Watering the aquarium plants.

[Cardman]

For a long time I have just been running my aquarium in order to keep
my fish happy and alive, where I have certainly been doing well enough
in recent years.

However, this posting is about my plants, which until now are just
those thing that grow in the tank. As since I am aiming to achieve
perfection from my tanks these days, then so have I been annoyed that
two of my three new plants have been dying on me.

In my unwise way I just purchased three random plants from my local
fish shop and expected them to live. And of course live plants are
ideal to use up some of the masses of Nitrate, where also many of my
fish of course expect some plants and rocks.

To begin with the Vallisneria Americana one is doing so great that it
is starting to take over the surface, which is why it will soon have a
happier home in the larger tank.

However, the couple of Myriophyllum Tuberculatum (red) ones have been
subject to a rapid death, where only their core sections are still
alive and subject to a little new growth.

I have another plant that I cannot identify that is in the middle and
is losing its lower leafs while is otherwise not looking too bad.

Since my tank has enough light, then my problem with my plant growing
must be my water. And so I began looking into what is wrong, which is
why I purchased a simple test kit.

Up until this point I had been (foolishly) suspecting that maybe lack
of Nitrate was the problem, where of course now I know that my regular
water changes are in fact to remove ever increasing Nitrate from my
very efficient Nitrate production system.

Anyway, after testing my aquarium water a few times, then my test
results are this...

pH = 7.8
KH = 15
GH = 20.5
NO2 = 0.01 mg/l
NO3 = 100 mg/l

I have also seen that NO2 levels drop to zero at night time, when I
guess the fish must have stopped pooping and all the NO2 has been
converted to NO3.

Two obvious problems with my aquarium water is that first of all the
pH level is a little high at 7.8, but I am not really concerned about
this, when plants should do well enough. However, it is clearly the
General Hardness (GH) that is posing the biggest problem to my plants.

After testing the aquarium water, then so did I test the tap water,
where the results are as such...

pH = 7.8
KH = 18
GH = 19
NO2 = 0
NO3 = 50 mg/l

So my GH problem is clearly coming out of the water supply that I used
to fill my tank with. This is not too surprising, when my water is
known to be subject to lime scale thanks to the local hills.

The extra GH increase in the tank I suspect may be due to my long ago
added garden rock, which is why I recently replaced it with an
artificial rock.

And so to improve my tank further I need to lower the General Hardness
to a region that is more acceptable to both plants and fish. That is
my first plan, where my backup plan was just to stock plants suitable
for my local water.

Since I consider that saving the Myriophyllum Tuberculatum is a
hopefully case, when my plant search rates them as "very difficult"
ones to grow anyway, then I have been seriously considering simply
disposing of them. Still, I will give them one last shot, to see if
they can improve in better water.

However, the problem with getting plants for my hard water is that I
think that most of the available choices look ugly, where the better
looking plants (like Myriophyllum Tuberculatum) all prefer a softer
water level.

So, softening my water is my key plan, when then my choice of plants
can be a lot more flexible.

To begin with simply standing this new water I see helps very little,
even if the water fresh from the tap has GH of 21+, where it has to
settle a little while for GH to drop below 20.

I was giving thoughts to making use of rain water, where this more
acid nature would not be too bad when combined with tap water, but
since I live in a large town, then this could introduce undesirable
pollutants as well.

Then while researching about how to lower my GH I came across one
idea, which is simply to boil the water first.

And so I simply tested the same water from the electric kettle that I
had just made a cup to tea with, where naturally I let it cool down a
lot first, where my test results are as follows...

pH = 7.2
KH = 5
GH = 8
NO2 = 0
NO3 = 50 mg/l

Well I thought that boiled water may have some effect, but seeing
these results was a total surprise. In case of some temporary
chemistry effect, then a few hours later I tested this same water
again (now totally cold) and got the same results.

What I believe is going on here is that when I simply boiled up some
water and poured it into a clean jug, then after a short time a thin
film of "something" appeared on the surface.

So clearly I had boiled this "something" out of it, where my cup of
tea had removed this from the surface before my second pouring
achieved the test results above.

And so boil, pour, wait a little while, then pour off this film of
"something" is my apparent recipe to perfect aquarium water.

However, since this kettle water was subject to multiple boilings and
pourings, then doing this just once may produce an intermediate
result.

Since I have just tested a single boil batch of water, which displayed
much lesser improvements, then clearly this water needs a lot of
boiling. I will have to do yet more testing I see.

Anyway, that first multiple boiled water testing made me a lot more
happy, when pH is closer to perfection (if there is such a thing),
where all the other values are within the range of what fish tank
water should be.

I am a little concerned about the lower KH (Carbonate Hardness) value,
when as seen above KH 18 from the tap turns into KA 15 in the tank,
where KA dropping to 2 in the tank would not be good.

Still, since I had problems accurately matching up this new lower KH
value to the colour chart, then I will have to watch this value
closely in my tank.

What has gone on with this boiled water I am not fully sure, which is
one reason why I am doing this posting, but if everything is as I see,
then I can just use ex-boiled water in my weekly water change.

My only other problem is to remove NO3 (Nitrate) from my tap water,
when the ideal level to avoid algae growth is below 25 mg/l, where I
am already getting 50 mg/l direct from the tap.

And as I now see this will easily rise to over 100 mg/l before my next
water change, which of course pushes it back down a bit.

Lucky I guess that my tap water does not have an algae problem (not
that I would notice anyway), when unlike in the US here in the UK we
do not have chlorine added.

Anyway, I am soon to start slowly improving my aquarium water using
this method over the next month or so, where I can only hope that
everything goes well.

As if I can really get the GH down, then plant perfection will soon
follow, even if I stick to the types rated in the easy growing level
for now.

I also got in some super concentrated plant food recently, which
should add everything that plants need except for Nitrate. What it has
got in it I do not have a clue (beyond iron), but it does say to
discontinue in case of an algae outbreak.

Sorry, but in my higher Nitrate water algae is just a question of
keeping it in check, where I am hoping that adding lots of plants can
at least keep me closer to the 50 mg/l level. Going below that I see
as next to impossible, when my two White Mollies have bred to make the
current seven White Mollies who like to eat and poop a lot.

I swear that I must be over feeding them, even if those hungry mouths
consume all the double daily feeding within a minute or two. Those
White Mollies are so pro-food that they even eat some of the algae,
but of course not enough to keep it in control.

Well I am just here to air my current thoughts as I work on improving
my aquarium (20 gallon) and slowly getting the two new aquariums (one
20 gallon and one 40 gallon) up and running.

I have been wondering if in my new 40 gallon tank I should add a layer
of peat under the gravel (and a small sand section), with a layer of
protection between the two of course. As that could help the plants
further (the aquarium guides hardly mention this), but I am worried
about the effects this would have on the water.

Anyway, if you fancy commenting on any section, then just snip and
quote as you please. I am now off to give lots of water a heavy
boiling, which I am sure will achieve serious water improvement.

Cardman.
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

[Bob Alston]

So how do you know you have enough light? Generally the lights that come
with aquariums only have enough light for relatively low light plants. In
my experience, Myriophyllum requires fairly bright lighting, perhaps 3 watts
per gallon or more? So I would either look into getting more light or
replace it with other low light requiring plants like: Java fern, java
moss, anubias, etc.

--
Bob Alston

bobalston9 AT aol DOT com
"Cardman" > wrote in message
ws.com...
>
> For a long time I have just been running my aquarium in order to keep
> my fish happy and alive, where I have certainly been doing well enough
> in recent years.
>
> However, this posting is about my plants, which until now are just
> those thing that grow in the tank. As since I am aiming to achieve
> perfection from my tanks these days, then so have I been annoyed that
> two of my three new plants have been dying on me.
>
> In my unwise way I just purchased three random plants from my local
> fish shop and expected them to live. And of course live plants are
> ideal to use up some of the masses of Nitrate, where also many of my
> fish of course expect some plants and rocks.
>
> To begin with the Vallisneria Americana one is doing so great that it
> is starting to take over the surface, which is why it will soon have a
> happier home in the larger tank.
>
> However, the couple of Myriophyllum Tuberculatum (red) ones have been
> subject to a rapid death, where only their core sections are still
> alive and subject to a little new growth.
>
> I have another plant that I cannot identify that is in the middle and
> is losing its lower leafs while is otherwise not looking too bad.
>
> Since my tank has enough light, then my problem with my plant growing
> must be my water. And so I began looking into what is wrong, which is
> why I purchased a simple test kit.
>
> Up until this point I had been (foolishly) suspecting that maybe lack
> of Nitrate was the problem, where of course now I know that my regular
> water changes are in fact to remove ever increasing Nitrate from my
> very efficient Nitrate production system.
>
> Anyway, after testing my aquarium water a few times, then my test
> results are this...
>
> pH = 7.8
> KH = 15
> GH = 20.5
> NO2 = 0.01 mg/l
> NO3 = 100 mg/l
>
> I have also seen that NO2 levels drop to zero at night time, when I
> guess the fish must have stopped pooping and all the NO2 has been
> converted to NO3.
>
> Two obvious problems with my aquarium water is that first of all the
> pH level is a little high at 7.8, but I am not really concerned about
> this, when plants should do well enough. However, it is clearly the
> General Hardness (GH) that is posing the biggest problem to my plants.
>
> After testing the aquarium water, then so did I test the tap water,
> where the results are as such...
>
> pH = 7.8
> KH = 18
> GH = 19
> NO2 = 0
> NO3 = 50 mg/l
>
> So my GH problem is clearly coming out of the water supply that I used
> to fill my tank with. This is not too surprising, when my water is
> known to be subject to lime scale thanks to the local hills.
>
> The extra GH increase in the tank I suspect may be due to my long ago
> added garden rock, which is why I recently replaced it with an
> artificial rock.
>
> And so to improve my tank further I need to lower the General Hardness
> to a region that is more acceptable to both plants and fish. That is
> my first plan, where my backup plan was just to stock plants suitable
> for my local water.
>
> Since I consider that saving the Myriophyllum Tuberculatum is a
> hopefully case, when my plant search rates them as "very difficult"
> ones to grow anyway, then I have been seriously considering simply
> disposing of them. Still, I will give them one last shot, to see if
> they can improve in better water.
>
> However, the problem with getting plants for my hard water is that I
> think that most of the available choices look ugly, where the better
> looking plants (like Myriophyllum Tuberculatum) all prefer a softer
> water level.
>
> So, softening my water is my key plan, when then my choice of plants
> can be a lot more flexible.
>
> To begin with simply standing this new water I see helps very little,
> even if the water fresh from the tap has GH of 21+, where it has to
> settle a little while for GH to drop below 20.
>
> I was giving thoughts to making use of rain water, where this more
> acid nature would not be too bad when combined with tap water, but
> since I live in a large town, then this could introduce undesirable
> pollutants as well.
>
> Then while researching about how to lower my GH I came across one
> idea, which is simply to boil the water first.
>
> And so I simply tested the same water from the electric kettle that I
> had just made a cup to tea with, where naturally I let it cool down a
> lot first, where my test results are as follows...
>
> pH = 7.2
> KH = 5
> GH = 8
> NO2 = 0
> NO3 = 50 mg/l
>
> Well I thought that boiled water may have some effect, but seeing
> these results was a total surprise. In case of some temporary
> chemistry effect, then a few hours later I tested this same water
> again (now totally cold) and got the same results.
>
> What I believe is going on here is that when I simply boiled up some
> water and poured it into a clean jug, then after a short time a thin
> film of "something" appeared on the surface.
>
> So clearly I had boiled this "something" out of it, where my cup of
> tea had removed this from the surface before my second pouring
> achieved the test results above.
>
> And so boil, pour, wait a little while, then pour off this film of
> "something" is my apparent recipe to perfect aquarium water.
>
> However, since this kettle water was subject to multiple boilings and
> pourings, then doing this just once may produce an intermediate
> result.
>
> Since I have just tested a single boil batch of water, which displayed
> much lesser improvements, then clearly this water needs a lot of
> boiling. I will have to do yet more testing I see.
>
> Anyway, that first multiple boiled water testing made me a lot more
> happy, when pH is closer to perfection (if there is such a thing),
> where all the other values are within the range of what fish tank
> water should be.
>
> I am a little concerned about the lower KH (Carbonate Hardness) value,
> when as seen above KH 18 from the tap turns into KA 15 in the tank,
> where KA dropping to 2 in the tank would not be good.
>
> Still, since I had problems accurately matching up this new lower KH
> value to the colour chart, then I will have to watch this value
> closely in my tank.
>
> What has gone on with this boiled water I am not fully sure, which is
> one reason why I am doing this posting, but if everything is as I see,
> then I can just use ex-boiled water in my weekly water change.
>
> My only other problem is to remove NO3 (Nitrate) from my tap water,
> when the ideal level to avoid algae growth is below 25 mg/l, where I
> am already getting 50 mg/l direct from the tap.
>
> And as I now see this will easily rise to over 100 mg/l before my next
> water change, which of course pushes it back down a bit.
>
> Lucky I guess that my tap water does not have an algae problem (not
> that I would notice anyway), when unlike in the US here in the UK we
> do not have chlorine added.
>
> Anyway, I am soon to start slowly improving my aquarium water using
> this method over the next month or so, where I can only hope that
> everything goes well.
>
> As if I can really get the GH down, then plant perfection will soon
> follow, even if I stick to the types rated in the easy growing level
> for now.
>
> I also got in some super concentrated plant food recently, which
> should add everything that plants need except for Nitrate. What it has
> got in it I do not have a clue (beyond iron), but it does say to
> discontinue in case of an algae outbreak.
>
> Sorry, but in my higher Nitrate water algae is just a question of
> keeping it in check, where I am hoping that adding lots of plants can
> at least keep me closer to the 50 mg/l level. Going below that I see
> as next to impossible, when my two White Mollies have bred to make the
> current seven White Mollies who like to eat and poop a lot.
>
> I swear that I must be over feeding them, even if those hungry mouths
> consume all the double daily feeding within a minute or two. Those
> White Mollies are so pro-food that they even eat some of the algae,
> but of course not enough to keep it in control.
>
> Well I am just here to air my current thoughts as I work on improving
> my aquarium (20 gallon) and slowly getting the two new aquariums (one
> 20 gallon and one 40 gallon) up and running.
>
> I have been wondering if in my new 40 gallon tank I should add a layer
> of peat under the gravel (and a small sand section), with a layer of
> protection between the two of course. As that could help the plants
> further (the aquarium guides hardly mention this), but I am worried
> about the effects this would have on the water.
>
> Anyway, if you fancy commenting on any section, then just snip and
> quote as you please. I am now off to give lots of water a heavy
> boiling, which I am sure will achieve serious water improvement.
>
> Cardman.
> http://www.cardman.com
> http://www.cardman.co.uk


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.648 / Virus Database: 415 - Release Date: 3/31/2004

[Michi Henning]

"Bob Alston" > wrote in message
news:CWqbc.88256$Bg.86828@fed1read03...
> So how do you know you have enough light? Generally the lights that come
> with aquariums only have enough light for relatively low light plants. In
> my experience, Myriophyllum requires fairly bright lighting, perhaps 3 watts
> per gallon or more? So I would either look into getting more light or
> replace it with other low light requiring plants like: Java fern, java
> moss, anubias, etc.

Agreed.

> > pH = 7.8
> > KH = 15
> > GH = 20.5
> > NO2 = 0.01 mg/l
> > NO3 = 100 mg/l


Also, Myriophyllum is happer in slightly acidic and soft water.
Your conditions may well be too alkaline and hard for the plant to
thrive. (Even under ideal conditions, Myriophyllum Tuberculatum
is considered a difficult plant to grow and will not do well in many
tanks.)

BTW -- you should try to get those nitrate levels down. 100ppm is
definitely on the very high side where it will be toxic for at least some
fish species. Adding lots more plants will help in reducing nitrate
levels.

Cheers,

Michi.

[Cardman]

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 21:33:29 GMT, "Michi Henning" >
wrote:

>My previous rambling...
>> > pH = 7.8
>> > KH = 15
>> > GH = 20.5
>> > NO2 = 0.01 mg/l
>> > NO3 = 100 mg/l
>
>Also, Myriophyllum is happer in slightly acidic and soft water.

Well my tank water will one day soon be this...

pH = 7.0-7.2
KH = 5
GH = 7
NO2 = 0
NO3 = 50-100 mg/l

You can see my more recent postings for the details, which makes for
water that may be more favourable to this plant.

>Your conditions may well be too alkaline and hard for the plant to
>thrive.

Maybe that is one reason why these two plants suffered a rapid death,
where only their core sections are now alive.

From what I have read Myriophyllum Tuberculatum is a little more
flexible in the water quality than what you seem to indicate, where it
just does not like the extremes.

Like my former extremely hard water.

>(Even under ideal conditions, Myriophyllum Tuberculatum
>is considered a difficult plant to grow and will not do well in many
>tanks.)

Yes, I found that out, when I began searching into why these plants
were dying. Since it is a question of trying to save them, or having
them visit my bin, then it is best to see if I can save them first.

I am starting to think that this could be rather hopeless though.

And there they were doing so well in the pet shop with no real
maintenance sources, like a light, either. I think we know why that
is...

>BTW -- you should try to get those nitrate levels down. 100ppm is
>definitely on the very high side where it will be toxic for at least some
>fish species.

My fish can live in much higher levels perfectly fine, where they just
become unhappy in a world where algae rules. So they are very happy
with anything between 50 and 150 mg/l, when algae growth is very slow
at this level.

>Adding lots more plants will help in reducing nitrate
>levels.

A nice idea, but what you do not mention is that plants in fact use up
very little Nitrate, which is why I would have to bed plants very
heavily for any beneficial effects.

And so there is nothing that I can really do when it comes out the tap
at 50 mg/l +-20% to begin with, where the fish pooping will only cause
it to go higher.

That is unless you know of some way to turn Nitrate into something
else that won't harm fish?

So my objective is always to try and keep Nitrate levels below 100
mg/l, when going above 150 mg/l poses a rapid algae problem. Like even
now I am starting to get a little algae growth on the glass again,
after I had scraped the last lot off.

Plants I am sure will help slow the Nitrate advancement to an unknown
degree, but at this time I have 7 White Mollies, 5 Red-Eyed Tetras and
2 other fish (not in my fish book...). And with the White Mollies at
least that is a lot of end Nitrate production.

In case you are interested, then I am soon to stock a load of varies
plants that are rated in the "easy" level and suitable for my water.

My shopping list is currently...

5 x Hygrophila Polysperma
1 x Anubias Nana
3 x Crinium Thainium
5 x Microsorium Pteropus
5 x (Assorted) Cryptocorynes

Since I am in the process of changing my water quality by a
considerable degree, then I will have to review these and make sure
that they are suitable for my new water.

Any comments in my 18 plant choice welcome.

My only issue at the moment is with these Crinium Thainium (onion like
plants), when they need lots of space. For my small 20 gallon tank
that would be impossible, but I will soon have my other 20 and 40
gallon tanks up and running. So one in each tank could have them
growing just fine in lots of space.

Cardman.
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

[Cardman]

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 22:18:47 -0600, "Bob Alston" >
wrote:

>So how do you know you have enough light?

The manufacturer of my light seems happy enough. ;-]

You can read about it here...
http://www.arcadia-uk.com/fwatlamp.htm

>Generally the lights that come
>with aquariums only have enough light for relatively low light plants. In
>my experience, Myriophyllum requires fairly bright lighting, perhaps 3 watts
>per gallon or more?

I agree that my two Myriophyllum plants need more than what I am
currently providing, but well these are an evil plant to grow as it
is.

>So I would either look into getting more light or
>replace it with other low light requiring plants like: Java fern, java
>moss, anubias, etc.

Well now that this subject is raised, then I would be fully happy with
switching to a twin light system. However, my tank only takes one
tube, where I have yet to see a suitable twin tube upgrade option.

So adding more lighting is currently not possible.

I guess that I will look more into it, when even my tube manufacturer
recommends buying two of their tubes. Don't think that I will shoot
for extremely bright light though, when I wish to use lighting for
both plants and fish.

I wonder if there is a triple tube option for my tank? This is not for
going for super bright lighting I should add, but I have always
fancied using that moonlight effect tube.

So one tube for the plants, one tube for the fish, then one tube to
see those elusive night fish (when I have some...) would be ideal.

Since I am getting two new tank hoods very soon, then I will have a
good look into the option of multiple tubing. Maybe I could even go
into four tubes, but then how much lighting do I need?

My Myriophyllum mistake can be excluded from this calculation, when I
will certainly choose more suitable plants in the future. When
considering my local water supply, then this pet shop should not have
been selling this plant in the first place.

Cardman.
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

[Cardman]

Note: This message has been reposted using a different news server,
when it failed to propergate within 24 hours. My appologies in the
unlikely event that this message appears twice.

Well I have now perfected my water softening technique, where just
boiling batches of water in a large saucepan (with the lid on!) for a
few minutes on heavy boil does the trick.

My previous test from multiple boiled kettle water was this...

pH = 7.2
KH = 5
GH = 8
NO2 = 0
NO3 = 50 mg/l

I have improved slightly on that, when my latest test on my fully
processed (and slowly cooling) water now gives me a General Hardness
level of 7.

From my water processing the hardness in my water must be due to
Calcium Carbonate (lime scale), which also explains the large
reduction in the KH (Carbonate Hardness) level.

Heavy boiled water is subject to this mentioned film on the surface, a
whitened power over the emptied saucepan. And to top that off their is
also a white power sediment in the transfer jug.

Since I have seen that it is impossible and wasteful to try and
manually remove this junk, then I have moved on to filtering. And my
filter medium just happens to be coffee machine filter paper, which
has been hanging around here for a few years. Well no one here drinks
coffee much and would now use the instant kind anyway.

This filter paper I am sure is suitable, when there will be none of
those paper bits, where it appears to do a perfect job.

So later today I will do my first 20% to 30% aquarium water change
with this much softened water, where I can only hope that my fish can
slowly adjust to living in this water full time.

I can always mix it in with some regular tap water I guess, but I see
little wrong with this new near perfect water. As it is just a
question of if my fish can live fine in it, when my plants sure can.

It is sure going to use up a lot of energy with boiling all this water
each week or two, but doing so is much better than having my fish and
plants living in this calcium carbonate crap. And well you do not have
to boil the water for too long to draw it out.

So that seems like my water problem solved, without the need for any
expensive equipment either, where I just wish that years ago I knew
that a little water boiling and filtering could give me great aquarium
water.

All thanks to chemistry it seems, which makes me wonder where that KH
drop in the aquarium level comes from. When clearly something in the
tank is eating some of the calcium.

Seems almost like magic to me, when with one wave of my magical
saucepan, then plant killing water suddenly changes into the water of
life.

Not even Harry Potter could have done so well. =8->

Cardman.
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

[Cardman]

Note: This message has been reposted using a different news server,
when it failed to propergate within 24 hours. My appologies in the
unlikely event that this message appears twice.

I have just completed my first water change using my new processed
water. Naturally, I tested this water first so that it had acceptable
values including a low enough temperature.

That final test seemed to indicate a pH level of lower than 7.2, where
either 7.0 or 7.1 seemed about right.

Anyway, after deciding that my fish should have no problems quickly
adjusting to this new better water, when after all it will be diluted
in the old hard water first, then so could this change be done fairly
rapidly.

So maybe I will have it completely switched over within one to two
weeks, but I will closely monitor my fish during this. I hardly doubt
that they will have any problems with neutral soft water, but then
this is a rather new event around here.

Anyway, since I decided that more of the old water being removed the
better, then so did I remove 40% of the volume. The new water added
back 30% of this volume, which means that I have a 10% gap to soon
fill.

This warmer water increased the tank temperature by 3 degrees C, but
as this was done slowly and within acceptable limits, then so did my
fish have no problems.

One odd thing that I did see was that my fish actually enjoyed
swimming into this water as I was pouring in. Maybe they just liked
the unusual warmth, when my usual new water is much colder, but then
maybe they could also sense the major water quality change.

After yet another water test, then so does my tank mixed water (60%
hard + 30% soft) now look like this...

pH = 7.6
KH = 10
GH = 13
NO2 = 0
NO3 = 75

So this 30% soft water addition lowered the pH by 0.2 and the general
hardness has gone down by 7.5, where of course the Carbonate Hardness
has gone down by 5, thanks to my boiling and filtering out almost all
the Calcium Carbonate.

I guess Calcium Carbonate is an alkaline, when this explains my former
7.8 pH, when pH will drop the more of it that is removed.

Most pleasing of all is that the General Hardness of my water has
changed from the early stages of Extremely Hard, to the upper stages
of Average Hardness.

That alone offers me much greater choice in the plants that I can now
have, but the best is yet to come, when all this aquarium water is
slowly removed and diluted into the upper realm of Soft Water.

So as long as I remember to never use "water with rocks in it"
straight from the tap, then my aquarium can have Soft Water in an
Extremely Hard Water area.

I am very pleased by this fact, where I am sure that my dying plants
will like no longer living in alkaline based extremely hard water,
when myself, my fish and my plants are on the road to total neutral.

It is going to take a long time for these water change benefits to
appear in the plants and maybe even the fish, but this certainly won't
be a bad thing.

In the end I am just wondering what you can do with filtered out
Calcium Carbonate, besides throwing it away, when my filter paper has
amassed quite a collection.

Anyway, I hope that other aquarium owners in hard water areas found
this useful, when in my case at least you do not need to spend a small
fortune to have Soft Water.

I am now wondering if I should drink this water instead (prior to the
fish pooping in it!), when is Calcium Carbonate good for you? Y/N.

Cardman.
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

[Cardman]

I have just completed my second water change with the objective of
changing my extremely hard alkaline aquarium water into soft neutral
water.

Not to mention that these water changes will also lower the Nitrate
level ever closer to 50 mg/l, which keeps the algae from spreading.

My aquarium used to be...

pH = 7.8
KH = 15
GH = 20.5
NO2 = 0.01 mg/l
NO3 = 100 mg/l

After this second water change this has now changed to...

pH = 7.4
KH = 8
GH = 10
NO2 = 0
NO3 = 70 mg/l

So today my aquarium has just moved from alkaline based water to
neutral based water, even if in the end I can get the pH down to very
close to 7.0.

Not that this aspect matters too much, when it is the General Hardness
that is the important aspect here, where this aspect has now gone from
the start of extremely hard, straight through hard, into medium, where
now we are on the lower end of medium hardness.

And so one more water change should have the pH at around 7.2 and the
GH at either the bottom of Medium or the very top of Soft.

My fish are doing just fine, as I expected they would, even if the
White Mollies prefer things more how they were.

Today I decided to get more lighting for my aquarium, which should
increase the range of plants that I can support. Since I will soon
have three aquariums up and running, then it would be a bit much to go
past two main tubes per tank.

I have found out a lot of information on the lighting subject now,
which means that I am very close to buying.

Also during my lighting search I came across a couple of devices known
as Nitrate Filters, which does just what I need in removing Nitrate
from my local water supply. Kind of on the costly side though, but
that would solve my algae problem once and for all.

In the end you are always left in wonder at how much it costs to
support a few cheap fish. I of course won't run through the price list
of items that you should know well, but getting these two new (or
correctly second hand) aquariums up and running makes for an expensive
shopping list.

At least all this is a one time only expense, excluding items that
fail of course, when apart from the food these fish only need your
attention in keeping their living conditions fine.

Using all that expensive and numerous equipment...

Sometimes I think that I should buy expensive fish to match my
expensive equipment, but in the case of my local fish shop, then it is
more a case of not having the new fish dying of one disease of
another.

Like that my last purchase came with two diseases.

First of all there was the common White Spot. And the problem here was
that the fish that came with this White Spot were my new Mollies. And
the thing about White Spot disease is that it is White, where the
thing about my Mollies is that they are also White.

And so to begin with I was only suspicious that they may have it,
where it was only when my Angel Fish (who was black) caught it, then
did I know for sure.

The problem there was that I spotted this late on Friday and placed an
on-line order minutes later, where the White Spot cure arrived on
Tuesday. By then one of my original three White Mollies had died, one
Golden Tiger Barb as well (three is now down to one), where the Angel
Fish having a large amount of surface area died rather quickly.

I was not too upset about that Angel Fish death, when he was a fish
murdering fish. As when I was making this aquarium into a peaceful
fish community, then so did my brother go out and buy this Angel Fish.

Lets just say that my 20 neon tetras were obliterated. And as this
Angel Fish slowly picked them off one by one, then it was only when
their numbers halved did I notice the problem.

That Angel Fish was like Jack the Ripper, where it would certainly go
for just about anything that got too close. So most fish learned to
stay out of it's way, where for years my care in keeping all these
fish alive also limited my fish choice due to this one Angel Fish.

So I was not too unhappy when White Spot quickly took out that mass
murdering Angel Fish, when I certainly won't allow any Angel Fish in
my aquariums again.

The second disease that my pet shop supplied was Tuberculosis, which
came with my very short lived Starlight Bristolnose Plecos. As they
died one by one, where it was only when all of them had died did I
discover the cause.

Normally when a fish dies I remove it from the aquarium as quickly as
possible, when I do not wish my other fish to catch what it died of,
but unfortunately the last Pleco died in a very inconvenient and hard
to spot location.

I soon had it located, but not before one of my catfish was feasting
upon it, where sure enough the bacterium that causes Tuberculosis
(Mycobacterium Piscium) spread and this catfish fell ill. I separated
it from the other fish, where this one displayed much better signs of
what it had.

Since there is no cure, then so did it soon die of a horrible death,
which is maybe one reason why the fish book recommends fish
termination. Even if they say it is to stop this disease spreading.

So I was not too happy with my local fish store, when 5 of these new
fish and 2 of my existing fish died. I lost my second Golden Tiger
Barb not long following for some unknown reason, where the final one
has been doing just fine for the months following all alone.

Tiger Barbs I find are those fish that will die before all others when
anything is going on the extremely bad side, but they look so nice and
so worth the risk. And so now I have to get more Golden Tiger Barbs,
when I always hate single species fish.

My second and last catfish also died following this time, but I would
put that one down to old age, when it had lived many years. Then again
it could have just been lonely, when it outlived two catfish friends
in that time.

No more deaths since then, when my aquarium works well enough even
with the hard water and higher Nitrate levels. One day soon I may even
risk a trip to my local fish shop again, where this time I will have a
separate aquarium to let them die in.

Think I may get me some loaches this time, when I always wanted to
master this creature of the darkness. Not to mention that I really had
to pity those loaches in the fish store, which were under a bright
light with no shelter at all.

I am sure that such stores should not be allowed to keep these fish so
badly, but then that is often due to ignorance. As I have certainly
learned the hard way how not to kill fish, where if you think about
it, then letting the inexperienced public own fish is really cruel to
these fish.

Many of these fish simply die due to their lack of understanding of
why they are dying. Not to mention their belief that all it takes to
keep them alive is to feed them.

Anyway, I guess any fish would be lucky to have me as their owner,
when I am slowly inching towards perfection. So fish are safe with me
as long as they don't catch anything from new fish, which is what one
of these two extra aquariums will solve.

I would also like to get a Fighting Fish as well along with a few
females, when these fish are safe enough. Sure they will go at
anything that gets too close, but they are just too slow to ever pose
a real problem.

And knowing me I would also buy any fish that is in any way unusual,
but currently the fish I have are rather boring. At this time I am
just planning to move my White Mollies to the larger tank, when these
two breeding to seven is coming close to maximum capacity.

Anyway, time to go and sort out my lighting, then to add yet more
costly items needed to get these other two aquariums active.

Cardman.
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

[Graham Broadbridge]

"Michi Henning" > wrote in message
...
>
> BTW -- you should try to get those nitrate levels down. 100ppm is
> definitely on the very high side where it will be toxic for at least some
> fish species. Adding lots more plants will help in reducing nitrate
> levels.

At 100 ppm NO3 there is some evidence that plants themselves shut down at
normal (0.05 - 0.1 ppm) Fe and trace levels.

Graham .

[Graham Broadbridge]

"Cardman" > wrote in message
...

> >BTW -- you should try to get those nitrate levels down. 100ppm is
> >definitely on the very high side where it will be toxic for at least some
> >fish species.
>
> My fish can live in much higher levels perfectly fine, where they just
> become unhappy in a world where algae rules. So they are very happy
> with anything between 50 and 150 mg/l, when algae growth is very slow
> at this level.

100 ppm NO3 is extremely toxic for freshwater fish, but of course any animal
can acclimatize to unsavoury conditions given time. I'm not surprised that
algae growth is slow at 100 ppm Nitrates. Algae is opportunistic and will
find a better environment or hibernate.

> >Adding lots more plants will help in reducing nitrate
> >levels.
>
> A nice idea, but what you do not mention is that plants in fact use up
> very little Nitrate, which is why I would have to bed plants very
> heavily for any beneficial effects.

Plants use a lot of NO3 here. Given that your nitrate levels exceed 100ppm
I'm not surprised that you see no NO3 consumption.
The poor plants have no chance to even get started.

I'd suggest you reduce nitrate from your tap water to start with.

Regards
Graham.

[Michi Henning]

"Cardman" > wrote in message
...
>
> >Your conditions may well be too alkaline and hard for the plant to
> >thrive.
>
> Maybe that is one reason why these two plants suffered a rapid death,
> where only their core sections are now alive.
>
> From what I have read Myriophyllum Tuberculatum is a little more
> flexible in the water quality than what you seem to indicate, where it
> just does not like the extremes.
>
> Like my former extremely hard water.

Seems likely. I forgot to mention that the plant is also very light
demanding, which may be part of the problem.

> And there they were doing so well in the pet shop with no real
> maintenance sources, like a light, either. I think we know why that
> is...

Because they order a bunch of new ones every week to replace the
ones that are dying? ;-)

> >BTW -- you should try to get those nitrate levels down. 100ppm is
> >definitely on the very high side where it will be toxic for at least some
> >fish species.
>
> My fish can live in much higher levels perfectly fine, where they just
> become unhappy in a world where algae rules. So they are very happy
> with anything between 50 and 150 mg/l, when algae growth is very slow
> at this level.

If your fish are happy, no prob. Some species apparently die above 50ppm.
(No first-hand experience with this for me, I'm just repeating what I've read
in various books.) But other species tolerate much higher levels, so I guess
it depends on what fish you keep.

> >Adding lots more plants will help in reducing nitrate
> >levels.
>
> A nice idea, but what you do not mention is that plants in fact use up
> very little Nitrate, which is why I would have to bed plants very
> heavily for any beneficial effects.

Not sure about that. I have a fairly heavily planted tank (admittedly with
not all that large a fish load). I have to add nitrates twice weekly to keep
the level at around 10ppm. Even if I dose the tank to 20ppm, three to four
days later, it's back down to zero. The plants definitely have something to
with this. I suspect (but don't know for sure) that there may also be some
amount of anaerobic nitrate reduction happening in my canister filter
and possible in parts of the substrate.

> And so there is nothing that I can really do when it comes out the tap
> at 50 mg/l +-20% to begin with, where the fish pooping will only cause
> it to go higher.
>
> That is unless you know of some way to turn Nitrate into something
> else that won't harm fish?

Well, you could try lots of plants, and slow filter. That will contribute
toward reducing nitrates. You also add a denitrification filter. From
what I hear, they are a bit finicky though -- the the flow rate too high
and they do nothing, and get it too low, and they put hydrogen sulfate
into the water. (H2S is toxic.) But such a filter may not be a bad choice
given that you have high nitrate levels in your tap water.

Or you could use reverse osmosis water for all your water changes
(adding the appropriate salts to bring hardness up to what you want,
of course). But that's quite tedious process compared to just running
the garden hose into the tank.

> In case you are interested, then I am soon to stock a load of varies
> plants that are rated in the "easy" level and suitable for my water.
>
> My shopping list is currently...
>
> 5 x Hygrophila Polysperma
> 1 x Anubias Nana
> 3 x Crinium Thainium
> 5 x Microsorium Pteropus
> 5 x (Assorted) Cryptocorynes

The hygrophila would be your best bet as a nitrate remover.
It's quick-growing and fixes nitrates well. The anubias, java fern,
and the crypts will do their bit too, but not as effectively because
they are fairly slow-growing plants. (I don't have experience with
the Crinium.) Another one you might want to consider is Vallisneria.
Good at removing nitrates and not easily infected by algae.

At any rate, lots of plants and few fish are likely to reduce nitrates
by quite a bit. And the plants will be happy with the nitrates -- it's
food :-) Keep the plants happy by adding traces (PMDD or some
such and CO2) and you may well find your nitrate levels dropping
quite a bit.

Cheers,

Michi.
--
Michi Henning Ph: +61 4 1118-2700
ZeroC, Inc. http://www.zeroc.com

[Cardman]

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 13:41:35 GMT, "Michi Henning" >
wrote:

>"Cardman" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Like my former extremely hard water.
>
>Seems likely. I forgot to mention that the plant is also very light
>demanding, which may be part of the problem.

Yes, which why it seems rather hopeless at providing for it's very
high light requirements. Not good water and not good lighting would
well explain why this plant died so quickly.

>> And there they were doing so well in the pet shop with no real
>> maintenance sources, like a light, either. I think we know why that
>> is...
>
>Because they order a bunch of new ones every week to replace the
>ones that are dying? ;-)

Seems like they do that for the fish as well. As I have been to more
than a few fish stores in my time, where that one was quite bad with
more than a few fish dying in their many aquariums.

>> My fish can live in much higher levels perfectly fine, where they just
>> become unhappy in a world where algae rules. So they are very happy
>> with anything between 50 and 150 mg/l, when algae growth is very slow
>> at this level.
>
>If your fish are happy, no prob. Some species apparently die above 50ppm.
>(No first-hand experience with this for me, I'm just repeating what I've read
>in various books.) But other species tolerate much higher levels, so I guess
>it depends on what fish you keep.

I guess that any fish that does not like my water would soon exit it,
which at least reminds me of one case where that has happened. An
elephant-nosed something or other I recall, which had to navigate a
very hard assault course to eventually die on the wrong side of my
former condensation lid.

That was many years ago, but I named that one James Bond for doing
something that I considered near impossible. Up through a tiny gap, on
to the backing shelf, through an inch wide hole, then to die on the
condensation lid under the light.

Most fish living in this region I guess would soon adjust to the local
water supply, when I doubt that many people would spend hours
processing their water first.

>> >Adding lots more plants will help in reducing nitrate
>> >levels.
>>
>> A nice idea, but what you do not mention is that plants in fact use up
>> very little Nitrate, which is why I would have to bed plants very
>> heavily for any beneficial effects.
>
>Not sure about that. I have a fairly heavily planted tank (admittedly with
>not all that large a fish load).

Obviously we can now see why your Nitrate levels are so low, where
equally removing my many fish from my tank would do the same.

My increasing Nitrate problem I am sure is due to my White Mollies who
like to both eat and poop a great deal. That is part of the reason why
they would soon be in a larger 40 gallon aquarium, when these five
young White Mollies are soon to become adults.

I would say at a crude guess that my Nitrate levels increase by about
50ppm per week, which is why I cannot leave it for more than a couple
of weeks without a good water change, when algae growth is explosive
if I do not change the water in that time.

>I have to add nitrates twice weekly to keep
>the level at around 10ppm. Even if I dose the tank to 20ppm, three to four
>days later, it's back down to zero. The plants definitely have something to
>with this. I suspect (but don't know for sure) that there may also be some
>amount of anaerobic nitrate reduction happening in my canister filter
>and possible in parts of the substrate.

Sounds like you need some more fish, where my White Mollies make for a
good example of the type that would be good at Nitrate production.

They don't much eat the plants either, when they seem to prefer algae,
but maybe you prefer manually adding Nitrate.

The only thing about Mollies is that the largest male can go about
chasing both other males and females in their mating ritual. So it is
not a good idea to keep Mollies with the likes of Swordtails, Platies
and maybe even Guppies.

>> And so there is nothing that I can really do when it comes out the tap
>> at 50 mg/l +-20% to begin with, where the fish pooping will only cause
>> it to go higher.
>>
>> That is unless you know of some way to turn Nitrate into something
>> else that won't harm fish?
>
>Well, you could try lots of plants,

I am giving that serious consideration, but then that enters a whole
new area of caring for plants as well. As until now I just have a
handful of plants and let them grow.

>and slow filter.

What type?

My aquarium has a two filter system that I find works very well,
excluding the aspect of Nitrate control.

First of all this aquarium has an under gravel filter, which is
attached to a power head. This works very well in sucking waste
material into the gravel, where the bacteria does a very efficient job
with the NO2 to NO3 cycle.

This power head also does a great job of providing vast volumes of
oxygen (air) into the aquarium, which is why it is the main aspect for
keeping my aquarium in working order.

I have a second air system that I am soon to replace, when this weak
pump is just no good at getting air into the water depths.

My second filter is just one of those sponge types, which I let sit on
the gravel to one side, where of course on the gravel is where the
waste material is to be found.

>That will contribute
>toward reducing nitrates. You also add a denitrification filter. From
>what I hear, they are a bit finicky though -- the the flow rate too high
>and they do nothing, and get it too low, and they put hydrogen sulfate
>into the water. (H2S is toxic.) But such a filter may not be a bad choice
>given that you have high nitrate levels in your tap water.

Yes, where I have already come to the conclusion that I will need to
add one of these to my shopping list in the near future. When high
Nitrate levels in the tap water is a new thing for me.

I will certainly remember about the flow rate, but hopefully this is
not the case of replacing one problem with a worse problem.

>Or you could use reverse osmosis water for all your water changes
>(adding the appropriate salts to bring hardness up to what you want,
>of course). But that's quite tedious process compared to just running
>the garden hose into the tank.

My boiling method works great at softening my water and turning it
into what aquarium water should be, where only the remaining 50ppm
Nitrate levels is an issue.

>> My shopping list is currently...
>>
>> 5 x Hygrophila Polysperma
>> 1 x Anubias Nana
>> 3 x Crinium Thainium
>> 5 x Microsorium Pteropus
>> 5 x (Assorted) Cryptocorynes
>
>The hygrophila would be your best bet as a nitrate remover.
>It's quick-growing and fixes nitrates well. The anubias, java fern,
>and the crypts will do their bit too, but not as effectively because
>they are fairly slow-growing plants.

I will keep that I mind. I am soon to review my plant choice to make
fully sure that they are suitable, where the Hygrophila ones certainly
are after my quick check.

>(I don't have experience with the Crinium.)

Well I just like the unusual nature of this plant, where it is a slow
growing plant that needs lots of space. So this is my exception to the
fast growing pack them together types that I would ideally need.

>Another one you might want to consider is Vallisneria.

I already have one, when that was the one plant out of my random three
plant choice that did do well. So well that it is trying to take over
the surface of this small 20 gallon aquarium.

As I mentioned before that is why I am soon to move it to the 40
gallon aquarium, even if I have a feeling that like adding 10 bunches
of this plant for near out of control plant growth is the type of
Nitrate handling system that I need.

Still, I would desire to see my fish after this.

>Good at removing nitrates and not easily infected by algae.

Very true, when it is my third plant that I cannot identify that is
suffering some kind of black algae covering to it's leafs. I tried
cleaning this off the other day, but it is suck on there very well.

This plant I am sure will benefit from my soon to be improved
lighting, when I would say that is what this plant is most lacking,
when it is suck in the middle of plant growth and plant death.

>At any rate, lots of plants and few fish are likely to reduce nitrates
>by quite a bit.

I would prefer more than a few fish and tackling Nitrate levels by all
available methods. I just hope that my White Mollies slow down on the
breeding, when two White Mollies to seven White Molllies over just a
few months gives me visions of what a couple of years worth can
produce.

>And the plants will be happy with the nitrates -- it's
>food :-) Keep the plants happy by adding traces (PMDD or some
>such and CO2)

I had a feeling that you would mention CO2. :-/

At this time I am starting to use some Blue Trace plant supplement.

>and you may well find your nitrate levels dropping
>quite a bit.

I have a feeling that removing Nitrate from my water supply is my
current best method for keeping Nitrate levels under control. As I
still doubt that these plants will be able to fully deal with the
Nitrate production within this aquarium.

So having both a Nitrate Filter and plants would keep Nitrate levels
within acceptable values.

Thanks for your advice.

Cardman.
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

[Cardman]

On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 22:09:19 +1000, "Graham Broadbridge"
> wrote:

>"Cardman" > wrote in message
...
>
>> >BTW -- you should try to get those nitrate levels down. 100ppm is
>> >definitely on the very high side where it will be toxic for at least some
>> >fish species.
>>
>> My fish can live in much higher levels perfectly fine, where they just
>> become unhappy in a world where algae rules. So they are very happy
>> with anything between 50 and 150 mg/l, when algae growth is very slow
>> at this level.
>
>100 ppm NO3 is extremely toxic for freshwater fish, but of course any animal
>can acclimatize to unsavoury conditions given time.

Well, even had I replaced totally all the water, then Nitrate levels
would exceed 100ppm in about a week.

In rare occasions when I am just two occupied with other things, then
it is algae that controls my Nitrate levels by explosive algae growth.

>I'm not surprised that
>algae growth is slow at 100 ppm Nitrates. Algae is opportunistic and will
>find a better environment or hibernate.

Currently I manually remove it as much as possible.

>> A nice idea, but what you do not mention is that plants in fact use up
>> very little Nitrate, which is why I would have to bed plants very
>> heavily for any beneficial effects.
>
>Plants use a lot of NO3 here. Given that your nitrate levels exceed 100ppm
>I'm not surprised that you see no NO3 consumption.

My problem I am sure is half due to the Nitrate levels in my tap water
followed by more than a few fish in the aquarium.

>The poor plants have no chance to even get started.

My plant problem is more a case of unsuitable plants for my former
water conditions and lighting, when those plants that are suitable do
very well.

Their problem then is mostly an algae one, where my Goldfish Weed is a
favoured sticking point for algae. And since this is difficult to
remove, then often some of the plant is removed with it.

I still have some of this plant growing in my tank, but either I need
to get algae and Nitrate levels in better control, or my new plants
will need to be algae resistant.

>I'd suggest you reduce nitrate from your tap water to start with.

Yes, where now that I am aware that there is high levels of Nitrate in
my tap water, then so can I do something about it.

Keeping a good aquarium is all about such knowledge.

Cardman
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

[Cardman]

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 13:41:35 GMT, "Michi Henning" >
wrote:

>Another one you might want to consider is Vallisneria.

Actually, speaking of Vallisneria, then I was just wondering after
this mention how this plant reproduced. With the notion here of course
that this is a nice plant for my aquarium, where more of them is not a
bad idea.

And so I went to take a good look at my Vallisneria, where I just
noticed that it is already reproducing. As this large plant has put
out two shoots in opposite directions near it's own roots, where these
have penetrated the gravel only a few cm away.

From those two points, then one new plant is already well established,
where a second one is just starting. Further more a third new plant
has started near the better established one.

Then there is a new shoot further out from these two, where I can only
assume that this first offshoot from the main plant has traveled
across and under the gravel for about 20cm so far producing new plants
as it goes.

So my one Vallisneria is already five Vallisnerias with no doubt more
to come. This I guess is all one plant so far, where I have no idea it
they will naturally separate.

Kind of a shame that I will soon have to break this up when I move
this plant and lots more to the bigger aquarium.

So I guess that this Vallisneria is taking care of itself without
myself having to do anything. Just the type of aquarium plant I
like...

Cardman
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

[Michi Henning]

"Graham Broadbridge" > wrote in message
u...
> "Michi Henning" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > BTW -- you should try to get those nitrate levels down. 100ppm is
> > definitely on the very high side where it will be toxic for at least some
> > fish species. Adding lots more plants will help in reducing nitrate
> > levels.
>
> At 100 ppm NO3 there is some evidence that plants themselves shut down at
> normal (0.05 - 0.1 ppm) Fe and trace levels.

Ah, I didn't know that, thanks! Do you have any links?

Cheers,

Michi.
--
Michi Henning Ph: +61 4 1118-2700
ZeroC, Inc. http://www.zeroc.com

[Cardman]

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 21:40:25 GMT, "Michi Henning" >
wrote:

>"Graham Broadbridge" > wrote in message
u...
>> "Michi Henning" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > BTW -- you should try to get those nitrate levels down. 100ppm is
>> > definitely on the very high side where it will be toxic for at least some
>> > fish species. Adding lots more plants will help in reducing nitrate
>> > levels.
>>
>> At 100 ppm NO3 there is some evidence that plants themselves shut down at
>> normal (0.05 - 0.1 ppm) Fe and trace levels.
>
>Ah, I didn't know that, thanks! Do you have any links?

I cannot say that I have ever seen that myself with my 100ppm plus
Nitrate levels. As even my Myriophyllum Tuberculatum (red) ones, who
due to my extremely hard water and low lighting, only went and turned
brown and died greatly back are now putting out some green shoots.

Kind of odd to have a naturally Red plant that is Brown and Green
instead, but there you go.

I will keep that in mind though, but I cannot see how too much Nitrate
food can ever be a problem. Maybe that depends on the plant species,
where that would be an unusual species.

So I would also be interested in further details, when it could be
something to watch out for. Nitrate at 100ppm is not that high as
these things can go, when my aquarium Nitrate levels would exceed that
level just before my weekly water change.

At most I guess is that I have grown plants in Nitrate levels of
250ppm plus before, but of course then they and everything else gets
attacked by algae.

One reason I guess why too much Nitrate levels in nature, with for
example sewage discharge will kill plants, when there is no one to
clean the algae off the plants.

Well my water guide mentions that Nitrate levels between 25 and 100
are normal aquarium levels, even if it also says that Nitrate levels
should ideally be kept below 25 to avoid algae growth.

Anyway, today I finally got around to ordering those 18 plants for
this aquarium and then a couple of plants to go in my other aquariums,
where I will be happy to report how my Nitrate levels change.

I can only hope for a Nitrate reduction, when then I won't have to buy
that more expensive Nitrate Filter, but I consider that a long shot.

Cardman
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

[Graham Broadbridge]

"Michi Henning" > wrote in message
...

> Well, you could try lots of plants, and slow filter. That will contribute
> toward reducing nitrates. You also add a denitrification filter. From
> what I hear, they are a bit finicky though -- the the flow rate too high
> and they do nothing, and get it too low, and they put hydrogen sulfate
> into the water. (H2S is toxic.) But such a filter may not be a bad choice
> given that you have high nitrate levels in your tap water.

I've had very little success with denitrification filters. About 10 years
ago I tried a
sera denitrator and that failed dismally - although that may have been
because I didn't
understand the process and my flow rate was probably too high.

Recently I tried a home brew filter using around 50 metres of tubing, but I
couldn't get
the flow rate correct to maintain an anaerobic culture. It just clogged up.

Best bet to reduce nitrate levels are lots of adequately fertilised plants
and water changes.

Even that has it's challenges :-)



Graham.

[Graham Broadbridge]

"Cardman" > wrote in message
...
> I would say at a crude guess that my Nitrate levels increase by about
> 50ppm per week, which is why I cannot leave it for more than a couple
> of weeks without a good water change, when algae growth is explosive
> if I do not change the water in that time.

Wow, an increase of 50ppm per week nitrate is huge :-)

Add lots of plants :-) The aim really is to balance the fish load with
plant load
so hopefully the nitrate can be utilised by the plants.

You can then spend time admiring the aquarium rather than slaving over it.

I prefer to have a deficit of nitrate, so I can add it when necessary
together with other
nutrients. That sure beats excess nitrates and phosphates which lead to
excess algae.

> >I have to add nitrates twice weekly to keep
> >the level at around 10ppm. Even if I dose the tank to 20ppm, three to
four
> >days later, it's back down to zero. The plants definitely have something
to
> >with this. I suspect (but don't know for sure) that there may also be
some
> >amount of anaerobic nitrate reduction happening in my canister filter
> >and possible in parts of the substrate.
>
> Sounds like you need some more fish, where my White Mollies make for a
> good example of the type that would be good at Nitrate production.

No No No :-) Don't do it :-) Add nitrate by hand rather than adding fish.

If you add fish you can end up with a extremely finely balanced system where
a single
nutrient deficiency can result in an algal bloom.

Only my opinion of course, but I like to keep the tank under *my* control,
rather than
attempting to correct imbalances caused by excess fish load.


Graham.

[Graham Broadbridge]

"Michi Henning" > wrote in message
...
> > At 100 ppm NO3 there is some evidence that plants themselves shut down
at
> > normal (0.05 - 0.1 ppm) Fe and trace levels.
>
> Ah, I didn't know that, thanks! Do you have any links?

I knew someone would ask for references :-)

Sorry Michi, I read it somewhere and it seems to agree with my
observations/experimentation, but for the life of me I can't find the
reference. From memory it was in relation to commercial cultivation of
aquatic plants. It may have been on a hydroponic site, but like I said I
can't find it at the moment.

Regards
Graham.

[Cichlidiot]

A few general comments.

First off, while common knowledge is that "hardness is bad", there has
been evidence of supposedly acidic loving plants flourishing in hard water
in nature and in tanks. Do a Google search on this newsgroup's archives
and I'm sure you'll find many many articles on the matter. That being
said, I think that focusing on hardness was really the wrong thing to
focus on. Of all your water problems, it is the nitrates that are of the
biggest concern. Plus mollies traditionally like hard water, so even if
they aren't showing effects now, it might appear in the future. Also, most
of the plants on your list would be perfectly fine in your type of water
as I have most of them in my 20 dGH tanks.

Now, onto the nitrates. Many of those denitrafying systems depend on
setting up colonies of anaerobic bacteria which will fix the nitrate out
of the water. Of course, the downside is you have a potential biohazard
sitting in that loop should something go wrong if those anaerobic bacteria
are of the sulfur sort. Hydrogen sulfide coming from the tank is not only
unpleasant, it can also be potentially life threatening. This leads me to
find alternative ways to fix nitrate out of the water in my own tap
situation (only 20ppm from the tap for me).

Now, on to the solutions I pondered for my own nitrate situation. First, I
stopped drinking the tap water. Nitrates are as bad for humans as they are
for fish. Then I considered an RO unit for both drinking water and
cutting the tap water on water changes, but being a poor student I really
didn't want to go that route. Bottled drinking water is plentiful in this
area, so I went with that for me, but it's a tad expensive for the fish.

For my tanks, I considered two approaches to removing the nitrates. One
was a vegetative filter. In this concept, you run the tank water through a
system with terrestrial, aquatic or bog plants planted in it. Of course,
you provide plenty of light overhead for them to grow rapidly. Many house
plants adapt well to growing in a hydroponic situation (roots in water)
and there are several which were said to be good at fixing nitrates, like
pothos/creeping charlie. Unfortunately, those house plants also happen to
be toxic to cats and I have cats who like to nibble plants, so I couldn't
go that route. Another plant said to be good was water lettuce, but I
can't find that locally (I believe it's listed as a "noxious plant" here
and therefore illegal to sell).

The second option was to heavily plant the tank with aquatic plants. I
went this route with also a heavy tolerance towards algae. Most of my new
tanks are algae wastelands to begin with but you know what? That green
string algae is great at taking up nitrates. Just a pain to pull out every
week, but it did a good job. If I could figure out how to keep it
contained, I'd set up a vegatative filter with just it. After a while, the
tank seems to reach a sort of equilibrium where the plants are better at
sopping up the new nitrates than the algae, then my algae problems
decrease to nearly nil. My similis tank took the longest to reach this
point, but that was mostly due to the similis digging up every plant
except the amazon sword, apogogeton bulbs and a few crypts that escaped
their destructive rearranging.

[Michi Henning]

"Cardman" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 13:41:35 GMT, "Michi Henning" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Well, you could try lots of plants,
>
> I am giving that serious consideration, but then that enters a whole
> new area of caring for plants as well. As until now I just have a
> handful of plants and let them grow.
>
> >and slow filter.
>
> What type?

I run two filters, an Eheim 2128 canister and an Eheim 2012
internal one. The canister is rumoured to contribute to nitrate
removal. Apparently, sintered glass contains enough small
pores for some anearobic bacteria to break down nitrates.
I personally don't know how much credibility this explanation
really has. But I know that other fishkeepers and some people
at my LFS who've been keeping fish for longer than I have
been alive confirm that slower filters are linked to lower nitrate
levels. For nitrate breakdown to happen, you need anaerobic
areas in the filter, so the slow filter theory makes sense at
least from that angle.

> >That will contribute
> >toward reducing nitrates. You also add a denitrification filter. From
> >what I hear, they are a bit finicky though -- the the flow rate too high
> >and they do nothing, and get it too low, and they put hydrogen sulfate
> >into the water. (H2S is toxic.) But such a filter may not be a bad choice
> >given that you have high nitrate levels in your tap water.
>
> Yes, where I have already come to the conclusion that I will need to
> add one of these to my shopping list in the near future. When high
> Nitrate levels in the tap water is a new thing for me.

Aqua Medic make a rather nifty one. My LFS uses one of those for
a large marine tank. And he told me that you needn't buy the special
bio balls they sell you. Pure sulfur can be had cheaply from chemical
suppliers and does the job just as well.

> >Good at removing nitrates and not easily infected by algae.
>
> Very true, when it is my third plant that I cannot identify that is
> suffering some kind of black algae covering to it's leafs. I tried
> cleaning this off the other day, but it is suck on there very well.

Sounds like black brush algae. See
http://www.aquaticscape.com/articles/algae.htm
for some pictures.

> I had a feeling that you would mention CO2. :-/

Naturally! :-)

> I have a feeling that removing Nitrate from my water supply is my
> current best method for keeping Nitrate levels under control. As I
> still doubt that these plants will be able to fully deal with the
> Nitrate production within this aquarium.

A reverse osmosis unit really might be a good way to go. They are not
that expensive -- around US $130.00 here in Australia, and they do
a perfect job of removing the nitrates (as well as all other salts).

Cheers,

Michi.

--
Michi Henning Ph: +61 4 1118-2700
ZeroC, Inc. http://www.zeroc.com

[Michi Henning]

"Cardman" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 13:41:35 GMT, "Michi Henning" >
> wrote:
>
> >Another one you might want to consider is Vallisneria.
>
> Actually, speaking of Vallisneria, then I was just wondering after
> this mention how this plant reproduced.

Lateral shoots, as you discovered. They also get flowers. I've had
underwater male flowers on my vals a few times.

--
Michi Henning Ph: +61 4 1118-2700
ZeroC, Inc. http://www.zeroc.com

[Cardman]

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 11:21:44 +1000, "Graham Broadbridge"
> wrote:

>"Cardman" > wrote in message
...
>> I would say at a crude guess that my Nitrate levels increase by about
>> 50ppm per week, which is why I cannot leave it for more than a couple
>> of weeks without a good water change, when algae growth is explosive
>> if I do not change the water in that time.
>
>Wow, an increase of 50ppm per week nitrate is huge :-)

Well 7 well fed White Mollies who tend to do big long poos I am sure
explains most of this, but then I have had some plant decay as well.

Another problem is that my Power Head is blasting some of the food
straight down into the gravel. While I had some bottom dwelling
catfish this was not a problem and made for easy catfish feeding, but
this food is just extra Nitrate production these days.

I need new Catfish...

Still, my Golden Tiger Barb is helping out with this problem, when
during feeding time he locates himself at the bottom of the water
stream from the Power Head. And so he looks out for anything coming
downstream and soon has it eaten, but too much food at once has him
defeated.

Yes I could turn of my power head during feeding time, but well that
does require pulling out the plug.

My fish simply love my freeze dried Blood Worms, when some of my fish
do not even concern themselves over the usual flakes, but for these
Blood Worms they are all darting to the surface to get some.

I can see why that is, this being the most expensive in the freeze
dried food range. Damn fish think their royalty...

I am just wondering how they will like my live White Worms, when I
decided to give a live White Worm culture a shot. Seems to be doing
well so far, but another 5 weeks until fish feeding time.

>Add lots of plants :-)

Yes, where I can only hope that this helps. Still, I will soon have
the White Mollies in the bigger aquarium once ready, where this will
spread out their mess somewhat.

I am sure that feeding my fish less would have them pooing less as
well, but too little feeding has its own problems.

>The aim really is to balance the fish load with plant load
>so hopefully the nitrate can be utilised by the plants.

And all those plants need a lot of care as well, or at minimum extra
equipment.

>You can then spend time admiring the aquarium rather than slaving over it.

That would be nice, where I am left wondering if water changes can be
done much less frequently by keeping Nitrate levels in check.

>I prefer to have a deficit of nitrate, so I can add it when necessary
>together with other
>nutrients. That sure beats excess nitrates and phosphates which lead to
>excess algae.

I agree, but then a lot of my Nitrate problem is coming straight out
of the tap. As a weekly water change using Nitrate free water would
keep Nitrate levels around 25 to 50ppm.

Then of course extra plants would slow this rise further, or as I
would hope reverse it.

>> Sounds like you need some more fish, where my White Mollies make for a
>> good example of the type that would be good at Nitrate production.
>
>No No No :-) Don't do it :-) Add nitrate by hand rather than adding fish.

As long as the Nitrate level is still in decline, then I do not see a
problem, when it will just mean less Nitrate needs to be added.

>If you add fish you can end up with a extremely finely balanced system where
>a single nutrient deficiency can result in an algal bloom.

Regular water quality testing would avoid that, where steps like less
feeding would help bring things back in line.

>Only my opinion of course, but I like to keep the tank under *my* control,
>rather than attempting to correct imbalances caused by excess fish load.

Just remember that aquariums are for fish, where if you want to grow a
few weeds, then I will give you a pot of soil. ;-]

So plants are nothing more to me than with creating better water
quality for my fish, where to be honest, then as plants go most of
these look damned ugly.

And so for real plants, then get a big pot and a few simple sunflower
seeds. ;-]

Cardman
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

[Cardman]

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 09:49:36 GMT, "Michi Henning" >
wrote:

>"Cardman" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 13:41:35 GMT, "Michi Henning" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >and slow filter.
>>
>> What type?
>
>I run two filters, an Eheim 2128 canister and an Eheim 2012
>internal one.

Nice idea, when everyone should use at least a twin filter system.

>The canister is rumoured to contribute to nitrate
>removal. Apparently, sintered glass contains enough small
>pores for some anearobic bacteria to break down nitrates.

I will have to look into that then.

Currently I have been looking into getting yet more equipment for my
two new aquariums, where I was very close to buying two more
undergravel filters and powerheads, then I changed my mind.

As I was looking into how you can put sand and an undergravel filter
together, where my solution was to get a short undergravel filter,
then to put the sand in the remaining 1/3rd.

Then I came across the good and the bad points for undergravel
filters, where although most of these do not apply to my system, but
there is the point about plants.

As of course it is harder to care for plants when almost everything is
being sucked away. So I began looking into other filter choices, where
an external power cannister filter seems most popular.

And so after looking around I am very tempted to buy the Fluval 304
external cannister power filter, which for this model can handle 710
litres an hour.

Tons more than what I would need for this aquarium, but increased
water throughput can keep the substrate in better shape.

My only bad view towards this is that it seems little more than a
glorified external sponge filter with a few extras at like 10 times
the price.

On the plus side, then it would allow extra room for more substrate
for the plants, then extra water for the fish.

>I personally don't know how much credibility this explanation
>really has. But I know that other fishkeepers and some people
>at my LFS who've been keeping fish for longer than I have
>been alive confirm that slower filters are linked to lower nitrate
>levels.

All I have seen so far are the power filters, but I will certainly
look into the slower type. Although being so slow I wonder how they
can do a good suction job in the first place.

Maybe they don't produce so much Nitrates due to simply being bad at
the Ammonia to Nitrite to Nitrate cycle. Messy tanks in other words.

>For nitrate breakdown to happen, you need anaerobic
>areas in the filter, so the slow filter theory makes sense at
>least from that angle.

This is going to need quite some research, when I can see
disadvantages to a slow filter system as well.

>Aqua Medic make a rather nifty one. My LFS uses one of those for
>a large marine tank. And he told me that you needn't buy the special
>bio balls they sell you. Pure sulfur can be had cheaply from chemical
>suppliers and does the job just as well.

Yes, I can see why.

>Sounds like black brush algae. See
>http://www.aquaticscape.com/articles/algae.htm
>for some pictures.

Seems that I have at least 4 kinds of algae in my tank, what with that
Black Algae on those leafs, then my glass is effected by Brown Algae,
where I have a slimy Dark Green Algae on my petrified wood, where last
of all the long strangly Lighter Green Algae on the plants.

My water also has a very light green tint, but this is not a problem.

I see the recommended solution for my Black Algae is leaf removal,
which causes me a problem, when this plant has very few leafs to begin
with.

Still, maybe this algae could explain the death of these leafs, where
maybe this even came with the plant.

I will look into it, when I expect that this plant can live without
leaves for the short that before it grows more.

>A reverse osmosis unit really might be a good way to go. They are not
>that expensive -- around US $130.00 here in Australia, and they do
>a perfect job of removing the nitrates (as well as all other salts).

I will take a look around, when apart from doing a good job, then this
is a question of price.

Cardman
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

[Cardman]

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 11:09:42 +1000, "Graham Broadbridge"
> wrote:

>I've had very little success with denitrification filters. About 10 years
>ago I tried a sera denitrator and that failed dismally - although that may
>have been because I didn't understand the process and my flow rate was probably
>too high.
>
>Recently I tried a home brew filter using around 50 metres of tubing, but I
>couldn't get the flow rate correct to maintain an anaerobic culture. It just
>clogged up.
>
>Best bet to reduce nitrate levels are lots of adequately fertilised plants
>and water changes.
>
>Even that has it's challenges :-)

I have been thinking about a better system to reduce Nitrate levels,
when I doubt that anything can work better than a pre-filter.

What I mean is that waste material could be collected and separated
before it could go through the Ammonia to Nitrite to Nitrate cycle.

Hence collect the fish poo and other waste, then it won't break down
into the end product of Nitrate.

Now I am wondering how it is possible to do that beyond very good
filtration and manual cleaning. I guess having easier cleaning would
be a start.

Ideas?

Cardman
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

[Cardman]

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 00:13:14 +0100, Cardman >
wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 09:49:36 GMT, "Michi Henning" >
>wrote:
>
>>The canister is rumoured to contribute to nitrate
>>removal. Apparently, sintered glass contains enough small
>>pores for some anearobic bacteria to break down nitrates.
>
>I will have to look into that then.

And that I did.

So anaerobic bacteria can be used to create a further step in this
cycle, which will convert Nitrates input to Nitrogen output.

Very nice, but I doubt that a general slow filter is good enough, for
reasons that I will soon explain.

As anaerobic of course means without oxygen, which is why you will
only get these bacteria living where there is no oxygen. And the
common way of doing that is to have other bacteria using up all the
oxygen first.

And that oxygen using bacteria is of course the same one that turns
Nitrites into Nitrates and even this fish poo into Nitrites.

So in order to get your anaerobic bacteria you need a very slow filter
that has time to use up all the oxygen. And the simplest way to do
that is just to use a long (like 20 foot) narrow (like 1/4") flexible
pvc tube with a flow control on one end. Not of course to forget a low
pressure pump in order to get it in there in the first place.

Make sure that the flow is slow enough (1 to 4 gallons an hour is
recommended) by using a simple flow controller (found in most DIY
stores) and some of the tube would contain your oxygen eating
bacteria, while the rest of the tube would contain your anaerobic
bacteria.

From this information we can see that the longer your tube is the
faster the flow rate can be, where no Nitrate reducing results means
to slow down the flow rate or to use a longer tube.

People who have already made their own de-nitrator filter using a 17
and 20 foot tube have reported that 3 mg/l of Nitrates can be turned
into Nitrogen each and every hour.

Or as I just read one person used a 75 foot long tube and recorded a
Nitrate level on the output end of 5ppm less than the normal aquarium
level. Although at just 2 gallons an hour I expect that he should
increase his flow rate.

The only thing to watch out for this that this anaerobic bacteria will
also turn Nitrates back into Nitrites, which means that the output of
this tube should ideally be fed into the input of another filter. So
that these Nitrites can be converted back once more to Nitrates.

So even at my 100 ppm level of Nitrates, then this can be reduced to
very low levels in under 2 days. Naturally, it will take weeks for
your bacteria to just started fully in your tube, but that is one good
method for removing lots of Nitrates.

Kind of good if you want to have lots of fish in your tank, where the
only problem is keeping Nitrate levels high enough for the plants. And
well this de-nitrator tube won't quite remove all of it, when the
water moves so slowly.

Since I plan to use a high speed external cannister type filter on my
larger aquarium at least, then I could attach such a device with the
input as a branch off the output of this external filter. And then the
output from this tube can be linked into the input of this external
filter.

So something that I could certainly get around to, when this would do
a much better Nitrate reduction job than what many plants would.

I am just wondering who sells an already assembled kit with
instructions, when that saves the pain of if you get some aspect
wrong.

Cardman
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

[Graham Broadbridge]

"Cardman" > wrote in message
...

> I am just wondering who sells an already assembled kit with
> instructions, when that saves the pain of if you get some aspect
> wrong.

Sera used to make a bio-denitrator - maybe they still do. I had to feed it
their Bio-NIP tablets daily.

I had no success with it and threw it into the garbage years ago - but that
was probably due to me not understanding the process involved with removing
nitrates more than an error in their design. I seem to recall increasing
the flow rate when it wasn't working to my satisfaction :-)

Graham.

[Graham Broadbridge]

"Cardman" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 11:09:42 +1000, "Graham Broadbridge"
> > wrote:
>
> I have been thinking about a better system to reduce Nitrate levels,
> when I doubt that anything can work better than a pre-filter.
>
> What I mean is that waste material could be collected and separated
> before it could go through the Ammonia to Nitrite to Nitrate cycle.
>
> Hence collect the fish poo and other waste, then it won't break down
> into the end product of Nitrate.

Go back to nature :-) Plants are much happier using Ammonia as a food
source rather then Nitrates. Even Ammonium is more easily harvested by
plants than Nitrates. The only reason we use NO3 as fertiliser for
aquariums is that NH3/NH4 is so toxic to fish.

In some well lit and well fertilised tanks, plants use the Ammonia generated
by fish directly, without conversion to nitrates first.

Regards
Graham.





>
> Now I am wondering how it is possible to do that beyond very good
> filtration and manual cleaning. I guess having easier cleaning would
> be a start.
>
> Ideas?
>
> Cardman
> http://www.cardman.com
> http://www.cardman.co.uk

[Robert Flory]

"Cardman" > wrote in message
...
>SNIP
>
> What I mean is that waste material could be collected and separated
> before it could go through the Ammonia to Nitrite to Nitrate cycle.
>
> Hence collect the fish poo and other waste, then it won't break down
> into the end product of Nitrate.
>
> Now I am wondering how it is possible to do that beyond very good
> filtration and manual cleaning. I guess having easier cleaning would
> be a start.
>
> Ideas?
>
> Cardman
> http://www.cardman.com
> http://www.cardman.co.uk

Try a sump with lots of plants if you don't want plants in the tank. Plants
take up the ammonia directly. That is why most heavily planted tanks are
nitrate limited.
Bob

[Robert Flory]

search the APD archives at
http://fins.actwin.com/

bob
"Michi Henning" > wrote in message
...
> "Graham Broadbridge" > wrote in message
> u...
> > "Michi Henning" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > BTW -- you should try to get those nitrate levels down. 100ppm is
> > > definitely on the very high side where it will be toxic for at least
some
> > > fish species. Adding lots more plants will help in reducing nitrate
> > > levels.
> >
> > At 100 ppm NO3 there is some evidence that plants themselves shut down
at
> > normal (0.05 - 0.1 ppm) Fe and trace levels.
>
> Ah, I didn't know that, thanks! Do you have any links?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Michi.
> --
> Michi Henning Ph: +61 4 1118-2700
> ZeroC, Inc. http://www.zeroc.com
>