pH for tropical fish

[Jan]

I recently set up a 20 gallon tank, and added 1 female guppy with some young
ones. The pH is 7.8 - is this too high? This is pretty much what comes out
of the tap, so should I try to lower it artificially? I am planning to add
other tropical fish in the future (probably neon tetras and platies).

[NetMax]

"Jan" > wrote in message
...
>I recently set up a 20 gallon tank, and added 1 female guppy with some
>young ones. The pH is 7.8 - is this too high? This is pretty much what
>comes out of the tap, so should I try to lower it artificially? I am
>planning to add other tropical fish in the future (probably neon tetras
>and platies).


Generally speaking, it is much better to match the fish to the water than
the reverse. I suggest you leave your water alone. There is nothing
wrong with 7.8pH that Guppies and Platys will not adapt to easily.
Whether Neons do as well will have more to do with how hard the water is
and whether they are wild caught or farmed fish (which you probably
cannot determine).
--
www.NetMax.tk

[blove]

leave the ph alone, fish will adapt to it aslong as its stable. up where i
am the ph is 7.6 and the neon tetras are doing fine in that ph despite the
caresheets saying that neons need soft acidic water. I think that wild
caught neons will need the ph lower but most u find in stores are farm
raised in the higher ph.


"Jan" > wrote in message
...
>I recently set up a 20 gallon tank, and added 1 female guppy with some
>young ones. The pH is 7.8 - is this too high? This is pretty much what
>comes out of the tap, so should I try to lower it artificially? I am
>planning to add other tropical fish in the future (probably neon tetras and
>platies).
>

[Margolis]

7.8 is perfect for just about any fish you want to keep. Much better off
for more fish being a little alkaline than being a little acidic.

--

Margolis
http://web.archive.org/web/20030215212142/http://www.agqx.org/faqs/AGQ2FAQ.htm
http://www.unrealtower.org/faq

[Ozdude]

"NetMax" > wrote in message
.. .

> Generally speaking, it is much better to match the fish to the water than
> the reverse. I suggest you leave your water alone. There is nothing
> wrong with 7.8pH that Guppies and Platys will not adapt to easily. Whether
> Neons do as well will have more to do with how hard the water is and
> whether they are wild caught or farmed fish (which you probably cannot
> determine).

Apparently reared neons can be spotted by observing whether the youngsters
and juveniles are fully coloured up. It's the testosterone in the rearing
tanks. Only adult Neons have the full colour, but then again how do you know
if it's an adult?

There is also an article I read recently about the successful rearing of
Neons and Cardinals in America (Florida) without using hormones, and
apparently, 60% or more of US LFS Neon and Cardinal stock comes from this
source now.

Personally, I do two things when considering Neons - 1) I see if they are
big or not (if they are less than 3/4 inch and fully coloured I get
suspicious) 2) if they are bigger I wait for at least a month and check them
every week or so to see how robust they are in the stress of a shop
environment.

I just got 11 from LFS#1 which were all about 1" long, but I had to put them
on hold over the month because they sell like wild fire here - a very
popular fish with children it seems.

Oz

[NetMax]

"Margolis" > wrote in message
...
> 7.8 is perfect for just about any fish you want to keep. Much better
> off for more fish being a little alkaline than being a little acidic.
>
> --
>
> Margolis


My impression has always been the opposite. What do you base this on?
Assuming a typical relationship between hard water/alkaline and soft
water/acidic, then from my limited experience, keeping very soft water
fish such as Discus in hard water has always been more immediately
problematic than keeping hard water fish such a livebearers in soft
water. Eventually they can all suffer, but if there were consequences,
they seemed more gradual in softer water. African lake cichlids are
sometimes kept in soft water with no other consequences than their
coloration is not as bright.

It might be a mute point, as fish which originate from a pH extreme
should simply not be kept at the other extreme, and most everything well
do well in the middle range.
--
www.NetMax.tk

[Margolis]

I say that from my experience. The fish always seem to do better with the
water slightly alkaline than slightly acidic. I have never had any problems
at all keeping any fish in our water of 7.8ph. Tetras, angels, discus, rams
all love it. The angels even breed in it. But anytime I have tried keeping
fish in slightly acidic water, the fish that wanted the alkaline water
always ended up getting sick or getting fungus when they got hurt. Fungus
seemed to be a lot more common in acidic water than in alkaline water. This
has just been my experience of course. It was also recommended by one of
the best mom and pop fish stores in town. All of their tanks were kept at
7.8 and they always had the healthiest fish in town. The proprieter told me
20 years ago that it is easier to keep fish healthy in alkaline water than
in acidic, and I found it works better for me.

btw, I am not talking about hard or soft water, only the ph.


--

Margolis
http://web.archive.org/web/20030215212142/http://www.agqx.org/faqs/AGQ2FAQ.htm
http://www.unrealtower.org/faq

[NetMax]

Personally I think that it's the osmotic pressure (water hardness) which
has more bearing than the pH. If your water is soft but has a pH of 7.8
(artificially) then this might be quite different from someone who has a
natural pH of 7.8 in much harder water. I would agree that it's easier
to keep fish in softer water, and I would also agree that higher pH
levels are known to be less friendly to various diseases, however given
the choice between naturally buffered soft vs hard, soft is better. If
this particular soft water is artificially brought to higher pH levels by
the municipality (ie: using caustic soda), it does not seem to affect the
fish anywhere near as much as if they were in the harder water which
would normally be associated with the higher pH. Again, just various
observations over the years. Thanks for sharing, and if you know the
hardness of that LFS, it would be interesting to compare.
--
www.NetMax.tk


"Margolis" > wrote in message
...
>I say that from my experience. The fish always seem to do better with
>the water slightly alkaline than slightly acidic. I have never had any
>problems at all keeping any fish in our water of 7.8ph. Tetras, angels,
>discus, rams all love it. The angels even breed in it. But anytime I
>have tried keeping fish in slightly acidic water, the fish that wanted
>the alkaline water always ended up getting sick or getting fungus when
>they got hurt. Fungus seemed to be a lot more common in acidic water
>than in alkaline water. This has just been my experience of course. It
>was also recommended by one of the best mom and pop fish stores in town.
>All of their tanks were kept at 7.8 and they always had the healthiest
>fish in town. The proprieter told me 20 years ago that it is easier to
>keep fish healthy in alkaline water than in acidic, and I found it works
>better for me.
>
> btw, I am not talking about hard or soft water, only the ph.
>
>
> --
>
> Margolis
> http://web.archive.org/web/20030215212142/http://www.agqx.org/faqs/AGQ2FAQ.htm
> http://www.unrealtower.org/faq
>
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

NetMax wrote:
> Personally I think that it's the osmotic
> pressure (water hardness) which has more
> bearing than the pH. [lots deleted]

I should point out that there's an assumption behind what NetMax says
when he equates osmotic pressure and hardness. Namely, his assumption
is that the majority of the solutes contributing to osmotic pressure
also contribute to water hardness, GH.

To demonstrate, here's an (absurd) comparison:
Water A:
2M in NaCl
5.0 ppm in Mg++

Water B:
0M in NaCl
5.0 ppm in Mg++

Both these waters will have the same GH on a hobbyist-type GH test kit.
There will, however, be a pretty big difference in osmotic pressure.

I'm certainly not saying that NetMax's assumption is invalid. It may
work fine for even a large majority of aquarists. The only way to know
if it applies in a particular case is to know, as intimately as
possible, the source water and what has been put into it.

I would further submit that a truer way to get a handle on osmotic
pressure would be to measure total dissolved solids (TDS) or to measure
conductivity.

Regards,
Trapper

[NetMax]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> NetMax wrote:
>> Personally I think that it's the osmotic
>> pressure (water hardness) which has more
>> bearing than the pH. [lots deleted]
>
> I should point out that there's an assumption behind what NetMax says
> when he equates osmotic pressure and hardness. Namely, his assumption
> is that the majority of the solutes contributing to osmotic pressure
> also contribute to water hardness, GH.
>
> To demonstrate, here's an (absurd) comparison:
> Water A:
> 2M in NaCl
> 5.0 ppm in Mg++
>
> Water B:
> 0M in NaCl
> 5.0 ppm in Mg++
>
> Both these waters will have the same GH on a hobbyist-type GH test kit.
> There will, however, be a pretty big difference in osmotic pressure.
>
> I'm certainly not saying that NetMax's assumption is invalid. It may
> work fine for even a large majority of aquarists. The only way to know
> if it applies in a particular case is to know, as intimately as
> possible, the source water and what has been put into it.
>
> I would further submit that a truer way to get a handle on osmotic
> pressure would be to measure total dissolved solids (TDS) or to measure
> conductivity.
>
> Regards,
> Trapper


Yup : ) Hugely general terms. The assumptive leap is that soft water
with a high pH is a condition which does not easily occur in nature, but
is very typically of municipally treated water. As municipal water, I
further assumed that as a general rule, municipalities (in most of the
world) cannot exceed a maximum level of salinity (which is what would
skew my osmotic to hardness comparison). I further assumed that we are
not including conditions where salt would be added (tetras and discus
were mentioned).

I can't always keep up with my precariously stacked assumptions, but this
one might be holding up (in general terms ;~). The downside of using the
more accurate conductivity measurement is that it takes it out of the
mainstream to where most people don't have that measurement capability.
The downside of using gH is that I need to use a disclaimer (which you
have so gently taken me to task for omitting ;~). thanks!
--
www.NetMax.tk

[[email protected]]

NetMax wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > NetMax wrote: [stuff]

Then I wrote [stuff]

Now NetMax writes:
> [***] As municipal water, I further assumed that as a general rule,
> municipalities (in most of the world) cannot exceed a maximum level
of
> salinity (which is what would skew my osmotic to hardness
comparison).
> I further assumed that we are not including conditions where salt
would be
> added (tetras and discus were mentioned).

Yep, certainly nobody in their right mind is adding salts to tetra and
discus tanks.

That is, unless they're plant tanks and people are adding Na and K
salts of various nitrates, phosphates, etc. But even in this case I
posit the NetMax Assumption(TM) might still hold.

I'm curious, though. So I'll calculate sample numbers based on my own
tank when I get home tonight. If there's some way to guesstimate
osmotic pressure based on solute concentrations, it'd be interesting to
see how good your assumption is for a discus-soft tank with plant ferts
added. The comparison to make, of course, is to a discus-soft tank
*without* ferts added.

The thinking about muni manipulation of water sounds right to me, btw.


> I can't always keep up with my precariously stacked assumptions, but
this
> one might be holding up (in general terms ;~). The downside of using
the
> more accurate conductivity measurement is that it takes it out of the

> mainstream to where most people don't have that measurement
capability.

Ok, inventors. There's your tip. Someone build a cheap
pH/conductivity/temp multimeter with some control logic in it.

> The downside of using gH is that I need to use a disclaimer (which
you
> have so gently taken me to task for omitting ;~). thanks!

Ah, rats. I was trying to make it look like I was taking myself to
task. <g>

> --
> www.NetMax.tk

In a soon-to-be-snowy NYC,
Trapper

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> [***]
> Yep, certainly nobody in their right mind is adding salts to tetra
and
> discus tanks.
>
> That is, unless they're plant tanks and people are adding Na and K
> salts of various nitrates, phosphates, etc. But even in this case I
> posit the NetMax Assumption(TM) might still hold.
>
> I'm curious, though. So I'll calculate sample numbers based on my
own
> tank when I get home tonight. If there's some way to [calculate]
> osmotic pressure based on solute concentrations, it'd be interesting
to
> see how good your assumption is for a discus-soft tank with plant
ferts
> added. The comparison to make, of course, is to a discus-soft tank
> *without* ferts added.
> [***]

Ok, I did some rough crunching here.
I used the osmotic pressure calculator at:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/ospcal.html (last
visited 20FEB05)

I considered my own tank, GH 3-4. And to be really simple minded, I
made the assumption that the only stuff in the water is the N, K, Mg,
and Ca I add. The stuff I neglected in modeling doesn't change the
point.

OK, so the simplified calculation of total osmotic pressure ends up at
about ~2.2 kPa. Again, that's not considering my added traces, Fe, P,
and whatever else comes in out of the tap. Those things, too, will
raise the o.p.

Of this ~2.2 kPa total osmotic pressure, ~1.4 kPa comes from stuff that
raises GH (and of that, ~1 kPa was from added MgSO4).

So here's what I think this boils down to:
In a soft-water planted tank, it looks like ~40% of the total osmotic
pressure (and, due to what I omitted, likely considerably more) comes
from stuff that has no effect on GH.

Repetition of this analysis for other kinds of tanks is left as an
exercise for the reader. I suspect, however, that for people whose
tanks are filled with liquid rock the NetMax assumption is pretty good.

And I'll freely note that even if the NetMax Assumption(TM) doesn't
hold, the underlying wisdom, i.e. that one should not play odd osmotic
games with fragile fish, is not something I am prepared to call into
question.

Regards,
Trapper

[NetMax]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> wrote:
>> [***]
>> Yep, certainly nobody in their right mind is adding salts to tetra
> and
>> discus tanks.
>>
>> That is, unless they're plant tanks and people are adding Na and K
>> salts of various nitrates, phosphates, etc. But even in this case I
>> posit the NetMax Assumption(TM) might still hold.
>>
>> I'm curious, though. So I'll calculate sample numbers based on my
> own
>> tank when I get home tonight. If there's some way to [calculate]
>> osmotic pressure based on solute concentrations, it'd be interesting
> to
>> see how good your assumption is for a discus-soft tank with plant
> ferts
>> added. The comparison to make, of course, is to a discus-soft tank
>> *without* ferts added.
>> [***]
>
> Ok, I did some rough crunching here.
> I used the osmotic pressure calculator at:
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/ospcal.html (last
> visited 20FEB05)
>
> I considered my own tank, GH 3-4. And to be really simple minded, I
> made the assumption that the only stuff in the water is the N, K, Mg,
> and Ca I add. The stuff I neglected in modeling doesn't change the
> point.
>
> OK, so the simplified calculation of total osmotic pressure ends up at
> about ~2.2 kPa. Again, that's not considering my added traces, Fe, P,
> and whatever else comes in out of the tap. Those things, too, will
> raise the o.p.
>
> Of this ~2.2 kPa total osmotic pressure, ~1.4 kPa comes from stuff that
> raises GH (and of that, ~1 kPa was from added MgSO4).
>
> So here's what I think this boils down to:
> In a soft-water planted tank, it looks like ~40% of the total osmotic
> pressure (and, due to what I omitted, likely considerably more) comes
> from stuff that has no effect on GH.
>
> Repetition of this analysis for other kinds of tanks is left as an
> exercise for the reader. I suspect, however, that for people whose
> tanks are filled with liquid rock the NetMax assumption is pretty good.
>
> And I'll freely note that even if the NetMax Assumption(TM) doesn't
> hold, the underlying wisdom, i.e. that one should not play odd osmotic
> games with fragile fish, is not something I am prepared to call into
> question.
>
> Regards,
> Trapper


LOL, you have *me* convinced, but I have to wonder what % of the 40%
which affects osmotic pressure and does not affect hardness would
normally be found in municipally treated water? My home tanks are liquid
rock, but it's the other extreme where my assumption might not hold as
much water ;~)
--
www.NetMax.tk

[[email protected]]

NetMax wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > wrote:
> >> [***]

> LOL, you have *me* convinced, but I have to wonder what % of the 40%
> which affects osmotic pressure and does not affect hardness would
> normally be found in municipally treated water? My home tanks are
liquid
> rock, but it's the other extreme where my assumption might not hold
as
> much water ;~)

Per my model, none of that 40%. That's because all that stuff comes
from the KNO3, etc., that I add. Unaccounted for in my model, though,
are the traces, iron, PO4, and whatever mystery solutes present in the
tap here in NYC.

I think that's what you're getting at when you make the NMA, of course.
In other words, muni water companies (we hope) aren't dosing lots of
mystery non-GH-affecting solute. In turn, that's why it's not insane
for you to make the NMA under most conditions unless the muni water is
reeeally soft. Right?

For folks running really soft water, I think the bottom line is that
they have to check out TDS and ballpark their osmotic pressure from
that and what known stuff they dump into the tank. Then, if their fish
demand close attention to osmotic pressure, these folks at least won't
be flying blind.

For people keeping africans in a slurry of crushed coral, the NMA is
unlikely to be inaccurate in any material way. It'd be a matter of
pretty simple math to find the GH where, assuming one continued to dose
plant ferts at the orthodox ppm, the contribution to GH from just Ca++
would be, oh, 90% or whatnot. Anything above about GH of 3ish, while
still maintaining magnesium orthodoxy for plants, will necessarily come
from Ca++.


> --
> www.NetMax.tk

--
Trapper