im questioning the validity of most of the tests...
phosphates results said .2, which in any tank will lead to algae outbreaks.
phosphates results said .2, which in any tank will lead to algae outbreaks.
To change or Not to change that is the question...
- Thread starter Dochere
- Start date
what exactly does porous lava rock do for an aquarium? i am planning on using it in my tank that i'm setting up now and would like to know its effects before hand if i could.
as for this whole situation, i think its a good idea to try something new every now and then and see what works (barring the sacrificing of fish of course). this seems like a classic example of something that seems completely backwards but in reality is pretty stable.
as the sang goes, what ever floats your boat
hey wetman-- you might like this article
http://www.animalnetwork.com/fish/l...iers+--+Biochemistry+of+Aquaria&RecordNo=2481
seems like the usual fish-geek type article you enjoy
http://www.animalnetwork.com/fish/l...iers+--+Biochemistry+of+Aquaria&RecordNo=2481
seems like the usual fish-geek type article you enjoy
Whatever the nitrogen compound tests say, i dont feel comfortable having my fish live in their own excrement for years on end.
T
TnCgal
Guest
Thank you for saying that, Fishiebusiness, because that's what I was thinking all along also. Regardless of what any chemistry tests may say, I would never allow my fish to swim in recirculated waste water their whole lives. I don't care how you analyze it, it's just unhealthy.
There are more things to fish-keeping than dissecting water molecules and I think we get "so" caught up analyzing that we forget the basics and in this case it just boils down to giving your fish a clean living environment free from toxic waste. And I'm sorry, but there is no way you can have fish without having detritus in your substrate or dissolved in your water. It's unrealistic - not to mention an impossibility.
There are more things to fish-keeping than dissecting water molecules and I think we get "so" caught up analyzing that we forget the basics and in this case it just boils down to giving your fish a clean living environment free from toxic waste. And I'm sorry, but there is no way you can have fish without having detritus in your substrate or dissolved in your water. It's unrealistic - not to mention an impossibility.
I guess we can read and hear about the "cycle" of nitrogen, or transformations of carbon or phosphate or sulfate, how the organic forms are disassembled and "mineralized" by microbes, and know it in our heads, and understand intellectually how our own wholesome tapwater is recirculated from upstream effluents that are not drinkable... but still not be able to take that knowledge to "heart": Whatever the nitrogen compound tests say, I dont feel comfortable having my fish live in their own excrement for years on end. expresses this sentiment precisely.
On another front, but still apropos Dochere's Tanganyikan closed system, slipknottin posted an excellent analysis of phosphate transformations that has been sitting at Aquarium Frontiers archive, but which I have missed because it was "about" marine aquaria and didn't appear relevant to me. Dochere's system is more like a marine system than my sweetwater "Amazon."
...but it's not irrelevant. Thanks for the geekatoid phosphate link, slipknottin!
On another front, but still apropos Dochere's Tanganyikan closed system, slipknottin posted an excellent analysis of phosphate transformations that has been sitting at Aquarium Frontiers archive, but which I have missed because it was "about" marine aquaria and didn't appear relevant to me. Dochere's system is more like a marine system than my sweetwater "Amazon."
...but it's not irrelevant. Thanks for the geekatoid phosphate link, slipknottin!
Dochere,
Thanks for posting such a controversial and innovative approach. To use Wetman's terminology, your "freshwater closed system" seems interesting. I would love to see pictures of your setup and regularly keep us posted on its progress. Only time will tell but you've at least got a good track record for two years.
Wetman (and others),
Thanks for providing some possible insight into the water chemistry. This closed freshwater approach might make a nice article for posting online or in an aquarium magazine if you can nail down the chemistry and waste transport mechanisms.
This approach is controversial for fish keeping but it actually has something in common with potential (and controversial) innovations in wastewater treatment and water supply engineering. In certain parts of the country where water is in short supply, people are actually beginning to consider "brownwater re-use" technology as a potential option to meet future water demands. Wastewater would be treated mechanically and chemically and then would be re-used in some manner.
Thanks for posting such a controversial and innovative approach. To use Wetman's terminology, your "freshwater closed system" seems interesting. I would love to see pictures of your setup and regularly keep us posted on its progress. Only time will tell but you've at least got a good track record for two years.
Wetman (and others),
Thanks for providing some possible insight into the water chemistry. This closed freshwater approach might make a nice article for posting online or in an aquarium magazine if you can nail down the chemistry and waste transport mechanisms.
This approach is controversial for fish keeping but it actually has something in common with potential (and controversial) innovations in wastewater treatment and water supply engineering. In certain parts of the country where water is in short supply, people are actually beginning to consider "brownwater re-use" technology as a potential option to meet future water demands. Wastewater would be treated mechanically and chemically and then would be re-used in some manner.
Sorry that I have't been able to keep up with this but I have been extreamly busy. This topic is extreamly interesting to me and I must say there have been allot of good posts on this. I can see allot of intelligance here.
TnCgal, if there is no possible way to have a tank without waste products in the substrate, then where are they in my tank? In every tank I have seen I have always been able to stur up the gravel and actually see debris churned up. In my tank I do the same thing and see nothing. So where is the waste product at? I am assuming that you do not understand the way the under gravel filter is set up or just how much water is flowing through each plate. Either way unless it is invisable (which is why I test) I am not seeing it.
Actually, some of the logic behind this set up was inspired by the water treatment industry. An engineer with AMI (a company that sells water treatment mills to foreign countries) was one of the individuals I consulted when setting up this tank. He was the reason that we modified the under gravel filter plate so that we could set up the pumps in the way that we did. I know that there is a way to have a tank that is 99.9% maintenance free. Anyone who has ever seen an ecosphere has seen a self contained system that is able to support life for long periods of time without human intervention. I can't imagine that it could not be done in a 70 gal fish tank. I think it’s a trial and error process that time and patience to succeed.
did you notice how all those ecospheres survive?
nutrient import and export. without both none will be successful.
the fish waste is getting broken down somehow. Your test kits (at least the one for phosphates) are off. As the only reason you dont have algae is because the phosphates are getting bound with calcium carbonate.
Instead of using sunlight (as with plants), you think you could use bacteria and just have fish food as nutrient import, right?
well where are the nutrients going? they dont evaporate, and there is no such bacteria or invert that will remove all toxins from the water. (removing nitrates is one thing, and precipitation of phosphates is another)
not all organics end up as phosphate or nitrates.
nutrient import and export. without both none will be successful.
the fish waste is getting broken down somehow. Your test kits (at least the one for phosphates) are off. As the only reason you dont have algae is because the phosphates are getting bound with calcium carbonate.
Instead of using sunlight (as with plants), you think you could use bacteria and just have fish food as nutrient import, right?
well where are the nutrients going? they dont evaporate, and there is no such bacteria or invert that will remove all toxins from the water. (removing nitrates is one thing, and precipitation of phosphates is another)
not all organics end up as phosphate or nitrates.
