple tank set-up, with multiple tank set ups - current, still, air driven, surface oriented, hard water, soft water, with caves, with java moss, for breeding, for growing... There is a huge diversity of life available for aquarists to learn from. Slotting into one set up forever with no experimentation seems frankly boring to me.


----------



## Auban (Aug 8, 2010)

So far as Bob goes, if he were to call it niche tank, it wouldn't bother me. I'm pretty careful not to let people know about my no-feed tank if I feel they may jump the gun, forgo logic and research, and just dive into the method with a goldfish or something. It wouldn't end well. From my own experiences, I do believe that fish can adopted quite well given enough time. I wouldn't say I witnessed evolution, but rather adaptation using genes that were already present. Nothing new here, its the same thing we did with dogs. They have no problem breeding with wolves, and I'm pretty sure that if they were all bred back to wolves, it wouldn't be long before the domestic dog would disappeare. This should not be the goal of a budding hobbiest though. I have forced adaptation on gambusias before and produced a strain that could survive extremely high levels of ammonia, and would even breed readily. It could not survive low food intake though. The fish was always thin unless I fed it three times as much food as normal, and would starve to death quickly if I fed them sparingly. Its all very interesting to me. Some day, I may even try to breed an African cichlid untilled it can breed in highly acidic waters, just to see if they are even capable of producing such a strain. It would be either trying to reverse millions of years of evolution, or simply finding a gene that is present but not expressed. Unless you try such things, you never really know.


----------



## navigator black (Jan 3, 2012)

Auban, you're a genetics fishkeeper! You'd love my Lamprologus congoensis - a species from a major Genus in lake Tanganyika that occurs in the rivers outside of that lake, and does not need hard water. It seems to thrive in softer water, straight from the tap here. 
But it does need a current or it just lies around on the bottom. They aren't good swimmers, with a reduced swim bladder, an adaptation to keep them from being swept downstream by the current and losing their territories. With a current, they hop all over, with no current, they hardly move.
I keep wild forms of the popular domestic livebearers. Grey fish. I love seeing the differences in behavior from the domestic hybrids I kept for so long. There is the 'psychotic honey gourami' effect, where crossing Colisa chuna, the gentle little honey with a related species has made a nasty, bigger, differently coloured fish. That's the most obvious version of that effect out there, but there are some things with swordtails that are intriguing too.
I saw some 'salt and pepper' platy forms in a store tank on Saturday, and I have been contemplating going back to get them to see if they could be bred back to that unfashionable but close to the wild form strain. It was a domestic form I bred in my teens that fell out of the market for decades, at least locally. They were in a 'mixed platy', borderline feeder tank with some neon swordtail/platy hybrids. maybe...


----------



## zero (Mar 27, 2012)

navigator black said:


> Here is a debate stretcher. A new tetra has arrived in the hobby. It was captured in Congo, in a pool along the massive rapids of the Congo River.
> Due to hydro-electric development plans, it may soon be extinct. We should try to breed it, to learn.
> It seems to run in currents, with reflective camouflage on a four inch, heavy body. You have received seven of them (possibly the only ones in captivity), and from what you can see, it may actually school as much as shoal. The group is very tight.
> 
> ...



im not that skilled but what id do, like susan, is get a big tank, 6ft or even 8ft. id then have to google what i could of what the rivers in there area looked liked above and below the water, and copy it! id get a strong current going from one end of the tank and heavy filtration. guessing fast moving rivers are very mineral high and oxygnated. id prob add river rocks and a sand bottom and not too sure what else id do untill id seen there natrual habitat. i wouldnt feed them pellets or flake i dont think, being wild and very special i wouldnt want them to starve or anything!

sorry my post is a bit rubbish but with limited knowlage of fish keeping i have to hit the books to come up with a good answer!!


----------

