# self-sustaining tank ?



## Flear

(not to be confused with a "Sealed" self sustaining tank

idea for a 90 gallon self-sustaining planted tank, 2" fish prefered, 4" max size

i'm wondering if herbivore type fish would make a significant difference over Omnivore-type fish when trying to balance the eco-system in the tank ?

odd thought just now, ... if it's full of herbivore-type fish adding zooplankton (like cyclops and/or daphnia and others) should have a significant chance of maintaining their portion of the tanks eco-system.

but ... would the same size & quantity of herbivore fish (1/4" per gallon - estimated bio-load to start) would primarily herbivore-type fish have a better chance as maintianing an eco-system ?

or would they have a greater tendancy to eat the plant life to simular results as omnivore fish would over eat the supporting animal life ?

i would guess a primarily herbivore type fish would have significanly greater benefits as they would allow a greater chance of a surviving zooplankton culture to survive. and the zooplankton would be able to play a much more significant role in maintaining their part of the eco-system and produce a heathier tank (lower ammonia, nitrates, phosphates, etc.)

(too many people complain about tanks having any significant zooplankton addition or acknowledge the rest of the fish would snack on them till all gone, much like algae - too much emphasis on asthetics and not enough on maintenance and diversity for a healthy tank)


----------



## Patriot100%

What about waste? Where will it go? In the wild waste is washed away keeping it from build up, but in a tank it will just continue to build until the system crashes.


----------



## Flear

in the wild waste is not washed away, else the oceans as large and vaste as they are would be filled to the brim with it over many million years

real life waste is broken down, bacteria, fungus, insects & bugs, other life forms, plants play a large role.

in the aquarium, snails and plants are the best known (snails not always desired, but if they can get a meal they will)

bottom feeders are very adiquetly titled, they feed on things on the bottom, (fish poop doesn't float)
like old dog poop, looses it's smell, breaks down, not till what we could call healthy, but not toxic for sure.

organic fertalizers include animal poop in them for sure, most organic top soil also includes measured amounts of chicken and/or cow poop for it's "added fertilizer" content

for a new tank, any old matter you see is a huge breeding ground for fungus in the tank, as the tank is more established, this no longer happens (even if other critters don't get to the extra food first), it just starts to break down.

fish poop is no different, it has at least some content usable by organic life, and life wants to use that content to farther itself and survive.

it's the ammonia, nitrates and such that we're very familiar with that more care has to be given so these are in balance and delt with before they kill the tank, the by-products of wastes that are given off from poop, and other decaying organics in the tank.


----------



## Diana K

In nature the balance of fish per gallon is way less than what we want in our tanks, so the 'sealed system' does not work, but there are minimum input systems, and that is what this forum is about. 

You have to decide your level of interest, and how much you want to put into the system. What does 'minimum input' mean to you?

Lets follow a few elements and see where they go in an aquarium.

Nitrogen: N is present in proteins, and some organisms can use atmospheric nitrogen (some blue green algae, but not all). (The Legume plant family can, but these are not part of our system). 
So, anything you feed to the fish will contribute N. 
Many organisms break down the food:
Fish turn it into fish muscles and tissues, and excrete the waste. Fish poop can be well digested or still a bit coarse, so microorganisms can get started on it, but sometimes have a hard time removing it as fast as we might want in a show tank. 
Snails eat fish food, other animals in the tank, and plants (depending on the snail) and poop out pretty well digested matter that microorganisms can munch on. 
Microorganisms will get started on fallen food and leaves, but go much faster if the fish and snails have already digested the food. (Side note: This is the source of food that many fish fry eat.)
A special group of bacteria remove the ammonia that is one of the byproducts of protein digestion, and the end result is nitrate. 
Slightly larger organisms can eat the microorganisms and the fish can eat these. Various worms, daphnia... things like that. (This is the next form of food for fish fry)
Plants take in fertilizers and minerals as very simple molecules, they do not eat fish food. Fish excrete ammonia via their gills, and plants can use that. Plants also use nitrite and nitrate, which show up in the water and substrate as part of the break down of proteins. 
Ultimately the nitrogen that enters the tank ends up locked up for a while in any of several places:
Fish or snail tissue (mostly proteins)
Leaf tissue
Microorganisms
As these die, the nitrogen is released into the water to be recycled. (Ammonia spike in the tank)
Some nitrogen is returned to the air by certain microorganisms. 

The net result is usually a build up of nitrogen in the tank that needs to be reduced by the aquarium keeper. How you do this is up to you:
Remove some fish (put them in another tank: take them to a store for credit, share them with fish keeping friends, sell them... )
Trim some plants.
Do water changes that include vacuuming the floor of the tank. 
Clean the filter. 

In a large enough tank you might set up an ecosystem where something eats the microorganisms and is large enough for the fish to eat, so there can be some sort of cycle going on there, but you cannot keep very much fish-mass and have it self-sustaining. 
Example: 1 Golden Wonder Killie in a 29 gallon tank ate all the Daphnia in a couple of weeks. This was a pretty big fish, and probably represented about 1" of fish per 15 gallons of water. The Daphnia were so plentiful you could see them twitching in every cubic inch of the tank. I had introduced the Daphnia when the tanks had some green water algae and the daphnia sure took care of that! As a self sustaining system, though, it did not last long. 

Do some research yourself and follow the oxygen molecule. 
Also, really get into tracing out the carbon that enters the tank. This is usually the limiting element for plants. 

You can also trace out all the elements that plants use, if you want, but many of the plant micro nutrients follow a similar enough path that just following one is enough to represent them all. 
Micros enter the water in fish food. 
Fish use the food, incorporating the micros in their own body (often in enzymes), and poop out what they do not need. Some elements can accumulate in fish tissue to toxic levels. The fish dies. 
Fish poop contains some micros, and microorganisms can use some, and substrate with high cationic exchange capacity can lock up some micros. Some micros get locked up in ways that plants cannot use them. 
When the micro nutrient is locked up in high CEC substrates the plants can still get to them, and use them. Plants also take in these micros from the water column. 
Many of these can accumulate in plants in great excess. Plants act like a sponge, holding way more of certain elements than they need, and decontaminate the system that way. However, if these plants die they are going to release those toxic levels of (mostly) heavy metals to the tank. These plants need to be encouraged to grow fast and trimmed so they are part of the export system. 

For more info on many details of this system and how it relates to aquariums read Diana Walstad's book 'Ecology of the Planted Aquarium'


----------



## Flear

i'm not so much worried about having a tank with lots or even "enough" fish, but like a hobby science experiment, the "can i do it", "i want to do it", "how do i do it" is taking over.

i'm not so much concerned with a show tank, at least not for research, if findings say it's plausable, and options show up, i'll head more towards visual appeal

so as close to zero maintenance as i can manage
-lights, heat, powerhead about covers it for maintenance preferences

it is indeed turning into a huge research project, but if it can be done, i want to do it.
Malaysian trumpet snails are sounding more appealing, haven't looked into the assassin snail much yet (how carnivorous is it ?)

your Golden Wonder Killie (Aplocheilus lineatus) seems to be a 4" fish (full grown) community-type fish with a stronger carnivorous preference in diet

k, 1" carnivore per 15 gallon is more than an aquarium eco-system can manage, ... hankfully i'm still searching for answers instead of trial and error
-how about a herbivore ?

for a 90 gallon i wasn't aiming for more than 20" of fish (possibly less) all 2" fish (4" max if it has to fill a particular niche in the eco-system of the tank)

'should' be able to build a self-sustaining tank, heard of people doing this short term (6mo) looking at freshwater clams, ... sounds like "self-sustaining" should be looked at in years. (mollusks, goldfish, all pleco's, are a no-go for self-sustaining)

heavy-metals are a non-issue (unless i'm introducing bottom feeder fish fresh from a lead or mercury ridden lake)
micro-elements and such are an issue if i'm constantly introducing new material into the tank (feeding), aiming for a self-sustaining tank, not an issue.

it's the processing of the toxic compounds that are the issue, otherwise they're hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon, oxygen, etc. the only problem is how they are combined.

usually "left to rot" is a guaranteed way to produce toxic spikes, nothing rots without bacteria breaking it down, i would be quite sure i will never find a way to remove ammonia producing bacteria and replace with alternatives

ammonia & nitrates, ... ammonia has no oxygen, nitrates have no hydrogen

i've got a feeling that the end result is a tank that has to go through stages, ... building the eco-system may require different plants & critters than what would sustain an eco-system.

i don't consider changing out one species for another an inhibiting factor in building a self-sustaining aquarium

i'm not sure your using the term "Cation-exchange capacity" correctly as wiki describes this as the higher the organic compounds in the soil, the greater the Cation-exchange capacity, and higher nutrient retention, fertilizer capacity. as opposed to soils who's nutrients can be easily washed away and would appear in the groundwater

nutrients locking up and being unavailable, ... that could happen, sounds strange, but it's a real issue in hydroponics, usually PH related. but definitely something i should keep in mind, certain nutrients are more available at different PH levels. thanks for the reminder.

back to fish, ... herbivore fish vs. omnivore fish (not considering any carnivorous fish)

can't compare the otto or butterfly loach with killifish

in a self-sustaining aquarium killifish would require an additional level to eat as they won't thrive on vegetarian diet and would likely starve, no matter how big a tank. whereas the otto and butterfly loaches from what i'm finding wouldn't care about fish or shrimp in their diet


----------



## Skizhx

I think you might be overthinking this. Walstad's methods (if followed as she details them, which nobody seems to actually do) work quite well for achieving a minimum input system, almost regardless of fish types.

Feed every so often, and do a small water change when the whim strikes you.

Plants will do a remarkable job of removing toxins from the water, far better than people credit them.

The one thing my personal experience has taught me though is to stress a slow startup. First letting the plants establish and spread, then starting with tiny scavenging fauna, and working your way up towards fish, and only a few at a time to let things adjust (how I do it, at least).

IMO biodiversity is more of an afterthought. It serves more to allow the maximum number of organisms thrive in the smaller area possible. As far as we're concerned, we just want heterotrauphs and autotrophs working together.


----------



## Michael

Skizhx said:


> Walstad's methods (if followed as she details them, which nobody seems to actually do) work quite well for achieving a minimum input system, almost regardless of fish types.


Truer words were never spoken!


----------



## Luffy

Ok... so I'm seeing three basic questions: 
1) Would herbivores work better at creating a balanced ecosystem?
2) Would they eat all the plants?
3) Would the zooplankton that isn't eaten because of the herbivorous fauna contribute to the ecosystem?

Well, I think putting only herbivorous fish in the tank would be harder to sustain. Most tank herbivores I've seen in the fish store eat primarily algea, which would likely not be present in high enough numbers to sustain the fish. 
If they are plant-eater herbivores, then who knows what they'd do to the plant life. I'd assume that because they only have one place to graze the plants wouldn't have enough recovery period. Cows and sheep have to have quite a bit of pasture so I'd guess fish would too.
And then there's the zooplankton. I'd looooove to be able to keep daphnia or ostracoda in my tank but even without hungry fish, the filter seems to do them in. I'm not really sure how they'd fit it keeping an ecosystem together. They would likely be much like snails in that they take material fish wouldn't eat and break it down even more for bacteria. 
I bet you could set up a jar with some plants that could attempt to keep some ostracoda or something alive... In fact, I may just try that out... I have some ostracoda in a bucket in my backyard I could transfer in there!


----------



## Flear

Skizhx & Micheal, i agree, thanks for the reminder.

i've heard of a guy in horticulture who had a great system, was able to out produce everyone. as he tried to teach everyone people took a little of this, some of that, ditched the other stuff, mixed it with their own preferences, ... and they had marginal improvement only. he had 4x the yield of anyone else

yes, thanks for the reminder


----------



## Flear

then this thread goes back to the tank.

zooplankton, ... how to keep around without the filters wiping out the cultures.

powerhead filters running water along the outside of the tank, a wall behind them with water input covered with foam blocks (i'm not keen on running fish through a powerhead)

i'll figure out the thing to include images later


----------



## Skizhx

A Hamburger Mattenfilter would probably be the best thing for keeping zooplankton, if that's something you really want to keep.

There will be no shortage of tiny organisms in your tank whether you purposely put them there or not though, if that's what you're concerned with.


----------



## Flear

yup, that would do it, better than what i imagined too

if i could figure out pictures i could share a very crude MS paint picture, keeps saying "invalid"


----------



## Diana K

How to keep zooplankton without getting them ground up in the filter:
Put a sponge over the intake. Something fairly coarse like an Aquaclear or slightly coarser. This will also grow certain organisms that prefer to grow stuck on surfaces. 

I am not saying the killie is the best choice, it is just an example that I had of a single fish in a comparatively large tank that ate all the daphnia. That particular one would not be my choice in a tank like you are thinking of. 

I would go with a mix of fish. 
Otos for stuck on algae
Shrimp for hairy algae
Small schooling fish like Dwarf Rasboras and let them eat the zoos. Not much more. 

Organic matter in the substrate can have cec, but the OM needs to be pretty fine. Something that is really more like humus for size. Peat moss has some cec. 
Mostly, though, in an aquarium the substrates with good cec are the montmorillonite clays. Safe-T-Sorb, Turface, many of the ADA product line, some other materials. 

Good idea, start with Diana Walstad's book Ecology of the Planted Aquarium. 
Basic concept: By starting with a good substrate that will offer the plants a good range of fertilizer, then supplementing the fertilizer with fish food there is less maintenance.


----------



## Patriot100%

Flear said:


> in the wild waste is not washed away, else the oceans as large and vaste as they are would be filled to the brim with it over many million years
> 
> real life waste is broken down, bacteria, fungus, insects & bugs, other life forms, plants play a large role.
> 
> in the aquarium, snails and plants are the best known (snails not always desired, but if they can get a meal they will)
> 
> bottom feeders are very adiquetly titled, they feed on things on the bottom, (fish poop doesn't float)
> like old dog poop, looses it's smell, breaks down, not till what we could call healthy, but not toxic for sure.
> 
> organic fertalizers include animal poop in them for sure, most organic top soil also includes measured amounts of chicken and/or cow poop for it's "added fertilizer" content
> 
> for a new tank, any old matter you see is a huge breeding ground for fungus in the tank, as the tank is more established, this no longer happens (even if other critters don't get to the extra food first), it just starts to break down.
> 
> fish poop is no different, it has at least some content usable by organic life, and life wants to use that content to farther itself and survive.
> 
> it's the ammonia, nitrates and such that we're very familiar with that more care has to be given so these are in balance and delt with before they kill the tank, the by-products of wastes that are given off from poop, and other decaying organics in the tank.


Yes waste can be washed away in fast flowing waters.

Even if waste is broken you will always be left with something. You create or destroy matter, only reorganize it into something else. If simply breaking down waste was the answer thing waste treatment plant wouldn't have waste to dispose of. Next time look at picture plants, they break down their food until there is only undigestible waste left. This soon becomes a problem and kills that picture unless it is removed somehow.

And as for the Ocean thing, there are too many other factors at play to just say it will fill to the brim. Parrot Fish waste is sand for example. Also due to tectonic plates slipping under one another waste is taken with them.

At some point in time it will most likely have to be physically removed in some way or form.


----------



## Flear

i've heard peat moss as it breaks down has a tendancy to change the PH (just reading now, lowers PH)

may be explained in Diana's book, (will read later), but for now, ... doesn't that sound a little scary ?
i'm not going to believe it would ever bring it down to 3 or something silly, but 5 or 6 sounds plausable (have done no research, just guessing)

as for aquaclear sponges over the air intake, something i noted at one of the local fish stores, ... been doing it ever since, not for culturing beneficial bacteria, but because the filter was killing too many fish without it , the beneficial bacteria thing is something i'm paying more attention to now

Diane K, for the substrate materials you mentioned, ... something to consider for sure, so long as they won't hinder the Trumpet Snails 

added:
what's the appeal with small tanks ? cost ?, culturing foods ?, starting ?
personaly under 20 gallon seems cruel
granted over 150 seems too large to me as well. well for larger fish i guess, i've just focused on 2" fish


----------



## roacan

As for having peat, I have 1" of Canadian Sphagnum peat moss in my 37 gallon tank and Ph was stable at 7.2 with tap water Ph that starts with 7.6. No water changes for about 5 months. Daily feeding and even with a planted tank, nitrates went up to over 120. Killed some of my fish except my 3 bronze Cory, bnp, clown pleco and some guppies. With pressurized co2, Ph is at 6.6


----------



## Skizhx

Unless you've got weak (unhealthy) fish, an average aquarium filter wont suck them in. Common misconception, people see fish stuck in the filter and figure it's the filter's fault.

Peat moss will lower pH a bit, but how much depends entirely on how much you use and your water's KH. If your water is softer, your pH will fluctuate more.

It's usually not a problem, and the shift will happen gradually and will eventually balance out. For some species slightly acidic water is a boon. But for the majority of cases (regarding captive bred fish in the pet trade) anything between 6.8-7.6 can be adapted to comfortably (the range is probably wider than that, even).

The appeal to a smaller tank is that it's cheap, easy to set up, and easy to tear down and start over. This can be very valuable when you're learning. I wouldn't do anything smaller than 10gal unless it's a shrimp/snail only setup, but no, it's not cruel as long as you pick appropriate species and it's plenty of water to keep stable and healthy with a small group of fish.


----------



## DVS

The problem everyone always runs into in "self-sustaining" system is the balance. First thing a 4" fish is too big for an ecosystem that is 90 gallons big. Animals by instinct will eat far in excess of what they need to sustain themselves. This is due to the fact in nature you are going to lard away resources to reproduce (if possible) or sustain yourself when the nutrients are scarce. 

2nd thing is everything that grows in the system, must be harvested by something that consumes it at the same rate it's growing. Nothing can outpace anything else. Given the opportunity, every life form strives for domination of a system. When they are successful, they soon starve themselves of the very resources necessary for their existence. Natural ecosystems due to their size can deal with the "boom or bust cycle". Ninety gallon tanks, not so much.


----------



## Flear

i dono about calling them unhealthy, ... really small neons that i think just didn't have the strenth to swim away when they got too close.

the larger fish never got caught, ... even the larger neons from the same batch.

turned into luck or unlucky to get caught. if they were unhealthy well i'll use their size as the excuse. if they were healthy, then there size is a reason.

so many of the ideas remind me of what i learned while doing some work with horticulture and hydroponics, ... a lot of the little things that didn't sound important up front, but played a major key factor in "would it work or not" in the end.

having been out of that for over 10 years i've forgotten many of those important subtleties


----------



## Flear

DVS, yes, i guess that's been itching in the back of my mind but never given words to.

i've thought about it as much as fish, snails, shrimp, zooplankton (hopefully), algae, plants to assist and keeping things in check.

i'm quite sure animals with a carnivorous diet require a larger area (per size) to live and maintain themselves.

till your the top of the food chain and it's no longer a battle of eat or be eaten, it becomes eat or starve.

2" fish, is an unnatural top of the food-chain and what comes to mind is breed and reproduce to such a surplus that the species survives. (not going to do research to explore 2"fish at the top of their food-chain)

DVS, but your right, everything has to be in balance with supply and demand, i know 90gallons is small for this, hmmm, if i envision it for a 30 gallon (current aquarium), it won't be stable at that size, but the same findings should push the limits so what findings and research say are plausible may be successful in a 90 gallon (no i'm not going to use the 30 gallon like this hands on)

hmmm, while i'm trying to build a self-sustaining tank, ... i am going to have to pay more attention to it than most people, less on asthetics, but more to make sure things are in balance ... that's not a bad trade off.

not cleaning glass or changing water or regular feedings like most people, but water health, fish health, population monitoring, plant health etc.


----------



## Skizhx

With all respect, these compromises you're talking about are unnecessary and sound like an ultimately miserable experience once the initial novelty of success has worn off, and you realize it's just an attention demanding eyesore that takes up a lot of space. 

You will succeed though. Success isn't very difficult to achieve as long as you keep things wet and cover the basics of a low-light setup, especially if you're willing to completely disregard aesthetics. It's not a delicate system, done properly they're actually pretty bullet-proof.

But you really should make your next research effort picking up a copy of her book, because you're trying to reinvent a wheel that has been driving a side of this hobby quite reliably for a very long time, and achieves exactly what you're looking for. Except you're coming to conclusions which practical experience and literature already exist to falsify.

I commend you for researching, I just think you're stumbling on blocks that have already been figured out by people ahead of you, and it's turning a fairly simple aquarium project into a web of challenges and never-ending complications and variables.


----------



## Flear

could be right

then again, father of invention was listening to someone who said it can't be done and telling them "watch me"

Prior to walstads book, even she mentions plants in aquariums were becoming harder and harder, she did a bunch of her own research and came out with her own version of "watch me do it", made her famous.

while not a proven method, there are people that have gone months without feeding their fish, months without water changes, months without maintenance, things are born, die, consumed and the tank is still healthy.

too many people think "impossible" means "can't be done"
not enough people realize "impossible" means "you don't know how to do it"

500 years ago, the most advanced minds, the most delirious minds, the most imaginative minds ... i'm sure they would have looked at everything we do today and said it's all impossible. we fly, we drive, we climb mountains to hights that are pure suicide, we have people living in space, travel to the moon, visit so far under the ocean light is a myth (or what they brought with them). we can travel at speeds faster than sound (once 30m/h was considered "impossible, you'd suffocate") provide light at all times of the day without flame, can do surgery on our internal organs, surgery on our brain. plastic clothing, prefab houses, farms that could feed entire towns with just a hand-full of people to operate them. talk to and see people beyond the edges of the world, to see things smaller than tiny, and more distant than imagined.

if everyone listened to "can't be done, it's impossible", ... smelting iron ore may have been impossible at one time. instead "you can't see how it can be done", "it can't be done now", but by no means ever accept "it will never happen"

instead i look at the world and admit, we're a pretty barbaric primitive people we've got a long way to go.

henry ford, known for the production line and mass producing vehicles, ... that was an advance.
software development, we write each piece, standardized instructions, but no standard development or implementation, or programs are all pretty much written custom every single one.
software development is waiting for the production line, ... we've got lots of advancement we are capable of, and saying we are an advanced species is being in denial that we can do better than we are now.

scientists on occasion build biodomes to study self-sustaining eco-systems.
they're not successful, but they teach what went wrong

like the famous quote (of sorts) from thomas edison "we didn't fail 2000 times, we found 2000 ways it doesn't work"

self-sustaining power (electricity), isn't impossible, they had that 100 years ago, ... but who would back that funding project when you wouldn't have a repeat customer ?, now we don't know how it was done.

in the aquarium hobby, ... currently, "self-sustaining" cannot be done as we are familiar, ... i'm not going to be famous like walstad, ... but if i can learn from what she wrote and learned from others, ... it can be done, just finding out how is the question


----------



## Flear

as for a demanding eyesore...

some people get an aquarium and spend so much time trying to control it and get it just right, they want more and more in it till there's no room left, ... then they have to change water, clean glass, replace filter media, start looking for automated equipment because it's sucking up so much of their time.... of course it's sucking up all their time, they're trying to control it.

do your research, or i do my research, find a combination (or several combinations) then sit back and play god, just watch it do it's thing. ever notice the religious groups point out how god gives us the freedom to live our own lives instead of picking us up and putting us where he wants us ? 6.7 billion people to control on the planet, maybe control isn't the better way to run things.

maybe finding the finer points and letting the tank run itself ... a low maintenance tank right ?

how often do you change water, feed, replace filter media, ... cost & time, ... cost and time i'd rather avoid. watch the tank do tank things, see if i found enough details out or if i didn't, ... no effort in just watching, ... lots of effort in trying to control it though

there's a beautify in simplicty, why not aim for it ?

even the round tank idea, a round low tank, adding a current around the outside, ... people have had success breeding fish that don't breed in any other aquarium doing the same thing, ... lot more piping, powerhead blowing down the tank, water input at the far side pumped back to the powerheads through PVC.

hard parts i'm having, ... finding short plants and balacing critters for the tank, if it sounds complicated or like i'm putting in too much effort.

Walstad put in how much work, effort & research to come up with an idea that says "it's safe to put a bunch of organic top soil in your tank, cover it with some gravel and plant"

one forum a guy did substrait that included (no joke), dog poop, yard leaves, coffee grounds, among other things, ... that was over a year ago, the tank is still going strong, including shrimp & fish.

sure there's lots that can be done till it's so simple you can't fail with only half an idea what your doing. ... but it's also true there are far more ways to go wrong.

so i'm trying something new, yes i get my back up ever time someone says "can't be done" about every time in human history the people who are saying this are listening to other people who are saying "can't be done", and the people who give it a try are scorned and ridiculed.

we congradulate edison for the lightbulb, ... tesla had AC power, wireless power, neon lights, ... edison was killing horses with Tesla's AC power to scare people into believing how dangerous it was so he could promote his DC power.

it's not all invention, ... talk to people in a trailer park or appartment and your a fool for wanting to start your own business, it will never work, ... talk to a millionaire and your a fool for remaining an employee instead of looking out for your future by building a successfull business to take care of you.

i appreciate the "congrats on trying", but if your doing it with "hey others have tried it before and failed", ... your a sarcastic dream killer, try to keep that attidude away from your children. thankfully i've heard (not listened to) enough of those people to know they usually don't have a clue what they're talking about.

some people enjoy tinkering constantly to get something ever so perfect, then insist it's the only way to do things, (welcome to over 90% of the people in the hobby) even now years after Diana's book, those 90% are still out there insisting and telling everyone "it can't be done" and they continue to close their eyes to any alternatives.

same is true in medicine and psychology. the medical proffession loves to use the placebo effect to prove if their medications are actually effective, or it's just in the mind of the patient. yet they see constantly for some the placebo effect is successfull in treating the ailment. it's not scientifically repeatable ... or maybe it is because no one wants to do the research to say "why", what was it about that person that they were able to cure themselves. sure belief, but the next guy who was given the medication and believed it would cure them too didn't make it. so why does the medical proffession stay clear of understanding what was different about those 2 people ?

like most psychic people, ... they critisize and ridicule those who can't prove their ability to the demands of the critics, ... those who are successfull, ... anyone knows you can't knock them down, and the only way to shut them up is to stay clear like it's the plague. because the less people know, the less people hear, the less people think "there may actually be something there.

we are a barbaric primitive people, we don't open our eyes to the possibilties, we make fun of those who think things we couldn't imagine possible. as children, as adults, we humiliate and attack anyone who is different. we defend that with "survival of the fittest", but how fit are you when you beat down someone who could have cured the community because he was a nerd, or just didn't fit in...

and had his dreams squashed by his peers, tutors and parents for thinking outside the box.

of course if we overpopulate the tanks, it's going to go toxic, ... and then you have to do regular water changes. so who's trying to find the balance ? who feels "that just simply doesn't have enough fish to be visually appealing"

we don't put 10 adults in a house & lock the door delivering food and groceries and say "there be happy, be healthy, don't kill each other though" and think it will work. unless it's a pet, then we say, ... i could fit 20 in there. 2 are white racist supremisists, 3 are athiests, 2 muslims, a buddhist, 2 scientists, 1 drama queen, 1 down syndrom child, and the rest are hippies from the 70's, ... i hope they work out their differences.


----------



## Diana K

The substrates I mention (Safe-T-Sorb, Turface, Soil Master Select and related materials) are no hindrance to Malaysian Trumpet Snails. They plow right through these materials. 
The problem is that these materials remove the carbonates from the water. 
Carbonates are one of the main buffers that keeps the pH up. 
pH drops, and the acidic water erodes the shells of snails. 

With MTS you will notice that the sharp, pointed end is no longer there. In hard water tanks MTS maintain the sharp pointed end. 
With pond snails and rams horn snails the shell is so thin compared to the MTS that the very low pH can eat holes in the shell. This may be part of nature's plan so snail predators have an easier time. 

I think what everyone is saying is that you can set up the tank the best you can, but you will have to become part of the ecosystem, adding some things, removing others. As you get to know how the fish, plants and microorganisms are dealing with each other you can figure out how to alter conditions so they are better in tune with each other.


----------



## ianjones

herbivores will eat algae before plants. daphnia wont last long in the tank because they are too exposed. blackworms work best for me on that route.

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/photography/84310-starting-photojournal-my-self-sustaining-ecosystem.html

im running much the same project since about march. you can read the thread and avoid some of the mistakes ive made so far  either way, keep in touch. id love to see you keep a nice scientific journal on the project that we can all see!


----------



## ianjones

and man, dont pay much mind to the flack either. you are going to find out theres just gonna be those peeps. re-invent the wheel all you want. the thing i enjoy the most about this hobby is that no one really has solid info on everything. there is some science that you cant get around, but for the most part you have a ton of freedom to experiment. with your setup, i think you are going to find that most things that are said about most fish dont apply to you. its going to be more in your benefit to figure out how your fish behave in the wild than how they behave in someone else's tank. and dont worry about it being an eyesore. this is a science project, not a tank of goldfish at a restaurant. 

developing an ecosystem can be really simple or it can be really difficult. it depends on how many "links" in the food chain you are trying to sustain. you could just plant the tank, fill the bottom with blackworms and add some shrimp and that will be a self-sustaining ecosystem. if you want to add more links to the chain, it gets harder. 

ive done eco-system projects outside of aquatics and even on computer sims, and the best hard advice i can give is be very patient, go slow, and start with the bottom of the food chain first. make sure they are breeding before you throw in something to eat them. things get harder to observe when you have to "add liquidity to the market" by throwing over-abundances of live foods in the tank.


----------



## Flear

the sharp pointy ends of the Trumpet snails, ... i was overly worried about my snails as the points are eroded, then i noticed what is meant by that when i saw online.

so i'm missing the tips of the points on the largest of my MTS snails, ... pictures online showing snails that are missing the entire last half of their shell, ... dear god, what are those people doing (not doing) that in my books amounts to a total screwup.

i've a rather new tank (few months old), i've done 1 water change about 1-2 weeks into it, since then i've only topped up the water and done mostly regular feedings.

fish are healthy, had an ich breakout, lost a kuhli loach, the medication did more damage (killed all the rummy nose tetras and most of my neon tetras) got ich under control with salt.

fish are healthy, active, behaving normally
plants are growing very well (requiring pruning & maintenance)
algae requires pruning

no water changes for a while now, and everything is healthy, ... wish i saw my butterfly loach more, but his preferred hiding place sometimes he's there other times not, so he's healthy too (i think it's a she actually)

haven't tried anything in Walstad's book (am going through anyway)
already above what 90% of the people here say is "impossible"

although for the meds,... i guess that's about right, works that way in the real world too, if the medication kills you it's a success because it prevented the disease from doing farther harm (historically many cancer medications were passed because of this)


----------



## Skizhx

You'll learn a lot from that book and I think then what I'm saying will make more sense.

I don't think anyone in this thread ever said this was impossible. The post you replied to with your 2 pages actually explicitly stated "you will succeed", and earlier posts stated that other people have done this, so I'm not sure what prompted all that but I think you heard the opposite of what was said...

Good to hear your smaller tank bounced back from the ich though. Following Walstad's steps it's completely within reason to go 4-6 or more months between water changes, and then it's mostly just to remove hormones, etc that start to accumulate after so long because they don't get broken down so readily.


----------



## Flear

never thought about hormones in the water

for better or worse, i'm not going to worry about it now, i'll probably forget about it later.

actually many people just want to insist "because it hasn't succeeded in the media (pick a type of media) it can't be done, so save yourself some heartache and don't try"

that has been more than implied.

there's a difference between "hasn't been done yet, don't try", "i don't know how to do it, here's a few things to consider", ... there's a huge difference

yes, i'll agree walstads methods allow extended durations without water changes.
i think from her personal findings and research she put her expertise into producing planted tanks that were fool-proof and did an exceptional job going above and beyond in explaining why things work.

now find me someone who has produced a self-contained food-chain that doesn't require maintenance (outside of the eco-spheres, heard reports of some running for over a decade, brine shrimp only live 2-3 years at most i think, and there are still surviving shrimp)

i think most of the intricacies of making a self-sustaining tank are going to lay with the plankton. sadly most everything i've come across talks either abstractly about it's importance and how tiny they are, or talks about the larger ones that are visible with the naked eye.

but it has given me ideas of having a mini-tank full of bio-luminescent bacterial organisms (salt-water for now), that would glow at night when disturbing the water 
or bio-luminescent jellyfish (non-stinging varieties  there are plenty of jellyfish that maintain their own algae and zoo-plankton so they don't have to be fed, just given enough for their food-source to survive. which should be very very easy considering it's all at the plankton level

such jellyfish would make the easiest self-sustaining home aquariums as they cut out many of the links that a food-chain involving fish would require

i am pretty sure that phytoplankton & zooplankton would keep the water clean on their own, breaking down ammonia & nitrate/nitrite & other toxic chemicals. this is already done, but not really considered or sought out for a complete cycle, what is considered is using them for the end process in maintaining healthy water, but not as a consideration to be available to start the food-chain again with the next step, and as many steps as necessary before the fish get hungry and have to eat.

most people stick with "if i can't see it, it's not an issue" sure we acknowledge new tank syndrome and diatom algae (actually a bacteria), we acknowledge the presence of bacteria responsible for breaking down toxins released from fish waste.

ask around, what else does anyone know about that level of life in an aquarium besides "algae is undesirable". yet some people are intentionally farming algae in for their home aquarium to filter their tanks, (algae scrubbers)

like most things on earth, everything alive has a purpose, either as food, or to help maintain a balance in the eco-system they are part of. we may not like mosquitoes, but without them there are species that would starve to death.

aquariums range from people who do all the work, have fake plants and only fish, to people who are trying to build a complete eco-system. ... there isn't a lot of support and there is plenty of discouragement for building a complete self-sustaining eco-system aquarium, ... and a lot of ignorance from those who do not know the difference between the different types of aquarium environments in this regard from high maintenance to sealed self-sustaining (i'm not considering a sealed self-sustaining tank)

it's surprising how many would put in many hours a week on a high-tech aquarium and discourage anything else


----------



## Flear

for planted tanks with all the insistence on added CO2, ... how about natural sources of enhancing the amount of CO2 available for plants.

there are aerobic bacteria out there that breath O2 & expel CO2

from other bits i've come across this is a natural occurrence in a healthy tank, doesn't produce CO2 in high quantities, but every little bit helps.

does anyone know of any other bits of life that assist in this ? (i know fish, shrimp, snails, ... the critters we all get for our aquariums, those help, those poop too)

the tank i have in mind is progressing nicely and coincidentally is becoming segmented to allow specialized areas to assist the rest of the tank as well

high planted area, fast water flow area, secluded area separated but still a part of the tank.

could be a great area for a specialized critter/life to assist in tank health.


----------



## Luffy

Because of your post I decided to do an experiment.
I've been keeping Ostracoda aka Seed Shrimp in a bucket out back for a while and I've moved some into my fish bowl with some guppy fry and snails. The Ostracoda seem to be doing well but the Cyclops get eaten right away, so if you are interested in keeping interesting little creatures perhaps you could set up a bowl specifically for them? My bowl is set up the same way Walstad sets up her shrimp bowls in her article that you can find online.
Daphnia also seem to do well in Sea Monkey containers. They somehow took over my sea monkey population when I was younger and I was left with a huge population of those guys. As long as there's nothing big enough to eat them they seem to thrive.


----------



## Flear

i think cyclops are smaller than most of the daphnia people talk about

the larger daphnia species are definitly a no-go.

so far things point to "if" i have a zoo-plankton population, i'm going to have to stick with vegitarian fish, ... or as you said a second tank.

easy to do a mockary of self-sustaining by having several cultures for everything going to keep things going, ... 

it sounds more likely i'll have to skip the zooplankton idea entirely. or another thought, a whole bunch of feeder species so that the fish are always full and then the feeders survive on sheer numbers alone.

that balance sound like trying to combine for the ultimate substrate for plants, the right blend of slow release and over-abundant supply of nutrients for plants.

for micro-organisms, ... the right mix of over-breeding zoo plankton and worms and shrimp, giving them the right places to hide so they can survive.

call me absent-minded, ... that's probably also why such species survive in nature, ... they have hiding places, i need to look into that.


----------



## mariannep

Flear, have you throught about refugiums? Sorry if you have mentioned it already, but my brain's more than a bit fuzzy lately...


----------



## Flear

i don't know what they are 
Refugiums, rotifers, RCS, RO ??? (i think rotifers are a type of zooplankton though)
-rotifers, if i remember correctly spoke more of their shape than their function in my tiny search

i know once your familiar with them it just makes sense

although sometimes they backfire, ... MTS, is it Mineralized top soil, or is it Malaysian trumpet snail 

i've seen people talking about refugiums, i think i spent a total of 10 minutes looking and was no closer to understanding before i got carried away by other searches for aquariums.

but no, i've no idea what they are, it sounds like an isolated part of the tank, but that's a guess off the name.


----------



## aquabillpers

Hi,

Every time I encounter a thread on this subject I am inspired to set up a self-sustaining tank, but, to paraphrase Mark Twain and others, when I do I lie down until it goes away. 

But it sounds like an interesting project, and fun, too!

If the tank is to be self-sustaining on a long term basis, the fish would be a problem. The original fish would have to reproduce, and preventing overpopulation would require a delicate balancing act. Or, one could decide to live with periodic overpopulation and die-offs. That would probably be the most practical way to go.

I'd use fast growing plants like Hygrofila difformis and Echinodorous tenellus, which would soon fill the upper and lower layers of the tank, and battle for dominance. I'd use pond snails (Physa species) and maybe ramshorns. I guess the fish would be common guppies or Endler's; both would eventually go through the overpopulate - die-off cycle.

As I write this I note that I have two unused 20 gallon long tanks . . . it's time for a nap. 

Please keep us informed, and good luck!

Bill


----------



## Flear

for snails, i've got malaysian trumpet snails (not giving those up), got pond snails & mini-ramshorn and larger ramshorn (not going to use the pond snails in the tank i want to build)

guppies and/or endlers, ... i'm going to avoid those like the plague, last thing i need is 2000 fish in a 90gallon tank. fish start out small, then they grow larger, ... it's an exponential growth rate with those fish, more fish, and larger fish, then more fish, then the newer & older fish both get larger, and then there's more fish., ... then is the die-off, ... 300fish dying off, ... that's going to kill everything 

avoiding fish, things are fairly simple, although i don't know if shrimp will deal with dead snails or if snails will deal with dead shrimp, ... 

i may want to put a larger fish in there just to keep things in balance to keep the adults in check.

before i consider specific fish i'm filling my time figuring out natural processes of how waste is treated and broken down in an aquarium. ... which generates a lot of CO2. which is in line with what i've heard about oceans, ... they expel more CO2 into the atmosophere than about any other source, more than man, more than volcanoes

the interest in high CO2 is for plants, and the research lets me understand more of what goes into the breaking down of wastes.

as for "food pyramids", i want a very shallow one.

i may have to stock the tank one level at a time, waiting till it has clearly over-populated the tank before i add the next level, till i arrive at a few fish at the top. want to keep the food-chain as short as possible, 90gallons doesn't give a lot of room.

food for each critter in the tank is the easy part.
population control is important to remember.
most important though as everyone in the hobby knows, is waste breakdown, and all the chemicals that are given off in natural biological behaviors, most of them toxic except at low levels, some of them very very toxic at even lower levels 

then is picking what pollutes little, and eats the right things.


----------



## Diana K

Several posts above there was some discussion about different sized critters like Daphnia and others. 
If you can get something where the adults are so large that the fish are not thrilled about eating them, but the fish will eat the babies, I think that will come close to 'self sustaining' in that the adults will keep on reproducing, a few babies may survive to replace the few adults that die, but most of the babies will get eaten. 
This would take some careful selection of fish and prey.

The only example that I had working in one of my tanks was a 29 gallon tank with Kuhlie Loaches and Sidthemunkis. They are small Loaches that will eat pond snail babies, but not the adults. This was a pretty stable population of snails.


----------



## Flear

Diana, thanks for the idea 

i thought about considering smaller & smaller zooplankton, but not larger.

it works with shrimp in larger tanks, the fish only eat the babies and don't touch the adults, dono why i didn't think of the same for zooplankton. just get the largest ones i can find and consider smaller fish, 2" fish are pretty small already.

i think the largest daphnia peak at 5mm in size, (the most talked about zooplankton)

Diana thanks a bunch for the idea 

---

and off-topic, ... last nights dream i had clams in my tank, ... i was so worried they would starve. then found a few more and they were all large and healthy so i didn't worry anymore

g/f says in a 90 gallon that may be an idea. actually could work if i've only got one or 2 clams


----------



## mariannep

About shrimp, if you're thinking red cherry shrimp, I think they will eat dead snails. I base this on the fact that they eat other dead shrimp and I've also seen a video on YouTube about shrimp eating a dead fish (dead of natural causes).

I wish I could get daphnia and similar stuff myself.

Cheers!


----------



## Flear

for the US, it's easy to order daphnia and other zooplankton, ... i'm hesitant about ordering when it comes to crossing the boarder as i live in canada

http://www.aquaculturestore.com/

they've got 3 varieties of daphnia if i remember correctly
and quite a few other zooplankton
they've got tubiflex worms, various snails, etc.

if i lived in the states and had the cash i'd invest in stock with them before i started making purchases.

i could easily get over $100 of stuff i wanted from them, ... being selective i'm sure that i'd have that bill


----------



## mariannep

Alas, that's an ocean across from me :/ Very cool site, though.
But thanks anyway!


----------



## Flear

Updates
Theory only

don't have the tank i'm after yet, going to use a 30 or 40 gallon breeder
using sandblasting glass beads (near perfectly round, so safe for all aquarium inhabitants)

still searching for desired fish.

if possible i could have phytoplankton, and zooplankton in the main tank living comfortably

going to have clams, going to disable/remove the water filter
going to have worms, snails, shrimp
everyone freaks about having greenwater, ... actually important
aiming for moina for zooplankton.

if it doesn't work, then i move things into seperate buckets & only need some fertilizer to keep the tank going
have duckweed in the main tank & goldfish or something simular in the greenwater bucket.
greenwater transfered to moina tank
moina filtered out to be moved to display tank.

i get bonus marks if the duckweed growing in the main tank after feeding the goldfish (or simular) makes a complete cycle, then i don't need any additional nutrients or food into the set of tanks


----------



## Flear

ideas and thoughts for a self-sustaining tank have been put on hold till a viable food source is available on the market.

food sources available are rotifers, then they step up to daphnia, ... rotifers have no inherent nutritional value, the daphnia ask for larger fish, or fish with a higher carnivorous tendancy than i want, ... either way it's requiring a larger tank to try, ... 100+ gallon tank minimum to house a couple fish instead of the 40 gallon i'd prefer with fish 2-3" max size.

Edit:
while only thinking about this as all information on the net about what is required for a self-sustaining tank turns into people saying "it can't be done" without any understanding about where it's failing, ... there is no information available about what kinds of perimeters should be considered before thinking about starting.

to consider a 100+ gallon tank, as tanks turn into more box shape instead of more spread out, this would put everything in the tank in line of sight for anything in the tank

to consider a large custom tank for an experiment is beyond my finances and motivation. (for now)


----------



## sadchevy

as for food being readily available for purchase, why? wouldnt the planktonic critters eat the algae and bacteria (the second link in the food chain)? I like the idea of the self sustaining system, very thought provoking subject. I believe its possible, after all isnt earth just a biosphere in the grand scheme of the universe?


----------



## Flear

plankton (i don't think) is built to eat solids that way. like asking a bird to start eating a mountain mid-flight, doesn't work so well. i could be wrong.

small sized stuff, i think it's limited to detrivores, and they'll only touch decaying stuff.

next up for plant eaters are 4" seems minimum, with very few odd exceptions, otherwise 6" fish or larger only will touch plants. if they are herbivores

it was mentioned that the flagfish is an omnivore with herbivore preferences, ... good luck finding what plants they like to eat. "algae" :/ and be careful as they'll eat soft plants, ... well these are the one i want to know about, and they're not telling 

as for "food-chain" text books suck  almost none talk about detritus, and i've only heard one mention of parasites in the food chain. actually they figure parasites are at the top. but due to sizes i was curious if zooplankton can be of a type that would eat some of the smaller parasites. sadly the moment i type in "parasites" everything turns into human parasites that doesn't help anything out in our aquariums. and the whole things looks more like a messy web than any organized chain.


----------



## Flear

hurray.

there is a science/biology supplies dealer in canada that deals with sessile rotifers, and planktonic rotifers all in the same batch, ... a species of each sold as "mixed rotifers", ... not too concerned about the planktonic rotifers, but the sessile ones absolutely 

one problem down, ... still looking for small zooplankton that are not rotifers.


----------

