# Explain this...



## Themuleous (2 Apr 2009)

So to test the theory that CO2 is the issue in my 4ft 250lt I removed the fish and shrimp and whacked the CO2 right up, to well over the fish death level (I unfortunately left two oto's in there, which were in a shocking state when I found them and probably wont have survived much longer, but think they just about pulled through ) and have been dosing 10ml excel everyday and EI (40ml TNP for trace).  I had to change the FE this morning, which means I've pumped a 2kg FE of CO2 into it in two weeks, that should have been enough surely?

Here's the result (wait for it!)










Exactly, nothing has changed, zero, nada, zilch. The leaves are still dieing very quickly, with slow overall plant growth.

I know two weeks isn't very long but lets be honest, there should have been at least some change in that time if CO2 had been the limited/controlling factor.

Anyone brave enough to try and explain this?

Sam

PS - I've now reduced the light to 1x54w, if nothing else I should be able to have a low light tank, crikey I've spent enough, I want _something_ planted!


----------



## Dan Crawford (2 Apr 2009)

My first guess....What lighting did you have over it whilst you were chucking in CO2? If you don't have enough light then theres no point in chucking CO2 in....


----------



## Themuleous (2 Apr 2009)

Hi Dan, you're the first to try? 

I had 2x54w T5's - 1x54w osram lumilux skylight 880, 1x54w sylania growlux on for 6hrs (I have in the past run 3x54w but nothing could cope with that so have been running it 2x54w for the past few months)

Sam

EDIT - sorry if this thread sounds like Im angry or having a go at people I promise Im not  I've just got to the point of laughing at myself!


----------



## JamesC (2 Apr 2009)

How about deodrant or other personal hygene products that you may use that can get in the tank on hands, arms or if a deep tank armpits  Air freshners around the house can cause problems. 

James


----------



## Themuleous (2 Apr 2009)

Hi James, 

Good idea, but nope, nope and nope unfortunately   I use all natural soaps and deodorants, and my wife uses a roll on for this very reason.  No air fresheners either.  Tank also isn't deep enough to get my whole arm in! 

Sam


----------



## Themuleous (2 Apr 2009)

Maybe plants just hate me? 

That or I excrete some chemical from my skin that is a herbicide.  A relic of when my ancestors used to hunt trees and fought the great 'green' invasion of 3052 BC 

Well thats it, I've completely lots the plot now...

Sam :?


----------



## Steve Smith (2 Apr 2009)

What about the tank and equipment mate?  Is it a new tank or second hand?  Is it possible theres something leeching from the silicone from some previous meds used in the tank/equipment?


----------



## Themuleous (2 Apr 2009)

All use stuff. Tank is from TGM so I'd hope not!  I also had this problem in my nano tank, exactly the same damage to the plants.

Very odd.

Sam


----------



## LondonDragon (2 Apr 2009)

A Nesaea ninja that can't grow plants!! what is this world coming too    

Its very odd indeed specially if you were having the same results on the nano, water supply maybe?


----------



## JamesC (2 Apr 2009)

Did you do anything with the akadama before putting it in the tank, ie, pre-treating, rinsing, etc?

James


----------



## Themuleous (2 Apr 2009)

Thanks LD, the water supply is the only thing that has been consistent throughout this whole thing (several years), even with my nano.  Literally everything else has changed on more than one occasion.

I did raise it in another thread, but was assured by Clive that it probably wasn't the issue (viewtopic.php?f=51&t=5106&start=10#p60642).

Not to distrust him, but I think I'm gonna switch to 100% rainwater with reminerlization, just to discount it completely.  At least that way I will know. 

Certainly the plants seemed to got worse when I upped the amount of tap water I was mixing with the RO.

Thanks again

Sam


----------



## Themuleous (2 Apr 2009)

JamesC said:
			
		

> Did you do anything with the akadama before putting it in the tank, ie, pre-treating, rinsing, etc?
> 
> James



Hi James, yes I pre-soaked it in tap water with added PO4, NO3 and trace.  However I didn't do this with the akadama I used in my nano, which would suggest its not the issue.  I remember you also mentioned that akadama doesn't absorbed some of these things anyway due to cations/anions (I can never remember!)?

Sam

PS - would it be better to use 100% RO?  Just to rule out it being something the water picks up for the atmosphere?


----------



## JamesC (2 Apr 2009)

mmmm, did you give it a rinse afterwards? It's best to use calcium and magnesium sulphates really if you wish to prevent the initial KH dropping problems. You added loads of potassium which may or may not be a problem, I don't know. Also how much in the way of trace did you add? May be some poisoning going on if it was a lot. Not saying that this is the problem, but can't think of what else it could be, especially if you didn't treat your nano and you have no probs there.

James


----------



## Garuf (2 Apr 2009)

I genuinely think it's akadama that's the issue, it really does seem like you have all the other bases covered. Long ago I remember Dan had a tank with Akadama and his plants suffered similarly to the point where it wasn't until everything was stripped cleaned and planted heavily again with fresh substrate that anything took off.


----------



## Themuleous (2 Apr 2009)

To be honest I dont remember as I'm pretty sure I wasn't overly accurate with the fert addition to the water it soaked in (a bit of this and a bit of that was my general thinking!).

I think you've hit the nail on the head really as to why this is so perplexing.  I've run two tanks, both completely separate (apart fromt he fact that I was looking after them!?!?!), even down to the stock fert solutions I made up to dose them with (I made up separate bottles for each tank), I've used different substrates (EC, tropica below quarts gravel, akadama), different lighting (i.e. different tube types), different filters, everything has been changed at least once, but yet the effect on the plants has always been the same.

I did manage to get the HC to grow almost perfectly (some leaves were still very small and it was never a lush as it should have been) in the nano but a rescape ended that short run of success.

Hummmm, just so confusing. Even if I wasn't doing EI right, or the lighting was off, the plants would at least grow, right?

Thanks so much for your help everyone, one day I'll stop asking the same 'why dont my plants grow right' questions, I promise!

Sam


----------



## JamesC (2 Apr 2009)

It's not the Akadama itself that could be the issue, but what is done to it. In the far east it is widely used and even Amano used it for years until he developed AS. I've had it a while now and growth is great.

James


----------



## JamesC (2 Apr 2009)

Ah, didn't realise you had tried different substrates.

I'm out of ideas.
James


----------



## Garuf (2 Apr 2009)

This is baffling to the core, Sam. Do you remember Arana's tank? He said he's had similar issues with his tank because of house plumbing till he got the boilers and storage tanks changed over to newer ones, he put the problem down to lead and copper oxides in his water coming from the tanks and pipes and build up of general filth. Is this at all possible in your case?


----------



## Themuleous (2 Apr 2009)

I would be surprised if it was the Akadama, as I did managed to get the HC to grow in it in my nano eventually.  

However, as you suggest James it might be something I did with it.  As its not overly expensive, I could easily replace it (that tank could do with a re-scape anyway) with un-soaked akadama?

How does that sound?

Sam


----------



## Themuleous (2 Apr 2009)

Now you mention it, yes I do Gareth.  I'm not overly keep on replacing my water system yet, but I will def remember it encase everything else fails.

Thanks Guys.

Sam

PS - I have definitely learn that I should be more careful about logging what I do to my tanks as I think I'm starting to get confused as to what I have and haven't done in each tank, which really doesn't help the situation.


----------



## Garuf (2 Apr 2009)

His tank really was lovely wasn't it. No surprise he was the highest placed UK entrant in ADA! 
Good luck, Sam. I'm sure it'll all work out okay, Is there anyway you and James can conspire to get a water sample tested for any possible pathogens?


----------



## JamesC (2 Apr 2009)

Themuleous said:
			
		

> However, as you suggest James it might be something I did with it.  As its not overly expensive, I could easily replace it (that tank could do with a re-scape anyway) with un-soaked akadama?
> 
> How does that sound?
> 
> Sam


I'm now thinking it's probably best not to pre-treat the Akadama and just do plenty of water changes for the first few weeks. Give it a good rinse first is best IMHO to get rid of all the dust.

James


----------



## Themuleous (2 Apr 2009)

Haha I did phone a company I found on the web about a water test but they didnt seem overly interested!  The water report from Thames Water is pretty comprehensive as well, so this its ok!

Sam


----------



## Themuleous (2 Apr 2009)

JamesC said:
			
		

> I'm now thinking it's probably best not to pre-treat the Akadama and just do plenty of water changes for the first few weeks. Give it a good rinse first is best IMHO to get rid of all the dust.
> 
> James



Will do matey  thanks again, out of interest, what are the water changes for?

Sam


----------



## JamesC (2 Apr 2009)

Themuleous said:
			
		

> Will do matey  thanks again, out of interest, what are the water changes for?
> 
> Sam


To keep KH more stable. Otherwise it will drop to zero. If you don't have any fish in there then no worries.

James


----------



## Themuleous (2 Apr 2009)

EDIT - the other thing I can try perhaps is to take one of the java ferns out of my community tank and put it in there, at least that way it's not attached to the akadama and it might show up something, if it grows OK I mean.

Sam


----------



## Themuleous (2 Apr 2009)

JamesC said:
			
		

> To keep KH more stable. Otherwise it will drop to zero. If you don't have any fish in there then no worries.
> 
> James



No I dont at the moment, but cheers for the heads up


----------



## GreenNeedle (2 Apr 2009)

2kg CO2 in 2 weeks sounds a lot to me even in a 4footer for the Otos to survive at all!!! which makes me smell a rat somewhere.

What I mean is thta if 2kg did go into a tank with top circulation and flow then I would expect the DC to be permanently yellow.  By that I mean it would go further put it would have reached the limit of the bromo blue!!!

The Otos surviving would say to me that there is something amiss with the CO2 here.  maybe a small leak somewhere or something not working very well diffusion/flow wise.

I see Dan said that without light there's no point chucking CO2 in   I think George, Ceg and I would disagree.  low light tank with no CO2 is not a problem and can mean no algae.

I would rephrase what we think of.  Think of light being the driver still but then think of CO2 as the turbo.  same engine, same driver press the button and zoom........

I think its a cO2 issue anyways.

AC


----------



## Themuleous (2 Apr 2009)

The DC was permanently yellow!!!  And it was def a 2kg FE in 2 weeks, as I changed it over to a new one to ensure it would give a constant rate.  The Otos were only in the tank overnight at the very high CO2 levels, I managed to get them out the next day. I guarantee the CO2 has been going in there, the pH of the tank is 5!

I really dont see how it could be a CO2 issue?  I was overdosing excel as well!

I know people are often convinced that _any_ tank that is not growing plants [/i]must_ have a CO2 issue, but I think that also means people get blinded into thinking there can't be any other issues with a tank.  For me by isolating the CO2 (as Tom would advocate) over the last few weeks has clearly shown that its not always the case and certainly that CO2 was not the determining factor in this instance.  Tom I believe doesn't say that 100% of issues are CO2 related, mostly the vast majority.

Either way the DC has been yellow for months now (I also changed the solution several times to make sure) with no positive effect on the plants.

Sam_


----------



## GreenNeedle (2 Apr 2009)

I won't bang on but I wouldn't expect Otos to survive more than a couple of hours in highly toxic levels of CO2.  Are you sure the CO2 has driven the Ph down that far?  I though I read somewhere CO2 wouldn't take it down past a certain level (5.6 or something like that)

It is a lot of CO2 though.  I was thinking more of a slight leak somewhere.  I drive mine into yellow albeit a smaller tank and 600g lasts me for 2-3 months!!!

AC


----------



## Themuleous (2 Apr 2009)

I'll check the set up with soapy water when I get home, but I'm pretty sure there wasn't a leak, but if there is I'll happy retract this 

Either way, even if the Co2 wasn't that high (say even at 40ppm) that together with the excel should have been enough for the plants?

Sam


----------



## GreenNeedle (2 Apr 2009)

It should indeed.  baffling  :?


----------



## Themuleous (2 Apr 2009)

Just checked, no leaks 

James - The pre-soaked akadama, I only used normal ferts and trace mixed in tap water, could the akadama really have adsorbed sufficient PO4 for it to be harmful to the plant roots?

Also, the HC and plants (twice in fact) grow well in the tank for a week or so then reverted back to this 'degraded' state?

Sam


----------



## TDI-line (2 Apr 2009)

I think you need heating cables....


----------



## Themuleous (2 Apr 2009)

Mate you joke, I'll try anything, well almost... (no point throwing my money away)

Sam


----------



## plantbrain (3 Apr 2009)

Try this: filtration cleaning, upping that etc, consider Activated carbon, purigen etc, also, start with some decent healthy plants.

Get a bunch and add them.
You have nothing left from the looks of it except a few stunted tips left.

You need a certain amount of healthy starting biomass.
Otherwise bacteria and cycling will not get going well.

So try that, filter, Carbon, and add fresh plants.


Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Verminator (3 Apr 2009)

Tom, are you referring to adding carbon into the filter? Or removal of? 

Just to clarify, i always thought carbon was advisable to remove, as i've been led to believe.


----------



## Garuf (3 Apr 2009)

He says purigen, which is essentially carbon it just doesn't remove ferts.


----------



## Themuleous (3 Apr 2009)

Yeh the HC isn't in a great shape I'll admit, but the other plants are 'ok' but still have the same growth i.e. leaves die off every quickly.  I did add a few new plants (hairgrass, lilaeopsis  and P helferi) a week ago, after I gave the whole tank a good clean, including the filter and powerhead.  No real growth from the plants but they will be adjusting still I would assume, so will leave them for another week.  I've decided to completely strip the whole tank down and re-scape with all new substrate, etc anyway over the Easter weekend.  Worth a try.

I assume the carbon is to remove potential toxins? 

Sam


----------



## John Starkey (3 Apr 2009)

Hi Sam,
sorry to see you arent having any luck,
What i would do is buy loads of new,easy fast growers,plant 95% of the substrate,and then follow Toms recomendations,

i would start with 2 54w tubes for 6 hrs with a burst at mid point with all four tubes for an hour,so you could run,

2 tubes 2.5hrs, 4 tubes 1 hr,2 tubes 2.5 hrs. and dont add any live stock,and run co2 at 5bps for as long as necessary.

regards john.


----------



## ceg4048 (3 Apr 2009)

Garuf said:
			
		

> He says purigen, which is essentially carbon it just doesn't remove ferts.


No, Purigen and Activated Carbon are not the same. The Activated carbon added to the filter is to remove a wide variety of inorganic and organic toxins and the Purigen removes organic nitrogenous wastes.

A lot of people seem to be paranoid about Activated carbon for unfounded reasons. They blame carbon for removing trace elements, which it may do to some extent, but so what? Just add more traces. If you're dosing EI you're always adding more than the plants can use anyway so this is never an issue. Fluval has an excellent zeolite-carbon granule mix that works like a charm. I fill entire trays of my filters with this and I've never suffered any issues with trace deficiencies.

Cheers,


----------



## Themuleous (3 Apr 2009)

Carbon would certainly be cheaper than purigen!  

Clive - how often do you change it?

Sam


----------



## ceg4048 (3 Apr 2009)

Well theoretically the activated carbon should be changed after three weeks or so. That's because the bonding sites where the unwanted chemicals adhere to on the carbon surface all get filled so no more removal occurs. Activated carbon is highly porous and has a very high surface area because of the way that it's processed. It does not necessarily remove or change the chemicals - they loosely adhere to the carbon surface due to weak intermolecular forces called Van der Waals, which are not actually chemical bonds, just loose bonding due to polarity between the atoms.

In any case since I'm both lazy and a cheapskate I leave it in there for months so I'm not the best example...  

Cheers,


----------



## aaronnorth (3 Apr 2009)

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Well theoretically the activated carbon should be changed after three weeks or so. That's because the bonding sites where the unwanted chemicals adhere to on the carbon surface all get filled so no more removal occurs. Activated carbon is highly porous and has a very high surface area because of the way that it's processed. It does not necessarily remove or change the chemicals - they loosely adhere to the carbon surface due to weak intermolecular forces called Van der Waals, which are not actually chemical bonds, just loose bonding due to polarity between the atoms.
> 
> In any case since I'm both lazy and a cheapskate I leave it in there for months so I'm not the best example...
> 
> Cheers,



On TFF, it is said that activated carbon becomes saturated after a few days, then the toxins are released back into the water so it should be removed - not the 3-4weeks like suggested by many. Any thoughts/ knowledge on this?


----------



## ceg4048 (3 Apr 2009)

Tom may have more data, but I just do see any evidence of this. I recall seeing a post recently referencing an article on The Krib showing a fall in Fe concentration over an eight or ten day period with carbon in the filter(?). If this 2-3 day release was valid then that would have shown up in the experiment right? Therefore it's difficult to reconcile these two concepts.

Cheers,


----------



## aaronnorth (3 Apr 2009)

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Tom may have more data, but I just do see any evidence of this. I recall seeing a post recently referencing an article on The Krib showing a fall in Fe concentration over an eight or ten day period with carbon in the filter(?). If this 2-3 day release was valid then that would have shown up in the experiment right? Therefore it's difficult to reconcile these two concepts.
> 
> Cheers,



yes, it is a chemist sharing this information so i tend to believe what he writes, here are his posts on carbon if you are interested:
http://www.fishforums.net/index.php?act ... ted+carbon


----------



## ceg4048 (3 Apr 2009)

Aaron, the link doesn't work for me. Can you summarize?

Cheers,


----------



## Themuleous (3 Apr 2009)

You mean this one?

http://www.thekrib.com/Plants/Fertilize ... arbon.html

I guess as you say Clive, as we dose trace every other day the effect carbon has on ferts its negligible in the grand scheme of things.

Sam


----------



## Themuleous (3 Apr 2009)

Well interesting development, I put the java fern from my community tank into this tank (its a lovely healthy plant, just loves the lower light its been under) and this is what it looks like tonight...






Sooo much pearling, I know its only one day but this would seem to confirm that the substrate is the issue, as NONE of the plants in the substrate pearl like this ever, even the new ones I added the other day.

Here's hoping the strip down and new substrate does the trick  boy will I be pleased.

Sam


----------



## TDI-line (3 Apr 2009)

Finally.    

I suppose you could add those heating cables now, with a temperature computer, and i suppose a ph monitor too.   

I've got some going cheap.  

But at least you have a way forward now Sam.


----------



## Themuleous (3 Apr 2009)

TDI-line said:
			
		

> Finally.
> 
> But at least you have a way forward now Sam.



 Yes! The worst thing was not knowing what to do, as you say I have something to try now.

Sam


----------



## Steve Smith (3 Apr 2009)

Fantastic sam!  Hope this is it


----------



## Tony Swinney (4 Apr 2009)

Good new Sam - hope replacing the sub' sorts things out.

Tony


----------



## TDI-line (4 Apr 2009)

So what soil are you going to get Sam?


----------



## Themuleous (4 Apr 2009)

Thanks guys, let hope it works!

I'm gonna stick with the akadama, mostly because of the cost.  Might sound daft given this experience, but it did work once in my nano, which I didn't pre-soak and James and lots of other people have used it with great results.  If it doesn't work again I'll probably try ADA AS but I really don't have the cash for that (dam my huge tank!).  It also really has to be a complete substrate rather than a base layer as I want 100% HC and the roots are never very long, so doubt a base would be any use, or I would have gone for tropica with black gravel.

Sam


----------



## aaronnorth (10 Apr 2009)

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Aaron, the link doesn't work for me. Can you summarize?
> 
> Cheers,



it was a link to the members post(s), might not work if you arent a member? Not sure.

i'll take a post:



> Carbon is fairly unnecessary in my opinion, and even takes away some potentially valuable chemicals in the tank.
> 
> First of all, carbon is only truly useful for about a day or two. After that, it has become saturated and really doesn't take up much more. In fact, the bonds between what is adsorbed by the carbon and the carbon itself are reversible, and the potential exists for the adsorbants to be releases back into the tank. So, to really get get the most out of carbon, you have to change it every few days or so.
> 
> ...





> The chemicals that get adsorbed onto the actived carbon are in equilibrium with the tank water. The activated carbon will take up chemcials until that equilibrium is reached. What that equilibrium point is depends upon the concentration of the pollutant and how used up the carbon is already -- what percentage of the active spots on the carbon are still available.
> 
> Normally, when using carbon to take out medications for example, it will take up an overwhelming percentage of the chemicals. Say from 100% to 0.1%. What I mean is that 0.1% is the equilibrium. Now, you do a 25% water change. So, concentration of chemicals is now 0.075% in your tank. If you do not change the carbon at this time, the carbon will release some of the chemicals, again going towards equilibrium. Since, most of the chemicals are on the carbon now (99.9% of the original amount) given enough time (and this depends on temp, pH, etc.) the sysytem will tend toward equilibrium again. Meaning the carbon realeases 0.025% back into your water, to bring the concentration of chemcials back to 0.1% -- equilibrium.
> 
> ...


----------



## ceg4048 (11 Apr 2009)

Well, was all this in the context of a planted tank?. I mean, plants absorb metals like copper so this isn't a problem. Again, are we to accept the 2 day theory or the data shown on The Krib link? Both cannot be true at face value. If the 2 day theory is correct then the Fe dissipation curve would show a rise every two days as the Fe is released back into the water column - that is unless something else is happening to the Fe not explained, or unless the Fe measurement is faulty (which is a distinct possibility).

It's also not explained how/why the carbon adsorption sites should reverse their hold on the compounds. As discussed, the attraction to the carbon sites are due to polarity attraction. Since there are no changes in polarity why should the carbon all of a sudden release their hold on these compounds? Again, these are not chemical bonds so it's not clear to me what forces should cause release of the compounds unless the local concentration causes the compounds to repel each other off of the adsorption sites. If thats the case then the situation would then reverse itself and low concentration would then result in a renewed attraction to the site and the carbon would adsorb the compounds again. It can't be a one way street unless the carbon sites get clogged with debris so that they are no longer available.

As far as I can see the worst that can be said is that the carbon sites get filled and it becomes incapable of adsorbing any more but the idea that it dumps everything back into the water column - and then doesn't re-adsorb seems a stretch. Maybe there is an explanation but it doesn't seem obvious.

Cheers,


----------



## GreenNeedle (11 Apr 2009)

If Carbon adsorbs Phosphate and Fe could it not lock the Fe up and therefore if it were to release the nutrient back into the water column the Fe wouldn't register?

I tend to agree with Ceg here though.  I think that yes it runs it course pretty quickly and clogs up which is why it is used.  For the speed that it removes 'unwanteds' from the water.  At which point we remove it.

The manufacturers who virtually all go by the old fashioned 'remove all excess nutrients and metals' would be telling people to remove the Carbon after 2 days if it were true.  They are after all in the business of selling to the hardened 'old school' and wouldn't want loads of 'I used Carbon and tested after 3 days.  It has done nothing' comments'.

I would suspect most manufacturers actually understand the way all of these items works and also how planted tanks work, but in the interest of selling product selectively choose their marketing statements and in the main suggest the ways that the majority of people most likely to buy their product have always believed in order to maximise sales 

AC


----------

