# self-sustaining curiosities



## Flear

i know people have mentioned concerned with 'no water changes' to be increasing TDS.

with a test strip (i know people say these are unreliable)

a ph of 7.0 (maintained with a 7.0 buffer)
a Kh of 180
a gH of 60

i don't have anything to test tds
i know i have really high calcium levels (please don't argue, i know, dissolved enough calcium source in the tank - and have not removed it)

these numbers don't seem so high compared with what i am seeing others post about their tanks


----------



## Austin

Need more background info to draw any useful conclusions from this.


----------



## Austin

Need more background info to draw any useful conclusions from this. Also, in order to even comment.


----------



## Flear

trying to get a handle on here my tank sits.

no water changes, no vacuums, a disaster waiting for many people

after asking lots of questions, peoples concerns are about hormones (i guess allomones as well - one person mentioned) and total dissolved solids

over time (and answers) there are many fish that simply cannot make it in tanks without regular, or even significant daily water changes. aside from pure luck - not gambling with that as a solution

---

i know my initial post is less a question and more a 'this is what's going on'

it makes it difficult to ask questions when i've got a few numbers, and i don't know what to do with it, i don't know what those numbers mean, ... it's not even more questions then answers, as i don't know what questions to ask

---

i guess i'm looking for questions instead of asking any myself

as many know i'm looking for a self-sustaining tank, one that requires no maintenance (aside from replacing equipment that died due to failure)

there is painfully little on the subject as "crash" is about as arbitrary as it comes when someone asks why it failed. and that's often the explanation.

no on says "ran out of food & starved" "pH shift causing unplanned ammonia spike" "fish overpopulation issues"
it's painful that so little is considered when someones tank fails and things die. so little is talked about, and explanations given are relating to "well if regular maintenance was done properly, X, Y, & Z should have been maintained, ... and that wouldn't have been an issue" or "... regular maintenance would leave reasons for things dying to be A, B, C ..."

both explanations point to situations that can't even begin to be compared to a tank that doesn't have regular maintenance, ... comparing apples and oranges and someone brings in a pineapple.

---

so i don't know what to make of the very few numbers i have, i don't know.
and i'm curious about input, i'm curious about what questions others can come up with, things i haven't considered to look at to suggest "hey, what about ..."

i'm fine doing all kinds of research on things to look into, ... i'm just drawing blanks about the water.

like the arbitrary certain fish require pristine water, ... but try to ask what that means and suddenly you get some clear answers that no one knows what it means at the heart of it.

---

so i've got some numbers (not a lot)
i look at other tanks and think "those numbers are higher"
i wonder "i've been given suggestions that say my numbers should be through the roof"

things are not making sense to my limited experience, and i'm really not sure what to make of things or what to do with it at all actually.

so i'm curious about direction.
otherwise recently my default has been looking into substrate nutrient compositions in light of nutrient deficiencies i am experiencing and deficiencies i hear others commonly experience as well.

so far removed from the water in a sense (potassium nutrients seem to be very water soluble)


----------



## Austin

The forums or my internet were having issues when I posted so I couldn't properly edit my post. What I mean is you didn't post anything about how your aquarium was maintained, the size, the inhabitants, plants, tap water parameters, etc. not sure if you addressed it in that last post, I will read it in a bit just wante to say this


----------



## pennyls9332

self sustaining tanks sound awesome. kind of like a utopia of fish tanks but you want something that naturally flushes out the toxins and all the bad stuff that gets in the tanks but its a closed system it is impossible for that to happen. water changes happen naturally in nature. there is nothing natural about a fish tank so when you replicate nature you must perform water changes


----------



## Mikaila31

Flear said:


> i know i have really high calcium levels (please don't argue, i know, dissolved enough calcium source in the tank - and have not removed it)


You think you have anyway. I'm not sure how much calcium is in cuttle bone or its actual solubility. Your carbonates are high, either thats your tap or the cuttlebone. gH isn't high but thats not to say it isn't mostly calcium that it is picking up. 

In short single point test on a tank are very unhelpful. Test your source water for these things, report the results then we will go from there. I typically am far more interested in my tap water readings then my tank. Its usually easy enough to predict the tank once you know the tap readings and the chemistry.


----------



## Austin

pennyls9332 said:


> self sustaining tanks sound awesome. kind of like a utopia of fish tanks but you want something that naturally flushes out the toxins and all the bad stuff that gets in the tanks but its a closed system it is impossible for that to happen. water changes happen naturally in nature. there is nothing natural about a fish tank so when you replicate nature you must perform water changes


And I present... Duckweed, frogbit, and water lettuce! Natural nitrate sinks and surely other dissolved solids.

But a self sustaining tank with no maintainence is not possible. If I recall there's no really good ways to feed fish except with food so that is a necessary maintainence. What about adding water? You'll also have to keep trimming plants. If there is a food input something (plants?) needs to also remove the food or you'll have buildup of nasty compounds. 

The reason people give poor answers for why a tank failed is because simply they don't know why, and it's impossible to figure out. There is too many variables. Unless you wish to set up a big science project and spend years you will never get any conclusive evidence except anecdotal evidence. The scientific method is very tedious. You must manipulate one variable at a time only. But that's the only way to get reproducable, accurate results. That's why nobody liked bob - he came here with anecdotal evidence that is, in essense, garbage. 

But good luck
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Flear

Penny,

for most water systems this is true, nutrients get flushed out, ... first farther downstream, ... then flushed out into the ocean, ... then flushed out into ... ???

just as often, the reverse is true (one of the reverses)

nutrients are added to a water system, ... first by trapped dust and dissolved nutrients & chemicals in the air, also by dissolved & suspended nutrients & particles while flowing across ground & rock as it makes it's way into the rivers to begin with.

nothing ever receives clean pure water in nature

it gets the runoff from where the water came from previously.

self-sustaining idea is based on:
'nothing old removed' - everyone gets this and argues this
'nothing new added' - seems to be the most ignored point
for an 'everything needed is already present' situation

everything in nature is a zero net gain
nothing in nature is ever "remove toxins" without something additional being added to begin the process


----------



## Flear

Austin, 

thanks for the input, i know often people are asked about what water is going into their tank, ... i tend to forget as i am still adding water to replace what evaporates out, but no water changes

reminds me again to get test kits  thanks

---

gotta head to the less than desirable lfs and get them there :/
not a fan of shopping at a place where the staff are only there to get payed and the store either has what they have on the shelf or they turn you away 

i was going to get them at my preferred LFS, they didn't have them, and forgot (i'm bad for forgetting at times)
(my fault for not asking)

---

yes the duckweed is amazing at being a nutrient sink

it's got calcium/lime deposits on the leaves for the older duckweed i scoop out on occasion.
i never would have thought of that being something to happen

i dono if it's my imagination as i see this on the duckweed that is far away from any source of water splashing (air bubbler bubbles popping little droplets and away from the HOB filter) could be my imagination still, ... either way surprising - i have heard duckweed (while edible to people) can be a source of kidney stones due to it's ability to have high calcium levels, i never would have thought it would do what i am seeing though.

then again it might be my imagination, would be really big coincidence if this is the case.


----------



## Flear

Austin,

for self-sustaining

all my research is going into a food-cycle trying to cator to florida flagfish.

while currently i'm stuck on looking into substrate nutrient ideas as i am noticing nutrient deficiencies in the plants ... i'm sure once i'm comfortable with thinking i have this solved i'll be back to looking into the next stage of the food-chain

... lots of algae, ... both green micro & phytoplankton. which as i learn about nutrients and what i stumble across in my search, ... i used to consider that additives in the substrate to increase CEC & AEC would be good, i'm not so sure anymore, for several reasons (one being before these minerals are saturated i am getting hints that (terrestrially) they may cause the appearance of a deficiency.)

with an increased desire for phytoplankton i may want more nutrients in the water column then i previously thought.

with algae and soft plants to satisfy the flagfishes vegitable diet, next comes it's meaty/protien requirements

phytoplankton to raise zooplankton
worms in the substrate
and possibly (i really haven't looked into this yet - so it's a curiosity i don't want to forget) critters that live at the surface of the water
-all to get as much living food at all levels for the fish

then is plants (back to plants) that while preferred to be edible & desirable for the fish, are to block line-of-sight enough to give all the live food a fighting chance at survival

---

the hard parts is in nature animals have a huge area they can roam to get access to enough food that they don't decimate any one place in particular

as the whole system is based on nutrients, & nutrient availability, ... this is an area i cannot fold a large area into a small space (like i can do with so much else in the tank)

bacterial activity must be sufficient that total quantities of nutrients bacteria is processing and releasing into the substrate & water column must keep up with the demands of a highly compressed eco-system. and i may not be able to get nutrients to settle into sufficient areas in a continuous supply to have the bacteria re-release them in a form that is able to start the whole food system at a level to keep the tank running smoothly.

there is only so much depth to the substrate that can be used before deeper anoxic layers develop, even with increased activity due to worms & (select) snails. there is only so much that can be done for a water filter to increase surface intake area before it plugs up and restricts input through the water filter. there is only going to be so many places suspended particles can settle before there's no more suspended particles to settle elsewhere and then bacteria cannot grow in those more remote areas.

plenty can be done to make use of nutrients in the water column for availability in one area or another of the food-chain, but first those nutrients have to be available. ...

and as i am seeing in my own tank, ... sufficient nutrients in the start to make up for what is being processed and what is not preprocessed or difficult to be moved into available elsewhere.


----------



## Flear

to deal with adding water
if water is not evaporating, no water needed to be added, ... great idea, but i'm not going to chance that yet, i'll stick with a lid to reduce water evaporation, but i'm not confident enough to consider a sealed system yet, maybe never

as for trimming plants, ... solved with plants that are desirable by the critters in the tank. as i am finding stem plants while they grow very fast (good) they don't have a size limit, they just keep growing out of control 

i have found 1 stem plant my flagfish love (Limnophila Sessiliflora) ... flagfish sure can eat a lot.

as for what is impossible to figure out, ... i fully believe "impossible" is a word that means "we don't currently know" otherwise nothing is impossible.

yes, my lack of maintenance on my current (and only) tank is my inspiration for what problems i could be facing, ... it's not what i would consider for sharing "hey this is a self-sustaining tank" as it's 90% problems in that route, ... first being not enough food for the inhabitants, so i'm adding food, ... i'm trimming plants, i'm removing excess floating plants, ... things go in, things come out, ... it's only the last week or two i have considered things being a zero-net sum, ... what i am removing from plants "should" be equal to what i am putting into the tank (food - i like floating pellets 

i consider and stop considering reminderalizing those plants that were removed to add again, ... but last i did that ammonia levels were beyond acceptable, ... and the bucket i was using, ... i need a second and where i am currently space is limited.

but such is called learning, ... and not discarding, but things to remember and figure out how to deal with later.

---

as a backup plan to a self-sustaining tank is a system of tanks, one feeding into another, but as i mentioned last i did this ... i was hoping to see things come to some level of balance, instead what i saw looked like farther degrading nutrient deficiencies in the plants, ... 

it's always frustrating when finding more blanks than answers when trying to solve things 

the most obvious deficiency looks like iron, ... 

searches on iron led to sources of chelating chemicals that would be naturally occuring in plants, ... (for their own uptake) ... 99% of these searches resulted in fertlizers utilizing manufactured chelators for hydroponics. sure i get get slight hints of 'plants may release chelating chemicals from their roots, ... although this sounds like they do so sparingly to help mobilize nutrients in the soil (terrestrial) for their own use, ... not in excess that could count at a level to help make additional nutrients available for more than their own personal use.

information on nutrient availability based on pH is ... the surface info is easy, ... but what happens to those nutrients as the pH is in an area that restricts or eliminates a nutrient from being available is ... this info requires extensive and time-consuming searches for the slight chance of finding how each individual nutrient is affected, ... and then information found is about half of what is needed (or what i am considering needed)

---

there is much information i could use to help me out, ... what i am finding is that it seems less than half of what is going on has been persued at all in any understanding, and of that there is significantly less available to find, and only a small amount of that is easy to find., ... information on what is needed for all the behind the scenes activity going on in an ecosystem is like a vast desert in the search for an oasis and you have no map to help you out ... and it's night-time, on a cloudy moonless night, without wind or sound to help you out if you're getting close or not, ... and when you find one, it might have something your after, it might not.

from my tank i don't quite neglect, but pretty close, ... i have learned more about what could be going on without any ability to test than over a year of in-depth searching has brought me


----------



## Flear

all i gained from bob is using pure peat moss for a substrate base is an idea.

might try something else, but can't beat simplicity.

but using a single organic source like that (the decomposed nutrients of only one kind of plant) leaves a nutrient ratio that is great for growing only one type of plant.

which reminds me, this mornings search was (once again) organic hydroponic fertilizers


----------



## pennyls9332

clean pure water in nature is called rain. and yes plants do help process out the toxins but not entirely.

the way nature keeps its water clean is by using the hydrologic cycle AKA the water cycle and by the water going thru the ground and running off into dry land is how it stays clean ground water and rain is something that is not able to happen naturally in a tank. the ground soaks up so much more from the water then what people realize.


----------



## rsskylight04

In nature the water cycle acts as water changes in freshwater systems. Evaporation ( mainly from the oceans) results in nearly pure distilled water. Clouds drift over land and dump the pure fresh water into lakes, rivers, groundwater aquafers. The overflow returns to the ocean. 
Old water runs out, nearly pure water flows in... sounds JUST like waterchanges. Lakes that do not drain and only lose water to evaporation are usualy not inhabitable by fish. The Salton Sea in California is an example. Tanks that are never partialy drained and refilled by water changes are not inhabitable by fish either.


----------



## Flear

yes, i have heard trees can have hundreds of gallons of water evaporate through their leaves per day. that water has to come from somewhere, ... and often there's a lot of trees around lakes, rivers, & streams.


----------



## Flear

rainwater isn't pure.
water cannot condense in the air without a particle of dust to condense onto.

as for rainwater falling into a river or lake, ... falling directly into a lake will give you the freshwater input you described (and this does happen

into a river is going to be ... what ... ??? ... 99% runoff that has crossed over land and disolved all manner of minerals and organics.

from the river inhabited by ... anything... these critters are going to add their waste to the water, 

this water that has dissolved minerals, solids, and waste products by other critters, ... moves downstream, into & out-of lakes, waste products being added to it as it flows downstream.

each new area it flows into starts as waste water, ... becoming dirtier as it flows downriver.

now where is the fresh rainwater ?

i'm not saying this to argue the point of 'no water changes is possible', ... but to argue the point of 'there is no such thing as pure water entering all but the most initial water ways that form the river.'

in favor of water changes, ... even at the lowest end of the river before it hits the ocean, i'm sure it's better for the fish than what is in our tanks at the time of a water change.

---

what is constantly missed in this scenario of nature being pro-water change ...

there is almost no place in the initial beginning of any river or stream that doesn't include initial dissolved solids, minerals & other organic matter.

there is always stuff in the water before it becomes a part of any river.

the greater the distance the water has to flow, the more stuff it carries with it (either suspended or dissolved)

any  tank considering 'no water changes' follows something different, ... water can be added (to replace evaporated water) that has less suspended and dissolved content then rain water.

any lake that has no water-out constantly has an increase in minerals, salts, organics, and whatever other matter is being carried with all water that enters.

---

you are comparing two drastically different scenarios; one in nature, one in an unmaintained artificial system.

you can try to use the same rules that govern one and relate it to the other to say 'if we ignore water inputs being drastically different and focus on end products that are likewise drastically different, then what you are doing is dangerous.'

you need better research to backup your hypothesis.
i've got a colander that gives stronger arguments, (even holds water better).


----------



## beaslbob

for iron I use a ferris gluconate table dissolved in an 12-20oz soda bottle. then I would dose a capful each week. The idea was to dose a very low amount in the mixed reef (marine) systems to not adversly affect corals but to still provide some iron for the macro algaes.

While I did that I also dropped a capful into my fw tanks. Can't say if it made all that much difference but it didn't seem to hurt anything either.

my .02


----------



## BWG

Flear said:


> you need better research to backup your hypothesis.
> i've got a colander that gives stronger arguments, (even holds water better).


If you're going to come on an aquarium forum and post about what could be viewed as a controversial subject, then you should expect detractors. Being insulting won't win you any credibility or friends.


----------



## Flear

BWG, true, ... fair point 

it's controversial at best, just bad practice from there.

it does get tiring to hear the same argument about why it's bad when what it is being compared to rates the best of the natural world and the worst of the aquarium and to hear "see this is why it can't be done"

comparing apples and oranges, and someone brought in a pineapple.

---

i'm fine hearing what's wrong with it actually, gives me new directions to consider, ... but to point out unrealistic correlations in nature vs. an unmaintained unhealthy aquarium as the considered 'valid' argument ... and that's the only argument against it, ... 

but i shouldn't have to be the one to fill in the details on other peoples arguments about what is going on to support the differences between nature and trying to support a tank without water changes.


----------



## rsskylight04

I thought you were just looking for discussion, didn't know I would need to research and back up my arguments. I was thinking theory, not exact science. So sorry.
And, yeah... no need to be rude. If you want to keep a tank with no water change then go ahead, I'll not try to dissuade you.


----------



## Mikaila31

Flear said:


> Austin,
> 
> for self-sustaining
> 
> all my research is going into a food-cycle trying to cator to florida flagfish.
> 
> while currently i'm stuck on looking into substrate nutrient ideas as i am noticing nutrient deficiencies in the plants ... i'm sure once i'm comfortable with thinking i have this solved i'll be back to looking into the next stage of the food-chain
> 
> ... lots of algae, ... both green micro & phytoplankton. which as i learn about nutrients and what i stumble across in my search, ... i used to consider that additives in the substrate to increase CEC & AEC would be good, i'm not so sure anymore, for several reasons (one being before these minerals are saturated i am getting hints that (terrestrially) they may cause the appearance of a deficiency.)
> 
> with an increased desire for phytoplankton i may want more nutrients in the water column then i previously thought.
> 
> with algae and soft plants to satisfy the flagfishes vegitable diet, next comes it's meaty/protien requirements
> 
> phytoplankton to raise zooplankton
> worms in the substrate
> and possibly (i really haven't looked into this yet - so it's a curiosity i don't want to forget) critters that live at the surface of the water
> -all to get as much living food at all levels for the fish
> 
> then is plants (back to plants) that while preferred to be edible & desirable for the fish, are to block line-of-sight enough to give all the live food a fighting chance at survival
> 
> ---
> 
> the hard parts is in nature animals have a huge area they can roam to get access to enough food that they don't decimate any one place in particular
> 
> as the whole system is based on nutrients, & nutrient availability, ... this is an area i cannot fold a large area into a small space (like i can do with so much else in the tank)
> 
> bacterial activity must be sufficient that total quantities of nutrients bacteria is processing and releasing into the substrate & water column must keep up with the demands of a highly compressed eco-system. and i may not be able to get nutrients to settle into sufficient areas in a continuous supply to have the bacteria re-release them in a form that is able to start the whole food system at a level to keep the tank running smoothly.
> 
> there is only so much depth to the substrate that can be used before deeper anoxic layers develop, even with increased activity due to worms & (select) snails. there is only so much that can be done for a water filter to increase surface intake area before it plugs up and restricts input through the water filter. there is only going to be so many places suspended particles can settle before there's no more suspended particles to settle elsewhere and then bacteria cannot grow in those more remote areas.
> 
> plenty can be done to make use of nutrients in the water column for availability in one area or another of the food-chain, but first those nutrients have to be available. ...
> 
> and as i am seeing in my own tank, ... sufficient nutrients in the start to make up for what is being processed and what is not preprocessed or difficult to be moved into available elsewhere.


If we are to back up our points with sources and data then I don't see why you should not be doing the same. 

Much of what you are saying is speculation, some is completely off the mark.

Getting both phytoplankton and macrophytes to coexist happy in the same condensed system, is unlikely. The best coexisting they can do is if both are in less than ideal settings, but thats a teeter-totter type of balance that more likely then not to tip in favor of one or the other.

I don't see why comparisons to aquatic ecosystems are inapplicable here. They cover obstacles you have yet explained how you will manage to cover in a self-sustaining system. This goes beyond the hydrological cycle. What I am most interested in is how you intend to nutrient cycle at least half a dozen nutrients successfully in an aquarium, when you are lacking vital parts of the ecosystem that cycles them naturally.

Do you plan on going for anoxic 'deep' substrate?
Do you plan on filtering? If so what kinda filter?
There is always particulate in the water column and it will always be settling. This is more true for natural ecosystems then aquarium, but it still present in the aquarium espeically as you move more and more towards the natural aquarium. Filters usually interfere with it. Part of most natural nutrient cycles is some precipitation. It either ends in deposits or is reassimilated back into the cycle. Most nutrients in an aquarium overall are produced, consumed, or partially cycled, rarely do they fully cycle.



Flear said:


> there is much information i could use to help me out, ... what i am finding is that it seems less than half of what is going on has been persued at all in any understanding, and of that there is significantly less available to find, and only a small amount of that is easy to find., ... information on what is needed for all the behind the scenes activity going on in an ecosystem is like a vast desert in the search for an oasis and you have no map to help you out ... and it's night-time, on a cloudy moonless night, without wind or sound to help you out if you're getting close or not, ... and when you find one, it might have something your after, it might not.
> 
> from my tank i don't quite neglect, but pretty close, ... i have learned more about what could be going on without any ability to test than over a year of in-depth searching has brought me



Again I push you towards this text. Chapters: 4, 11*, 12*, 13*, 14, 16*, 17*, 18. The * chapters are the most applicable to this topic(at a glance, there maybe others), the whole text is quite interesting for this topic TBH. This is not how a typical aquarium works. But it is how complete nutrient cycles, water chemistry, and other associations work( like phytoplankton and nutrients) to create an ecosystem. You either need to recreate these cycles or work around them in some manner. IMO you need to fully understand what they are for this to even become debatable. Reading your posts I do not think you fully grasp the entirety or complexity of what it is you need to achieve for your goal to be possible. The scenarios maybe different, but the challenges remain the same.


----------



## pennyls9332

its not my hypothesis that needs work so lets make it clear
i believe to have a healthy tank you need to take out dangerous toxins by preforming water changes to keep the system inside the tank healthy bc filters and plants and micro-organisms are not able to that by themselves. which has been proven time and time again.

as for your colander theory i think im gonna stop posting on this thread bc im not dealing with small minded people that refuse any other opinion than their own, so good luck with the train wreck waiting to happen


----------



## rsskylight04

pennyls9332 said:


> its not my hypothesis that needs work so lets make it clear
> i believe to have a healthy tank you need to take out dangerous toxins by preforming water changes to keep the system inside the tank healthy bc filters and plants and micro-organisms are not able to that by themselves. which has been proven time and time again.
> 
> as for your colander theory i think im gonna stop posting on this thread bc im not dealing with small minded people that refuse any other opinion than their own, so good luck with the train wreck waiting to happen


Me too.


----------



## Tazman

I am going to nip this in the bud now!

Coming on to a forum, in the Advanced Freshwater DISCUSSION section, DISCUSSION being the operative word here, and NOT listening to what other people have to say as part of that discussion is both rude and NOT what this forum or section is about.

Kindly (EVERYONE) refrain from judging people and their way of doing things. This is a DISCUSSION thread and as such should be treated that way. If any member feels the discussion is NOT to their liking then feel free to leave.

There is no right or wrong on this, what works for one person, may not work for another. Kindly though keep the conversation civilized.


----------



## jaysee

I have to say, I have a great deal of respect for flear and what he is doing. He's trying to LEARN. He is HONEST. He's NOT here to push his ideas on anyone. Cut him some slack. Let's not stone the man for his curiosities.....


----------



## rsskylight04

I apologize if my post came across as rude or insulting . I honestly did not intend to attack or offend anyone in any way.


----------



## Mikaila31

I do not care one way or the other. I will gladly 'discuss' this provided some specific points can be pushed to the forefront. 

What I ask of flear, to keep me in this discussion is to actually explain your opinions, I don't care if it takes awhile for you to do. Your posts are all over the place and TBH I don't have the effort to follow them. When I do read them I'm still left wonder what you are really looking for here. I am operating on very minimal sleep ATM but I don't think thats the issue, unless I am alone in this regard. 

Over active modding is no bueno either to keep me in the so called discussion. If you want the rules of formal debate or argument someone needs to mention it. Inconsistency is confusing and I am easily confused.

OP made the first slight and I'm not sure who thought it would be received positively.
:dunno:


----------



## jaysee

Mikaila31 said:


> What I ask of flear, to keep me in this discussion is to actually explain your opinions, I don't care if it takes awhile for you to do. Your posts are all over the place and TBH I don't have the effort to follow them. When I do read them I'm still left wonder what you are really looking for here.



That's a very valid issue. I too find his posts difficult to follow and i can get confused reading them. It would certainly benefit him to present his ideas in a more coherent manner.


----------



## beaslbob

jaysee said:


> That's a very valid issue. I too find his posts difficult to follow and i can get confused reading them. It would certainly benefit him to present his ideas in a more coherent manner.


 
KISS. :lol:

my .02


----------



## jaysee

I hope that's the acronym....


----------



## beaslbob

jaysee said:


> I hope that's the acronym....


 :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

ok ok

K.I.S.S.

now that all better?


----------



## Tolak

beaslbob said:


> KISS. :lol:
> 
> my .02


I'm feeling the love! :love2:


----------



## Flear

i am better off answering questions to keep me focused.

most of my inquiries lately (very recently) have been to inquire on what should i be looking out for to see what could go wrong.

much of my thinking is all over the place as much knowledge for aquariums is all over the place, ... like something as simple as nutrient availability

so if you read and find something you can comment on for points to remind me of something to consider, or look for, ideas to use, ... great, i gain ideas to use, curiosities to consider, or things to avoid & rethink, ... and the rest, ignore it, ... i know i cover way too many topics in a post, ... and often what i consider to be a single area or topic, tends to cover several different things.

---

for months now my area of research on the net has been to inquire about & for nutrient makeup for a substrate.

this has included how nutrients are affected by pH, ... not the simple chart, but what does each nutrient change into that makes it inaccessable or more accessable to the plants ?

i do not think the concern for a self-sustaining tank starts at the plants, nor at nutrients, but at bacteria (also where it ends)

bacteria process and release nutrients into the substrate for plants & into the water column.

in the biological food-chain most see primary consumer, secondary & the guys at the top of the food-chain (3 levels)

for water (freshwater & marine) they draw the basic first level at phytoplankton.
i have not seen anything that suggests nutrients are water soluble so much in a non-organic form.
i have come across many references that bacteria provide this form for plants (and phytoplankton)

---

i have 2 containers of greenwater, both have been running for several months without any added nutrients of any sort.

i have come across many people talk about greenwater, either in their tank (unwanted) or as a culture (wanted) that have problems crashing within a few weeks.

i don't know if i mentioned it previously in this thread or in another thread, ... a concern that bacteria may not be able to process fish poop & detritus at a speed fast enough to keep up with demand in the tank ... it's not the surface area for the bacteria that's the problem. ... it's bacteria getting access to high nutrient detritus in a continuous manner without being smothered or otherwise plugged up with additional detritus.

---

everyone is worried about toxic buildup of waste, the second or third or ... whatever the reason or excuse for water changes is at this point (first being nitrates), ... after the first reason for water changes is delt with it's very unreliable to hear what the next reason or excuse for water changes is, ... it changes depending on who is talking about the reasons for water changes at the time.

as mentioned above, fish waste.

it has to be processed, it has to be broken down, it has to be reduced to a non-toxic state that can be processed by phytoplankton, algae, plants (one or more of these 3)

it has to be broken down at a rate that equals or exceeds the rate detritus is added to the system (by the system)

here i have seen no concern other than water changes & cleaning filters being offered.

---

as i sit here thinking on what to write, what simple one point of focus to help slow myself down so i am thinking about and writing about one thing at a time, ... and i covered, ... oh dear, gotta be a half-dozen 

substrate, nutrients, detritus breakdown, pH, filters, ... food-chains, ... who knows what else.

but isn't this all one part, ... nutrients being recycled in an aquarium ?

i sit here thinking, and chances are for water filter, HOB, or canister, i'm going to need a foam sheet the size of a wall in the aquarium to suck water through & hope it doesn't plug up with detritus faster than it gets processed.

phytoplankton & algae & plants (together or alone) i believe tend to demonstrate that they could process nutrients released by bacteria breaking down detritus as fast as that bacteria could make it available

---

i'm all over the place because i'm easily distracted by my own curiosities into other areas i could look into.

light, CO2, ... picking algae & plants based on what the top level i want in the food-chain in my tank.

---

i started my search wanting a fish that was omnivore, primarily herbivore, ... for a small fish, it's hard to find herbivores smaller than 6", it's hard to find omnivores smaller than 4", ... imagine how impressed i was to find the florida flag fish at little over 2", ... only problem it's always hungry (but that seems to be an issue with herbivores in general)

there was mention (either here or in the "self sustaining ecosystem" thread) about a balance between different levels of food, ... i'm not seeing it that way (among the many things i don't see the same way others do.

once the nutrients are availaible, ... phytoplankton gets the nutrients, and reproduces to a point of homeostasis (if a healthy balance) or it crashes itself - and i have no idea what the difference is)

but fish (fry excluded) can't sustain themselves on phytoplankton they need something larger, (rotifers, moina, daphnia, copepods, artima, and/or others) that they can eat. these zooplankton will eat and reproduce till they crash the system, i do not believe there will ever be a homeostasis between these 2. if there is is plenty of food for more zooplankton, more will be produced, ... till the phytoplankton cannot keep reproducing at a fast enough rate (regardless of nutrient availability) to sustain populations, ... and the whole thing will fall apart.

then we've got the flagfish (well my fish of choice for this self-sustaining idea), ... to eat the zooplankton, ... and reproduction is much slower, so no matter how healthy the zooplankton population is, the flagfish population can be monitored and maintained at a specific number to keep bellies full without eating too many zooplankton to unbalance the system.

if the surviving zooplankton are insufficient to deal with the phytoplankton population at this point, additional critters can be obtained that can deal with excess phytoplankton that will have a slow rate of growth so as to not offer an unbalancing to the system if monitored with the same ease that the flagfish are being monitored.

---

that was me getting way off topic - sorry

water changes for a self-sustaining system are going to unbalance the system, it's a loss of nutrients in a system nutrients are not being added to.

in a system where pH is boss, ... as a pH that is too high or too low reduces or even removes certain nutrients from the system, i have heard many suggest things breaking down would acidify the system, the substrate, both, ...

i don't know about the substrate, i have not heard anyone test this, i would love to hear beaslbob give a pH test of the substrates in one of his older tanks, ... his water column tests providing a high pH of 8.x tends to say that pH affected by stuff breaking down is propoganda instead of fact, i have seen the same high pH in my tank as well, ... 

it's things like this where what people say is going to happen, or what people insist and are scared of will happen, ... then someone does it anyway and finds rather the opposite is true, ...

i'm not happy with beaslbob's methods of talking about his system

but between tanks that started out different, that reached the same pH, and peoples common views that the tank would become acidic, ... 

i don't know how to say this nicely, so i'm not

all that is clear from that one point is what is believed is clearly not what seems to be going on, ... instead of people taking a hint that they don't know what is going on they just change what they are arguing for and still the argument is for exactly the same result in the end.

i won't argue that in the decades past where water changes were more 'new-age' in the hobby keeping certain sensitive fish was largely luck, and more likely luck will run out, ... or they were doing those water changes we follow religiously now.

but reasons for water changes now, ... i hear lots of people point out what they think is going to go on, and their reasons for promoting water changes, ... and those reasons turn out to be wrong.

people argue the tanks are going to be acidic, and bob & myself experience exactly the opposite.

so i can't say this nicely, ... but things like this tends to suggest you don't know what you're talking about.

sure it's one point, and probably the only one for awhile i could say 'see, see, told you so', ... like some child who won a prize at a carnival. ... i just don't want to be the same child who in his enthusiasm tripped and the new toy fell in the mud.

so all i can say is the popular view for one small point turns out to be wrong

i can either believe everything everyone is telling me to do (no need to reinvent the wheel)
or i could learn by experience the truth behind what everyone is saying (and reinvent the wheel)

or maybe find that there's only a few things that are needed to be done to be the difference between self-sustaining (from a human intervention scenario) 

or maybe i find it's one loose end after another and only at that point will i be more than welcome to share everything i have learned to say "it can't be done"

but all i know now, ... no one knows why it can't be done, what people do know is why it hasn't worked in the past

yes i know my thoughts are all over, pick and choose points to attack, or points to listen to, or points to say 'i'm not going to be part of this anymore, or points to remind me, or points to become curious about.

people consider the food cycle to be ... oddly, they imagine what goes on at scales smaller than they can see, or they don't consider them, ... 

poop from bacteria seems to be raw nutrients for plants

i have never heard of anyone talk about bacteria in a tank other than the few strains that deal with the ammonia cycle.

as for what i am to consider here, ... i'm not so keen on anoxic zones, i have heard that these are needed for some nutrients to be recycled (sulfur i think) ... i am not concerned with promoting these as they become competition for nitrogen, ... either the plants get them or the anoxic zones get them, and i think plant roots tend to provide O2 to the substrate anyway reducing or even eliminating anoxic areas.

i should end this for now, ... i'm more than willing to focus on single points, ... but clearly i don't know what single points to be considered, then i end up all over the place and confusing everyone


----------



## Mikaila31

Sorry flear but I'm done with this thread until you shape up and from the sound of it most of the others already are. I skimmed that post and got maybe half of it. If you are not going to try any harder to explain you opinions I am not going to try any harder to read your posts. This is not a discussion.... it is your opinion.... and until this site can figure out the difference I'm not going to bother discussing it. Discussion is the name of this section but what actually goes on here is debatable.....

You are thinking far to high up on the scale of everything and you will fail. Chemistry will win in the end regardless of what you think or believe. 

I gave you about 150 pages of text under the recommendation that you read it. It would answer a ton and more of what you are asking if you take the time to understand it. I know you at best glanced at it to be replying this early. 

You want to talk about the redox potential, anoxic environments, nutrient cycling, nutrient deficiency, nutrient toxicity, and all the other chemistry you need to make this theoretically work I can do that. Whether you actually bother to learn these is a moot point. Trust me.... the trophic levels are not were your problems lie. The inability to nutrient cycle will break down the trophic levels very quickly. Your flagfish, phytoplankton, zooplankton are all subject to this. Since after all chemistry dictates biology and the only thing that dictates chemistry is physics. But hey nothing like learning with hands on experience I say. 

I'm not against you flear nor I am I with you. If you can't take the effort to straightforward explain yourself and not hit on two dozen separate issues in one post and if you actually took the advice you are given. Then I might actually take the time to help you but until then you are on your own and can keep fumbling in the dark tripping over the real issues. It doesn't effect me in the least. Other then your posts do have a certain amusement when I am drunk...


----------



## Flear

i'm going to see if i have that book already downloaded, ... otherwise it's a $9 book for me to download.


----------



## Mikaila31

the link i gave you had the entire text on it. Some 600 pages.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Flear

mikaila, ...

it's good i have gotten to where i am now, ... a year ago i would have looked at any text book sized material and said "too much", ... currently i have pretty much exhausted everything with instant answers.

it's not a reluctance to learn so much as where i am at (physically) in my life, ... at home study time is virtually nil, at work (oddly) i have tones of time to learn and study.

i am very pleased scribd isn't blocked here at work 

thanks, ... i should get through this in a few days


----------



## Mikaila31

Flear said:


> currently i have pretty much exhausted everything with instant answers.


Theres are your own answers not actually anything you have bothered to debate. I did go through this train wreck of a post and have highlighted everything I know to be partially or completely incorrect with my current understanding of chemistry, biology, and ecology. 




Flear said:


> i am better off answering questions to keep me focused.
> 
> most of my inquiries lately (very recently) have been to inquire on what should i be looking out for to see what could go wrong.
> 
> much of my thinking is all over the place as much knowledge for aquariums is all over the place, ... like something as simple as nutrient availability
> 
> so if you read and find something you can comment on for points to remind me of something to consider, or look for, ideas to use, ... great, i gain ideas to use, curiosities to consider, or things to avoid & rethink, ... and the rest, ignore it, ... i know i cover way too many topics in a post, ... and often what i consider to be a single area or topic, tends to cover several different things.
> 
> ---
> 
> for months now my area of research on the net has been to inquire about & for nutrient makeup for a substrate.
> 
> this has included how nutrients are affected by pH, ... not the simple chart, but what does each nutrient change into that makes it inaccessable or more accessable to the plants ?
> 
> i do not think the concern for a self-sustaining tank starts at the plants, nor at nutrients, but at bacteria (also where it ends)
> 
> bacteria process and release nutrients into the substrate for plants & into the water column.
> 
> in the biological food-chain most see primary consumer, secondary & the guys at the top of the food-chain (3 levels)
> 
> for water (freshwater & marine) they draw the basic first level at phytoplankton.
> i have not seen anything that suggests nutrients are water soluble so much in a non-organic form.
> i have come across many references that bacteria provide this form for plants (and phytoplankton)
> 
> ---
> 
> i have 2 containers of greenwater, both have been running for several months without any added nutrients of any sort.
> 
> i have come across many people talk about greenwater, either in their tank (unwanted) or as a culture (wanted) that have problems crashing within a few weeks.
> 
> i don't know if i mentioned it previously in this thread or in another thread, ... a concern that bacteria may not be able to process fish poop & detritus at a speed fast enough to keep up with demand in the tank ... it's not the surface area for the bacteria that's the problem. ... it's bacteria getting access to high nutrient detritus in a continuous manner without being smothered or otherwise plugged up with additional detritus.
> 
> ---
> 
> everyone is worried about toxic buildup of waste, the second or third or ... whatever the reason or excuse for water changes is at this point (first being nitrates), ... after the first reason for water changes is delt with it's very unreliable to hear what the next reason or excuse for water changes is, ... it changes depending on who is talking about the reasons for water changes at the time.
> 
> as mentioned above, fish waste.
> 
> it has to be processed, it has to be broken down, it has to be reduced to a non-toxic state that can be processed by phytoplankton, algae, plants (one or more of these 3)
> 
> it has to be broken down at a rate that equals or exceeds the rate detritus is added to the system (by the system)
> 
> here i have seen no concern other than water changes & cleaning filters being offered.
> 
> ---
> 
> as i sit here thinking on what to write, what simple one point of focus to help slow myself down so i am thinking about and writing about one thing at a time, ... and i covered, ... oh dear, gotta be a half-dozen
> 
> substrate, nutrients, detritus breakdown, pH, filters, ... food-chains, ... who knows what else.
> 
> but isn't this all one part, ... nutrients being recycled in an aquarium ?
> 
> i sit here thinking, and chances are for water filter, HOB, or canister, i'm going to need a foam sheet the size of a wall in the aquarium to suck water through & hope it doesn't plug up with detritus faster than it gets processed.
> 
> phytoplankton & algae & plants (together or alone) i believe tend to demonstrate that they could process nutrients released by bacteria breaking down detritus as fast as that bacteria could make it available
> 
> ---
> 
> i'm all over the place because i'm easily distracted by my own curiosities into other areas i could look into.
> 
> light, CO2, ... picking algae & plants based on what the top level i want in the food-chain in my tank.
> 
> ---
> 
> i started my search wanting a fish that was omnivore, primarily herbivore, ... for a small fish, it's hard to find herbivores smaller than 6", it's hard to find omnivores smaller than 4", ... imagine how impressed i was to find the florida flag fish at little over 2", ... only problem it's always hungry (but that seems to be an issue with herbivores in general)
> 
> there was mention (either here or in the "self sustaining ecosystem" thread) about a balance between different levels of food, ... i'm not seeing it that way (among the many things i don't see the same way others do.
> 
> once the nutrients are availaible, ... phytoplankton gets the nutrients, and reproduces to a point of homeostasis (if a healthy balance) or it crashes itself - and i have no idea what the difference is)
> 
> but fish (fry excluded) can't sustain themselves on phytoplankton they need something larger, (rotifers, moina, daphnia, copepods, artima, and/or others) that they can eat. these zooplankton will eat and reproduce till they crash the system, i do not believe there will ever be a homeostasis between these 2. if there is is plenty of food for more zooplankton, more will be produced, ... till the phytoplankton cannot keep reproducing at a fast enough rate (regardless of nutrient availability) to sustain populations, ... and the whole thing will fall apart.
> 
> then we've got the flagfish (well my fish of choice for this self-sustaining idea), ... to eat the zooplankton, ... and reproduction is much slower, so no matter how healthy the zooplankton population is, the flagfish population can be monitored and maintained at a specific number to keep bellies full without eating too many zooplankton to unbalance the system.
> 
> if the surviving zooplankton are insufficient to deal with the phytoplankton population at this point, additional critters can be obtained that can deal with excess phytoplankton that will have a slow rate of growth so as to not offer an unbalancing to the system if monitored with the same ease that the flagfish are being monitored.
> 
> ---
> 
> that was me getting way off topic - sorry
> 
> water changes for a self-sustaining system are going to unbalance the system, it's a loss of nutrients in a system nutrients are not being added to.
> 
> in a system where pH is boss, ... as a pH that is too high or too low reduces or even removes certain nutrients from the system, i have heard many suggest things breaking down would acidify the system, the substrate, both, ...
> 
> i don't know about the substrate, i have not heard anyone test this, i would love to hear beaslbob give a pH test of the substrates in one of his older tanks, ... his water column tests providing a high pH of 8.x tends to say that pH affected by stuff breaking down is propoganda instead of fact, i have seen the same high pH in my tank as well, ...
> 
> it's things like this where what people say is going to happen, or what people insist and are scared of will happen, ... then someone does it anyway and finds rather the opposite is true, ...
> 
> i'm not happy with beaslbob's methods of talking about his system
> 
> but between tanks that started out different, that reached the same pH, and peoples common views that the tank would become acidic, ...
> 
> i don't know how to say this nicely, so i'm not
> 
> all that is clear from that one point is what is believed is clearly not what seems to be going on, ... instead of people taking a hint that they don't know what is going on they just change what they are arguing for and still the argument is for exactly the same result in the end.
> 
> i won't argue that in the decades past where water changes were more 'new-age' in the hobby keeping certain sensitive fish was largely luck, and more likely luck will run out, ... or they were doing those water changes we follow religiously now.
> 
> but reasons for water changes now, ... i hear lots of people point out what they think is going to go on, and their reasons for promoting water changes, ... and those reasons turn out to be wrong.
> 
> people argue the tanks are going to be acidic, and bob & myself experience exactly the opposite.
> 
> so i can't say this nicely, ... but things like this tends to suggest you don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> sure it's one point, and probably the only one for awhile i could say 'see, see, told you so', ... like some child who won a prize at a carnival. ... i just don't want to be the same child who in his enthusiasm tripped and the new toy fell in the mud.
> 
> so all i can say is the popular view for one small point turns out to be wrong
> 
> i can either believe everything everyone is telling me to do (no need to reinvent the wheel)
> or i could learn by experience the truth behind what everyone is saying (and reinvent the wheel)
> 
> or maybe find that there's only a few things that are needed to be done to be the difference between self-sustaining (from a human intervention scenario)
> 
> or maybe i find it's one loose end after another and only at that point will i be more than welcome to share everything i have learned to say "it can't be done"
> 
> but all i know now, ... no one knows why it can't be done, what people do know is why it hasn't worked in the past
> 
> yes i know my thoughts are all over, pick and choose points to attack, or points to listen to, or points to say 'i'm not going to be part of this anymore, or points to remind me, or points to become curious about.
> 
> people consider the food cycle to be ... oddly, they imagine what goes on at scales smaller than they can see, or they don't consider them, ...
> 
> poop from bacteria seems to be raw nutrients for plants
> 
> i have never heard of anyone talk about bacteria in a tank other than the few strains that deal with the ammonia cycle.
> 
> as for what i am to consider here, ... i'm not so keen on anoxic zones, i have heard that these are needed for some nutrients to be recycled (sulfur i think) ... i am not concerned with promoting these as they become competition for nitrogen, ... either the plants get them or the anoxic zones get them, and i think plant roots http://www.tropicalfishkeeping.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4153042tend to provide O2 to the substrate anyway reducing or even eliminating anoxic areas.
> 
> i should end this for now, ... i'm more than willing to focus on single points, ... but clearly i don't know what single points to be considered, then i end up all over the place and confusing everyone


These things you need to research more. Answering your own questions can only ever get you so far. I could certainly break down and explain each of these points but the answers are complex and like you mentioned time is a commodity of sorts and I simply do not have much to spend on this. The Dodds text should help in this regard. 

Also flear this is your final warning from me on your posts. One of the basic formal rules of discussion is to present your ideas clearly. Another train wreck like how that post was setup and I don't care if you figure out how to keep fish on the moon, its not worth reading or responding to. If it helps limit your posts to a max of 3 points of discussion(clearly explained) and no off topic stuff, put the rest in a word document for yourself. We can deal with the presented ones then move on to the other ones and you may find as we go that other points get explained. If you can't manage that then enjoy fumbling in the dark. 

BTW you have 1-2 weeks to go through that text per most formal rules, so don't rush. I'm not asking you to read it but to understand it. Tho typically I have found out the more you know the less you understand and it can be a vicious cycle.

I am completely unbiased on the outcome of this flear. It does not change anything for me one way or the other. Most ppl here don't have issue with your ideas or theories its how you are presenting them. 

PS. If you can't say it nicely, don't say it at all. The mods may not believe in the rules for formal discussion/debate/argument but I do.


----------



## jaysee

Mikaila I'm impressed that you read it cause I sure didn't. Flear - help yourself a little and stop the diarrhea of the fingers. You're honestly starting to reminding me of bob here, obstructing discussion.


----------



## Flear

for the last couple posts, i appreciate everyone's input on what i need to do to help myself out.

i do like Mikaila's idea of write it out in a word document and post just a few (if that many) of the points. for ideas, clarification, discussion, and other.

i can't say i currently agree with all of Mikaila's thoughts about my points that were wrong, but currently i'm not in a position to say otherwise till i have finished the text (already proving informative) ... and when done, i may be able to look back at what i wrote and see "damn, i really shouldn't have said all that"


----------



## Flear

couldn't help myself.

algae will not necessarily consume nutrients as fast as nutrients are added to the water column.
algae scrubbers make it apparent that very intense light is needed to increase nutrient consumption to actively lower nutrients in the display tank.

damn


----------



## schoch79

I love when this subject comes up because I have had something like a self sustaining tank going for at least 2 years. Let me break it down for ya. Ok so it is a 20g. It started as a planted tank with I don't remember what kind of fish, but whatever it was wasn't anything special. At first I cared for it but after a little while it went south and I stopped doing anything with it. By the time I decided to finally do anything with it I almost tore it down and cleaned it up but since the plants were still alive...mostly just swords...I figured why not fill it back up...it was less than half full with water now due to evaporation...probably closer to 1/4-1/3 full. Shortly after I put about 5 feeder guppies in and 2 Chinese algae eaters since the glass was covered in algae. At first I was dropping an algae wafer or 2 in there for a while but then I got over interested in my saltwater tank and started to neglect this one again and stopped feeding it. All I have ever done to this tank after that point is top off for evaporation. The algae eaters died probably 4-6 months after I stopped doing anything including feeding. The guppies have survived and continued to breed up to this day and the plants are still doing well too. Oh it also has a lot of small snails in there too...came in with the plants. It has fluorite for substrate, no heater, no filter, and one of those canopies/lids that has the small led fixture in it...like 3 weak leds. I'm not sure what brand or anything the lid is but they still sell them. So all in all it's been set up for probably 3 years and top off only for about 2 years or so. No water changes, heater, filter, food, pruning, cleaning, etc....Only top offs. And remember guppies still breeding. I know its not ideal or perfect but after leaving the tank to die and it survived its more of an experiment now then a "pet" fish tank.


----------



## Flear

schoch79, do you know what the guppies are living off of ? (what are they eating to survive)

how many fish are in there (if you can count them, guppies could easily be too many to count - any guesses) ???

it sounds like the end goal i am searching for, i'm very interested 
-no maintenance, no feeding, just water topups

how do the plants look ? (any noticable deficiencies)?
any calcium/lime buildup ? (k, this one is either/or, i'm just curious as i have some major buildup in my one tank, but enough excess snails i should be able to remove old shells and get that down eventually)

do you know what the water perameters are ? (pH, gH, and such ??)

any pictures ?


----------



## schoch79

I have no water tests for you at all. As for how many fish that's where you may be disappointed. Its only 4-5 guppies that at this point look like endlers...though I only started with feeders anyway. If I had to say what they are feeding on I'd say algae on the glass, bits of dieing plants, debris on the bottom and to take a wild guess snails that die. The plants don't look super like what you always see with "planted" tanks but in my opinion they kinda have a natural/wild look to them. Deficiencies?...I'm sure there are some but top offs give at least some trace nutrients/minerals. As for calcium build up...the only thing I can say there is there is some slight scaling on the rim of the tank but no more than I've seen in the past on "good" tanks. Keep in mind this tank is taken to the extreme. I'm sure if you would interfere at all you could make it much better. Maybe throw in the occasional algae wafer or some root tabs here or there. That's just not what I'm going for though. For me this is just a neglected tank gone good and that's where I want it to stay....its never going to be anything fancy until I put the work in.


----------



## Flear

i'm not dissapointed at all

so 20 gallons is supporting 4-5 endler guppies, ... (actually that's good to know)

i'm sure the snails eat the dead fish (preventing ammonia spike)

are you noticing any zooplankton in there at all ? (will look like tiny bugs in the water, ... if present you will miss them unless you take the time to search for them)


----------



## schoch79

To answer a question you asked earlier and I forgot to answer I don't have any pics because I don't do any pic stuff with my computer or really even take pics of anything lol. As for the zooplankton, I've never seen any and I occasionally do look really closely for anything new. About the closest to that I've ever had was shortly after I had picked up a few really small clams from the river and it turned out 2-3 were empty shells....anyway shortly after adding those to this tank (2-3 weeks later) I saw what I could best id as scuds...a type of freshwater shrimp. I haven't seen one for a long time though. Another thing I forgot to say was I actually lied just a little bit on never cleaning anything. When I filled up the tank after it being nearly empty I cleaned off the front glass really good since it had hard water stains/deposits and lots of algae under the water line...like super thick mat like algae...and I wanted to be able to see inside. But since then I haven't cleaned it again and it stays clear. I credit that to the other 3 walls that still have that algae on it. If you ever think to try to recreate this my suggestion to you is to keep in mind to have it up and running legitimately for a while so you can establish some detritus and stuff on the bottom and some nutrients in the tank for everything to feed off of. I couldn't imagine being able to start a tank that runs itself from scratch and never feeding it from the start. It would just be too clean. If you have more questions feel free to continue to pick my brain. I think the fact that this tank is still running is amazing and I love being able to share this idea. Oh and by the way, I would in no way consider this a show tank so to speak. It's basically more of a guilty pleasure that you hide in your bedroom or something lol. Not really attractive at all.....


----------



## Flear

peat for substrate
i want to get blackworms & tubifex worms
snails (including malaysian trumpet snails)
rotifers
moina (prefered over daphnia)
other zooplankton (i'm picky over size)
adding greenwater phytoplankton (to feed zooplankton) - a couple species are reported to have a really fast rate of reproducing)
algae (lots of different types)
very fine leafed plants (like hornwort or finer)

i might have missed a few things, ... this is the basics of what i want to add to a tank in my attempt at self-sustaining (no maintenance, no feeding)

to see/hear anyone that has had anything 'work' on any level is truly inspiring

it does suggest/reinforce something i have also come to realize, ... i may be seriously underestimating how much space is needed to keep a few flagfish alive

---

one person put a video online, 300 gallons about, for a daphnia tank
getting about 2-3 handfulls of daphnia a week for live food from the tank
feeding yeast (don't care about this part)

but what he's able to keep going in the tank (daphnia population) and it's a 300 gallon tank, ... 

i had previously been thinking a lot about the food chain & ecology to get as much as i could in a tank, to have as high a eutrophic system as possible to help the phytoplankton as much as possible, 

i was just hoping i would have a start with a 40 gallon breeder (or standard 50 gallon - more common)

wasn't till i got to hear some experiences on what size of tank is sustaining what amount of food
schoch79, or in your case how sustainable any tank size is for any fish

with everyone saying "can't be done, won't ever work", ... all i could find was a bunch of examples that only took into consideration fish & critters large enough to easily see & obtain from any LFS, ... but nothing and no where could i find a single example of anyone that considered a base from phytoplanton and up, or anyone talking about where things started to fall apart after they started.

schoch79, you have no idea how long i've waited to hear anything like what you have done 

doesn't matter that the tank isn't pretty, it's a start, a proof that it's possible, ... well i always knew it's possible
but from that base it's a start to see what it looks like, what is able to be maintained with any size tank

as you said, as i repeated, ... 20 gallons sustaining 4-5 guppies, you've really said more than i have ever heard before, you truly have my thanks there 

Edit:
my live food critter collection, ... i also have to ensure no predator type species at all ... makes things a little more complicated
i forgot wolffia (floating plant like duckweed, but much smaller)


----------



## ao

I haven't done a water change in my shrimp tank for half a year now  But I definitely wont call the tank self sustaining. even with water changes the system's bound to fail in a year or two, my tank's simply too small.


----------



## beaslbob

schoch79 said:


> I love when this subject comes up because I have had something like a self sustaining tank going for at least 2 years. Let me break it down for ya. Ok so it is a 20g. It started as a planted tank with I don't remember what kind of fish, but whatever it was wasn't anything special. At first I cared for it but after a little while it went south and I stopped doing anything with it. By the time I decided to finally do anything with it I almost tore it down and cleaned it up but since the plants were still alive...mostly just swords...I figured why not fill it back up...it was less than half full with water now due to evaporation...probably closer to 1/4-1/3 full. Shortly after I put about 5 feeder guppies in and 2 Chinese algae eaters since the glass was covered in algae. At first I was dropping an algae wafer or 2 in there for a while but then I got over interested in my saltwater tank and started to neglect this one again and stopped feeding it. All I have ever done to this tank after that point is top off for evaporation. The algae eaters died probably 4-6 months after I stopped doing anything including feeding. The guppies have survived and continued to breed up to this day and the plants are still doing well too. Oh it also has a lot of small snails in there too...came in with the plants. It has fluorite for substrate, no heater, no filter, and one of those canopies/lids that has the small led fixture in it...like 3 weak leds. I'm not sure what brand or anything the lid is but they still sell them. So all in all it's been set up for probably 3 years and top off only for about 2 years or so. No water changes, heater, filter, food, pruning, cleaning, etc....Only top offs. And remember guppies still breeding. I know its not ideal or perfect but after leaving the tank to die and it survived its more of an experiment now then a "pet" fish tank.


 thanks for posting. 

Sound like my old 10g only I actually added food and had a much higher guppy count..

my .02


----------

