Puffer Community

[RTR]

Unfortunately, it is only very very rarely effective to attempt rearing prey species in the same tank as the predatory species. A connected refugium tank with passive outflow to the predator tank can provide some food and the impetus to search and explore however, even if not providing a full diet.

Waldstad tanks (handled per her book) tend to high to very high nitrate levels which are not beneficial to puffers (or other fish for that matter). The concept of a so-called "balanced" aquarium has never been demonstrated in reality. Entropy gets you in the end.

[bertie 83]

I have several low stocked tanks and they are what I like about the hobby, easy maintenance and fun to watch. When you can see a fishes personality it is great

[gkai]

Hi tenacious, did you start your tank already? Really curious about how it will go, as I plan something quite similar

[RTR]

LOL! Why do you think that my signature line is what it is? I have no issues at all with tanks which appear at first glance to be empty. Probably at least half of my tanks appear empty at first glance. They are not. They are the most interesting of my tanks for extended watching and contemplation.

I do have to say that I played w/Ms. Waldstad's tank style many years ago when she first self-published her book. I have not followed any changes over the intervening years, as I found the original concepts unsatisfactory. I fear that I disagree rather strongly with her techniques as originally presented. I have not followed any later developments as I believe her original conclusions to be erroneous. I do not like or operate high-nitrate tanks or those which reek of cyclic organics. I run quite a few rather complex systems, but they do not smell or have high nitrate titers. Unfortunately, my tanks are still operated with techniques based of water changes. But then, so are most water systems in the wild.

[Master of Puffers]

Some puffers would live happily in groups in there, if you would consider brackish water you could do f8 puffers and bumblebee gobies as they often mix ok. In a tank as large as yours you have many possibilities. No tank is too big for a puffer lol

I've had a lot of success with low end brackish with archer fish and either GSPs and F8s.

My first brackish was 24 inch deep tank but only 18 inches of water/substrate depth meaning the archers had plenty of shooting space. I alson kept bumblebee gobies and monos. Scats for a time but I wasn't keen on them.

[Master of Puffers]

Remember, with puffers less is often more. You really get to see personalities if you give them more space. I would go for 4, I have kept pairs of dps in 90l tanks and they burst with personality. Once the puffers realise the link between humans and food they will be out scooting round the tank every time you are in the room.

Oh yes to the last sentance. The fahaka which lives in a tank outside our bedroom is far more interactive with us as a family than the one which lives in a basement tank. The red eye red tail whose tank is next to my desk spends a good portion of it's time crusing around looking at me.

[Stratters]

I have one juvenile Hairy in a 210l tank. He's really happy, and interacts a lot. It's also really easy to care for the tank. I'd much rather that, and prefer my understocked tank to my daughter's 210l community tank, his personality shines in his big tank.

[RTR]

Puffers - and a great many other fish as well - are so much better when they have space in which to actually swim around freely. Even the lurkers have more personality in such tanks.

[Stratters]

Piggy is supposed to be a lurker; I don't think he got that memo, because he's pretty active. Goes to bed early, straight after his dinner, but the rest of the day he spends mooching about, inspecting stuff, and playing in the current. Unless he spots us, then it's straight to the glass for a spot of begging

[gkai]

I do have to say that I played w/Ms. Waldstad's tank style many years ago when she first self-published her book. I have not followed any changes over the intervening years, as I found the original concepts unsatisfactory. I fear that I disagree rather strongly with her techniques as originally presented. I have not followed any later developments as I believe her original conclusions to be erroneous. I do not like or operate high-nitrate tanks or those which reek of cyclic organics. I run quite a few rather complex systems, but they do not smell or have high nitrate titers. Unfortunately, my tanks are still operated with techniques based of water changes. But then, so are most water systems in the wild.

AFAIK there was no big changes in the method, except maybe that she has been very willing to compromise/go less extreme w.r.t filtration. She do not like standing waters anymore I think, instead now strongly advice to have at least non trivial water movement with pumps, and even recommend to go with filters, especially canister. Maybe smaller filters than usually recommended, mostly she target the upper tank size in manufacturers recomendations, contrary to most amateurs (myself included) that use filters at the lower end (or even below) their advertized tank capacity ranges, i.e. oversized canisters.

My experience is much more limited in time and tank variety than yours, in fact I always had a single Walstad-like 90l for the 2.5 years I am in the hobby. But this experience has been very positive. No strong smell (a faint one, but I have a sensitive smell sense and this smell is present in lakes, ponds and river, and high tech tanks too It's just the normal smell of water with a bio load, contrary to the (more or less faint) chlorine smell of tab water or zero smell of demineralized one. It's certainly not the humus like smell you have in standing ponds without much plants, nor rotting smell.

I do not follow 100% her method, in particular I do small water changes (maybe 5-10% per week) because my open tank loose water by evaporation and I try to avoid over/under mineralisation. Also, my tank is overstocked (guppies tends to do that) and is more strongly lighted than typical Walstad (good for strong plant growth, but have a little bit of green hair algae).
Still, I have the typical Walstad soil, minimal (although non-zero) waterchange, lot of floating/emergent plants and low tech approach, including not much water testing after the setup phase.

This explain why I did not answer before, I had no nitrate test at hand, basically I did not tested my water except for pH for the last year...So, after buying this nitrate test, I propose a small game to the board: below you will find two tests, done at about 30 min intervals (so the light was essentially the same - it helps for comparing photo colors)

The game is to guess what water I did use in those two tests (left and right)....

[gkai]

Looks like my game flopped :'(
Well, enough suspense then: the left one is water from my tank (overstoked walstad), not great but ok. The right, clearly worse, is water straight from my tab, after 2 night rest to be sure any remaining chlorine has degassed. No chloramine here...
Given that it's with this water that I do small water change (the evaporation is compensated by demineralised water), I think my quasi-Walstad tank is working quite well...

[RTR]

Sorry, but I cannot see your test photos well enough to read them.

I have never - other than long-ago experiments - operated tanks without testing. I was and basically remain a laboratory scientist. I am far too aware of how much unmonitored systems shift over time without sufficient water partials to remove excess organic and inorganic nutrients and replenish used-up minerals. Since retirement I have missed not have access to real lab instrumentation, but despite that lack, I can, with care and a bit of special handling, still do hobby and field grade testing, despite my present visual handicaps. I am far too aware of Old Tank Syndrome to ever subject any of my "pet" fish to other than tested or measured care.

Your practices may well work short-term, and you are by my definitions still a novice hobbyist, so those techniques are acceptable to the level of operation you now practice. But I am not a novice hobbyists. I have strains of fish I have maintained for >30 years and individual tanks which have been operating for >20 years, and even individual fish at and above 20 years old in my care since being born and reared in my tanks. To be brutally honest, I do not believe that you will be able to maintain your tank over such an extended period with your current techniques. Your guppy strain may well survive it - they are definitely the hardiest fish I have ever worked with and can and will survive almost any water condition. Many to most other families of fish are no so adaptable, nor are most aquatic plants.

Too few folks in this hobby realize how little is really required to keep most tropicals alive and healthy for high multiples of their normal wild or even captive lifespans. Some of us have learned that, and spend part of our hobby-time trying to teach others how to operate their tanks relatively easily long-term. Unfortunately, water management is one of the biggest components required for long and healthy fish lives. It can be done without hours and dollars of weekly testing, but some hobby-level testing is unfortunately essential. What you do not know can and will shorten the lives of most fish and plants.

A non-trivial percentage of hobbyists do not wish to maximize the lifespans of the fish they get from the LFS or chain store, and actually want their fish stock to change via replacements every x number of months. I have nothing to offer those folks, as I do not consider them real hobbyists. Considering live fish as disposable is not something I can endorse or support. Those hobbyists rarely appear on specialized sites such as this one, where we expect even the shortest-lived puffers to live for years.

[Pufferpunk]

My fahaka is 15, & I have a 20 & 28 year old pleco.

[gkai]

Well, I agree that Walstad or similar method is not ideal for very long term tank. In this case, Let's say more than 10-15 years, it is more or less garanteed that you will change everything in the tank. Maybe even the tank itself will not be safe from ageing, I think about the silicone joints.... A "modular" approach, where everything can be changed with the tank still running, seems better. And this imply a relatively inert and homogeneous soil.
D. Walstadt seems to say that she have long running tanks, but not sure she get close to 20 years. more like 10 probably. She published her book in 99, so even if she still have one of her first experiment it would be less than 20 years.
I completely agree that I am still a novice, in fact, I will probably never go much above that. I also have no doubt that my tank will run much less than 20 years, but this do not worry me too much. Basically I do not know if I will still be in the same home, still have an aquarium, or still be alive myself in 20 years If this tank run for 5 years it will be nice, and 10 years would be a big success...

What I Like with the Walstad method is that it is an alternative to high tech (meaning high price and/or high effort) aqua that is working quite well, and imho much better than half attempt at medium-tech aquariums that are promoted in shops. For less trouble and less money.
Sure, it will not give a pristine aquascaped tank (much more messy because the plants will not stay where one want and plant species will compete, meaning that some will loose). The water will not be as good as one could obtain by a lot of waterchange and osmoser (or be lucky to have very clean water available) and continuous test to check exactly with what you replace your old water. And the soil will probably have long (or very-long) term problem.
But still, her main point ( the plants and potting soil perform efficient filtration, of a sort that typical filters can not do ) seems to hold. Reducing the nitrate content of my tab water is nice (Maybe I should start to drink my tank water instead of the tab one - just kidding, don't do that at home kids lol ), the alternative would imply water preparation not unlike salt water aquarium.

This may be good for deeply involved hobbyist, but I am not there (and probably never will).

Is a method allowing for more people to have a a tank of good quality (if not great) not a good news? Something between the fish bowl (or, unfortunately, following the advices of quite a few LFS, leading to expensive and still failing tanks) and either high-tech or breeding tanks not a good thing? I, for one, think it is, but of course it all depends on your goal - breeding, competition-level aquascaping, very long term tank are all worthy ones....but not mine, at least not for now, not until I have more space and more time

[RTR]

I am afraid that I will have to agree to disagree strongly with Ms. Waldsad's tanks being anything other than suited for the sort of casual hobbyist beloved by most LFS and chain stores, in that fish other than the hardiest and most able to live in poor water conditions for relatively short and sub-optimum lives in polluted water. I personally would not keep any fish, not even guppies, under those conditions. The fact that I am elderly and almost certaiinly will be out-lived by many of my current fish is trivial. While I am here, they will have the best conditions I can provide. If I am no longer able to care for them properly, they will go to good homes, already designated).