Balanced Aquariums (by request)

[Johny]

I would like to give credit to the OP for starting this thread and being willing to submit to so much scrutiny. I don't know that I would be willing. Not for fish at least. Maybe other things.

I think what you propose sounds a bit more like a self sustaining tank than a balanced aquarium. "Balanced" can mean a lot of different things given the context its used in. I think there are may ways to balance an aquarium.

One thing that is difficult for me is the topic of hardy fish. You recommend we use hardy fish, such as guppies. But you obtained fish that were already "adapted" for decades. The guppies we have available to us will not be so adapted as the ones you used. I is likely that we would have very differing results because of that one fact. It also means that it would take those same decades for me to actually obtain the same results as you, not in the time it would take to do this method of cycling.

In statistics (assuming we have a curve that approximates normal) the further from the mean any one point of data is the less likely it is to occur. With as many special circumstances this tank requires (hardy fish, specific plants, delicate balance) it is far from the mean. It also takes either 100's of repetitions or a very large number of data to really make a true and accurate statement about anything. All the other methods listed (fishless cycle, fish in cycle in a standard aquarium set up, seeded material cycle, planted tank with filter) have 1000's of examples to drawn on for the credence given them. One "sucessfull tank does not a proper set up make. Until many of us can with (relative) ease reproduce what you did, it will be a little hard to stomach. I also don't think many of us will be willing to try because some of what you say goes against what we have seen and learned through much experience.

I have no problems with people trying experiments like this, so long as they are done responsible and the claims are realistic. In the end I am glad that I can keep my aquarium how I want, and short of a little criticism or praise, there is little anyone can do about it.

 

[GhillieSniper115]

So only one year, this may have worked because the level of dissolved organic compounds and dissolved toxins didn't build up to a high enough level to cause a real problem.

Do you know the definition of a decade? You said the tank was setup for about a year. A decade is 10 years, so the fish were not in the environment for 20-30 years, just one year?

You still haven't answered the question about what you do about dissolved organic compounds and dissolved toxins that do not get utilized by the plants and that must be removed with PWC's.

I also would like to ask what your age and education level is? I am sure there are many people on here with higher level degrees, but I currently hold an associates degree in science and bachelors degree in nursing. I am currently working on my masters degree, but again it is in nursing so some of my biology classes are several years ago. (I am 27) I've taken biology and microbiology in addition to chemistry and anatomy and physiology courses. To me it seems like you don't have an understanding of basic biology when I am reading your answers to many of the questions that are posted.

I think I confused you. The tank I had with the fish in it was set up for a year. The fish were in tanks very similar that were set up for a couple decades

 

[bruinsbro1997]

So...they had the exact same set up as yours for twenty-thirty years and breeding these fish in the same conditions yours are in????

 

[GhillieSniper115]

So...they had the exact same set up as yours for twenty-thirty years and breeding these fish in the same conditions yours are in????

Yeah why?

 

[Rokuzachi]

Soo really, in the end, people shouldn't simply be told that they don't need a filter, because there is obviously more to it than that. to the tune of twenty to thirty years. You really need to work on your communication skills, OP.

And why is such critical info only being made known twenty pages into a thread that was posted to inform us of the workings of your method?

 

[maxwellag]

Soo really, in the end, people shouldn't simply be told that they don't need a filter, because there is obviously more to it than that. to the tune of twenty to thirty years. You really need to work on your communication skills, OP.

And why is such critical info only being made known twenty pages into a thread that was posted to inform us of the workings of your method?

I agree. It seems like the OP doesn't know what they're talking about, and after people correct them, they change their story by saying "that's what I meant" (or etc) and becoming "right" once again.

 

[Ickletas]

To be fair to the OP, he posted this on page 11

Btw one thing I forgot to mention: the fish I got for the balanced aquarium wer already taken from another balanced tank. So is it possible that the fish have adapted to such an environment over many generations?

Have to say though, I don't think I'll be giving this a shot anytime soon.

 

[ashleynicole]

I agree. It seems like the OP doesn't know what they're talking about, and after people correct them, they change their story by saying "that's what I meant" (or etc) and becoming "right" once again.

Yes ive noticed everytime a crucial bit is mentioned the story changes or the setup changes a tad bit. "oh yeah I forgot to mention that"....

 

[Rokuzachi]

To be fair to the OP, he posted this on page 11

Have to say though, I don't think I'll be giving this a shot anytime soon.

That's very vague info. It took ten pages to get that and another ten for actual useful, crucial info about how long the source that these fish came from had been established.

It'd be like telling someone who is unfamiliar with the silent cycle that all they need plants and fish with no info as to the (generally large) quantity of plants needed.

 

[GhillieSniper115]

I've noticed something about this thread: I've asked for an answer as to why this worked and no one has provided that yet. We need to come up with one instead of arguing. And I might not have remembered every crucial thing from the beginning, but I think my memory is jogged enough to do this. So let's try something new. Figure out why it worked instead of why it couldn't have theoretically worked.

 

[GhillieSniper115]

So...they had the exact same set up as yours for twenty-thirty years and breeding these fish in the same conditions yours are in????

Yes sir

 

[Wy Renegade]

I've noticed something about this thread: I've asked for an answer as to why this worked and no one has provided that yet. We need to come up with one instead of arguing. And I might not have remembered every crucial thing from the beginning, but I think my memory is jogged enough to do this. So let's try something new. Figure out why it worked instead of why it couldn't have theoretically worked.

Why do we need to come up with an answer? Fish, like all living things, do their best to survive regardless of the conditions to which they are subjected. Yours survived (according to your story), lets leave it at that.

Out here in the last year, we had a big news story that hit the national news. A horse breeder in Montana had basically ignored his ranch for a number of years; the horses were basically allowed to run wild, not only on his land but on other peoples as well. No one kept track of them, no one fed them, shod them, gave them their shots etc. Eventually, the state stepped in, took over the ranch, put don't any of the horses which were unable to be saved (you didn't see much about this part), and then auctioned of the rest. We see stories all the time about dogs being raised in extremely inhumane conditions, kept in little tiny kennels that are never cleaned, shut away from companionship and the outside, etc. I could go on and on.

Animals under any conditions do their best to survive, some are able to, others are not. A far better question IMO, is should they have to try and survive in these conditions when there are far better methods out there?

There are reasons to subject organisms to less than ideal conditions; medical research, experimentation, etc. Although many of us may not agree with some of those reasons, we've all benefited from them. The tank and conditions that you describe serve no purpose IMO, other than to see if you could, nor IMO is there anything to be gained by trying to figure out why they survived.

Personally, I think this thread has run its course, and perhaps it is time to lock it down?

 

[NoMoreGoldFish]

I can't find a reason why anyone would attempt this. Leave the animal testing to the scientists in labs, I'm sure some scientists have already attempted to do something like that and have put out a peer reviewed study. If you want to learn more about it, try finding it on the internet. You can educate yourself that way without torturing your fish to death.

Attempting something like this just to prove you might be able to do it is just massaging your ego, and some poor fish have to suffer and die for it.

 

[absolutangel04]

I've noticed something about this thread: I've asked for an answer as to why this worked and no one has provided that yet. We need to come up with one instead of arguing. And I might not have remembered every crucial thing from the beginning, but I think my memory is jogged enough to do this. So let's try something new. Figure out why it worked instead of why it couldn't have theoretically worked.

Just my opinion, but like I said before, I am not inclined to say that it worked or give you a reason why it worked since you didn't run it for the full lifespan of the fish to know if it did ultimately work in the long run. Wild guppies are small, do not put out a lot of bioload IMO, and hardy. Despite that, you said you lost a few while doing this. I am not saying it does or doesn't work, I am just saying to really know if something works, I personally would like to see if it worked enough to let the fish still live to their full potential lifespan. I would like to hear from the person who you got the fish from and know about their practices and their observations.

 

[steez]

Why do we need to come up with an answer? Fish, like all living things, do their best to survive regardless of the conditions to which they are subjected. Yours survived (according to your story), lets leave it at that.

Out here in the last year, we had a big news story that hit the national news. A horse breeder in Montana had basically ignored his ranch for a number of years; the horses were basically allowed to run wild, not only on his land but on other peoples as well. No one kept track of them, no one fed them, shod them, gave them their shots etc. Eventually, the state stepped in, took over the ranch, put don't any of the horses which were unable to be saved (you didn't see much about this part), and then auctioned of the rest. We see stories all the time about dogs being raised in extremely inhumane conditions, kept in little tiny kennels that are never cleaned, shut away from companionship and the outside, etc. I could go on and on.

Animals under any conditions do their best to survive, some are able to, others are not. A far better question IMO, is should they have to try and survive in these conditions when there are far better methods out there?

There are reasons to subject organisms to less than ideal conditions; medical research, experimentation, etc. Although many of us may not agree with some of those reasons, we've all benefited from them. The tank and conditions that you describe serve no purpose IMO, other than to see if you could, nor IMO is there anything to be gained by trying to figure out why they survived.

Personally, I think this thread has run its course, and perhaps it is time to lock it down?

I think this is right on point.

 

[GhillieSniper115]

Just my opinion, but like I said before, I am not inclined to say that it worked or give you a reason why it worked since you didn't run it for the full lifespan of the fish to know if it did ultimately work in the long run. Wild guppies are small, do not put out a lot of bioload IMO, and hardy. Despite that, you said you lost a few while doing this. I am not saying it does or doesn't work, I am just saying to really know if something works, I personally would like to see if it worked enough to let the fish still live to their full potential lifespan. I would like to hear from the person who you got the fish from and know about their practices and their observations.

Well their tanks are still runing...

 

[GhillieSniper115]

Why do we need to come up with an answer? Fish, like all living things, do their best to survive regardless of the conditions to which they are subjected. Yours survived (according to your story), lets leave it at that.

Out here in the last year, we had a big news story that hit the national news. A horse breeder in Montana had basically ignored his ranch for a number of years; the horses were basically allowed to run wild, not only on his land but on other peoples as well. No one kept track of them, no one fed them, shod them, gave them their shots etc. Eventually, the state stepped in, took over the ranch, put don't any of the horses which were unable to be saved (you didn't see much about this part), and then auctioned of the rest. We see stories all the time about dogs being raised in extremely inhumane conditions, kept in little tiny kennels that are never cleaned, shut away from companionship and the outside, etc. I could go on and on.

Animals under any conditions do their best to survive, some are able to, others are not. A far better question IMO, is should they have to try and survive in these conditions when there are far better methods out there?

There are reasons to subject organisms to less than ideal conditions; medical research, experimentation, etc. Although many of us may not agree with some of those reasons, we've all benefited from them. The tank and conditions that you describe serve no purpose IMO, other than to see if you could, nor IMO is there anything to be gained by trying to figure out why they survived.

Personally, I think this thread has run its course, and perhaps it is time to lock it down?

Maybe but I just wanted to see if anyone can give an answer as to why it not only worked for me but for the others as well. That's the last thing before the thread ends that I'd like to see

 

[MrPillow]

It "worked" because the fish were hardy enough to be able to survive sub-par conditions. Simple as that. We cannot give you an "answer", we have practically no idea what was going on as you refuse to give loads of relevant information.

The fish somehow managed to not die because their living condition was not over the edge of what they could tolerate. If we call it successful just because the majority of the specimens are alive, then we might as well call Africa the center of the modern economics.

 

[mfdrookie516]

I do believe I answered that question way back. Either luck, or there's some info you're not including. That's like asking why some people can keep goldfish in bowls for years... doesn't mean they should by any means.

 

[absolutangel04]

Maybe but I just wanted to see if anyone can give an answer as to why it not only worked for me but for the others as well. That's the last thing before the thread ends that I'd like to see

Mdfrookie did indeed answer that. That has been responded to and answered multiple times already.