# Advice on my aquarium?



## blist3rX (Mar 10, 2009)

I have a 28G aquarium (I think), maybe its 30G. Its used. But anyways. I'm currently using ordinary sand from Home Depot as a substrate. I'm thinking of adding top soil to the mixture. It's a planted tank. I'm going to check what kind of plants they are and add the details later. My question is, what kind of filter would you guys suggest I use? I would like to try an internal filter if possible. But my main priority is cheap


----------



## Chris S (Dec 19, 2007)

Your filter is the thing you don't want to cheap out on. It is the lifeblood of your aquarium. In my opinion, nine times out of ten problems that arise are due to water quality issues, which typically relate to crappy filtration and lack of water changes.

If you want my opinion, buy an eheim 2213 for your tank.


----------



## xxprudencexx (Sep 3, 2008)

I agree with Chris your best option would be a good canister filter.


----------



## ameekplec. (May 1, 2008)

I agree with Chris. But get a 2215.


----------



## Chris S (Dec 19, 2007)

ameekplec. said:


> I agree with Chris. But get a 2215.


Well, I can't disagree with that.


----------



## BillD (Jun 5, 2006)

It seems everyone missed the main priority, that being cheap.


----------



## ameekplec. (May 1, 2008)

You can get a 2213 or 2215 for under $80 used. Considering the things can last for 10+ years, that's pretty cheap.

Internal filters are weak, don't hold enough media and are obstructive and take up useful space. Better to go with a solid HOB or better yet a canister. 

You could find a decent used Aquaclear 70 for $20 easily.


----------



## blist3rX (Mar 10, 2009)

thanks for the advice everyone!!! ill think about investing into a canister. when i save up for it.


----------



## Cory (May 2, 2008)

If you want cheap and efficient get a good air pump and 2 hydrosponge IIIs or IVs. Will give ya excellent biological filtration, although very little mechanical filtration, sits inside the tank like you wanted and wont cost you a fortune. The sponges are easy to maintain and can't break down on you. Only major downside is their kinda ugly but you can hide them . You will have to keep up on water changes though to ensure you keep a reasonable tds level. Depending on stocking levels that could be anywhere from 1x every 2 weeks to 2x every week .


----------



## xxprudencexx (Sep 3, 2008)

Cory said:


> If you want cheap and efficient get a good air pump and 2 hydrosponge IIIs or IVs. Will give ya excellent biological filtration, although very little mechanical filtration, sits inside the tank like you wanted and wont cost you a fortune. The sponges are easy to maintain and can't break down on you. Only major downside is their kinda ugly but you can hide them . You will have to keep up on water changes though to ensure you keep a reasonable tds level. Depending on stocking levels that could be anywhere from 1x every 2 weeks to 2x every week .


He said it was a planted tank. This kind of filtration would take out too much co2 and would not be beneficial to his planted tank. The best bet on filtration would be canisters, hob, and internals.


----------



## cablemike (Jan 7, 2009)

go to the pickering flea market, the fish guy there will sell you a jebo canister filter for 50.00 and there great.. ive had mine 2 years and its been going strong on my reef tank. I have an eheim 2213 and it anoys the crap out of me.. i find this to be a much better filter and its a third of the price.


----------



## blist3rX (Mar 10, 2009)

cablemike said:


> go to the pickering flea market, the fish guy there will sell you a jebo canister filter for 50.00 and there great.. ive had mine 2 years and its been going strong on my reef tank. I have an eheim 2213 and it anoys the crap out of me.. i find this to be a much better filter and its a third of the price.


wheres the pickering flea market? do they sell anything else? figured I might as well check other places out besides BA.


----------



## Cory_Dad (Apr 18, 2008)

cablemike said:


> go to the pickering flea market, the fish guy there will sell you a jebo canister filter for 50.00 and there great.. ive had mine 2 years and its been going strong on my reef tank. I have an eheim 2213 and it anoys the crap out of me.. i find this to be a much better filter and its a third of the price.


Hmm. I looked them up and they look like an Eheim knock off.

Are they?


----------



## cablemike (Jan 7, 2009)

blist3rX said:


> wheres the pickering flea market? do they sell anything else? figured I might as well check other places out besides BA.


http://www.pickeringmarkets.com/contact


----------



## cablemike (Jan 7, 2009)

Cory_Dad said:


> Hmm. I looked them up and they look like an Eheim knock off.
> 
> Are they?


basically they are.. but they are constructed very well.. i have cleaned it about 6 or 7 times now and it all comes apart and goes back together very well.. the plastic is thick and strong. They are china's biggest maker of fish tank equipment. if it can keep my tank going then i see no problem with a planted tank.


----------



## Cory_Dad (Apr 18, 2008)

Hm, for $50 what can I lose? ya, ya I know Ameekpleco...


----------



## pat3612 (Jan 29, 2008)

cablemike said:


> basically they are.. but they are constructed very well.. i have cleaned it about 6 or 7 times now and it all comes apart and goes back together very well.. the plastic is thick and strong. They are china's biggest maker of fish tank equipment. if it can keep my tank going then i see no problem with a planted tank.


Just curious but how come you had to clean it 6 or 7 times I only clean my Eheim once a year and thats only because I have really hard water.


----------



## ameekplec. (May 1, 2008)

Cory_Dad said:


> Hm, for $50 what can I lose? ya, ya I know Ameekpleco...




Jebo is cheapo.


----------



## Cory_Dad (Apr 18, 2008)

ameekplec. said:


> Jebo is cheapo.


Yes I know they are cheap, but if they last 5 years without any problems $50 is worth the price.

I'm saying I'm going out to buy one this minute, but I'll keep them in mind unless someone gives more than anecdotal evidence that:

a) They fail after < 4-5 years (impeller breaks, seals leak and cost a fortune to replace, case cracks, motor burns out, won't restart after power failure, etc.)

b) The filtration capability is poor compared to other units at the same price (you need 3 Jebo cannisters to get the same filtration as 1 Eheim)

c) They are manufactured using child slave labour

d) They are designed using cad/cam software running undere a microsoft operating system (this should really be 'a')


----------



## dori (Feb 21, 2009)

I will chime in on this as this is the only thing I seem to try nowadays... filterless solutions.

First point is that I think Jebo are good quality products. I have a little pump/powerhead (mini404) and works very well and snaps open and closed for cleaning great. I strapped a piece of sponge over the intake too in case I get larvae shrimp and to prevent my cyclop colony from getting mangled.

I suggest you read Diana Walstad's book "ecology of the planted aquarium" (which I haven't done and is the first book on my to read list.... has really really good reviews and I hear people complaining about Amano books as being pretty -pictures- but weak in scientific details - which I am interested in).

Here is her page with her tanks http://www.aquabotanic.com/diana_walstad_gallery.htm

You can google some more on it.

Now my experience:

I seem to have no fish loss, and no odour with practically no filtration. I nowadays use substrate collected from a nearby stream (includes gravel and sand of various sizes and some topsoil/clay). As soon as you set it up it is a mighty mess for a few days untill the mud settles. I suggest you put a foam/sponge coverthing over a filter intake or powerhead/pump untill things clear up then wash the sponge and put it back for some more. My pleco raises up the top surface mud which gets filtered out this way.

I am in the process of doing this in my 20g tank, but my 10g tank is really good proof of this. I never change water unless a few fishes show signs of something wrong (frayed fins) ... which I attribute to me putting my hands in the tank without rinsing well the soap or my girlfriend inadvertently dropping something in (tank is on a coffee table).

Now given all of the above I do plan on putting some home depot sand on top of everything to keep the mud down at all times.

For your case my suggestion is (if you want to use top-soil) is to put the soil on the bottom of the tank and cover it with a layer of sand. This will keep the mess to a minimum.

One more thing that I do to my tanks is get those craft foams from the dollar store (1mm thick quarter letter size) ... a pack of 50 is a buck. I lay these down on the bottom of the tank in case I have rocks or other unfortunate events happening. Then I put the mud in, then the more rocky/sandy layer.

With the above you need plants to do the filtration for you and water 'bugs' and plankton to break down larger particles. You may see a white cloud for the first few days after the mud settles as topsoil/mud contains ammonia. Whenever you raise mud you get this. So don't be afraid to keep snails in the tank (the smaller kinds with lots of babies are better as they spread more readily in the necessary areas), and other sorts of water living things (when you see something and are unsure of safety, take a pic and ask, or google it).

My tank has Hygro polysperma (very fast grower in low light), hygro difformis (pretty), some species of millfoil (grows slow), which take care of filtration. I also have java fern, a bit of moss, glossostigma in the process of carpetting, dwarf saggitaria, a bannana plant and some sort of crypt.

With the above I have a somewhat overstocked tank that is doing well, and for 3 weeks I moved ALLL the fishes in my 10 gallon tank while I was re-doing the 20 gal and all fishes were happy in fact healed some. I have lots of guppies, 5 neons, 2 danios, 1 dwarf gourami, 3 black mollies, 1 marble angel, lots of endlers, 1 large pleco who starves (I give him cucumber every few days), plenty of ghost shrimp, 1 juvenile crayfish (either procambarus fallax or dwarf cajun or marble marmorkreb). Allong with this I have lots of visible copepods on the glass and between rocks and pond snails.

I have medium or low light (17w/20g) but close to the window and doing great. With a lot of light you may get various sorts of algae but as long as it doesn't attack my plants I find algae to be pretty. Moreover I am happy to see algae because algae filters excess nutrients that the plants don't make use of. I DO fertilize with "leaf zone" every week or so.

Cheers and good luck and I appologise for the lack of utmost coherence and organization 

PS: Everything in the industry is Microsoft OS, except academia, research and embedded applications 

You will have a hard time finding linux versions of software even when the company provides this as the demo/student/evaluation versions are Windows only. Mac is a Unix system for end users and not intended for engineering really (but since it is unix, academia and students love it hehe).


----------



## Cory_Dad (Apr 18, 2008)

dori said:


> I will chime in on this as this is the only thing I seem to try nowadays... filterless solutions.
> 
> First point is that I think Jebo are good quality products. I have a little pump/powerhead (mini404) and works very well and snaps open and closed for cleaning great. I strapped a piece of sponge over the intake too in case I get larvae shrimp and to prevent my cyclop colony from getting mangled.
> 
> ...


Are you some kind of Che Guevara revolutionary or something? 

Wow. Interesting. I thought starting back into this hobby after umpteen years was traumatic. What you're doing really sounds like blasphemy. I'm intrigued but don't have the guts to try it.

Where did you get your ideas from? I'd love to learn more about this.

As for your Linux comments: meh. As per the comments made by Goldman and Sax's vp of IT, North America will be the last hold out to embrace an alternative to micro$oft's stranglehold on innovation and and technology while the rest of the world moves on (and by doing so surpasses North America).

I'm now sorry I put that line in my post. It really has no business being here in the GTA forums. I just had a very frustrating day (like every other day) dealing with m$ bull sh%t.


----------



## dori (Feb 21, 2009)

I understand MS frustration  ... I run debian on my laptop and had been a debian only user for 5 years now  (then again I need unix for school, work, and it also allows me to enjoy a better system for personal use).

As for blasphemy... yes... I find that most people give advice based on what has worked for them, and what has worked for them is a subset of what they have tried. What they have tried is a subset of what they have been advised. And thus goes the vicious cycle.

People are told that water-critters are to be avoided, everything from nature is infected with parasites, bacteria has a negative connotation, algae can only be viewed as ugly and hidious, etc.

Now to explain where I got my ideas... nature... I believe most people are told that in order to maintain so much life in such a small amount of water is impossible without hefty artificial solutions. But the marine people have gone the natural filtration way with live rock and live sand a while back (I found this out as I was doing my blasphemic research) and as time passed I eventually ran into Diana Wastald and her followers and it turns out I was not the first to think what I think and surely won't be the last. I think trends in aquaria are just like fashion.... they re-emerge. It seems late 1800's fishkeepers were fairly all-natural solutionists too and I could understand why (available technology). We are all caught up in a technology frenzy even if tech may not be the best solution. I mean biology and so forth took milenia of evolution to create the complex natural devices of filtration and so forth... we can only provide rather awkward contraptions to deal with the problems.

I did't know about the move away from MS in the rest of the world. Happy to hear it... I knew Suse/Novel was big in Germany and lots of sites are customers of RedHat but... good to know 

Cheers!


----------



## Cory_Dad (Apr 18, 2008)

This is fascinating!

I'm having a hell of a time keeping C. atropersonatus. Out of the 15 I've acquired, only 1 is left. And I have no idea what is wrong. Obvious something is wrong and dollars to donuts it has something to do with the environment. (duh)

I'll do some reading on this. All that you've said makes sense.

As for M$, look to what Europe, Russia, China, etc. are doing. Be afraid; be very afraid.

The M$ paradigm is 'use what we give you, give us your money and shut up'. The innovation paradigm is 'go where you want, do what you want; enjoy'.


----------



## dori (Feb 21, 2009)

I don't know much about corys... I had the small white ones with red eyes when I was little and I never really liked them... they were meant to keep the tank clean ... but they just moved stuff around on the bottom of the tank... moreover I was sad one evening when I came home to find one of the 2 dead because he got caught in a small bottle contraption on the bottom of the tank...

Back then all I could afford for filtration was air pump and sponge filter (no carbon or other media), but for aeration (we had only 1 airpump and no valves etc) me and my dad thought to use something like a listerine bottle with a hole on the side that we'd cover with the thumb and squeeze to create pressure. Air tubing went into a hole in the cap and the other end into some sort of airstone that was in a small bottle (I don't remember why) ... phew.. that was a bunch of useless info haha.

THE NEXT STEP in filterless solutions is to increase the overall water mass... so I am looking for a deep bookshelf to hold my tanks. I just created a DIY overflow between my 2 tanks and would like to have my 2 tanks high up one above the other overflowing one into the other and the lower one into a plastic bay to work as a sump at the bottom of the shelf.

The reason I do this is because the sump works as a plant propagation tank, the 10g is a shrimp and breeding tank and the 20g is a community tank (I wish I had a 30G... but I can't justify spending the money... tight on cash haha). All of the extra water circulation would allow the nutrients to get to the plants that require them AND one could make a very large sump for very low cost as plastic containers are cheap at walmart. All you need is a small pump (10-15 dollars for my jebo I believe).

How do the overflows work? All intakes are sponge covered to keep fry and larvae in their tanks. There is a siphon into a soy milk jug (from the chinese market) that had the handle cut off and bottom side melted and 'welded' shut (sealed) while the top side goes into a hose to lead to the other tank. in the other tank we have a pump that leads to the first tank. Job done. I might post in the DIY forum with pictures.


----------



## Chris S (Dec 19, 2007)

I have tried filterless tanks, and have run two aquariums based on Walstad's book.

It works to a degree, but as for it mimicing nature...I have to disagree.

Filterless tanks, in my opinion, are really much further from replicating nature than ones with filters.

Why is this? Well, look at just about any water system that fish live in. The ratio of many things is skewed: Plant life to fish? A million times higher than you will ever recreate in a 10-100g tank. Bacteria to fish? Again, I can't see how you can recreate the ratio in a decently sized tank, unless you are running like a 50g tank with 2 small fish. How about just overall gallonage, and therefore fresh, filtered water (in hopefully non-polluted areas!)? I find it hard to think recreating this is even remotely possible in an aquarium setup.

I think most people with any degree of experience in the hobby look as bacteria as the lifeblood of a tank, not something bad. Canister filters, for example, not only create a wonderful hotbed of healthy bacteria, but also increase the gallonage of a tank. This is more natural than having no filtration at all, as it helps to recreate the HUGE amount of bacteria available in a lake or river system while also allowing more gallonage to flow through the tank.

Which brings me to water changes. With the exception of a few instances I can think of, most lake and river systems have a much higher turnover rate of water than we can possibly hope to replicate in a home aquarium - water changes help to mimic this.

As for creating a sump - this is probably the absolute best way of filtration. Running a 20g tank with a 20g sump chalk full of plants? Perfect.

That doesn't mean that a canister filter is "artificial", at least not anymore than running a 20g tank, with or without a filter, and calling it "natural".

A note on you not doing water changes too though: I'm not sure I would ever feel comfortable waiting until my fish showed physical signs of low water quality before doing a water change. I think the science behind them has really proven the absolute benefit both to your fish and your plants.

It is certainly an interesting topic though.


----------



## ameekplec. (May 1, 2008)

Walstad is a great read, but IMO, in systems where you can't support the full gamut of the predator-prey food chain and faithfully recreate a "natural" environment from the microfauna all the way to apex predators, all you are doing is lowering the capacity of your tank to hold oragnisms of a higher degree. You just can't have 10 fish in a 20g tank as that population density is just not natural. Try one or two fish in 10g of tank water, and maybe you'll come out semi-successful.

I agree with Chris in that no experienced aquarist will ever say that bacteria in your systems are bad. If you keep a sterile system, everything will die. The use of such things as filters gives Nitrifying and denitrifying (not generally - usually a deep substrate organism) bacteria a place to live well beyond what is available in the aquarium. Additionally, because of the high turnover of water in the small volume of space occupied by the media and hence the bacteria, the contact time with the bacteria's substrates is maximized versus stagnant flow in the aquarium.

In natural systems, as Chris also mentioned, there is constant turnover of not only water, but substances within the water column too. Things are able to move freely as it is an open system, unlike the confines of an aquarium where things are either depleted or build up unnaturally (and usually fairly quickly). 

I really think you're short changing your fish by not doing water changes. Sure, when you test for Nitrates, nitrites and ammonia, you may be coming up with zeros all around. But there are also other factors such as trace elements which are often overlooked, yet so vital for long term success of any organism. And I too would be very uncomfortable of waiting until my fish show outward signs of physical distress to the point of physical damage - I worry when I perceive that coloration is not as it always is - I couldn't imagine letting them suffer further till they are falling apart.

I found it funny that you drew in the marine folks and the Berlin method. If you haven't noticed reefers use a lot of equipment to maintain "natural" conditions - I've seen systems that cost thousands of dollars to set up, require copious dosing regimes, substrate reactors, protein skimmers, mechanical and chemical filtration processes. Not very "natural" in your definition.

The use of live rock is the same as the use of media in a filter - it provides areas for the colonization of bacteria. Seemingly different, but actually entirely the same. All you are doing by adding a filter is adding more volume and adding greater biological activity in your system.

While I'm not saying that you need to buy the latest and greatest, I am advocating buying quality proven equipment and properly outfitting your system to best keep your inhabitants.

And the sump idea is great. And the 30g? Look on price network. There are always cheap "fish room" tanks being thrown around there for very cheap.


----------



## dori (Feb 21, 2009)

to Chris: I agree... with most of that stuff. And mind you... the following is my opinion and may as well not be right or accurate.

Yes, the sump would be a "filter" but quite a natural one IMO given the plants that USE the amonia, nitrates, and nitrites. The canister filter ONLY allows bacteria to break down ammonia to a non-toxic form time when it is removed through water changes rather then recycled by plants (which is the natural method).

The canister filter has a negligible volume to consider it as increasing the gallonage IMO.

I disagree with the ratio of plant to fish that you are talking about... very much! I have not done statistics but I consider some logic deductions to be fairly accurate... I will consider local waters as they are what I have observed (I have always loved fishing and grew up fishing). I believe warmer areas (tropical) are scaled up proportionally in all respects as the metabolism of all life is faster in warmer/brighter places.

1. Canals (standing water) are the most plant-heavy bodies of water, and are ridiculously loaded with fish (large carps and so forth) birds, turtles, bugs, larvae, everything you can imagine, so much so that it smells quite awful with all the organic matter decomposing.

2. Streams and rivers contain very little vegetation, being mostly sand and rocky banks... The number of fishes is relatively low as well. Ratio is once again fairly proportional.

3. Large lakes and water bodies are relatively dense with large fishes with more of the smaller ones close to the shores. These large water bodies happen to be deeper allowing for less light penetration to the bottom. Thus the majority of vegetation is abundant close to the shores where most of the small fishes live and hide.

Wherever there is water that has vegetation fairly deeply, there are small fishes hiding in there and bigger predators such as the pike (which is a LOT of fun to catch ).

So a well planted aquarium (aquascape levels but not requiring the art, co2 and abundant light) with lots of fishes should be pretty close to shores or standing water, and while maintaining some proper ratio between plants and fishes things should be right with the world.

I can understand the worry of not doing water changes... the more expensive my fish are or the more I am attached to them the more I worry myself (despite being a believer in this ... blasphemous cult )

Cheers!

PS. The biggest issues with the filterless method IMO are raising up mud and dust causing 1-2 days worth of amonia spike which may hurt a few fishes (frayed fins) which heal back quickly (but a few smaller ones like guppy fry may not make it... I don't care much as they feed my shrimp, but it is a shortcoming worth mentioning). I think the choice of substrate I had is ok but I HAVE to add a layer of heavier sand to keep the dust down.

to amplek:
I don't think the size of the tank is of importance as long as a relative ratio is maintained... plants are a REQUIREMENT
With the proper natural substrate and water circulation I believe enough 'stuff' ... trace elements and minerals would dissolve into the water to mimic what happens in a stream.

About the marine folks... yes I am aware of the expense as I gave up on a nano cube due to cost  

The live rock and sand are NOT the same as the media of a filter as in a FW filter practically everyone agrees that it exists to provide a place for denitrifying bacteria to thrive.... nothing else to live. Live sand and rock has more plancton like copepods and amphipods and various forms of algae which help a whole lot. FW folks find these things very ugly or undesirable and fear them as they may be potential parasites (and I would to in my main tank in which I spent lots of $). I don't suggest anyone do any experiments in anything involving a lot of $ or emotional involvement/attachment... also it is a good idea to keep it humane and spare the animals grief if there are hints of failure (I keep a safety tank and if anything hints bad, I literally move ALL the fishes in the safe zone .... you never know if I had soapy hands or something... better safe then sorry)

Ultimately I think I was mighty wrong to suggest this in the beginner forum. It is too easy to mess up. Hell planted tanks are not quite the first thing most people try.

30g tank ... there's also the issue of space... I rent a room with my girlfriend and both tanks and 'sump' are practically on my desk hahaha ... she gets jealous on the fishes ... says I take more care of them ... 

One last thing... I do keep predators around to keep the tank in more of a self-contained ecosystem state... turtles, a crayfish (that eats my plants) and snails and planktonic inverts. I'll HAVE to go to a larger tank when turts grow...

the EDIT was the reply to amplek

OH one more thing... I don't normally have to feed my fishes. They eat stuff that grows around the aquarium. Feeding would unbalance the system, but since I do prune plants, I feed them once or 2ice a week. I just got the turts again (first try was 6 months ago; it was a present and didn't have a setup. They died and it triggered my obsession to get a perfect setup before I get them again. I was depressed for 2 weeks when I lost them) and feeding and other things may change a lot so I have to watch out.

LAST thing: I change things as I make observations and I go along... that's the hobby and that's what drives me. I could go out buy everything (instead of collect, yadda), and filters and so forth set it up and be done with it, but I don't do it to have a decoration in my room for guests to look at (don't really have guests here anyway haha).

ANOTHER thing... water evaporates... trace elements ARE introduced through topups... otherwise my walls would be opaque with calcium.


----------



## ameekplec. (May 1, 2008)

Have you ever seen a tropical river or stream? They are full of plants. Canals have fairly poor population densities due to the slow flow (and generally deep channels dug for passage of boats) - the depth really limits plant growth in substrates, thus reducing the biological capacity of these bodies of water. And the reason we see fish like carp and such there? Because they can eat the garbage that no other fish do and can withstand poor conditions with low circulation and low dissolved oxygen.

Lakes being full of big fish is also a big fish. A cursory intro into limnology would tell you that the population density of large fish in lakes of any size is relatively small compared to small/tiny species of fish and inverts. You really can't keep the population density you would see naturally in an aquarium - like I said, you'd be looking at no fish. I can promise you that even in the mighty amazon, there is less than 1 fish per every 10 gallons of river.

With regards to the size of the system, what I am saying is that to have a balanced system that does not require constant care (as in a nano) would have to be very large to just "set it and forget it" as you seem to have. The stability of such a small system is not there - you yourself said that whenever a minor occurrence like the mud gets disturbed, you get a spike - in a stable system that is sufficiently large or can handle the nutrient export, such a spike should never happen. 

And an argument like "they heal back quickly" is irresponsible. Frayed fins are one thing, toxic ammonia burn to their gills and microvasculature and mucus membranes is another thing all together. It's like me clogging the vents in your room, you getting CO poisioning once every two weeks, and saying "oh, he'll be fine in a few days". Every two weeks. For the rest of your (unnaturally short due to constant environmental disturbances) life. Not good.

Filters in both SW and FW systems (LR in marine, filter media in FW) allow surfaces for not only nitrifying bacertia (Not denitrifying bacteria - they require hypoxic conditions as they are anerobes and don't thrive in filters or exposed surfaces very well) but also micro/macroscopic life to develop. And the planktonic development in FW systems is perhaps not as robust in FW systems (mainly the zooplanktons) but on the lower end of the system it's well developed. And by not having the filter, you're effectively taking away colonization surfaces and chances for substrate utilization.

And again, only those uninformed about zooplanktons that are commonly found in FW Aquaria (ie copepods, cyclops, etc etc) are "scared" of them. But the same thing happens in marine aquaria too - the funniest forum posts are newbies freaking about the "aliens" in their tank, and if what they need to do to get rid of them.

Personally I just think Walstads method not sufficient to properly keep the density of fish that most people want to keep in tanks that people usually have (smaller tanks).


----------



## Chris S (Dec 19, 2007)

dori said:


> Yes, the sump would be a "filter" but quite a natural one IMO given the plants that USE the amonia, nitrates, and nitrites. The canister filter ONLY allows bacteria to break down ammonia to a non-toxic form time when it is removed through water changes rather then recycled by plants (which is the natural method).


I prefer to depend on my plants to keep my nitrates down, but assume that bacteria does the grunt work of ammonia->nitrite->nitrate. Since plants can typically use ammonium/ammonia better, they likely play a role there as well (but I would prefer them to just eat up my nitrates!). In nature (ie. the NATURAL way), bacteria plays a massive role in the nitrogen cycle when compared to plants.



dori said:


> The canister filter has a negligible volume to consider it as increasing the gallonage IMO.


Well, on my 20g tanks an eheim 2213 adds probably 5% extra gallonage (or something like that, not sure how much holding space is actually in there). For me that isn't really negligible!



dori said:


> I disagree with the ratio of plant to fish that you are talking about... very much! I have not done statistics but I consider some logic deductions to be fairly accurate... I will consider local waters as they are what I have observed (I have always loved fishing and grew up fishing). I believe warmer areas (tropical) are scaled up proportionally in all respects as the metabolism of all life is faster in warmer/brighter places.
> 
> 1. Canals (standing water) are the most plant-heavy bodies of water, and are ridiculously loaded with fish (large carps and so forth) birds, turtles, bugs, larvae, everything you can imagine, so much so that it smells quite awful with all the organic matter decomposing.


You will also notice many of these areas are absolutely chalk full of plants, especially here in Canada where you will find massive amounts of aquatic vegetation such as Camboba and Vallisenria. You will also notice, typically, a lot of shoreline and semi-aquatic vegatation that you won't be able to reproduce properly in a home aquarium. While I won't argue that fish-life is abundant, I would argue that plant life is even more abundant, especially in standing water such as swamp areas and natural canals. Even man-made canals often have serious problems with an over-abundance of nuisance plants.



dori said:


> 2. Streams and rivers contain very little vegetation, being mostly sand and rocky banks... The number of fishes is relatively low as well. Ratio is once again fairly proportional.


I'm not sure if you are using the Don River as an example, but most streams and rivers I know of have a large abundance of plant life. Keep in mind, there are often large areas of extreme plant growth due to nutrient run-offs that in essence act as filters for the water entering the main bodies of water. Also, streams and rivers are not self-contained, but part of a larger water system. These rocks and sand you speak of are also hotbed's for bacteria. The gallonage ratio of gallons:fish is larger than you will ever really reproduce in an aquarium.



dori said:


> 3. Large lakes and water bodies are relatively dense with large fishes with more of the smaller ones close to the shores. These large water bodies happen to be deeper allowing for less light penetration to the bottom. Thus the majority of vegetation is abundant close to the shores where most of the small fishes live and hide.


Absolutely. In large bodies of water, there is little to no vegetation growth where there is no light. Beyond 10m of depth, you won't find much plant growth at all. Much like streams and rivers, there are usually areas of massive aquatic plant growth - where rivers and streams enter and leave the body of water and where springs feed into the lakes. The fish that populate these lakes are also only in specific areas, often depending on the species and the temperature. There are vast areas of water that see little to no fish. To reproduce only the footprint of one of these areas in a home aquarium is going way beyond this water:fish ratio, that isn't even including the depth. Let's keep in mind too that unlike an aquarium, these bodies of water are in an open system - you have forests, shoreline plants, rain-fall and a constant turnover of new water, due to the nature of water systems.



dori said:


> So a well planted aquarium (aquascape levels but not requiring the art, co2 and abundant light) with lots of fishes should be pretty close to shores or standing water, and while maintaining some proper ratio between plants and fishes things should be right with the world.


If you take a snapshot of an area, such as what you are speaking of, you may be right. You are forgetting the massive system that it is a PART of though. I could look at a tight school of minnows, see that 150 of them are in about 20g of water, but I can't assume that it is therefore ok for me to keep 150 minnows in a 20g tank. In fact, I think you will agree that that is absolutely ridiculous.

I'm an advocate of planted aquariums, so don't get me wrong. Every tank I have has plants in them. Plants are only part of a natural system though, which is what I am trying to explain. They have great benefit to any aquarium. To try and suggest they are a replacement for a proper bed of bacteria though - that is something I can't agree with.



dori said:


> PS. The biggest issues with the filterless method IMO are raising up mud and dust causing 1-2 days worth of amonia spike which may hurt a few fishes (frayed fins) which heal back quickly (but a few smaller ones like guppy fry may not make it... I don't care much as they feed my shrimp, but it is a shortcoming worth mentioning). I think the choice of substrate I had is ok but I HAVE to add a layer of heavier sand to keep the dust down.


Honestly, it sounds like you have some water quality problems. Mud and dust does not equate to ammonia spikes. The only frayed fins my fish ever got was from male/female aggression during breeding.

One last thing I wanted to comment on:



dori said:


> ...in a FW filter practically everyone agrees that it exists to provide a place for denitrifying bacteria to thrive.... nothing else to live.


Actually, nitrifying bacteria are of more importance there! I also have various colonies of shrimp living in my canisters


----------



## dori (Feb 21, 2009)

I think saying bacteria plays a more important role is like saying that in a guitar strings make 50% of the sound, the rest is the neck material.... when really you can't have sound without either. Bacteria break things down (and I did not say I don't rely on it in my tank.. I just believe there is enough circulation across the substrate where the mass of zoo-plankton lives (my water is in permanence slightly green to do planty work... buffer). I love algae (of course not when they kill my plants but when balanced that sort of algae doesn't show up).

Canals = irrigation canals, where there aren't boats going by. They are the most plant heavy and we're all talking with no statistics to back up. I never lived in the east side so I don't know much about Don except that it gives a BEAUTIFUL biking trail 

I believe you make an overemphasis on water turnover. It is very important particularly with pollutants and whatnot, but when things are kept in balance I think it doesn't make much of a difference. Deeper in the water there may be the opposite of good things such as anaerobic bacteria and the water turnover may really bring bad thins to the living areas. I haven't done the research but I'll take your word for it if you have.

When I say balance I MEAN average density of vegetation over the whole body of water (stream or what you want)... thus the 150 minnows would not be 150/20g but something very different. I have very small fish in my aquarium. The equivalent of max 15 adults or so I would say. 

And once and for all... I NEVER said bacteria is bad... on the contrary. I just believe that the substrate and water column can provide an adequate home and a filter is not a necessity when things are kept in check and a balance is made.

Plants are the END OF THE LINE of the carbon cycle time when they are eaten by fishes, turts and crayfish to continue the cycle. Algae are another equivalent end of the line that provide food for shrimp fishes and plankton. 

My issue with regular aquarium methods is the LACK of a cycle. That really means you don't need to feed because the carbon and minerals are right there at all times. Now as your fishes may grow a bit, you need to increase some nutrient content in the tank as these nutrients get locked in fish bodies which ends up preserving the balance of water contents.

I feel sorry for your shrimp haha.. never getting to see the light of day  JK

And about being accused of being irresponsible and having water quality problems... for one... there is no empirical research without experiments. And I love theory (weather I come up with it or read the fine print in science books) but if I come to any conclusion I can never know if I missed something until I find a counterexample or maybe find the missing parameter and include it in the equation.

For one the mud/dust DOES create spikes as the top layer of the substrate is mostly organic material like fish and snail waste which is practically dust but organic dust that is colonized by bacteria. When it is lifted up in the water column, the contact surface becomes greater allowing for ammonia to dissolve thus creating a spike.

I re-setup the 20 G according to this new method after testing it in the 10g for 2-3 months. For a month or so mud/dust keeps coming up and I filter it with sponges that I rinse until water runs clear. Then I put fishes in, but I may do some replanting or the pleco may raise dust so I keep filtering. If I attempt to vacuum the substrate or raise major hell, when the water clears it remains milky and fishes may be hurt, thus I don't do that. It happened once and I become alarmed. Then it happened the 2nd time and I learned the pattern. That doesn't mean I do it on purpose or I keep doing it. Moreover larger bodies of water would not have me going in and raising all the organic waste thus there wouldn't be such problems in nature because we'd eliminate the problem = me haha.

Hanyway, I really ought to do my assignments now. I am happy I have turts again and are eating a lot (healthy animals ) even my plants, but I removed my 3cm long crayfish as he was eating my plants.... and I let them untill he munched my glossostigma overnight.


----------



## Chris S (Dec 19, 2007)

The argument here is more that by creating a so-called "natural" aquarium setup (by the methods you have outlined), you are actually creating a tank that is further from natural than if you actually used proper filtration.

Perhaps your interpretation of natural means less "stuff" in the tank and less "devices" doing things to alter your water chemistry, but mine revolves solely around water quality. I can't agree that your substrate and water column hold even close to the same degree of nitrifying bacteria to replicate what happens in nature. In fact, your water column holds close to zero in terms of bacteria.

My tanks don't lack a cycle and by doing regular maintenance on them I improve and encourage the natural cycles to work to their fullest to provide the fish I keep with the best water quality I can feasibly provide.

Not feeding your fish (even Walstad encourages slight _over_-feeding to provide nutrients for plant growth) and not doing water changes even when you see ill-effects on your fish (frayed fins aren't "natural") is irresponsible.


----------



## characinfan (Dec 24, 2008)

dori said:


> there is no empirical research without experiments. And I love theory (weather I come up with it or read the fine print in science books) but if I come to any conclusion I can never know if I missed something until I find a counterexample or maybe find the missing parameter and include it in the equation.
> 
> For one the mud/dust DOES create spikes as the top layer of the substrate is mostly organic material like fish and snail waste which is practically dust but organic dust that is colonized by bacteria. When it is lifted up in the water column, the contact surface becomes greater allowing for ammonia to dissolve thus creating a spike.


1. Generations of aquarists have been experimenting on the creatures in their tanks and the kind of filtration method generally recommended these days (canister filters and/or sumps) are backed up by hundreds of thousands of experiments. If you like to try reinventing the wheel, that's up to you, however, I think people here are concerned that you might be putting fish through unnecessary stress in order to prove a point that's already been proven many times over. Filtration and water changes are not junk science or cult-like hand waving. They are advocated by experienced aquarists because they work.

2. It sounds to me that there is anaerobic activity going on in the undisturbed mud. If you disturb it, of course the cycle is going to go off-kilter. As for the detritus on top of the mud, in the wild, snail waste, etc. would constitute a much smaller proportion of the substrate, and bacteria and fungi would be breaking this stuff down and plants would be taking it up before it would accumulate to the degree that you describe. A tank is such a small system that bottlenecks in any one area can throw things off. This is why removing waste with water changes is widely advocated. It's to compensate for the excessive biological load in closed systems of a constrained size.

3. It's not the volume of water in a canister filter that's as important as the population of bacteria sustained on the filter media and the amount of water it's in contact with as the water passes through the filter. More bacteria having contact with water as it passes through (optimum throughput rate) = cleaner water, healthier tank.


----------



## dori (Feb 21, 2009)

I swear I can prove you wrong 

Walstad overfeeds, but I didn't get my idea from her thus there are differences. I try to have an ecosystem in a tank.

What the "I" does we believe to be the most right thing and responsible and so on, and I am guilty of it too. I think you're all responsible though. I also think I am... as I check the size of the bellies of my fishes... they eat plants, algae, fungus, snails, stuff from the substrate (cyclops, I would add scud/gammarus here but they ate them all before they got to get established and I can't get any more at this time of the year as it is too cold outside for them to live).

And if I see frayed fins I DO a MASSIVE water change or move the fishes to another tank (and in a few days the first tank goes back to normal). I just don't ever see frayed fins really. I wanted to point out that they do heal back... and rather quickly. Water quality improves back quickly. 

Whenever I disturbed my gravel (back when the filterless solution was with aquarium gravel... and it worked for 4 months ... no water changes) which was once before I tore it down I got a giant spike. No anaerobic there.

Filters work, other things work too... that's my point or hypothesis at least. 

Oh... and more water going through the filter = quicker ammonia>nitrite>nitrate... it does NOT remove the nitrogen from the water. Plants do remove it. It is more of a peace of mind of 0 ammonia and nitrite which are harmful indeed. Ammonia is not usually a problem as that sort of bacteria explodes in a few hours (right in the water column thus the milky look). I am assuming as I don't quite know, but I think that the ammonia>nitrite bacteria reproduces very fast blooming and breaking down ammonia quickly after which it is left with insufficient ammonia and starts dying to population levels that are supported by the steady small supply of ammonia (sort of a Poisson distribution PMF graph spike). The nitrite>nitrate bacteria, I believe, multiplies a lot slower (quote from microbewiki about nitrospira the dominant bacteria at this stage: "However, Nitrospira and similar bacteria are slow-growing organisms") thus the nitrite may linger for a bit too long and cause damage if an ammonia spike should occur. Nitrite stage might be an issue but all of these are dependent on a sudden introduction of a significant amount of nitrogen in the system (which can't happen without feeding), also known as an unbalance (as a sudden cut in ammonia supply would mess things up too... but it isn't quite possible as various sorts of waste are all over the tank slowly dissolving and leaching ammonia).

Fungus is another good buddy that helps decompose things without inducing any sort of spike. Fungus also feeds plecos.

And all the frayed ends and so forth happened because I made mistakes... from which I learned. I really believe the method works, but suit yourself and use filters. I know people "love to watch things eat" so taking "feeding time" out of the hobby doesn't sound like fun for a lot of people, although you can still catch the animals eat in more "natural" moments.

I'll stop here as we're debating semantics rather then what's going on and if it is possible. 

Happy fishin'


----------

