On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 18:39:39 +0100, Tommi Jensen wrote:

Right - having `researched' - i.e. google-more articles with "dubious"
sources - it'd seem that Taganyika is quite hard, whereas malawi could
be considered `soft' in comparison, yet still relatively hard.

Yep, it's all relative. Malawi is hard relative to most African rivers
but soft relative to most of the other rift lakes. The hardness is
related to the age of lakes and how long the minerals have been
accumulating. For example Tanganika is much older than Malawi.

In the late 1960's Peter Davies sent his first big Malawi shipment to
London. It came with a bottle of water to be tested. All I got was a
pair of auratus, a pair of elongatus and a water analysis.

Some years later a shipment from Malawi arrived in Manchester. One of
the bags had no fish! We thought is was a short shipment but later
realised it was just a space filler. It was an opportunity for further
water analysis. I remember the pH was near neutral and water was quite
soft. I know the pH may have reduced during the two days it took to
get from Malawi to Manchester but I don't know of any reason for the
water to soften. Chemists?

We didn't want to repeat the mistakes that had cost the Tanganika
keepers in the early sixties. Tanganika was thought to be the same
water as the Congo.


--
Steve Wolstenholme Neural Planner Software

EasyNN-plus. The easy way to build neural networks.
http://www.easynn.com