Balanced Aquariums (by request)

[kdpuffer]

Firstly to the OP, this is a good thought and I feel it's entirely possible if done correctly. I do feel the fish in cycle is not ideal but regardless it's an entirely possible concept. If properly researched and setup as a truly balanced system it would work well. As for everyone else, your concerns are well founded and just. I have great respect for alot of people on this forum and thier opinions. The fact is if properly setup this is possible. Yes alot of lakes have water flow in and out and ground seepage, Alot of water bodies don't though they do have "top ups" in the form of rain/snow. If properly executed this system would only require top ups and not a water change. There would be a long process of establishing and balancing the system but if done correctly would be a miniature in home ecosystem. Now the powerhead issue, I feel that if properly setup you could get away without one but it is probably best to add one for the sole purpose of circulation, that doesn't mean aim it at te surface to oxygenate the water though it's never a bad thing. The power head would replicate the wind. So do I think this system would work, yes I do. Do I think anyone can set this up And be diligent enough to have it successful, not a chance. I'm not about to go out and try this but hey who knows might be a fun project for retirement. I appreciate this being shared and everyone's comments, thank you.

 

[BillD]

I would think Lake Baikal would turn over every year because it is in a temperate area. Lake Tanganika doesn't turn over because the temperature stays the same year round. If it froze over there would be a turnover. Indeed, there might be anaerobic bacteria, but little if anything else.

 

[Wy Renegade]

I would think Lake Baikal would turn over every year because it is in a temperate area. Lake Tanganika doesn't turn over because the temperature stays the same year round. If it froze over there would be a turnover. Indeed, there might be anaerobic bacteria, but little if anything else.

Baikal does in fact experience turn over, however because of its vast depth it does not experience turn over all the way down, so like Tanganika, it has a anaerobic "dead zone".

 

[GhillieSniper115]

All this effort and forcing your fish to "adapt" to less adequate conditions just to avoid buying a filter and spending a few bucks on fish pellets? You can't be serious.

Well the fish I got might already have been adapted.

 

[GhillieSniper115]

Yet another comment that clearly shows you don't truly understand the processes you are describing. Do fish adapt? Yes they do. However adapting takes hundreds, maybe thousands of years and occurs over multiple generations. It does not happen overnight or even over a couple of weeks in an aquarium. This type of thinking (i.e. the stretching of a giraffes neck in order to reach the leaves in the tall trees) is called Lamarkism, and was disproven many, many years ago.

Ya I know but common guppies reproduce very quickly and the faster the reproduction rate the faster a species adapst

 

[GhillieSniper115]

While I agree most people starting in the hobby should do fishless cycling, I have disagree that it is just for beginners. Why wouldn't someone want to do a fishless cycle? It doesn't submit your fish to high ammonia and nitrite levels which have been proven to shorten the life of the stock.

Your second point, "u need to cylce with fish and plants so the bacteria can establish themselves," I have to completely disagree with. We all know that fishless cycling, which is a humane way of cycling, can establish the needed bacteria colonies - and at a much faster rate than a traditional, fish-in cycle.

I think you feel like you need to defend this idea, but honestly, it is not worth defending. Sure it might be possible with a small bioload and BOATLOAD of plants, but it sure isn't practical, nor is it worth the hassle.

Tencnicaly what your saying about fishless cycling is very opinionated. Many people have their own beliefs and some people are against it. I'm not saying your wrong though

 

[GhillieSniper115]

Firstly to the OP, this is a good thought and I feel it's entirely possible if done correctly. I do feel the fish in cycle is not ideal but regardless it's an entirely possible concept. If properly researched and setup as a truly balanced system it would work well. As for everyone else, your concerns are well founded and just. I have great respect for alot of people on this forum and thier opinions. The fact is if properly setup this is possible. Yes alot of lakes have water flow in and out and ground seepage, Alot of water bodies don't though they do have "top ups" in the form of rain/snow. If properly executed this system would only require top ups and not a water change. There would be a long process of establishing and balancing the system but if done correctly would be a miniature in home ecosystem. Now the powerhead issue, I feel that if properly setup you could get away without one but it is probably best to add one for the sole purpose of circulation, that doesn't mean aim it at te surface to oxygenate the water though it's never a bad thing. The power head would replicate the wind. So do I think this system would work, yes I do. Do I think anyone can set this up And be diligent enough to have it successful, not a chance. I'm not about to go out and try this but hey who knows might be a fun project for retirement. I appreciate this being shared and everyone's comments, thank you.

Thank you very much you are the only person that sees this as a truly create able set up. I only realy did top offs with mine and I didn't have the filter tuning because all the plants would get stuck in it

 

[eco23]

A couple things...

I'm curious if after hearing all the information shared here, whether GhillieSniper has learned and taken anything away from the conversation. Do you still feel like this is a good idea? Has anything that's been said changed your mind or opened your eyes at all about the viability of such a system?

Also, the most obvious thing to mention was sitting here in front of me the whole time. Several years ago some of my employees gave me an EcoSphere self contained, underwater habitat. It's been sitting here on my desk through the whole conversation...and I forgot to mention it. This is more what enters my mind when I hear the term "balanced aquarium".

I've had it for 3-4 years and there are still shrimp living and thriving (I suppose) in it after all this time. I wouldn't purchase this product on my own (I've honestly never considered any moral implications...but I can't break the thing open and put the shrimp outside, lol.

I'm curious of everybody's thoughts on it-
http://www.eco-sphere.com/about.html

 

[Mumma.of.two]

I agree with everything except this-

Pretty much everyone I know that owns lots of tanks or has a fishroom or whatever does fish-in cycling with media transfer. It takes pretty much the same level of commitment to stay on top of a safe fish-in cycle as it does to do a fishless one, at least for those who are testing and logging daily etc, doesn't really apply to the raw shrimp method.

The vast majority of people that I see doing fishless cycles are new to the hobby, or at least new to taking it seriously.

@mumma i am pretty sure its available via e-book.

Thank you jeta. If I can't find a real copy I will get the ebook.

 

[GhillieSniper115]

A couple things...

I'm curious if after hearing all the information shared here, whether GhillieSniper has learned and taken anything away from the conversation. Do you still feel like this is a good idea? Has anything that's been said changed your mind or opened your eyes at all about the viability of such a system?

Also, the most obvious thing to mention was sitting here in front of me the whole time. Several years ago some of my employees gave me an EcoSphere self contained, underwater habitat. It's been sitting here on my desk through the whole conversation...and I forgot to mention it. This is more what enters my mind when I hear the term "balanced aquarium".

I've had it for 3-4 years and there are still shrimp living and thriving (I suppose) in it after all this time. I wouldn't purchase this product on my own (I've honestly never considered any moral implications...but I can't break the thing open and put the shrimp outside, lol.

I'm curious of everybody's thoughts on it-
http://www.eco-sphere.com/about.html

So now what?

 

[Mumma.of.two]

A couple things...

I'm curious if after hearing all the information shared here, whether GhillieSniper has learned and taken anything away from the conversation. Do you still feel like this is a good idea? Has anything that's been said changed your mind or opened your eyes at all about the viability of such a system?

Also, the most obvious thing to mention was sitting here in front of me the whole time. Several years ago some of my employees gave me an EcoSphere self contained, underwater habitat. It's been sitting here on my desk through the whole conversation...and I forgot to mention it. This is more what enters my mind when I hear the term "balanced aquarium".

I've had it for 3-4 years and there are still shrimp living and thriving (I suppose) in it after all this time. I wouldn't purchase this product on my own (I've honestly never considered any moral implications...but I can't break the thing open and put the shrimp outside, lol.

I'm curious of everybody's thoughts on it-
http://www.eco-sphere.com/about.html

Interesting........

* typed from my iPhone.

 

[kdpuffer]

That Eco sphere is cool, a self sustaining aquatic environment is totally doable. I'm sure the average joe couldn't pull it off easily but it could still be done. As far as having fish in a similar system is just a matter of figuring out which fish could suit the habitat. A small fish that can eat what's provided within the system, and plants/bacteria that can consume the waste. It's really quite simple but would require some trial and error along with patience.

 

[bruinsbro1997]

The EcoSphere is pretty cool. However I'm sure that would only apply to animals that have little to no bioload, like shrimp. When you're talking about fish, it's a whole new world...

 

[GhillieSniper115]

That Eco sphere is cool, a self sustaining aquatic environment is totally doable. I'm sure the average joe couldn't pull it off easily but it could still be done. As far as having fish in a similar system is just a matter of figuring out which fish could suit the habitat. A small fish that can eat what's provided within the system, and plants/bacteria that can consume the waste. It's really quite simple but would require some trial and error along with patience.

Common guppies and mosquito fish are the type that do that. I know that for a fact. They can eat decaying or living plant matter, not enough to hurt the plant of course

 

[eco23]

So now what?

I'm asking if you still stand by this idea as strongly as you did before the thread. Are there any points that have been brought which you see as valid and give you second thoughts about this method? Or are you still 100% sold on it?

 

[jetajockey]

I'm going to have to defend the 'fishless cycling is usually for beginners' statement.

Not necessarily for absolute beginners in the hobby, but for those who get very serious about fishkeeping and worry about potentially harming their fish. They are often led to believe there is no alternative other than fishless cycling (or find it simpler to go fishless), so it's common for them to go that route.


I really think it's true, if you did a poll I'm willing to bet that most experienced fishkeepers do not do fishless cycles. Maybe when they were just starting out in fear of killing their fish, but there are just much simpler methods. And like I mentioned earlier, pretty much everyone I know that has tons of tanks, fishrooms, etc, did not fishless cycle their 20+ tanks.

It's not to knock fishless cycling, which can be a good thing, it's just not necessary if you know what you are doing in regards to the fish-in cycling process.

 

[adeebm]

From what I've heard of the ecosphere, it's not truly sustainable. I've never had one, so I can't say anything from personal experience, but from what I've heard, the shrimp , Halocaridina rubra, only survive because they are naturally able to withstand harsh conditions. I've heard they eventually waste away and don't reach their full lifespan. Again, I can't say for sure, but we know that though energy cannot be lost, conversion of energy is never 100% efficient. Thus the contained sphere would be losing energy to the surrounding environment, or having it bound in unusable forms(such as waste matter that cannot be broken down or reused). So I personally do not think a truly self sustaining system is ever possible. Even the earth is not self sustaining, as it constantly loses energy to space, and receives energy from the sun.

--Adeeb

 

[kdpuffer]

The EcoSphere is pretty cool. However I'm sure that would only apply to animals that have little to no bioload, like shrimp. When you're talking about fish, it's a whole new world...

In regards to setting up an ecosystem with fish it's really quite simple. Yes they have a bigger bioload, that means you need to size the enclosure and set it up to handle that extra bioload. A setup like this in a 10g with a pleco probably wouldn't work out so well. If you get te right sized tank and plant it properly it could easily handle the bioload. Fortunately the fish in question still have a lower bioload so I can easily see this working. When was the last time anyone performed a water change on thier local pond? They weren't always aerated with fountains yet the ecosystem functioned.

 

[GhillieSniper115]

I'm asking if you still stand by this idea as strongly as you did before the thread. Are there any points that have been brought which you see as valid and give you second thoughts about this method? Or are you still 100% sold on it?

Umm ya I'm still solid with it. The only thing that could change my mind might be if circulation of water is needed. But like I said I didn't have that and things turned out fine

 

[GhillieSniper115]

In regards to setting up an ecosystem with fish it's really quite simple. Yes they have a bigger bioload, that means you need to size the enclosure and set it up to handle that extra bioload. A setup like this in a 10g with a pleco probably wouldn't work out so well. If you get te right sized tank and plant it properly it could easily handle the bioload. Fortunately the fish in question still have a lower bioload so I can easily see this working. When was the last time anyone performed a water change on thier local pond? They weren't always aerated with fountains yet the ecosystem functioned.

True. Kpuffer what kind of tank set up do you have