# New to low tech.



## Richardbunting (29 Apr 2014)

Hi all,

I think i should introduce myself as i'm a relative noob.

After being inspired by alastair tom and troi, i have began dabbling in the low tech tank environment, purely for fish welfare. My feelings are that the co2 route is so plant driven that thelivelihood of fish is forgotten about.

So my goals are to provide a natural environment and one thats is assistive to fish health. Why fish health? Well alastair and tom have managed to breed and care for very sensitive species, in stunning environments that are a joy to view.

So far so good! However,today i find that i have a few threads of filamentous algae growing in a small portion of my tank. Now, in a low tech tank is it realy an issue that requires my intervention, one that my clean up crew can deal with or do i need to deploy flappy algae panicking mode to rectify the problem?

Ph 7.3
Kh 3
Flow just from a fluval 406
Peat providing tannins
One t5 54w reflector removed over a juwel vision 260. 
Photoperiod is 4 hours 2hour snooze 4 hours again. 

Feed fish twice a day (there are molly fry present)
Brine shrimp once a week. Have not started EI dosing yet


----------



## BigTom (29 Apr 2014)

Which algae would you say it was? http://www.theplantedtank.co.uk/algae.htm

I find with most of the longer filamentous types that manual removal is a good start, they normally don't come back once the tank has matured.


----------



## Richardbunting (29 Apr 2014)

I would say it's in the hair, thread fuzz area. 

The tank was high tech and has been de manufactured to low tech.

I have SAE's, mollies, amano shrimp and ottos as clean up crew.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BigTom (29 Apr 2014)

Probably the swing in co2 that's triggered it then. I'd manually remove as much as possible, and perhaps add some ramshorns, spot dose excel if you have some and remove the reflector from the light if possible. The usual advice!


----------



## Richardbunting (29 Apr 2014)

Excellent, i was thinking down those lines, i just wanted to make sure i wasn't over reacting 

When i started out i had removed the reflector, toying with idea of t8's or spacing the current unit further up from the water line.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BigTom (29 Apr 2014)

Yeah it'll just be harder to deal with if it gets established. Make life hard for it.


----------



## EnderUK (30 Apr 2014)

Maybe uper changes with degased water? Make


Richardbunting said:


> Hi all,
> My feelings are that the co2 route is so plant driven that thelivelihood of fish is forgotten about.


 
Just because it's high tech doesn't mean we don't care about our fish 



Richardbunting said:


> Photoperiod is 4 hours 2hour snooze 4 hours again.
> Feed fish twice a day (there are molly fry present)


 
Just curious why the photoperiod gap? I thought this had been debunked as not providing any real benfits or negatives? I'm sure I read that somewhere on Barr report.

How much are you feeding the fish? If you're feeding them twice daily each feeding should last about 15-20 seconds.

I think most low tech tanks start off pretty rough until the plants adapt and begin to grow, I know mine has looked pretty terrible for the first month and a half but it's starting to recover.


----------



## Tim Harrison (30 Apr 2014)

EnderUK said:


> Just curious why the photoperiod gap? I thought this had been debunked as not providing any real benfits or negatives? I'm sure I read that somewhere on Barr report.



I don't necessarily agree, but each to their own I suppose, and I guess it all depends on your own unique tank conditions and how a siesta period is applied. The quote below was taken from the recent discussion here http://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/split-photoperiod.32744/#post-348017 just in case you missed it. The OP wanted to know if it was OK to split the photoperiod for viewing purposes, I think before and after work.



Troi said:


> ...In a low energy tank light levels are traditionally relatively low anyway, and in the case of my tank there is probably enough ambient daylight to maintain photosynthesis during the siesta period - especially since it has an open top - all be it at a slower rate and perhaps somewhere around the compensation point. To paraphrase Diana Walstad, switching the lights off mid-photoperiod is analogous to temporary clouding during a summer afternoon.
> 
> So it's not necessarily a costly stop-start process, and especially for a tank with CO2. Higher levels of CO2 increase the light use efficiency. Although, of course, a siesta period is totally unnecessary in a fuel injected tank, it's obviously desirable in the context of the OP.
> 
> ...


----------



## Alastair (30 Apr 2014)

As tom has said, manual removal is the best method richard, I suffered with a little in my chocolate box in the early stages when plant mass was low but the addition of ramshorns and a little excel (cheating a bit I know) will soon get rid. 

As for feeding time 15 to 20 seconds as just mentioned I dont think is correct as some of that food depending on substrate goes through to help feed plants plus if its live food my fish will spend much longer than 20 seconds feeding. I allow mine a good 20+ mins.


----------



## EnderUK (30 Apr 2014)

I'm feeding mainly pellets and flakes which im guessing most do and in which case 30 seconds to a minute is more than enough a day. I might leave veg in the tank for a couple of days. Id like to feed more live food but will need to start cultures. I wouldn't want to feed my fish flakes for 20 minutes a day.

I didn't say the gap in photoperiod was bad just that I don't think its critical. As you said it does extend the day.

Sent from my Radar C110e using Tapatalk


----------



## roadmaster (30 Apr 2014)

I would were it me(and it ain't) raise the light ,or as mentioned remove reflector and add maybe 1/3 EI once a week for low tech.
Surely plant's took a hit after coming from high tech CO2 injected,assumed non limiting nutrient supply.
Now,CO2 has been reduced to that produced naturally by bacterial processes/By-Product of fish respiratrion, and nutrient delivery has also been reduced considerably for you say you have not begun nurient dosing.
Reducing the lighting will also reduce demand from the plant's for that which is in lesser quanities now.


----------



## EnderUK (30 Apr 2014)

http://www.barrreport.com/showthrea...n-CO2-enriched-planted-tank?p=90475#post90475


> I was reading an old past issue of Thge Aquatic Gardener(TAG) where Diana Walstad has measured the CO2 in one of her tanks with a siesta and like my predictions suggested why the siesta methods works for some(those with moderate CO2 limitations, too low CO2 bubble rates etc).......the data supports my contention in her aquarium.
> Upon turning off the light, the CO2 rose back up quickly.
> In aquariums where the demand for CO2 far out strips the supply, even if enriched or steadily added.............this method works well to deal with algae for some hobbyists. However, for those with good CO2.........it has no effect.
> Thus we can say that the siesta method has dependence on or limiting CO2. While for those were it does not help..............the CO2 is independent of other factors.


 
I would recommend reading the Non-CO2 Methods section there as well as listerning to Tom, Troi and Alastair who have a huge experince in low tech tanks.


----------



## Richardbunting (2 May 2014)

Thank you guys for sharing your experience.

Well i decided to just not turn the lights on for 3 days, the result is outstanding. No thread algae, no brown algae. Although I've got some excel on its way just in case i need to cheat and do a bit of tidying. All in it's still looking good  

I think the way to proceed is a spray bar across the aquarium and think about a cheep diy wet/dry filter. More flow and more oxygenation. Also i was going to try my hand to some emersed growth.

Cheers  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## nickmcmechan (3 May 2014)

Is it a soil substrate?


----------



## Richardbunting (3 May 2014)

No its tropicas under gravel layer topped with columb flora base, both humic substances with a high CEC


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Richardbunting (3 May 2014)

Hello heres some pics after the advice you guys gave me










I still have some filling in with crypts to do but other than that i'm really happy with it all 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

