"Natural" closed biotope?

chef.lewis

New member
I'm not sure how advanced this topic is, but I've read about "cryptic" zones and plenums, DSB's and refugiums etc., so I'm wondering if it is possable.
Does anybody here have any experience with a "natural" system?
What I mean is, a system that uses only natural filtration, no skimmers, filter socks, sponges or the like.
Maybe GAC being the only exception?
 
Its possible. I've seen systems over seas that actually have an Aiptasia section in their sump followed by a UV filter to keep any Aiptasia that may break off to prevent them from inhabiting the display tank.

They also use a DSB in a large sump with various other macro algaes. The only way to do this would be to place the sump and refugium on top of the aquarium and have it gravity feed to the tank to prevent the impellers in the pump from chewing the pods up.

They also heavily use liverock in their sumps for gathering beneficial bacteria.

There are many versions of different types of system. Some skimmerless, some are not. Its all up to you and what you plan to keep in the tank and how much you are willing to spend. Livestock loss is expected until you can get the system setup correctly. So that's a downfall unless you can break it down scientifically.
 
It *is* another "oh no, here we go again thread" :)

Google "Leng Sy" if you want info on the first natural systems.

"Natural" means many different things, and I don't think there's much GAC in the ocean.

A truly natural system would have no light other than sunlight, no mechanical filtration, no skimmer, no powerheads or air bubblers for water circulation....I don't think anyone wants to go there :)

-R
 
Who said "truly natural" ? You mean like the ocean? My livingroom is big, but not that big!
Thanks for the "leng Sy" I will check it out.
What got me started on this question is an artical I found on a guy named "Eng". I am sure some of you have heard about him. He is one of the earlier practitioners of reefkeeping. It is said that he accomplished it with an airstone.
 
Interesting can 'o worms you are opening. I think by 'natural' you mean low tech as in fewer artificial filtering monitoring and control systems like skimmers, resins, ph monitors and dosers etc.

Do a search on skimmerless. There is also a very good thread on the Marine Depot forums in Borneman's forum on skimmerless tanks.

I am currently running such a system. The only filtration I do is carbon, when I remember to change it that is and a sand bed.

My current system consists of 2 interconnected 40g tanks with one being a refugium. The primary occupants are seahorses and it is an algal dominated system; the antithesis of what people here consider successful. It is, however, a very appropriate system for the animals I am keeping.

I have tried keeping a few corals in the tank, but it is very hard to keep them from being overun by algae.

The goals of my system were to create an environment that my seahorses would be happy and healthy in and to produce as much live food for them as possible.

Given that one of the horses is a natural, in-tank recruit from one of the many spawnings, and that he has survived for two years and produces his own fry now, I think I have a very successful 'natural' tank. Note that he feeds only on the live food produced by the tank.

Eric Borneman runs a similar multi tank system that is coral domintated. If your goal is to keep stony corals than at a minimum you need to resort to 'artificial' methods of calcium replenishment as the species density in our sysems is infinately higher than in the ocean.

By the way, neither Eric nor I do water changes either.

There is much opinion and very little research on such sytems.

Also, every system has limitations.

As you rightly pointed out, the only truely natural system is the ocean. It is, after all, an open system

Fred
 
i have a 150 gallon skimmerless tank w a 20 gallon sump. i use only a filter sock and carbon occasionally. this system has a lot of algea(not a problem for me). also i a don't do WC very often. maybe 20 a month. i am throwing in the towel on my system because i want to keep more corals and non-photosynthetic creatures, which i already do, so i feed very heavily. recently i have had a cyano break out(a problem for me) and i cannot deal with all the extra maintenance, so i got a skimmer. my failure is directly related to flawed planning. a fuge, higher flow from the beginning and maybe an ATS would have kept my system doable. i think more WC should have been implimented from the beginning, and a system that made it easier to do so i would actually do them. Do you consider ATS natural? I would and i think it may be the alternative you are looking for.
 
If waterchanges don't disqualify a tank as a natural closed biotope I have 4 nano tanks set up that way, one 5 years old and one 4 years old. No skimmer, no mechanical filtration. I drip kalk for topoff and use carbon once in a rare while. Fish are also fed twice a day so there is nutrient import. They all get 10% waterchanges every 10 days.

Would this be a viable set up for larger tanks ? I don't see why not. The cost of just a skimmer and the electricity to run it would pay for a lot of waterchanges. Add in all the other equipment and chemicals people buy to maintain their tanks and waterchanges look cheap.

This setup is just a scaled down version of a "real" tank and it's been running this way for 4 years,



2DSCN3077.jpg
 
Thank you all for your input.
That is a great set-up Agu!
I have been wondering alot about this type of set-up, and it does seem viable for long term success if I were to get just the right ingredients.
I think Fredfish has the right idea.
Such a system is quite viable in my opinion, but as yet it is very limited.
I am going to research this as fully as I can and have decided to give it a shot! It will be a long term project, and I will be starting in April. I am thinking an 80 gallon display with LR/macro/DSB/plenum and a 60 gallon sump/refuge/cryptic zone.
Is there anything that I am forgetting?
 
I have a "natural" setup that is similar to what you describe. I keep a variety of fish including seahorses, sea moths, tangs and a mandarin. I have a combination of gorgonians, non-photo synthetic corals and over 20 species of macros/seagrasses. I have never used a skimmer on this tank, nutrient export is achieved via macro trimming and 20 mangroves. You can see pictures and specs in this thread.

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1160264
 
The only thing that comes to mind on this thread. Is turff/agea scrubbers. Inland aquatics use this a lot with no skimming.
 
What would this be classified as?

30g Cube bare bottom with a halide light and 3 powerheads and a heater. No filtration other then live rock and no skimmer or fuge. No monitors other then a thermometer.

For nutrient/nitrate export i have live bottleneck clams in the tank and do a 5g water change once a week.

If i used natural sea water would this tank then be classified as natural?
 
Regmangrove, you are a better man than I. I just can't seem to keep up with the algae trimming in my tank. I admit though that I am not very good or consistant with tank maintenance.

Such a system is quite viable in my opinion, but as yet it is very limited.
I'm not sure why you think it is limited. It is simply a different way of maintaining a tank. While I ended up with an algae dominated tank, Eric Borneman has very very nice coral dominated tanks using the same methods.

At some point, when I have more free time, and when the current tank inhabitants pass on of old age, I will re-do my setup. The plan is to move to a much bigger main tank that will support herbivours such as tangs or rabbit fish to chontrol algae in the main tank. With sufficient turnover between the refugium and the main tank, I am confident that algae can be used as the sole means of nutrient export.

Fred
 
I have a 75g sps/soft coral tank that I run with no mechanical filtration. I grow mangroves,xenia, and several types of Macro alga's on a reverse daylight photo period, for nutrient export. I do use carbon on my tank, that I replace once a month.
I change ten gallons of water every two or three months and once went eight months with no noticeable problems. The only parameters that I monitor are SG, Temp, CAL/ALK, and PH. I would say that this is the easiest type of tank to maintain. I leave this tank with my roommates for up two months at a time and all they do is feed the fish and fill up my ro container.
I don't think skimmers are all that bad and I even think of getting one from time to time, But then I ask myself, why fix what isn't broke.
 
Back
Top