Self sustaining tank

[Mlani]

Im gonna ask a moderator to close this thread. After I have tried it I may post the results on here but this is ridiculous.

Usually the best debates get a little "heated" it just means people are passionate about the topic. I, for one would be very interested in hearing more about your adventure when you do go ahead with this idea

 

[GodFan]

Usually the best debates get a little "heated" it just means people are passionate about the topic. I, for one would be very interested in hearing more about your adventure when you do go ahead with this idea

I would b ehappy to pm you about it but this is no longer just a heated debate. It has become an argument that is not providing anybody with any info. Comments like "its a waste of time" are not going to help anybody.

 

[aquaponicpaw]

I just think that over time it will not be possible. It may work for a little while, but you would need a very large volume of water to pull it off. If we were talking about a 100g low maintenance tank then I would agree all the way. However anything that is not a substantial amount of water just does not support the needs of the whole miniature ecosystem that we call aquaria.

Your letting your opinions and preconcieved notions get in the way of things. It's ok though I addressed this earlier

No, I'm just agreeing with him about the fact that the overall concept is just a waste of time.

It's a definite waste of time and money for anyone not commited to doing it the correct way

I'm tired of wasting my time on this.

Does that mean that those of us who are seriouly vested in this discussion can now do so, with out having to address detractors?

whelp guess that means it doesn't

As I said before it is possible, but not as a long term thing IMO. These such projects (also take place at my former HS) do not last for years and years. Rather they are short term experiments. Who knows what may materialize in the long term?

There's your preconcieved notion again.

 

[adadkins1]

Well, I'm very glad that you are an expert on the subject.

 

[bruinsbro1997]

GodFan,

There was a thread like this awhile back. You should read it. And see why people are so against it.
http://www.aquariumadvice.com/forums/f12/balanced-aquariums-by-request-175712.html
As for me, I don't believe in self-sustaining tanks. Everything is interdependent on one another. If you don't do one thing, it affects everything else.

Although you might be interested in this:
Walstad method - The Free Freshwater and Saltwater Aquarium Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit - The Aquarium Wiki

 

[adadkins1]

GodFan,

There was a thread like this awhile back. You should read it. And see why people are so against it.
http://www.aquariumadvice.com/forums/f12/balanced-aquariums-by-request-175712.html
As for me, I don't believe in self-sustaining tanks. Everything is interdependent on one another. If you don't do one thing, it affects everything else.

Although you might be interested in this:
Walstad method - The Free Freshwater and Saltwater Aquarium Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit - The Aquarium Wiki

That sums it all up bruins.

 

[GodFan]

GodFan,

There was a thread like this awhile back. You should read it. And see why people are so against it.
http://www.aquariumadvice.com/forums/f12/balanced-aquariums-by-request-175712.html
As for me, I don't believe in self-sustaining tanks. Everything is interdependent on one another. If you don't do one thing, it affects everything else.

Although you might be interested in this:
Walstad method - The Free Freshwater and Saltwater Aquarium Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit - The Aquarium Wiki

Thanks! And thank you that even though you disagree you did it with respect!

 

[blackmolly]

GodFan,

There was a thread like this awhile back. You should read it. And see why people are so against it.
http://www.aquariumadvice.com/forums/f12/balanced-aquariums-by-request-175712.html
As for me, I don't believe in self-sustaining tanks. Everything is interdependent on one another. If you don't do one thing, it affects everything else.

Although you might be interested in this:
Walstad method - The Free Freshwater and Saltwater Aquarium Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit - The Aquarium Wiki

+1. as i said before, i agree that it IS possible if the conditions are right, but as bruins stated, if you mess one little thing up, the whole tank comes crashing down. this is much more likely to happen in a smaller tank, therefore the odds of it working to me just don't seem to be in your favor. now, directed at the OP. i strongly encourage you to do some more research on this topic before you go through with it. aquaponicipaw does make some good points, and has had a positive experience SO FAR on the topic, but that setup is very different from this one, and either way, it's really not smart to base things off of what one person says, no matter how good the info is. i could be completely off track here, but from what you're posting it sounds like you need to do some more research on BOTH sides of the topic, both good and bad, before you go through with this.

 

[Mlani]

GodFan,

There was a thread like this awhile back. You should read it. And see why people are so against it.
http://www.aquariumadvice.com/forums/f12/balanced-aquariums-by-request-175712.html
As for me, I don't believe in self-sustaining tanks. Everything is interdependent on one another. If you don't do one thing, it affects everything else.

Although you might be interested in this:
Walstad method - The Free Freshwater and Saltwater Aquarium Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit - The Aquarium Wiki

Wow! 23 pages later, I understand the hesitation in discussing this matter now. Thanks for the link to be honest, I'd never heard of the "walstad method" before. Nor had I known about the experiments done in high school. My brain is full now lol!

 

[aquaponicpaw]

GodFan,

There was a thread like this awhile back. You should read it. And see why people are so against it.
http://www.aquariumadvice.com/forums/f12/balanced-aquariums-by-request-175712.html
As for me, I don't believe in self-sustaining tanks. Everything is interdependent on one another. If you don't do one thing, it affects everything else.

Although you might be interested in this:
Walstad method - The Free Freshwater and Saltwater Aquarium Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit - The Aquarium Wiki

thanks for the links. the first post of that thread tells all.
The difference between this and the Walstad method. is the creatures are a focus here, not the plants.basicly it's about creating enough biodiversity so a food chain can be created.


1st pic is of snails and shrimp eating a dead clam. 2nd pic is of golden clams. they help keep my bioload up where I want it to be. they also help break down solid waste in the tank. 3rd pic RCS's are vital. as you can see they provide a constant food source. Establish a large enough colony and enough places to hide, And there is never a shortage of live food. baby snails are also eaten in my tank. 4th pic. I dont know why it's down there. but that is a dead pothos leaf covered with baby snails. As soon as the tip of a leaf turns brown everything will mow down on it. even the shrimp. whats left are babies that have hatched onto it. and they usually stay until the leaf is gone.

 

[aqua_chem]

I don't quite understand what you are getting at. But if I posted anything that doesn't make sense to you, refer me to it, and I will clarify. If you are that vested you can do a search of my posts and see the other discussions, pictures and stuff that I have put up in other threads.

I tried to refrain from discussing my personal setup, because it is much larger than what the Thread Starter is using. and that changes a lot of the advice that can be given. I have provided a link and referenced things to search for. So that any who oppose will easily be able to see that this is something that is not a new concept. And that on almost every site, blog, and search engine you will see People who are already doing it being told that it can't be done by some who've probably never even attempted it.

What I mean is, what kind of light do you have, stocking, invertebrate inhabitants, plant species (both terrestrial and aquatic), do you add anything to the system like leaf litter, etc.

The fact that your tank is a different scale than the OP's has a dramatic impact on the discourse. I personally think that such a system is possible given a solid understanding of ecology, but one with such a background would preclude the possibility of a nano system as the OP described (plants + inverts + algae + fish) being viable at almost any term. The rule of 10%, a fundamental rule of ecology, states that 10% of the energy from the previous tier in the food chain makes it to the upper tier. So if shrimp are eating algae, they are effectively harvesting 10% of the energy utilized by the algae. If something is eating the shrimp, then they are getting 10% of the energy gathered by the shrimp, and 1% of the energy gathered by the algae. This is why the size of the system is critically important to the discussion. Larger tanks can 'harvest' light and translate it into secondary consumers (like fish, vegetarians excluded) better than small tanks. In the previously linked tank, the 3x3x1 tank is designed to have more area to absorb light and therefore translate it into upper tiers.

 

[aquaponicpaw]

This is the plant that I mentioned previously It is a heavy duty filter. like mentioned above it can, and will outcompete beneficial bacteria.the surface is also covered with floating plants. Plants with hairy roots work wonders as far as filtration

Thats why I keep clams in there, that way it is always a heavy bioload on the tank. All sources on the internet says that clams need 5 gallons of water each. my ratio is about 1 gallon per clam. I've only lost one clam since tank has been setup. I also stir up the gravel to feed them.

there are about 15 white clouds. (No pics little suckers are fast, little blurs on camera). And they have produced fry as well. And as mentioned before, I am switching them out for something smaller. they are too hard on the shrimp colony. So it is more effecient and effective to switch them than buy more shrimp. the surface is also covered with floating plants. Plants with hairy roots work wonders as far as filtration.

 

[aqua_chem]

What size tank though? Do you feed anything?

 

[aqua_chem]

Wait, are you advocating plants as mechanical filters?

 

[Mumma.of.two]

GodFan,

There was a thread like this awhile back. You should read it. And see why people are so against it.
http://www.aquariumadvice.com/forums/f12/balanced-aquariums-by-request-175712.html
As for me, I don't believe in self-sustaining tanks. Everything is interdependent on one another. If you don't do one thing, it affects everything else.

Although you might be interested in this:
Walstad method - The Free Freshwater and Saltwater Aquarium Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit - The Aquarium Wiki

Aquaponicpaw - this is the thread I was trying to tell you about when you first joined. Most are sick of hearing about it after this marathon. Thats why they are being so blunt. If you'd like to start a thread explaining in detail about your setup I'm sure many would be very interested in reading about it.

 

[aquaponicpaw]

What I mean is, what kind of light do you have, stocking, invertebrate inhabitants, plant species (both terrestrial and aquatic), do you add anything to the system like leaf litter, etc.

The fact that your tank is a different scale than the OP's has a dramatic impact on the discourse. I personally think that such a system is possible given a solid understanding of ecology, but one with such a background would preclude the possibility of a nano system as the OP described (plants + inverts + algae + fish) being viable at almost any term. The rule of 10%, a fundamental rule of ecology, states that 10% of the energy from the previous tier in the food chain makes it to the upper tier. So if shrimp are eating algae, they are effectively harvesting 10% of the energy utilized by the algae. If something is eating the shrimp, then they are getting 10% of the energy gathered by the shrimp, and 1% of the energy gathered by the algae. This is why the size of the system is critically important to the discussion. Larger tanks can 'harvest' light and translate it into secondary consumers (like fish, vegetarians excluded) better than small tanks. In the previously linked tank, the 3x3x1 tank is designed to have more area to absorb light and therefore translate it into upper tiers.

Thank you for your post? this is the type of discussion we should be having. We kind of bumped heads with our posts. So I will try to answer some of the questions you had.
I do not add anything to the tank. It is in a west facing window. and I have never changed the water. I do top it off. And I have never removed anything that has died within it. I have not replinshed populations of any inhabitants.Well... I added 40 micro crabs a couple of weeks ago. And like mentioned above I plan to go smaller with the fish.

 

[aquaponicpaw]

Aquaponicpaw - this is the thread I was trying to tell you about when you first joined. Most are sick of hearing about it after this marathon. Thats why they are being so blunt. If you'd like to start a thread explaining in detail about your setup I'm sure many would be very interested in reading about it.

Thanks Mumma, been wanting to do that. but It's like signing up to recieve hate mail.

Are you in anyway living "Green"? Australia is like the World Super Power when it comes to sustainability. A lot of amazing People and developments happening on your Continent. I must also mention one of the greatest Animal guys to ever live, Steve Irwin R.I.P. Does he have a national Holiday there yet?

 

[Terrance]

pure comedy! That statement oozes with logic and scientific evidence.
At least bring something to the table other than sarcasm. I bet you can't provide anything but somones elses non-scientific opinion to support your claim. thanks for trying though.

It takes a lot more work and expense keeping up with a self-sustaining system than to do a simple water change. If it was possible, then many hobbyist would be doing it. I did research about this subject a while back ago. Everything that I researched led me back to more questions to be answered. Finally, I met a dead end and succumbed to the weekly water changes. Now I just concentrate on keep my water in optimum condition in between weekly water changes. I did my due diligence, so now it's your turn

I know a water quality scientist who provides his large fish collection with THE BEST water quality that I've ever heard, but still does his 50% weekly water change to each of this systems. His actions shows the importance of weekly water changes. There's no way around it.

 

[jetajockey]

Thread closed per OP's request.