- This topic has 12 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hey guys,
I just got a 30l that I’m cycling with TMC nutrasoil. In 2 days it was taken pH down from 7.8 to 6.4. Had anyone had experience with this substrate? I know its for plants but the pH drop seems to work.
Do you think that this is sustainable when I start regular water changes with RO water. This will also reduce hardness which is currently about 11Gh. But remember I can’t let these factors drop too much as I will need to match water from my LFS to acclimatise any stock I get.
Any opinions? cheers.
Just measured hardness.
Gh from about 11 to about 6
Kh from about 5 to 0-1Is this a good substrate for paros?
Mike, I cannot tell you whether your substrate is a good substrate for licorice gouramis since I mistrust any of these commercial products in respect of their composition. But perhaps there is a list of contents given somewhere. Could you tell us? What sort of gravel is the main substance in it? Quartz? Granite? Laterite? Peat? There must be some natural substance (like peat) or some artificial chemical product in it if the substrate is able to reduce the Gh, Kh and pH in such a big dimension that you told us. Until I don’t know the exact composition of that substrate I would not use ist. There may be grwoing substances for plants in it (for what else one needs such a substrate?) that may be of use in a standard tank with standard fish but of evil in a tank for blackwater fish.
The reduction of Gh from 11 to 6 is certainly good for our fish, or better: Gh 11 is absolutely of no use for them. But the more important values are the two others. The Gh is of no great value since it could consist of several different components. Licorice gouramis are not accustomed to any calcium in their waters. Therefore a Kh exceeding 1 is entirely unbiological. In this respect the reduction you told us is highly recommended. The same holds for the reduction of pH from 7.8 to 6.4. Any alcalic value is to be avoided because of it’s inevitably instigating the germs to propagate; the lower it is the lower is the germ-content. Eggs of our fish will not develop with a Kh more than 1 and a pH above 6.8 or even 7.
But I have another question to you. How do you measure that water values? The background of my question is that I mistrust that huge reductive powers of a commercial product which we do not know the composition of. Reducing the pH in presence of calcium is chemically highly improbable. Well, the calcium has been reduced too, that might explain that result. But by what substances? The question whether that will be a lasting effect is not to be answered without knowledge of the components. It is highly probable that it will not last. But by what method do you measure your values? Many methods will produce mistakes, even electronic equipment. If not calibrated very exactly, you receive fantasy numbers. Therefore it is good to know: The exact hardness and the exact pH is less important than the certainty of of pH below 6.8 (and above 3.0, but it is nearly impossible for you to reach that mark) and the certainty of having reduced calcium to nearly nil.
My last questions: Why do you need a substrate at all? For growing plants? That is difficult in a water of high acidity and a hardness near to nil. And adding plant nutrients will change your water values again in a direction not useful for the licorice. Of course there are plants in the natural habitats of our fish, but mind: That are flowing waters, and the plants are rarely true underwater plants. The majority are plants that build their leaves above the water surface (grasses for instance). They don’t affect the chemistry of the water to a markable degree, they are simply “structure”. There are only a few true underwater plants, but the flowing waters will carry the new nutrients and will carry them away, too.
But anyway: I have a substrate in my small licorice-tanks too. But it consists either of pure (!) peat, or of a very thin (max. 1 cm) layer of quartz or fire-clay gravel, and old beech’s and oak leaves. I take it to be a settling-structure for useful bacteria. They settle on all surfaces, but a thin layer of a gravel enlarges the surfaces considerably. I have plants in my small tanks too, but only javamoss and other moss, a few shoots or branches of Ludwigia or Rotala rotundifolia, rare a small flowerpot with a Cryptocoryne, and of course floating plants. I always recommend Ceratopteris, a plant that is highly valuable in a tank that need constant germ-reduction. There are more plants to be ued of course, but’s a science of its own.Hello,
in the last year I used a substrate like nutrasoil in another tank. In fact, it reduced the PH and GH, but the effect only was noticeable for about a half year. After that period of time the value decreased, and after 1 year the values of the water were nearly the same as using sand as substrate.
I would not rely on nutrasoil to get the perfect PH and GH.
Thanks for the response guys,
I’ve looked on the box and the internet and I can’t find out the composition of this substrate. Only that it is being described as an all natural porous structure and it is made in Japan. I believe its probably the same as the ADA stuff.
I’m thinking that what happens is some sort of ion exchange going on where all the Kh value is being taken out of the water and then the pH buffering effect is gone and this in turn reduces pH. However this is a complete guess and its not based on any science, only what I have read elsewhere.
I am using a couple of different test kits that you can get from Tetra and API. These are probably the most well known and common test kits available in the UK. I’m pretty confident in accuracy as my friend has contacted the local water company and was able to confirm the readings from his API master test kit. These kits are the drop tests not the strips.
And I think you have to a certain extent answered your own third question Peter. I’ve often read on this forum the importance of balance and the creation of the right environment or “Milleau”. I don’t want to keep fish in a bare tank as this type of fish keeping feels just like keeping chickens in battery cages.
In any event, the species mentioned such as java moss and fern and crypts are exactly what I had in mind. But I’m guessing I probably wouldn’t have needed such a plant-emphasised substrate. I guess I wanted the substrate so I won’t have to dose with fertilizers. Dosing with fertilizers just don’t seem right to me. Even if it was ok to do it in a tank for Paros, I still wouldn’t like the idea.
Nathea is probably right that this effect won’t last. However, the idea of using a peat substrate is certainly something I’ve looked into. The problem is sourcing natural peat. I’ve located a source of Irish Sphagnum Moss peat which the seller assures me is cut from the ground and then packaged with nothing artificial but it is for gardening. I think that I may use this for water treatment which I have read about doing elsewhere.
I guess its about experimenting. I’ll update on any progress.
[quote=”humike7″ post=806]Thanks for the response guys[/quote]
Mike: I am a guy, many others too. But Helene, Nathea, Lisbeth and others who write here are not…:)I don’t want to keep fish in a bare tank as this type of fish keeping feels just like keeping chickens in battery cages (…)
I think this is the wrong comparison. Keeping licorice gouramis densely crammed in a tank like neon tetras or barbs would be comparable to a battery cage. Licorice always like to hide. Therefore, the question whether to keep them in a planted tank or not is different. They need structures “to lean against”; they are no fish of the free water. But the decisive question for them is not plants or not plants (that maybe important for us) but structures or no structures (e.g. wood, dead leaves) resp. caves or no caves. In their home territories they live between dead leaves on the groung and stems of emerging grasses in the lower parts of the riparian banks.
The aquarium test is breeding. I prefer using some plants in that situation, too, as you do. But it’s no battery cage situation if you do not, but provide a single pair with what they really need: structures.
As the other points are concerned, I am with you.Hello Peter perhaps my question is stupid, but can you please explain why fertilizers harm blackwater fish?
Patrick, I never said that “fertilizers harm blackwater fish”. I said that one shouldn’t use fertilizers in a blackwater aquarium. Why? What is the difference?
In blackwater tanks you must try to keep a rather delicate stability of milieu conditions as stable as possible. The range of admissable values is much less wide than in a standard tank. Why? Because you must try to keep a water near destilled water as stable as possible. The problem ist the structure of an aquarium tank as opposed to the structure of the natural biotopes. There, you have a constant flow of new waters delivering subsequently water of a conductivity near to nil and a rather stable pH well below 7.0; the very special nutrients for plants (mostly plants of the riparian banks, rarely true underwater plants!) that are stored in the ground don’t disturb that stability because the flow of new water egalizes them again. In an aquarium you have a very small fixed amount of still water, only stired up by a filter pump (sometimes). The filter does not eliminate overdimensioned nutrients. And in most standard tanks they are. You can compare the normal standard aquarium to industrial intensive agriculture. A blackwater aquarium is just the opposite.
In a densely planted tank with mainly underwater plants you need plants fertilizers that constantly renew the level of nutrients. The fish kept there stand that. The success of the aquarium mass hobby wouldn’t have been possible with fish that are not adapted to such changing conditions. The two most important preconditions of the mass hobby – tap water what ever that means and industrial food – include the necessity to have fish at your disposal that can bear that conditions. There are enough blue and red and large and small, as you you know. The licorice don’t belong to that group fitting in the preconditions set by the mass market. Why? Becauses they are adapted to the very special blackwater conditions. Therefore they will never have a future in the aquarium mass trade.
There is another point. Fertilizers are different. For example, some include nitrogens, others don’t. Normally we don’t receive exact informations by the industry what the exact contents are. They talk of “fine plant growth” and that’s it. Such products are risky for aquarists that must try to keep a delicate still water milieu as stable as possible.
And there is a third important point. I always try to convince the friends of licorice gouramis that their first duty is to learn to breed their fish. I think that merely keeping highly endangered fish that have been caught in the wild for beauty’s sake until they die is not the right conduct of a thinking aquarist. There are enough other beautiful fish for them on the market which are produced as mass products. (I don’t like that, but it’s a fact that I cannot change). The first thing one has to learn is to create situations in which those endangered fish not only are ready to breed but in which their eggs and larvae have a real chance of survival and development. And that’s not a tank for which you need “fertilizers”. Nevertheless you can build very nice tanks even full of plant growth. If you look into my small Paro-tanks, each is different. There are plants in all of them. You have the choice of quite some twenty or thirty species. But not of a hundred or more. You must restrict yourself and could nevertheless create highly attractive and different environments. A n d breed the fish. Without using any plant fertilizers (only feeding your fish with that live food and changing waters from time to time).Thanks for your detailed answer Peter.
I agree with you, that an aquarium with blackwater fish is not comparable with high tech aquariums, because we dont use strong light, CO2 and hard neutral water. “Our systems are running slower”. I agree with you too, that its better not to use fertilizers with nitrate and phosphate.
But in some points I do not agree with you. Let me explain.
We can not copy natural systems in the aquarium. We have always (in relation) a very high input of food in the aquarium. So we have eutrophic water. We must take the nutrients away. We can do that with waterchange and harvesting of biomass. So our aquarium IS comparable with agriculture or farming.
On the other hand we use RO-water or rainwater without minerals. 2-5 % of the minerals remain in RO-water. The content of macronutrients (Mg, Ca…) is enough (because plants do not need a lot of them). But micronutrients are even in very low concentrations in tap water, in RO-water the content is near zero. To enhence the plant growth we have to add Fe, Mn, Zn…!
Harvesting plants can help us to reduce water changes. The better the plants grow, less water must be changed. And water changes always change water values (humic and fulvic acids, DOC, pH, hardiness). In my opinion the more stable system is the system that do not need big water changes.
Patrick, you wrote: “We cannot copy the natural systems”. That’s true and false at the same time, it’s a matter of speaking explicitely or not. We must try to copy the natural systems, but we cannot achieve that for hundred percents but much less. The Parosphromenus aquarium allows us a better relation than the standard tank, because the small fish eat less and produce less waste than the average fish in the standard. The absence of any dried food is a big help. I have 33 12-liter-tanks, each with a pair of licorice, and some with small young. The plants that I use, especially swimming Ceratopteris and javamoss and some others in accordance with few live food allow me to keep the water conditions rather stable without a water change every week. And that without any filter. The tanks develop differently; there are some germ densities extremely low in which I don’t change the water for some monthes, others (with growing young fish) must be cared for more often.
Of course, I cannot care for the needs of many plants that I don’t use in such tanks. Otherwise I would have to add Fe (the two-valued), Mn and tracer elements. In aquaria, despite all nice theories, you have often a conflict between plant’s need and fish’s needs; but it is not great a problem in the standard tanks. Fish and plants there are used to rather big leaps great differences in mineral’s concentration.
But it’s true – and we agree with each other again – that to achieve a Paro-tank without any filter developing rather stable for a time as long as possible you need assorted plants and a very thoughtful and sparse feeding. But maybe we disagree again when it comes to plant fertilization. For me in my very small breeding tanks specialized for the licorice, plant fertilization is out. And for my carefully selected plant species it is unnecessary at all.I totally agree with Peter.
In my experience, Salvinia, Ceratopteris, Java-fern and -moss grow very well without adding micronutrients. A lack of these substances wouldn’t only cause reduced growth, but in most cases also pale, yellowish or necrotic leaves and so become evident. Perhaps the micronutrients get into the system through (live-)food and the use of peat, leaves etc. in sufficient amounts.
In our case, I don’t think that the limiting factor for plant growth is the amount of micronutrients, but the absence of Ca2+, Mg2+, HCO3– and the low pH-levels, that many plants are not able to cope with.
Apart from that, a far more general question is:
What is the best strategy to keep the water conditions as stable as possible? Is it to rely on regular water changes (e.g. every two to four weeks), or to rely on the (floating) plants as nutrient absorbers and avoid a water change as long as possible, as Patrick suggests.
For my part, I tend to changing 50% of the water regularly, because I think, that the water quality in an aquarium cannot be measured only by NO3– and other macronutrient-levels, but also includes other metabolic products (from plants and fishes) that accumulate in the water (e.g. phytochemicals, hormones etc.).
Furthermore, I think that the shock of a water change is far less significant, when a change is done in rather short intervals, than with more seldom changes. But that’s of course my personal opinion.Greetings,
MartinHello Martin,
My experiences are (RO-water plus peat and leaves, wood. pH 4.5-5, cond. 20-30):
Without micronutrients: Javamoss is uneffected, Javafern and Anubias shows nekrosis; Vallisneria stops growing, Salvinia, Limnobium and Lemna shows yellowish dwarf leaves, green algae starts growing. After adding tap water – no effect. After adding micronutrients – plants are growing well, algae died very fast.
I dont think I can add micronutrients with leaves, because the leaves do not decompose over years! in my aquariums.
Water changes: I do not want to avoid water changes in general, I want to avoid big water changes. I prefere to change water once or twice a week, but only 5-10%.
Martin, you say you tell us your peronal opinion, I would say it is not only an opinion. We all have (and need) our own personal way to handle our aquariums, because our visions of “the blackwater aquarium” are different and they depend on our personal taste and experience. My method works in my aquarium, perhaps not in yours or Peters. So it is very hard or perhaps impossible to create rules in aquaristics. But we can inspire each other and therefore this is a very good discussion.
greetings
PatrickHi Patrick,
of course, if your plants died otherwise, the use of fertilizer sounds sensible to me.
… as long as your Paros’ eggs and larvae develop well.I must also admit, the water from which I start isn’t as soft as yours, because our tap water is very hard (cond. around 1300 microS/cm). With peat I get my RO water to 45 microS/cm. Perhaps that’s some kind of limit for the growth of javafern etc.
Grettings,
Martin
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.