To change or Not to change that is the question...

11 fish in a 75 gal isn't that overcrowded, assuming your fish are Mbuna size fish and not fully grown. My 75 gal has 3 times your fish load and my nitrate can go up the roof if not because I do 75 percent water change and substrate vacuuming biweekly.

You didn't answer whether you use porous lava or tuff rock. If indeed your fish are healthy and you are runing strong filtration and current, you may be achieving live rock live sand effect as in SW system.
 
About ecospheres-- which take to an extreme this concept of an enclosed, self-sufficient system Dochere's experimenting with: the little desk-sized ones are too small not to undergo wild swings that eventually do them in. Their geometry simply gives them too much surface for their volume. I've had my eyes on the big one (is it 100 gallons?) at the American Museum of Natural History, and it's stable still, set up two winters ago when the Rose Center opened.

But Dochere is intervening constantly, to keep the system "in tune."

One element, Dochere, that you're missing, which IMHO might be effective for you, is PolyFilters, available cheaply on line from the various PetPlaces. PolyFilter adsorbs heavy metals (though your heavy metals are quickly precipitated on carbonates) and it would eliminate the possibility of phenols, a rather intractable end product --though not one that builds up quickly where there are no plants and no softening vegetation. Pheromones break down rapidly; think how quickly the other fry start growing again once the alpha juvenile is removed.

The other organic compounds are being rapidly mineralized by bacterial action. What would collect in the substrate as insoluble brown humus floc, is whirled into the mechanical/chemical filtration and discarded. The current flow means there's plenty of oxygen to "burn" organics.

I was wondering about porous pumice-type lava rock as the one place in the system where some anaerobic denitrification could slowly be taking place, as nitrates diffuse inwards. And I'm still curious about the ecological role of algae on the surfaces. Is there constant algae-grazing, Doc?

If there ever was a "freshwater" system where foam fractionation could work, this would be it!

Dochere, I feel you should rethink the vitamin additives, as your fish are surely getting theirs from your balanced diet. Fish don't pick up vitamins from the water, across their gill surfaces. At least that's what I read. And you want to cut down on anything you introduce that's not involved in some complete biochemical reaction.

I'm inspired to rinse all my filters tonight!
 
Originally posted by wetmanNY
...I'm inspired to rinse all my filters tonight!
Click to expand...

:D There isn't any pumice in the tank. There is a Biocartridge in one spot in the 330. There is also a 9x9x4 denitrifying block in the sump. Could either of these be a substitute in your logic for the pumice? Also, there isn't any visible algae of any type, except for the very small amount of brown algae(?) that is on the top of one of the artificial plants.

I would like to know more about foam fractitionation, so anyone who's got the info, pass it along. A suggestion for a protein skimmer that works in a sump would be great as well.
 
Last edited:
Have you tried running your tank without all those additives and had negative results? I've found most additives to be a good way for companies to make money and little else.
 
Fishiebusiness, no I have not tried running the tank without the additives. I have switched brands, and have tried different products but I have never discontinued using any product. I am going to slowly, very slowly, cut back on a product at a time. Simply because I can understand that the fish may very well be aware of the additives in the tank. I am also going to put a bit more research behind the products that I am using to validate there need and the claims of the manufacturers.
 
Originally posted by Dochere


There isn't any pumice in the tank. There is a Biocartridge in one spot in the 330. There is also a 9x9x4 denitrifying block in the sump. Could either of these be a substitute in your logic for the pumice?
Click to expand...

Absolutely! Better! More efficient than chunks of pumice. A CellPore BioCartridge, and perhaps it's a CellPore block too? or something similar. RTR has been experimenting with anaerobic de-nitration in freshwater for some time now...

Also, there isn't any visible algae of any type, except for the very small amount of brown algae(?) that is on the top of one of the artificial plants.
Click to expand...

Diatoms, doubtless. Aren't your Tanganyika cichlids Aufwuchs grazers, picking over the biofilm all the time?They're eating the seaweed you give them. I'm ignorant of Rift Lake habits, you can well imagine. Strong light and some algae growth kept in check by grazing would add some natural cycling to your system. Any micronutrients taken up by the algae and not used but expelled by the fish would quickly find their way to your filtration and get exported...
 
Great thread folks, fascinating stuff!

It's sending me back to your site to find out what the hell "foam fractitionation" and "light radiation wavelengths" are, Wetman.

**Points at tank and screams, "you make magic!" Walks away banging self on head with club**
 
I'm putting this puppy down in my book (alongside Slip's sump) as one of the great AqC threads of all time (or at least the last 6 months:rolleyes: ). Phenomenally informative, intelligent and civil in tone.

I started out with a vague sense that it was somehow inherently "wrong" to take Dochere's approach and now understand that its a perfectly legitimate way to run a tank. So the mind is a little more open than it was yesterday, and that's always a good thing. But the main lesson I'm taking with me is just that: don't leap to conclusions, alternate methods may work just as well.
But if the point of all this is just to avoid having to do regular water changes, I'll stick with my bucket. You've built a mini-waste treatment plant -- you could send the thing up on the next shuttle! If I decide to go with a lower-tech more organic approach, then maybe there is a moral component to it (personal choice), but it also just seems more practical (to me).

I've read a little bit into the (Walstad-style) low-tech self-sufficient planted tank. And I've read a bit of criticism of it. I think maybe it goes a little too far in the opposite direction, but (morally, again) I find its organicism preferable to the massive chemical tinkering going on here. So WetMan (or Slip, or anyone else), how much of the viability of Dochere's method depends on the unusual chemistry (high alkalinity) of the tank? Just out of curiousity, could something like this work in a soft acidic tank? Are all the chemical additives needed or are they occuring alongside a stable nutrient and chemical export system provided by the filtration and alkalinity?

Just wondering (and awed), as ever…

-carpguy
 
In simplest terms, a spectrophotometer detects compounds, chemicals, by their response in a clear cell when particular wavelengths are transmitted. It can be quite accurate, used as detection devices or quantitation devices depending on techniques. A flame photometer performs similar function at the element level.

My objections to particular commercial products lies in the companies' refusal to share any information on their ingredients. This is in turn coupled to general reports of no effect observed by experienced aquarists when trying such products. There are several companies notorious for this.

A foam fractionator is the device incorrectly refered to on many of the boards as a "protein skimmer". They are not effective in most FW systems other than those having massive bioloads (koi ponds). As you move through brackish water conditions, the systems become functional at sequestering certain materials in foams, which are then condensed in such a way that they are not returned to the water column. Your water is not BW, but I suspect it has detecable specific gravity on simple hobby testers, and might allow such a device to function with a bit of tuning. Take a sample to a store or friend with a wide range specific gravity tester to see. I have not tried to correlate TDS to fractionator function, but you are well up on the scale compared to most hobby tanks. But we have no info on whether or not you tank has significant levels of the material which could be foam extracted.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by carpguy
.

I've read a little bit into the (Walstad-style) low-tech self-sufficient planted tank. And I've read a bit of criticism of it. I think maybe it goes a little too far in the opposite direction, but (morally, again) I find its organicism preferable to the massive chemical tinkering going on here. So WetMan (or Slip, or anyone else), how much of the viability of Dochere's method depends on the unusual chemistry (high alkalinity) of the tank? Just out of curiousity, could something like this work in a soft acidic tank? Are all the chemical additives needed or are they occuring alongside a stable nutrient and chemical export system provided by the filtration and alkalinity?
Click to expand...

It's an esthetic and intellectual judgement, I hope, rather than a moral one. I always prefer my morel questions in omelets anyway.

Diana Walstad's planted enclosed system depends on the concept of "export" too. But it's a different export. In the planted tank, it's in the form of pruned or "harvested" plant materials, removed before they can over-enrich the system. Walstad adds no fertilizers, except what is in fishfood.

There's more than one kind of enclosed balanced system. Walstad's is more self-balancing through bacteria and plants (and a few fish), and thus it's more like the planetary self-balancing system popularized as "Gaia theory." So it's more akin to the "natural" system.

But we all keep a thumb on the scale, or a hand on the flywheel, to guide and tune these systems...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
AquariaCentral.com
Top Bottom