# New planted tank - Struggling a little!



## tayloss (10 Sep 2017)

Hi All,

I have a very small planted 25 litre tank that I started a month to have a go at a planted tank in the view to having some shrimps later on. After a lot of research, I set out and purchased a buffering substrate (Dennerle Scaper's Soil 4L Shrimp & Plants) and some Salty Shrimp GH+ due to the need of keeping the PH low.

Where i am struggling is with cycling the tank and think I may have made the errors with using RO with GH+ to early?

For background, I am using an all-in-one fertiliser containing:--

1.5 ppm Nitrate 
0.4 ppm Phosphate 
1.6 ppm Potassium 
0.2 ppm Magnesium 

And I add 2ml per day as per the instructions provided (5ml per 40l).

The plants are growing well and have added a nano CO2 system controlled by a solenoid that comes on 1hr (Morning) and 30mins (Evening) before the light comes on/off - Light is on from 12pm until 6pm (6hrs). The drop checker is green and was yellow to start with until i adjusted the levels.

My Plants consist of (based on George Farmers nano tank video):

Micranthemum MonteCarlo
Eleocharis pusilla
Cryptocoryne wendtii Kompakt 
Alternanthera reineckii Mini
Helanthium tenellum Broad Leaf
Pogostemon erectus

Plus a couple of Anbius'.

I am also ghost feeding the tank with flakes and did for a while produce ammonia, but added some stability to help grow the good bacteria.

The lasted tests have come out too good to be true:-

Ammonia = 0
Nitrite = 0
Nitrate = 0 
PH = 6.0-6.1
TDS - 180-190
KH = 0 
GH = 8

I know why the KH is at 0 due to only using the GH+ powder, but has the tank really cycled and ready for shrimps, or do I need to increase the PH and other parameters to cycle as I'm also seeing an increase in hair green algae, is this due to a lack of NO3?










My guess is I've made some error in the early water stages and have seen on another thread that it should be cycled with tap water and then brought to where you want it to be?

Also, i'm aware that shrimps and CO2 don't mix too well, but other have had success in keeping them? I'm not worried too much about breeding, but as its only 25l, fish are out of the question?

I have a measurement of NO3 if I up the dose of ferts to 5ml, so should I keep doing this until the GHA is gone? It obviously increases the TDS as well, so think I will have to use pure RO to decrease and then water change at the correct TDS for my rank?

Thanks in advance and sorry for all the questions!

Chris


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Planted Bows (10 Sep 2017)

tayloss said:


> Hi All,
> 
> I have a very small planted 25 litre tank that I started a month to have a go at a planted tank in the view to having some shrimps later on. After a lot of research, I set out and purchased a buffering substrate (Dennerle Scaper's Soil 4L Shrimp & Plants) and some Salty Shrimp GH+ due to the need of keeping the PH low.
> 
> ...


I have red cherries and crystal red Shrimp in my high tech tank and that had injected co2 aswell. Not sure who told you co2 and shrimp don't mix? I think a lot of co2 would cause an issue, just like it would on fish? 

Sent from my G8141 using Tapatalk


----------



## Halil (11 Sep 2017)

tayloss said:


> Hi All,
> 
> I have a very small planted 25 litre tank that I started a month to have a go at a planted tank in the view to having some shrimps later on. After a lot of research, I set out and purchased a buffering substrate (Dennerle Scaper's Soil 4L Shrimp & Plants) and some Salty Shrimp GH+ due to the need of keeping the PH low.
> 
> ...



Im sure someone will help with the parameters but as for CO2 and shrimp, depending on how much CO2 is added the shrimp will be less active and less likely to breed, but you can always turn it down.

Good luck


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tayloss (11 Sep 2017)

Thanks Guys!

To be honest, the shrimps are a nice to have if I can get the tank under control and rid of the GHA. I have decided to up the ferts to 5ml per day to see if it has any affect on the algae.

If they breed, thats a bonus, but if not, then I will have to consider a dedicated shrimp tank perhaps?


----------



## dw1305 (11 Sep 2017)

Hi all,

The tank looks good. I would try adding some shrimps





tayloss said:


> I'm also seeing an increase in hair green algae, is this due to a lack of NO3?


Probably not, the green algae are <"physiologically close to the higher plants">, if you have conditions suitable for the plants you want, you also have suitable conditions for the plants (green algae) you don't want.





tayloss said:


> The lasted tests have come out too good to be true:-


That is because it is too good to be true, you definitely don't have 0 ppm NO3. 

We have quite a few testing threads, and a <"range of informed opinion">, but there are a number of issues with the measurement of mono-valent ions (ions with one charge like NO3- and NH4+). 





tayloss said:


> I am also ghost feeding the tank with flakes and did for a while produce ammonia, but added some stability to help grow the good bacteria.


You can stop adding the fish flakes, ammonia is important because it is really toxic to aquatic life, but in terms of biological filtration it is much less important than oxygen. 

I know this is a forum, so you can ignore 95% of what I'm about to write, but just forget everything you have ever read about "cycling" on forums, ~95% of it is wrong, and <"every-ones view of which 5% is right will differ">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## tayloss (16 Sep 2017)

Just a bit of an update! I'm performing a couple more water changes to stabilise the TDS for the shrimp and reduced the fertiliser to fight the algae.. getting things in balance is becoming a challenge!

No more feeding and am leaving it to silently cycle as been advise the plants are probably using the ammonia and making it all save.. the algae is driving me mad, but will not give up :-£

Thanks,
Chris


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ceg4048 (16 Sep 2017)

tayloss said:


> reduced the fertiliser to fight the algae


Hello,
          Reducing fertilizer never fights algae. In fact, reducing fertilizer is algae's best ally. I'm afraid you've misinterpreted the information provided.

Also, you need to stop testing because you are being misled by your test kits.

Cheers,


----------



## tayloss (16 Sep 2017)

Ok, I'm adding the amount as specified on the instructions, so have put it back to before as I was doubling the daily dose?

Not sure what to do as have conflicting information?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ceg4048 (18 Sep 2017)

tayloss said:


> Ok, I'm adding the amount as specified on the instructions, so have put it back to before as I was doubling the daily dose?
> 
> Not sure what to do as have conflicting information?




Hi,
    Let me try o clarify the conflict:

When you have plant health issues and algae, and when someone states that you should reduce your dosing to sole the issue, then you should always cry "bollix" because adding lots of nutrients can not cause algae.

Algae is directly related to poor plant health, and poor plant health is directly related to poor nutrition.

So although you shouldn't need to dose double the EI level of nutrients, neither is it detrimental - so dose whatever level you like.
So what I'm trying to say is that it is always a bad idea for someone suffering from malnutrition to reduce their nutritional intake.

Having said that, I'm aware that many shrimp keepers have a fear of high TDS. I've not seen any hard data showing that high TDS is problematic and since I'm not a shrimp keeper I don't really want to enter that battlefield. So lowering the nutrient levels to combat high TDS is certainly a worthwhile goal in that context - and since you were dosing double anyway then there ought not to be any penalty. Reduction of the nutrient level should be for the right reason, definitely not because you think it will reduce algae.

I want to change your mindset so that at the first sign of trouble in your tank, you do not immediately run away from nutrition. This is not how you fight algae.

Secondly, if you continue to chase test kit readings you will be running on the little endless gerbil wheel for the rest of your life. The kits are clearly lying to, as they have done for decades, and you would be well advised to bin them and save your money.

I've had a look at the picture in your original post. I can't quite make it out, but It looks like you have some type of filamentous algae on the wood . It could be Rhizoclonium  - I'm not really sure. The Anubias definitely suffers GSA in addition to the filamentous. The GSA is typical when Anubias is subjected to high light.

The GSA is caused by any combination of poor CO2 and poor PO4. If as you say, you were double dosing, then it is likely due to poor CO2.
Filamentous algae, as well as Rhizo are cause by poor CO2, so based on the evidence, the appearance of the two types  seem to corroborate a CO2 problem.

The carpet plants look well cared for so you must have had good CO2 and then something changed to either increase the demand for CO2 or to decrease the availability of CO2.

For Rhizo/Filamentous you'll need to scrub and clean the surfaces. Mechanicall remove as much as you can with a toothbrush or other method. 
While the water level is low you can use a small paintbrush to apply Excel or equivalent to all affected areas.

The GSA on the Anubias can never be rectified. Best to cut off and remove the affected leaves as they will never recover.

Having shrimp complicates the problem because ordinarily it would be simple to use a daily supplement of Excel to improve CO2.
You can still do that but you have to be careful not to poison the shrimp.

Definitely reduce the lighting intensity if possible.

If you can increase the injection rate without harming the shrimp then do so, but again, care is advised.

To increase the flow rate you can remove some of the filter media.

I cannot see how you are diffusing CO2 so I cannot advise if there is room for improvement.

Cheers,


----------



## tayloss (18 Sep 2017)

ceg4048 said:


> Hi,
> Let me try o clarify the conflict:
> 
> When you have plant health issues and algae, and when someone states that you should reduce your dosing to sole the issue, then you should always cry "bollix" because adding lots of nutrients can not cause algae.
> ...


I am not too worried about the TDS levels at the moment as I want to try and get the balance before worrying about livestock etc. The amount is back to the recommended 2.5ml per 20ltrs. Should I keep it at this level, or double it as I was already doing? The reason why I reduced it back was the thinking that there was too much nutrients in the water?



> Secondly, if you continue to chase test kit readings you will be running on the little endless gerbil wheel for the rest of your life. The kits are clearly lying to, as they have done for decades, and you would be well advised to bin them and save your money.


Another user has also recommended the same and to worry about the plants being healthy and not what the water is doing 



> I've had a look at the picture in your original post. I can't quite make it out, but It looks like you have some type of filamentous algae on the wood . It could be Rhizoclonium  - I'm not really sure. The Anubias definitely suffers GSA in addition to the filamentous. The GSA is typical when Anubias is subjected to high light.
> 
> The GSA is caused by any combination of poor CO2 and poor PO4. If as you say, you were double dosing, then it is likely due to poor CO2.
> Filamentous algae, as well as Rhizo are cause by poor CO2, so based on the evidence, the appearance of the two types  seem to corroborate a CO2 problem.
> ...


So you are recommending that I manually remove as much as possible from all the wood and remove the affected leaves from the plants that are fully covered? Looking at the drop checker, its darkish green which is a indicator that the co2 levels are ok?

This is the diffuser that I am using:





I have also raised to lighting up to as high as it will go to reduce intensity, so not sure what else I can do other than to put a diffuser to reduce even further. For information, its a Dennerle LED 5.0 light..

Thanks,
Chris


----------



## ceg4048 (18 Sep 2017)

tayloss said:


> I am not too worried about the TDS levels at the moment as I want to try and get the balance before worrying about livestock etc. The amount is back to the recommended 2.5ml per 20ltrs. Should I keep it at this level, or double it as I was already doing? The reason why I reduced it back was the thinking that there was too much nutrients in the water?


Hi Chris,
           OK, so now that you have freed your mind from the paranoia of  "nutrients causing algae", and since you are not worried about TDS, and since you are not suffering from any type of algae that is related to nutrient deficiency, I would dose as you were before just to be on the safe side.

I mean, you really should never need to double dose the nutrient level. The EI dosing scheme, at the standard levels were proven to be at or near the max necessary to prevent malnutrition. I refer you to the EI dosing article in the Tutorial section of the forum. However, since nutrients don't cause algae, you are free to dose as much as you want.

London Dragon had a shrimp tank some years ago, where he suffered a brain fart, miscalculated his powder to water mix and was dosing 10x the normal EI value. His tank looked fantastic - and it was a shrimp tank, I ran an experiment where I dosed 5x EI levels - in fact, if you read the EI tutorial. look at the images. That was my 5x EI tank. So I can assure you that there will be no penalty for 2x dosing, but neither should it be necessary.

For the moment though, since we are troubleshooting, it is better to keep things that are working. For example, as I mentioned about Paulo, folks miscalculte their mix sometimes and maybe what you think is double may actually be single. I'm not saying that this is your case, but if it were, it might complicate your troubleshooting if you reduced your dosing. This also has happened to some folks and it really got complicated because they made other changes at the same time that they reduce the dosing without realizing that they started to under-dose...



tayloss said:


> Another user has also recommended the same and to worry about the plants being healthy and not what the water is doing


Yep, at least one person is listening...the only thing, really, that you should worry about your water is "are you doing enough frequent and massive water changes".



tayloss said:


> So you are recommending that I manually remove as much as possible from all the wood and remove the affected leaves from the plants that are fully covered?


Definitely. When you are dealing with algal blooms the most important action is the harassment and eviction of the resident algae. Algae in the tank spawn and produce spores. These spores then grow up to be algae, who produce more algal spores and so on and so on...



tayloss said:


> Looking at the drop checker, its darkish green which is a indicator that the co2 levels are ok?


The DC should be a LIME green, not dark green. Injection rate must be increase to produce a lime green color by the time the lights are turned on.



tayloss said:


> This is the diffuser that I am using:


Well, I can't quite figure that contraption out. There are two pieces? I'm not really familiar with it. I assume it sits in the tank? does the out put of this unit freely flow out into the tank or is the output fed into the inlet of the filter? If not then you might try to port the bubles into the filter inlet which might help get better dissolution of the gas.

Also I cannot see from the picture how you have located/oriented the filter outlet. Improving the flow rate and distribution of the filter outlet is a critical factor.

Cheers,


----------



## tayloss (19 Sep 2017)

Really appreciate the help! Thank you...

I've upped the CO2 output today and performed a 50% water change to try and get rid of as much algae as possible through using a toothbrush to manually clean the affected areas..

The CO2 is directly below the filer intake and is sucked in and sent through the spray bar. The flow also points toward the main plants and they sway gently..

Lastly the light is at the top of the bracket to try and reduce the intensity..




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ceg4048 (19 Sep 2017)

tayloss said:


> I've upped the CO2 output today and performed a 50% water change to try and get rid of as much algae as possible through using a toothbrush to manually clean the affected areas..
> 
> The CO2 is directly below the filer intake and is sucked in and sent through the spray bar. The flow also points toward the main plants and they sway gently..
> 
> Lastly the light is at the top of the bracket to try and reduce the intensity..



OK, that sounds...except for the part about the spraybars pointing towards some particular plants? Assuming that the flow rate is adequate, the holes in the spraybars should be pointing towards the horizon at the front glass pane. They should not be pointed down in the hopes of accomodating some particular plant. The flow distribution pattern is best achieved by a dead level orientation of the holes.

Cheers,


----------



## tayloss (19 Sep 2017)

Ok, I will readjust the spray bar to be level with the water 

I will update you when hopefully something changes 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## REDSTEVEO (19 Sep 2017)

ceg4048 said:


> Hello,
> Reducing fertilizer never fights algae. In fact, reducing fertilizer is algae's best ally. I'm afraid you've misinterpreted the information provided.
> 
> Also, you need to stop testing because you are being misled by your test kits.
> ...


Hi Clive, long time no see


----------



## ceg4048 (19 Sep 2017)

REDSTEVEO said:


> Hi Clive, long time no see


Hi Steve, yes it's been a while. Hope you are well and that your fish & plants are happy mate!

Cheers,


----------



## REDSTEVEO (19 Sep 2017)

Cheers Clive, all the best to you too!

Ps sorry for hijacking this thread


----------



## tayloss (19 Sep 2017)

No problem Steve 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## HiNtZ (21 Sep 2017)

It took me 3 years and a lot of trial and error to realise excess ferts don't cause algae and in fact a deficiency in any one of them will lead you to algae.

My LFS started a new tank recently which looked great for two weeks - when I went back in the shop it was smothered in hair algae and the guy was cleaning it out. He'd done a phosphate and nitrate test (which most would frown on), and the phosphate test showed literally zero so I dropped some KH2PO4 in for him to try for a week and when I returned the tank looked mint. He said the dose I recommended still saw plenty of phosphate at the end of the week, so told him to half the dose for the week after and the tank has been fine since. Trying to tell the man in the beginning "you need phosphate in a planted tank" was like trying to tell an Eskimo he needs a freezer! He just wasn't having none of it.

I used to use test kits right across the range, but now the only one I use is phosphate..... and not even to see how much is in there on an accurate scale, it is simply to see "is there any, or not" because the accuracy of them beyond simply showing the presence of phosphate is pretty ambiguous.

As for the shrimp...... never had any problem. If you're adding shrimp to a CO2 rich environment, either add them at night when it's off, or trickle them in with a separate container over the course of the day.

I also think your tank looks fine! It's a new setup, and the anubias (which I'm guessing you're not happy with) needs plenty of time to settle in. Give it a chance


----------



## tayloss (21 Sep 2017)

HiNtZ said:


> It took me 3 years and a lot of trial and error to realise excess ferts don't cause algae and in fact a deficiency in any one of them will lead you to algae.
> 
> My LFS started a new tank recently which looked great for two weeks - when I went back in the shop it was smothered in hair algae and the guy was cleaning it out. He'd done a phosphate and nitrate test (which most would frown on), and the phosphate test showed literally zero so I dropped some KH2PO4 in for him to try for a week and when I returned the tank looked mint. He said the dose I recommended still saw plenty of phosphate at the end of the week, so told him to half the dose for the week after and the tank has been fine since. Trying to tell the man in the beginning "you need phosphate in a planted tank" was like trying to tell an Eskimo he needs a freezer! He just wasn't having none of it.
> 
> ...


Thank you for the reassurance and have kept the fertilsers slightly higher and have increased the CO2 to see if i can get the tank under control. I will also continue to perform large water changes with manual removal of the algae to keep it under control until the tank stabilises..!

Don't want too make too many changes too quickly!

Any hints to tips you can offer would be great appreciated 

Thanks,
Chris


----------



## ceg4048 (21 Sep 2017)

Yes, there is no fast way, unfortunately, to undo the damage done by algal blooms.
It may take a few weeks or even a few months to get the tank back into shape.
In the mean time, have a look at this thread https://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/having-another-bash.11779/
and look at the timeline. The most important aspect of this thread is that the OP reorganized his thought patterns so that he could quickly recognize cause and effect and that he could then make the right decisions.

Cheers,


----------



## tayloss (22 Sep 2017)

I'm happy to say that it looks like things are improving slightly already.. Been away for two days and have come back to almost the same as I left it! Last time, I had to do an emergency water change with mass removal! Typical though, the CO2 bottle ran out late yesterday after the increase in rate before I when away..

Anyway, will perform another change today and will post some pictures to show you the progress and additional questions regarding the carpeting plants!

Thanks for all your help 

Chris


----------



## Soilwork (22 Sep 2017)

ceg4048 said:


> London Dragon had a shrimp tank some years ago, where he suffered a brain fart, miscalculated his powder to water mix and was dosing 10x the normal EI value. His tank looked fantastic - and it was a shrimp tank, I ran an experiment where I dosed 5x EI levels - in fact, if you read the EI tutorial. look at the images. That was my 5x EI tank. So I can assure you that there will be no penalty for 2x dosing, but neither should it be necessary.
> 
> Cheers,



Hi Clive I am curious.  Genuine question as it is not clear from your post, did you dose 5 x EI levels of micro nutrients as well?

Did London Dragon dose 10x micro nutrients by mistake? because when I refer to the EI article a micro nutrient such as CSM+B is stipulated.


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (22 Sep 2017)

tayloss said:


> For background, I am using an all-in-one fertiliser containing:--
> 
> 1.5 ppm Nitrate
> 0.4 ppm Phosphate
> ...



Is this a commercial fertiliser or something you've knocked up yourself? Are those values above what goes in the tank per dose or what's in the bottle? Can't work it out.


----------



## tayloss (22 Sep 2017)

AverageWhiteBloke said:


> Is this a commercial fertiliser or something you've knocked up yourself? Are those values above what goes in the tank per dose or what's in the bottle? Can't work it out.


That's a commercially supplied mix as I'm still very much a beginner on mixing fertilisers! Its per 5ml dosing according to the instructions... its a power mixed with 500ml RO water and I use a syringe to apply the amount required.. I give it a good shake before every dose...

I've upped it slightly and appears that it doesn't  have to be exact after all 

Thanks,
Chris


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (22 Sep 2017)

Ok Buddy, There's no mention of the trace elements unless I've missed it, are you putting them in separately or do they all go in the same bottle? There's talk here of EI dosing but that isn't what you're doing or intend to unless I have that wrong. @ceg4048 seems to be describing that EI levels at 2x etc is still safe but what you are dosing is well below what is generally seen as EI threshold.  You're quite a bit under I would say, this al in one seems to be designed for quite a low to medium energy tank plus you're not even halving it if it is designed for 40 ltr if you have 25. 

If you dosed the recommended amounts each day weekly you would have dosed...

1.5 ppm Nitrate x7 =10.5ppm
0.4 ppm Phosphate x7 =2.8ppm
1.6 ppm Potassium x7 =11.2ppm
0.2 ppm Magnesium x7 =1.4ppm

Yours will actually be slightly lower as you're doing 2ml per 25ltrs when it should be 2.5ml per 20ltrs (In small tanks ml's matter)

EI Weekly amounts taken from UKAPS Article ironically wrote by Clive AKA @ceg4048 the geezer you've just been talking to (worth a read) Would suggest...

Nitrate (NO3) 20ppm per week
Potassium (K) 30ppm per week
Phosphate (PO4) 3ppm per week
Magnesium (Mg) 10ppm per week
Iron (Fe) 0.5ppm per week

All those figures above are non limiting or to put another way more than you could possibly use even with the brightest of lighting. So your figures to me aren't that much of a worry, for all I know your lighting isn't bright enough to warrant those sort of figures, however ratio wise you seem to be a bit low on Nitrate in comparison to say Phosphate and considering you have no inhabitants the plants will have to get the vast majority of nitrogen straight from the fertiliser, in an occupied tank there will also be some added from fish poo etc. Magnesium being low also not a worry as you are getting some from you GH+ stuff  and potassium is a bit more forgiving although just as essential as the nitrate and used in similar quantities by the plants.

As such if you are trying to head down the EI route then you should really be adding a bit more ferts, as you seen an improvement doubling the dose this would bare that out. At that point you probably were somewhere near EI levels so if your tds was going up you probably want to be somewhere in between those amounts OR the other alternative is to reduce the lighting a bit and stick to what you're dosing if the plants are doing well. They'll still grow just a bit slower than they were.

I have to come back to water chemistry though. RO water is just too clean, far too clean, it's totally devoid of any minerals or electrolytes and all the minerals that exist in water. Most people will use RO re-mineralising agent or mix it with some tapwater to make it a bit more fish and plant friendly. I don't know what the shrimp stuff is you're putting in but I'm guessing it doesn't replace all these minerals. What is your tapwater like regarding hardness? I would try mixing some with your RO water. Also running with no KH is a bit of a worry, what levels of KH are in the water isn't that important but it is to have some at least IMO. I'm wondering with this 0 KH water that you're pumping acidic co2 into whether you may be "crashing the system" when it comes to your filter and the reason you don't notice is because you have no fish that would surely not be happy. Would maybe explain the high ammonia readings.


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (22 Sep 2017)

When were the ph readings took before or after injecting co2 and do you use a drop checker?


----------



## tayloss (22 Sep 2017)

Wow, thats a lot to take in and maybe I need to clarify/clear up a few things about what the tank was going to be!

Just to give you some reference, this is the fertiliser: https://www.co2supermarket.co.uk/all-in-one-macros-micros-fertiliser-aquarium-plants-p299.html

Sorry if linking to sites isnt allowed, but best to see what I was recommended. Orginally I wanted a planted shrimp tank and decided on a buffering substrate to keep the PH below 7 for the breed of shrimp I wanted to keep. Current PH is around 6.0-6.2 depending on time of the day etc. Hence why I use a GH remineraliser to keep the buffering ability of the substate. However, I beginning to think that this isnt idea for plants as I may be missing some of the key trace elements are you've mentioned.

I should have cleared up the RO water comment, as it the reminerlise water I'm using and not pure RO/DI 

The tank is too small i beleve for fish, so could become a dedcaited planted tank, but if I start to use tap water, which is very hard due to living on the south coast, it will deplete the substates buffering. 

From what's been mentioned, I should be 2.5ml per day and at 5ml it appears to be a better approach?

Is this the point where I need to choice the tanks future, Planted or Shrimp and not both?

The substrate seems to promote itself as a good choice for planted tanks, so maybe the trace elements could come from it too?


----------



## tayloss (22 Sep 2017)

AverageWhiteBloke said:


> When were the ph readings took before or after injecting co2 and do you use a drop checker?


During CO2 injection and yes I do have a drop checker  Wil post some pictures shortly..


----------



## tayloss (22 Sep 2017)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (22 Sep 2017)

tayloss said:


> Sorry if linking to sites isnt allowed



They're a sponsor so link away, the more mentions they get the better  I think anyway.



tayloss said:


> I should have cleared up the RO water comment, as it the reminerlise water I'm using and not pure RO/DI



Ok now that makes more sense, should be fine then although I would have though these agents also increase the KH and KH tests are generally seen as being fairly accurate.



tayloss said:


> The tank is too small i beleve for fish, so could become a dedcaited planted tank,



Lot of people keep a small number of small fish in tanks like this so they will be happy.



tayloss said:


> From what's been mentioned, I should be 2.5ml per day and at 5ml it appears to be a better approach?



If you're intending to dose at EI levels yeah they are more realistic figures but as I said that depends on your lighting. Some of the plants you have in there are slow growers, they won't grow fast even under high lighting like the Anubias. All leaves even healthy over time will get some algae on. OMG I've spilled the bins  even the top scapers do, they just cut them off. Don't tell anyone I told you that  Slow growers are more susceptible because under high light algae tends to gro quicker than the leaf it's on.



tayloss said:


> Is this the point where I need to choice the tanks future, Planted or Shrimp and not both?



No, plants and fish or shrimp all live happily in the same systems, in fact they compliment each other and should be done. Some top scapers don't add fish because they don't keep the tanks for long just for photos then strip them down. It also makes it easier for them to add insane amounts of ferts and co2 to speed up growth without bothering the fish,



tayloss said:


> During CO2 injection and yes I do have a drop checker  Wil post some pictures shortly..



I look forward to it, just checked your link for the ferts and yes everything seems to be there you need other than if comparing to EI dosing the PO4 seems to be quite high when compared to nitrate and potassium ratio. Getting the nitrate and potassium up to ei levels would mean quite high phosphate which in itself isn't a concern. The worry would be high po4 and low nitrate and potassium. That would cause algae issues.


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (22 Sep 2017)

I don't think there's too much to be worrying about there mate. I think the tank just needs maturing a little. No worse than I've seen before. If you want to carry on with your lighting levels up the ferts a little, maybe get that spray positioned on the side of the tank as well. Looks like the flow from it is hitting the back of the roots and not getting down the front carpet and keep on top of changing water. Some shrimp would make short work of that algae in no time, especially Amanos.


----------



## tayloss (22 Sep 2017)

AverageWhiteBloke said:


> I don't think there's too much to be worrying about there mate. I think the tank just needs maturing a little. No worse than I've seen before. If you want to carry on with your lighting levels up the ferts a little, maybe get that spray positioned on the side of the tank as well. Looks like the flow from it is hitting the back of the roots and not getting down the front carpet and keep on top of changing water. Some shrimp would make short work of that algae in no time, especially Amanos.



Great  Makes me feel a little better that I’m doing the right things and in the right direction 

I’ve just performed a 10ltr change and removed more algae, but definitely a lot less!!!

Spray bar has been moved:



So, last point to clear up.. do I continue with 2.5ml or up it to 5ml daily?

Thank you to all of you for your help and support and am glad I’ve found this forum as it’s been so welcoming to a newbie!

Thanks,
Chris


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (22 Sep 2017)

If you want to make sure you have enough ferts then yes I would up it a bit, the po4 in yours is quite high, I tend to find all in one solutions are more leaning towards lower energy tanks which is probably why nitrate is quite low. EI dosing or estimative index dosing is essentially a way of making sure you have enough ferts in the tank. Tests were carried out under higher and higher lighting to see how much ferts would be needed to sustain that plant growth, obviously high lights=faster growth=more ferts for plants to grow. The values I showed posted earlier were the most you should ever need, any more ferts than that didn't make a difference and were sort of wasted. So rather than everyone testing their own particular setups and trying to find what they actually needed the theory was just put in more than you need and have it done with then you can concentrate on flow and co2.  That bits quite important because for this to work you need to get those ferts swishing round your plants you need to have good water movement and because the plants will want plenty of co2/carbon to go with these ferts you need good levels of co2 round the tank.

The downside of this, if you want to call it that, is you need to keep your water and filters cleaned regularly, the cleaner the better. High light and fast plant growth means algae will jump in if you have a dirty tank in these conditions.

Some people don't want to go down this route, they prefer slower growth which is why it's advisable if you're starting out not to use too much light as you can get away with a bit more. High energy tanks have a tendency to go wrong pretty quick as if one of the above three things are wrong plants aren't happy and algae take over.

If you search for duck weed index there is another alternative by @dw1305 (his ego is getting another massage right now  ) basically using floating plants or duck weed which float on the surface, not only are they beneficial overall in tanks but because they are on the surface (nearest to the light) and they have unlimited co2 (co2 is easier to get from the air than underwater) they will tell you if you have enough ferts. They get through a lot so if they're doing well you can pretty much say the ones under water have enough ferts as well. They eliminate the worry about co2 in much the same way as EI eliminates worries about enough ferts...theoretically.

The path is up to you.



tayloss said:


> Thank you to all of you for your help and support and am glad I’ve found this forum as it’s been so welcoming to a newbie!



No problem, people here a very passionate about the hobby and enjoy helping each other as much as their own tanks. In fact you could say that they're all our tanks, I enjoy seeing them coming on as much as my own.

Be lucky.


----------



## ceg4048 (23 Sep 2017)

Soilwork said:


> Hi Clive I am curious.  Genuine question as it is not clear from your post, did you dose 5 x EI levels of micro nutrients as well?
> 
> Did London Dragon dose 10x micro nutrients by mistake? because when I refer to the EI article a micro nutrient such as CSM+B is stipulated.


Hi,
   Yes, I dosed 5X everything, including micros. At the same time I wanted to disprove the entire "...Hard water is bad for plants..." propaganda so I raised the KH to 15 or higher and raised the GH to 26 or higher. Kept it like that for couple of years. No problemo.

LondonDragon miscalculated and dose 10X of everything, including micros. A few months later he woke up and adjusted it back down to standard levels. What's the big deal?
The key has always been keeping the tank clean. Nutrient/CO2 input yields extra Oxygen output by the plants.  The plants produce massive levels of organic waste which has to be removed via massive water changes. I hate doing water changes, but I change more water than anybody I know - 90% sometime a couple times a week. That removes a LOT of DOC and keeps the fish healthy. So they can resist water parameters that are less than optimal such as high KH/TDS. Oxygen and cleanliness  has an incredible impact on the system's health. Fish resist pathogen attacks and plants resist algal attack. 

People are misled all the time about Calcium interfering with Magnesium and other metals. It's all rubbish because plants uptake nutrition through their leaves. All that interference talk has to do with what's happening in the roots of land plants where it is a problem. Land plants do not have nearly the capability to uptake micronutrients by the foliar method. The construct of terrestrial leaves is completely different than aquatic. That's why when you buy a new plant grown terrestrially in a nursery and then dump them underwater they struggle because those leaves and roots must change their physiology quickly or perish. Water changes everything...so the whole formula of how ions and molecules diffuse across the leaf membrane and across the roots is entirely different.

Did you realize that all the trees in the Amazon - even hardwoods trees like Mahogany, Rosewood  and Fig - are actually aquatic plants? When the rain forest floods, the trees are inundated with water, maybe up to 15 meters high. The roots of the trees undergo a major physiological change in order allow Oxygen to reach down and to be distributed under water.

People are so programmed to fret over nutrients and they miss the more important aspects of survival, which is gas exchange.

Never worry about this metal or that balance or that ratio. The plants always figure it out and they have mechanisms to counter toxicity. They have very limited ability however, of countering suffocation.

The OP is also advised to clean the leaves of his plants using his fingers to wipe of the biofilm check this post https://ukaps.org/forum/threads/algae-problems-help-please.6331/page-2#post-72428

The biofilm covering all submerged surface is where a lot of algae live, but more importantly, this film, as thin as it is, acts as a major barrier to the diffusion of CO2 and Oxygen across the leaf membrane. Your CO2 will be more effective if these leaf surfaces are kept clean. Grated, carpet plants are difficult to clean but any algae or debris can be cleaned using a toothbrush twirled to catch the filaments and to drag them out.

Cheers,


----------



## Soilwork (23 Sep 2017)

ceg4048 said:


> Hi,
> Yes, I dosed 5X everything, including micros. At the same time I wanted to disprove the entire "...Hard water is bad for plants..." propaganda so I raised the KH to 15 or higher and raised the GH to 26 or higher. Kept it like that for couple of years. No problemo.
> 
> LondonDragon miscalculated and dose 10X of everything, including micros. A few months later he woke up and adjusted it back down to standard levels. What's the big deal?
> ...



Thanks for the clarification.  I agree about gas exchange and water cleanliness.  Just paying attention to these particular aspects lately has improved growth. 

I'm going to trial the full nutrient dosing regimen again and see what happens.  Water changes will be even more frequent as the tank is only small. 

Sorry to OP if my posts have taken anything away from the main topic of discussion.


----------



## tayloss (24 Sep 2017)

No problem on jumping on the thread, we are all here to learn right? 

Looking like the tank is starting to improve and algae isn’t a dominate factor, so again, thank you for your patience and understanding! Going to work on water change TDS levels and keep the ferts on the higher side for now and monitor..

I’ve also added some frogbit to add some movement on the surface and has already decided to multiple!!

Thanks,
Chris


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tayloss (24 Sep 2017)

Soilwork said:


> Thanks for the clarification.  I agree about gas exchange and water cleanliness.  Just paying attention to these particular aspects lately has improved growth.
> 
> I'm going to trial the full nutrient dosing regimen again and see what happens.  Water changes will be even more frequent as the tank is only small.
> 
> Sorry to OP if my posts have taken anything away from the main topic of discussion.



Do you have a thread on your tank?, just wanted to be nosey at what you are up too with yours?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Soilwork (25 Sep 2017)

tayloss said:


> Do you have a thread on your tank?, just wanted to be nosey at what you are up too with yours?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



It’s been very experimental of late so nothing to show exactly except for a lot of BGA.  Seems I haven’t been feeding enough or providing enough nutrition and water movement.  Growth is starting again after a while of stagnation so once I get things in order I will upload something of a story.  Water changes have been pivotal.  Twice sometimes three times a week. 

Regards 

CJ


----------



## ceg4048 (25 Sep 2017)

Soilwork said:


> nothing to show exactly except for a lot of BGA.


CJ,
    BGA = poor NO3 uptake. 
Increase KNO3 per EI dosing regimen, clean filter, and improve flow/distribution as necessary.

Cheers,


----------



## Soilwork (25 Sep 2017)

ceg4048 said:


> CJ,
> BGA = poor NO3 uptake.
> Increase KNO3 per EI dosing regimen, clean filter, and improve flow/distribution as necessary.
> 
> Cheers,



Thanks.  Biofilm is very thick despite large water changes.  Does cyano contribute to this along with plant waste?  Some of the plants still have old emersed leaves too which are no doubt contributing but I think the main culprit is the organics in the Eco complete.  

I wasn't running a filter for some time,, just a surface skimmer for flow so the substrate collected lots of brown powdery waste.  Just touching the eco complete raises a cloud so even though my canister is new I think it could be gunked up already, even more so due to the fact I left the fine filter floss in there that came with it which I guess will in turn reduce flow. 

I have been trying to vac areas of the substrate just to try and reset some of the waste but the eco complete tends to block the plastic grating on the siphon which reduces flow so that can be a pain.

I'm just waiting for a repair to my leaking stop tap before I can change anymore water which is frustrating. 

The BGA is on the decline from water I can tell since I've been making its life hard with the glass magnet and siphon although i think a lot of it may have made its way in to the canister for further decomposition. 

I'm getting there.  The fact the plants are now actually throwing up new leaves is a give away.  The algae that was collecting on the roots of the salvinia has disappeared leaving just the root hairs on display and my hygrophila carymbosa has recovered from its interveinal chlorosis is promising. 

I've been making a case for micro toxicity for a good while here and in other places hence my experimentation (which if I'm honest hasn't given me the results I had hoped for) so now it's back to basics I guess.

Regards 

CJ


----------



## tayloss (26 Sep 2017)

Just out of interest, how much does the TDS matter in terms of providing the rest of the nutrients needed from the water? I am adding enough power to bring the pure RO (0 TDS) to a TDS of 200. I know adding the fertiliser is adding an additional TDS, but am not sure of the relationship between the two in terms of giving everything the plant need and not over dosing the shrimps?


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (26 Sep 2017)

TDS, is just that Total Dissolved Solids, anything that dissolves into liquid will be measured by the TDS meter including uneaten fish food, rockwork in the aquarium etc. If you evaporated away all the water the tds would be what was left. It doesn't really affect plant growth at all. When you add ferts which are salts the tds will rise as they are solids dissolved in the water same as everything else that's dissolved in there. 

In your case, if you are concerned about high tds because of the species of fish or shrimp you want to keep you would be better off adjusting it with your RO mineralising agent to produce softer water from the start because even though ferts will raise tds you still need them in sufficient quantities that the plants need to feed because the RO agent wont be adding any of these KNP so they are still missing from the water make up.

The EI method we have been discussing is designed to add slightly more than you could possibly need and considering your lighting and plant mass probably isn't as high as the lighting it was tested under you will probably have some further excess of nutrients which will keep tds rising over time. I personally don't use RO water however the water out of my tap is very soft so might as well be. Since keeping softwater species I decided to try and keep the tds from rising which is where the duck weed index comes in. You start at EI levels of dosing which is more than you need and gradually over time slightly reduce your dosing while keeping an eye on the duck weed. As mentioned duck weed doesn't really suffer if your co2 isn't optimum because it gets most of its co2 from the atmosphere so if they are starting to show signs of issues generally speaking it's fertiliser that's causing it. With a bit of experience watching the duck weed and checking your tds at start of week and end you can sort of gauge if the tds isn’t rising dramatically and the plants are doing well how much your particular system actually needs but this is a moving target as you have more plant mass.

EI is belt and braces so if you don't care about tds because your inhabitants don't mind then its a safer bet. In you case though I think you said your GH was 8 so from 0 TDS to GH8 you could reduce that easily but the ferts need to go in no matter what. The two although both raise tds are totally different situations.


----------



## dw1305 (26 Sep 2017)

Hi all, 





tayloss said:


> Just out of interest, how much does the TDS matter in terms of providing the rest of the nutrients needed from the water? I am adding enough power to bring the pure RO (0 TDS) to a TDS of 200. I know adding the fertiliser is adding an additional TDS, but am not sure of the relationship between the two in terms of giving everything the plant need and not over dosing the shrimps?


When you get a reading for ppm TDS (Total Dissolved Solids) it is actually a conversion factor applied to the level of the ions in solution (the electrical conductivity in microS). 

Usually 100 microS converts to 64ppm TDS. Conductivity just measures the ions in solution, it doesn't tell you anything about which ions they are. Pure RO is an insulator (doesn't conduct electricity)  and it is then a linear scale all the way up to full strength sea water at 53,000 microS. 

It depends a little bit what your powder contains, but normally it would be some combination (when dissolved) of calcium (Ca++), chloride (Cl-), magnesium (Mg++), sulphate (SO4++), bicarbonate (HCO3+)  and possibly sodium (Na+) ions. 

Plants only need small amounts of these ions, and don't require sodium at all. 

Your fertiliser will contain the ions that plants need more of, principally nitrate (NO3-), potassium (K+) and orthophosphate (PO4---). All ions contribute to the TDS. 

When you add a salt like potassium nitrate (KNO3), or potassium dihydrogen phosphate (KH2PO4), both cation (+) and anion (-) are ions you want, so you have less rise in TDS compared with adding the same amount of potassium and nitrate ions from potassium chloride (KCl) and sodium nitrate (NaNO3).   

cheers Darrel


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (26 Sep 2017)

If it were me, I would probably half the RO agent and come in at 4GH, adding the magnesium from the ferts will raise GH slightly more again then you don't have to worry too much about ferts raising the TDS as much. If you want to dial in the ferts crack on but saying you posted this because you were having issues I would keep the ferts as the are for now with your increased dose so you can concentrate on cleanliness and co2 which are the harder bits.

Maybe look at buying some kno3 as well, as previously mentioned your all-in-one is quite a high ratio of phosphate relative to nitrate, I can only assume that's because they expect fish in the tank and you would get the extra nitrate from there. By the time you've dosed high enough to hit the nitrate levels you po4 is quite high so maybe a pinch of kno3 means you don't have as much wasted po4. KNO3 also adds potassium so no worries there. What you don't want is low nitrate and potassium but high phosphate unless algae farming is your thing


----------



## tayloss (26 Sep 2017)

AverageWhiteBloke said:


> If it were me, I would probably half the RO agent and come in at 4GH, adding the magnesium from the ferts will raise GH slightly more again then you don't have to worry too much about ferts raising the TDS as much. If you want to dial in the ferts crack on but saying you posted this because you were having issues I would keep the ferts as the are for now with your increased dose so you can concentrate on cleanliness and co2 which are the harder bits.
> 
> Maybe look at buying some kno3 as well, as previously mentioned your all-in-one is quite a high ratio of phosphate relative to nitrate, I can only assume that's because they expect fish in the tank and you would get the extra nitrate from there. By the time you've dosed high enough to hit the nitrate levels you po4 is quite high so maybe a pinch of kno3 means you don't have as much wasted po4. KNO3 also adds potassium so no worries there. What you don't want is low nitrate and potassium but high phosphate unless algae farming is your thing


I like the sound of that.. may be thats why I seems to have stalled on the algae going? Its has cleared up and no where near as much as when it first started to grow, but looking today has seen some new growth... What can I use as a source of KNO3? Unless you have already mentioned it early on? 

I guess I need to retest the RO water at the various TDS levels to find its GH value?

Another can of worms, when I thought a planted tank was easy..


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (26 Sep 2017)

tayloss said:


> I like the sound of that.. may be thats why I seems to have stalled on the algae going? Its has cleared up and no where near as much as when it first started to grow, but looking today has seen some new growth... What can I use as a source of KNO3? Unless you have already mentioned it early on?



Source KNO3 (Potassium Nitrate)Check our sponsors, most sell it, you'll only need a small bag. With our sponsors you know what you're getting as they have a reputation to uphold unlike auction site sellers.



tayloss said:


> I guess I need to retest the RO water at the various TDS levels to find its GH value?



Yeah, I would assume halving TDS would be a simple case of halving what you usually put in. You would have to check with RO users as there might be other essential minerals added at the same ratio so unsure. That's why I can't workout how come you have 0 kh you would have thought RO agents raised this at the same time. GH is a total of the KH combined and usually people recommend levels of 4 KH to have sufficeint buffering capacity preventing ph fluctuations.


----------



## tayloss (26 Sep 2017)

AverageWhiteBloke said:


> Source KNO3 (Potassium Nitrate)Check our sponsors, most sell it, you'll only need a small bag. With our sponsors you know what you're getting as they have a reputation to uphold unlike auction site sellers.


I will have a look at that now 



AverageWhiteBloke said:


> Yeah, I would assume halving TDS would be a simple case of halving what you usually put in. You would have to check with RO users as there might be other essential minerals added at the same ratio so unsure. That's why I can't workout how come you have 0 kh you would have thought RO agents raised this at the same time. GH is a total of the KH combined and usually people recommend levels of 4 KH to have sufficeint buffering capacity preventing ph fluctuations.


The substrate handles the KH from what I believe as it says on the packet it maintains a PH of 6-6.5 with 0 KH water? I can get GH/KH mix, but apparently it depletes the substrate buffering ability very quickly..


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (26 Sep 2017)

tayloss said:


> Another can of worms, when I thought a planted tank was easy..



Haha, it sort of is, the science behind it all can at first make your head spin but all the spade work had been done for us by the people who did stick in at school so all we need to do give the plants what they need... Light, food,a source of carbon and clean water/filter and they'll do what they've done since time began, just grow. I've never came across a suicidal plant yet 

Plants will grow under most lighting of any spectrum and within reason any brightness. How bright the lighting is dictates how fast the plants will grow. The faster the plants grow the more food they need and more carbon which we give them in the form of either carbon dioxide gas or liquid carbon. As for how much food they need that's the million dollar question which is where the brains have came up with EI. They've worked out how much they couldn't need or shouldn't with lights brighter than yours so your foods covered. Using a drop checker we can make sure we have the carbon we need with some level of accuracy. Then get that carbon and food flowing round your tank to all areas where plants are and that only leaves keeping things clean. If you can lift a bucket of water and wash out a filter the rest will take care of itself.

As for algae, this usually comes about when you don't have one of the above right and the plants suffer giving algae the upper hand, combined with dirty water and filters they take over in no time under high lighting, it's the perfect conditions for them to thrive. Imagine it like ingredients of a cake, miss one out and the cake is ruined, doesn't matter if your ferts are spot on but you have a dirty tank or you co2 isn't right, you don't end up with a cake like missing the flour or sugar out.

IME though the cleanliness of the tank is the foundation. Even with everything else right it will still cause algae. People just find it easier to alter or blame ferts or co2 because they get talked about a lot and it's something they can alter instantly. I find with ferts and co2 there's quite a broad range of tolerance with plants, they just want some and don't know what TDS/PPM are. A lot of people here have excellent low energy/lighting tanks who don't dose ferts or co2 at all relying on fish waste. The plants still grow just slowly, they will always adapt to the lighting over them.


----------



## tayloss (26 Sep 2017)

I have just placed an order with one of the forum sponsors for some KNO3 and they only had a 500g bag available, but if it helps to stabilise the tank, i'm not too worried 

Now the other million dollar question is.... How much do I add  

Just an edit to this post, I need to aim for 20ppm of NO3 per week according to a EI dosing article I've read


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (26 Sep 2017)

Is this how you make your bottle now...



> *Instructions*
> 
> 30g 'All-in-One Complete Macros and Micros Fertiliser'
> 500ml of distilled water (or boiled then cooled water).
> ...


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (26 Sep 2017)

Had to get my maths face on there 

Ok so adding 2.5ml daily with your all-in-one to 20ltrs gets you

1.5 ppm Nitrate x7 =10.5ppm
0.4 ppm Phosphate x7 =2.8ppm
1.6 ppm Potassium x7 =11.2ppm
0.2 ppm Magnesium x7 =1.4ppm

If you want an EI equivalent mix aiming for parameters below leaving magnesium and iron aside as I don't know if you get magnesium from the RO agent

Nitrate (NO3) 20ppm per week
Potassium (K) 30ppm per week
Phosphate (PO4) 3ppm per week

So using James Calculator to level out that phosphate you could add 14gram of kno3 in that 500ml bottle with your all-in-one or 2 teaspoons and that would give you based on 2.5ml dose daily...

3.22 ppm Nitrate x7 =22.54ppm Weekly
0.4 ppm Phosphate x7 =2.8ppm Weekly
2.53 ppm Potassium x7 =17.71ppm Weekly
0.2 ppm Magnesium x7 =1.4ppm Weekly

If you already have a bottle made up the same would apply if you just made a separate bottle up of 14 gram kno3 to 500ml and add 2.5ml daily alongside your existing ferts. I wouldn't worry too much about your tank being 25ltr as oppose to it being based on 20ltr allowing for your gravel and hardscape. It's not exact science any way and plants can't count, they just want fed.


----------



## tayloss (26 Sep 2017)

I’ve tried to look at the RO reagent and the only information on the website is:

 Biologically balanced calcium-magnesium ratio

Not sure why they are not producing the levels on the packaging or documentation...?

For reference, it’s Dennerle GH+ remineralisation power is what I’m using for Bee shrimps, although I’m lacking the shrimp elements at the moment.. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ceg4048 (27 Sep 2017)

tayloss said:


> The substrate handles the KH from what I believe as it says on the packet it maintains a PH of 6-6.5 with 0 KH water? I can get GH/KH mix, but apparently it depletes the substrate buffering ability very quickly..





tayloss said:


> I guess I need to retest the RO water at the various TDS levels to find its GH value?





tayloss said:


> Just out of interest, how much does the TDS matter in terms of providing the rest of the nutrients needed from the water? I am adding enough power to bring the pure RO (0 TDS) to a TDS of 200. I know adding the fertiliser is adding an additional TDS, but am not sure of the relationship between the two in terms of giving everything the plant need and not over dosing the shrimps?


Hello,
          Please stop the madness. You have taken a left turn somewhere and have wound up on to the wrong path. 
You should not even be thinking about TDS or KH or GH. You should not be testing. This ALWAYS it will lead you down the primrose path that dalliance treads because you do not yet understand the complexities associated with the chemistry - and, it actually doesn't matter.

Your only goal in terms of these parameters is to add a little Calcium and a little Magnesium to feed the plants.  Epsom Salts adds the Magnesium and a little crushed coral, sold in any pet shop can be added to your filter to add the Calcium. These values should simply be non-Zero. That's all. End of worries.

Add a teaspoon or so of any carbonate or bicarbonate source, such as baking soda to make the KH non-Zero. 
All this does is to ensure that your pH readings are valid. Forget about what the sediment does to KH because it's all hogwash and fretting about it it diverts you attention and energy away from the things that are 1000X more important, like CO2, water changes and flow/distribution.

Add your nutrients in the prescribed amounts and let the TDS fall where it may.

I see this every day where folks spend all their time worrying about things that do not matter and have no time left to worry about things that matter a LOT. 
That's exactly how their tanks wind up turning into a can of worms.

The Matrix isn't real Neo.

Cheers,


----------



## tayloss (27 Sep 2017)

Fully understand,  I was more worried about the shrimp element who have a special need in terms of TDS.. as I’m making water from RO, the measurement of TDS is important otherwise I’d add too much powered.

I’ve performed another 50% water change last night and noticed the DC was yellow, so will give the CO2 a tiny twist to turn it down a tad..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (27 Sep 2017)

ceg4048 said:


> Add your nutrients in the prescribed amounts and let the TDS fall where it may.



Just to clarify Clive for the OP are you suggesting "prescribed amounts" for the all-in-one or +extra nitrate. His tank seems quite bright and co2 injected so if he wants to use EI method it seems a waste of the other ferts to have to double up when it all needs to bring back into ratio is a bit more nitrogen. In a fishless system like he is running I suspect he might be burning the nitrogen off pretty quick.

As for RO, I don't do it but the guy is intending to make this friendly for fancy shrimp, from what I read in the shrimp section the one's he wants prefer a low TDS sub 200 and his RO agent is bringing him in above that already. I understand that the plants don't care about the tds and make up as long as the essentials are provided but do these RO agents not replace other essential minerals like the one's Darrel listed which would be beneficial to the well being of shrimp?


----------



## ceg4048 (27 Sep 2017)

AverageWhiteBloke said:


> Just to clarify Clive for the OP are you suggesting "prescribed amounts" for the all-in-one or +extra nitrate.


Hi mate,
           When I say "prescribed" in this context I'm always referring to the standard dosing listed in the EI Tutorial. I agree that there ought not to be a need for extra this or that, however, it also doesn't matter if the numbers the OP is using is derived from some other recipe that uses more this or more that.



AverageWhiteBloke said:


> As for RO, I don't do it but the guy is intending to make this friendly for fancy shrimp, from what I read in the shrimp section the one's he wants prefer a low TDS sub 200





tayloss said:


> Fully understand, I was more worried about the shrimp element who have a special need in terms of TDS.. as I’m making water from RO, the measurement of TDS is important otherwise I’d add too much powered.


Well, of course this is another case of someone spewing out a number  and everyone automatically giving it biblical importance.

I'm pretty sure Darrel explained this before but it's not just a TDS number that is damaging to fauna. It's what _comprises _the TDS. 
TDS due to nutrient salts is not  a big problem, but TDS due to pollution such as fish and plant waste is a problem because it pulls Oxygen from the water column.

People have difficulty with this concept, so I don't really try to argue this point. In any case it's not really a big problem to reduce the dosing levels to accommodate TDS thresholds.

Cheers,


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (27 Sep 2017)

I tend to monitor my TDS quite a lot, especially lately since having a go at spawning Rams. I also find it handy to check when I could do with a reset. Granted you should change as much water as possible but I have a very busy lifestyle and work away from home so 50% weekly is about as much as I can realistically fit in.

My TDS is v low in my tapwater around 39 so I set myself a limit of 200. Once I start getting to these numbers pre water change day I find the time to get two 75% back to back over a weekend. Obviously I don't know what this tds is made up of but I just assume it's not good.

Sent from my STH100-2 using Tapatalk


----------



## ceg4048 (28 Sep 2017)

AverageWhiteBloke said:


> My TDS is v low in my tapwater around 39 so I set myself a limit of 200. Once I start getting to these numbers pre water change day I find the time to get two 75% back to back over a weekend. Obviously I don't know what this tds is made up of but I just assume it's not good.


OK, fair enough, I get that for spawning dwarf chiclids you'd want to stay as much as possible on the low side, but I remember long ago, when the same low TDS water was advocated for spawning discus. Every time someone would fail, high TDS and high pH were blamed. Then, some years later, breeders who were fed up with the hassle of chasing TDS and pH reported breeding discus in higher TDS and higher pH than anyone could imagine. Now, discus acclimated to higher TDS water are commonplace.

When I was keeping the more common dwarfs, such as Cockatoos, I did use RO but then the tank was dosed EI  without restriction and the TDS was higher than pure RO, obviously. But the fish bred like rabbits without any encouragement from me - and this was in a community tank.
It was very easy to estimate how much was due to salts and how much was due to pollution. If you fill the tank with water at water change time and take a reading then that's the baseline. Then dose and take a reading after 15 minutes or so. The difference in the reading should be a fair estimate of how much was due to the salts. By the next water change, if you take a reading prior to dumping the water then that reading minus what you measured and calculate for added salts ought to be what due to everything other than the salts, more or less.

In any case, that number, 200 or whatever, is a good reference for you, for what it is that you are trying to accomplish. But a newbie may not be aware of this context - a context which may not apply to him/her.

So my approach would be to state that a lower TDS is generally better than a higher TDS, but that there ought not to be a hard and fast number, because that person inevitably will fret over that number. In an extreme case the person might even withold nutrients in an attempt to chase the number and will cause more problems than they solve.

That's why it better to give context as much as possible and to ensure that we understand the numbers as well as to understand the phenomenon instead of just handing out numbers. That's one reason test kits are notorious, because they are all about numbers, and hobbyists automatically assign pass/fail to the illusory numbers returned by the kits.

The OP should go to great lengths to keep his tank scrupulously clean with large and frequent water changes, but the water column should be dosed properly to ensure the plants health. Again, it's no problem to dose on the lean side. There is plenty of margin of error in the recipe if the hobbyists so chooses, but it's not something to fret over. The extra oxygen from the healthy plants, and all the other amazing things that plants do will more than make up for the increase in TDS.

Cheers,


----------



## Soilwork (28 Sep 2017)

In my experience I found that fish/inverts show an increase in spawning behaviour as TDS rises.  I can’t comment on cichlids though. 

I also find that TDS rise from salts doesn’t actually contribute as much as that from pollution.  I wonder what of organic materials contribute to conductivity. 

AWB my water is similar to yours.

Clive my issue is biofilm/surface film.  Is this an indicator of pollution? My thoughts are that CO2 bubbles will exaggerate surface biofilm if the dissolved organic wastes adhere to the bubbles then carried to the surface? I have a surface skimmer but don’t want to use it if it is only going to mask a larger issue.  The tank is also open top which could play a factor if particulates are falling on to the surface from above. 

Thanks
CJ


----------



## roadmaster (28 Sep 2017)

I have fairly hard water at 12dgh, and that,combined with sharp increase in TDS from the mineral salt's is too much I think, for some soft water species I have barely been able to keep in said water before.
I tend to keep fishes that do better with my moderately hard water now day's. I have managed to keep domestic Discus in said water minus the mineral salt's in the past
Now,,If I mix Distilled water or R/O water with my tap water ,I am more easily able to keep fishes such as the German blue rams and some species that are said to prefer more acidic water.(But have become lazier about mixing,storing water)
Me thinks if one has soft water to begin with,then a bump in TDS from the mineral salt's would have maybe less of an affect over time and acclimation to the water.
But maybe if your already keeping fishes that prefer softer water in more alkaline condition's,then the effect's could be less tolerable for them.


----------



## tayloss (28 Sep 2017)

This certainly has opened up a discussion that I wasn’t expecting based on my Marine keeping side where testing is quite important to keeping corals happy.. mainly salinity levels and Ca/Mag.

I guess my want for ornamental shrimps has pushed me in a direction of looking at TDS as that’s the value they provide for the water they are happy with, although some are adaptable given time etc.

Please don’t think I’m hooked on testing anything else and haven’t since starting this thread apart from TDS levels and PH to see if it’s stable between lights out/on etc..

I am not sure what TDS is in terms of shrimp keeping as would imagine that’s a mineral TDS from the salts added.. my thinking is that if I have a baseline of sub 200 and the maximum is 250, I have a buffer to add the fertiliser without too much of an issue?

If this was a planted only tank, then of course I wouldn’t really mind what the levels are and wouldn’t have a buffering substrate to create a lower PH as I could use tap water.. 

The water on the south coast comes through the chalk of the South Downs and has a GH of 18 and TDS of 280. I had issues keeping some freshwater fish in my other tank (Normani Lampeye, Green nano Rasboara) when I used tap water directly.. I now do a 50/50 mix and haven’t had a death since... this is a complex hobby and agree that people chase numbers, but doesn’t there have to be a certain eye on parameters for the fish you are keeping? 

This was my own experience and had plenty of deaths even after being told that fish are adaptable to any water.. once the GH/KH and TDS has fallen, the fish are more active.

Thanks,
Chris


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## roadmaster (28 Sep 2017)

Fish food's,fish waste,dirty filter's,decaying plant matter all left unchecked as Clive mention's, likely to have more of negative impact as they too contribute to TDS.
TDS from mineral salt's alone would be temporary depending on plant mass drawing from them me thinks.
Still could be too much if one is keeping critter's or fishes too far from preferred condition's.IMHO


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (28 Sep 2017)

ceg4048 said:


> Then, some years later, breeders who were fed up with the hassle of chasing TDS and pH reported breeding discus in higher TDS and higher pH than anyone could imagine. Now, discus acclimated to higher TDS water are commonplace.



Yes, I have found that my Rams will tend to spawn regardless even with a TDS bordering on 300, they might even have a go at higher numbers but as these higher numbers are more than likely far too much waste in the tank there seems little point seeing how high they would still spawn at to the detriment of everything else. I also know a local Discus breeder who again says the numbers don't matter as long as the water is clean and well oxygenated. I hear rumours that some Discus happily breed in Portland cement in Germany if acclimatised properly, don't know how true that is though. One thing I've never got to the bottom of though is egg and fry survival rates in such water. I can see how and adult fish will have the physiological ability to adjust over time but with eggs they are held inside the fish in it's own unique environment as they have done for millennia then exposed to something that doesn't fit into the environment its DNA was designed for but I suppose egg adaptability under differing conditions is a topic for another day.



ceg4048 said:


> It was very easy to estimate how much was due to salts and how much was due to pollution. If you fill the tank with water at water change time and take a reading then that's the baseline. Then dose and take a reading after 15 minutes or so. The difference in the reading should be a fair estimate of how much was due to the salts. By the next water change, if you take a reading prior to dumping the water then that reading minus what you measured and calculate for added salts ought to be what due to everything other than the salts, more or less.



This is something I carried out as an exercise following reading up on Duck weed index and trying to find a happy place between plants and supposedly optimum parameters for the Blue Rams with good effect. The duck weed isn't fail safe though so the rest of the plants still need monitoring. Most people tend to have their lilly pipes and spray bars close to the surface so it stands to reason that that's a good place to be living if you’re a plant regarding access to nutrition, nothing to say that its making its ways down to the bottom of stems though.



ceg4048 said:


> The OP should go to great lengths to keep his tank scrupulously clean with large and frequent water changes, but the water column should be dosed properly to ensure the plants health. Again, it's no problem to dose on the lean side. There is plenty of margin of error in the recipe if the hobbyists so chooses, but it's not something to fret over. The extra oxygen from the healthy plants, and all the other amazing things that plants do will more than make up for the increase in TDS.



For sure, hence I suggested if the OP is having issues and the concern is surrounding TDS and fancy shrimp then the thing to adjust would be the RO agent which has far less importance and not the ferts. Stick with the ferts at the EI levels to rule that side out to concentrate on co2/health/flow. I didn't realise until you said that the RO water only needs a couple things to make things more fish/invert friendly. As the OP already has the RO agent seems easier for him to continue using that at a lesser dose and by all accounts could come down as low as he wanted with that just so the water has something in it. Magnesium is already in the fert recipe he already has. Due to me having soft tapwater with free PO4 I've never bothered with RO. The closest I've ever came was back in the day when I had a breeding pair of Blue Cobalt Discus and I bought an API tapwater purifier, I remember there was mention of "vital electrolytes"  and various minerals probably already covered with the ferts anyway that were added in super concentrated form I guess but this was probably as most things are in the industry snake oil generating more after market sales but that's above my pay grade. Easiest solution one would assume for the OP would be to just cut some of his tapwater with the RO and be done.


----------



## tayloss (28 Sep 2017)

AverageWhiteBloke said:


> For sure, hence I suggested if the OP is having issues and the concern is surrounding TDS and fancy shrimp then the thing to adjust would be the RO agent which has far less importance and not the ferts. Stick with the ferts at the EI levels to rule that side out to concentrate on co2/health/flow. I didn't realise until you said that the RO water only needs a couple things to make things more fish/invert friendly. As the OP already has the RO agent seems easier for him to continue using that at a lesser dose and by all accounts could come down as low as he wanted with that just so the water has something in it. Magnesium is already in the fert recipe he already has. Due to me having soft tapwater with free PO4 I've never bothered with RO. The closest I've ever came was back in the day when I had a breeding pair of Blue Cobalt Discus and I bought an API tapwater purifier, I remember there was mention of "vital electrolytes"  and various minerals probably already covered with the ferts anyway that were added in super concentrated form I guess but this was probably as most things are in the industry snake oil generating more after market sales but that's above my pay grade. Easiest solution one would assume for the OP would be to just cut some of his tapwater with the RO and be done.


The issue with the RO/Tapwater mix is that I need the KH to stay at 0 for the shrimps and to continue the buffering elements of the substrate.

Anyway, this morning, the post lady delivered my 500ml of KNO3  My ferts are getting low, so its a good time to knock up some more with, but l am going to have a separate dose of KNO3 in a different bottle as I use the all-in-one mix in my freshwater fish tank to feed to plants there..

The adventure continues...


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (28 Sep 2017)

tayloss said:


> The issue with the RO/Tapwater mix is that I need the KH to stay at 0 for the shrimps and to continue the buffering elements of the substrate.



I could be wrong but AFAIK shrimps don't have an issue with KH. I have kept RCS and CRS in water with 4KH and both quite happily bred. As for the buffering elements of the substrate. I have to admit I'm not sure what you mean, substrate is substrate to me, I've had equally good results with tesco cat litter as I have with Tropica Soil. My understanding is that as long as it has a high cec value or the ability to absorb and store nutrients in it. As for ph you will be lowering that with the addition of co2 and if it's ph swings that are the worried about the addition of some KH will solve this as is in your tapwater.

I could be missing something though, I'm just a novice. For me the substrate is something for my plants to get their roots into so they don't blow round the tank. Whatever that substrate is buffering I'm guessing it's going to be used up within a couple months regardless of what you do. If it keeps water soft and acidic as most of them claim, is this not the equivalent of using softwater and acidifying it with co2?


----------



## tayloss (28 Sep 2017)

So the substrate is Dennerle Scaper soil and has the following descriptions:

Scaper's Soil
Nutrient substrate for strong plant growth
With all essential minerals and trace elements
With fertile volcanic soil
With bio-filtering function for healthy, clear water
Actively creates soft, slightly acidic water (approx. pH 6-6.5, KH 0-2 °d)
Twice-baked – lasting water stability
Ideal in combination with CO2 fertilisation
With valuable humic and fulvic acids
Ideal for plants, fish and shrimps that require soft, slightly acidic water
Suitable for bottom filters (shrimp breeding)
Special nutrient formula – does not promote algae
Scaper’s Soil is an active substrate specifically developed for aquaria. It creates slightly acidic, soft water like that in which most tropical animals and plants live. Scaper’s Soil is ideally suited to plant aquaria, especially aquascaping and shrimp aquaria.

Along with this comment, which is were I was mentioning the RO with minerals:-

Scaper's Soil is a relatively new soil by the famous plant and nano aquarium specialists at Dennerle. It usually buffers the water around between pH 6 and 6.5. The soil will leach small amounts of ammonia and nitrite, which are not toxic to inhabitants at this low pH level. This helps to cycle new filters and gives living plants a real growth boost. After a while the soil will stop leaching ammonia. You can stock the tank within some days to a week. Please note: to guarantee a long lifetime of the substrate, active soils should always be used with reminieralised RO water rather than tap. Tap water, depending on hardness, will exhaust the substrate considerably sooner.

I don’t want to get too hung up, as am just listening to an aquascaping podcast on EI dosing and that the need for testing is null and void  




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (28 Sep 2017)

tayloss said:


> I don’t want to get too hung up, as am just listening to an aquascaping podcast on EI dosing and that the need for testing is null and void



Haha, certain testing anyway.

That stuff from Dennerle seems to be in the aid of cycling the tank initially fishless. It releases ammonia which kick starts the nitrogen cycle giving the first ingredient as most of these things do. The ammonia is toxic to fish at ph above 7 so it has some acids in there to keep the ph below 7 preventing ammonia becoming toxic. I guess if you add high KH water this would neutralise the acids but in the long term the acids will deplete whatever and the ammonia will stop leaching and convert to nitrite/ nitrate then out. Any ammonia leaching after that will be dealt with by the plants and bacteria so fast it won't have time to show up on any test kit. As long as it's going to absorb nutrients (which it will) I don't think over the long term it matters which water you use as you will be adding the nutrients directly to the water where the majority get absorbed through the leaves.


----------



## ceg4048 (28 Sep 2017)

tayloss said:


> I don’t want to get too hung up, as am just listening to an aquascaping podcast on EI dosing and that the need for testing is null and void


Yes, you are getting hung up by the neck and will flounder if you pay attention to this kind of propaganda. There is no requirement to have zero KH for any fauna.

Cheers,


----------



## tayloss (28 Sep 2017)

Maybe I should change the RO agent to add some KH, I just don’t know what will happen to the PH? 

They mentioned that they only test PH and KH and never the others.. 

The shrimpkeepers advise GH adjustment only with a buffering substrate and now I need some KH as well? Will the CO2 injection keep the PH below 7 for the shrimp or should I give up on the idea of the ornate shrimp and go for a more common less fussy shrimp?

Thanks,
Chris


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (28 Sep 2017)

tayloss said:


> They mentioned that they only test PH and KH and never the others.



Don't know who "They" are mate. Post in the invert section of this forum with which type of shrimp you want. I'm sure someone will advise on water parameters. some experienced shrimp keepers here. As Clive says though no, you don't need 0KH water and if you want some KH just put a litre of dechlorinated tapwater in your tank. RO water is just too raw on its own without using your RO agent for anything to survive in it.


----------



## tayloss (28 Sep 2017)

Cool, I haven’t ventured too far into the forum as yet!! I’ll go and explore 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (28 Sep 2017)

You'll be surprised what you find in here. Its a cool place to hang out to my detriment, I never seem to get any office work done after I check in to see what's going on


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (28 Sep 2017)

I think it's maybe "buffering" that's threw you off the scent here. generally buffering is used in the context of preventing sudden acidic drops when you relate it to KH but your substrate buffers the ph down preventing it from ph rises, obviously water with high KH will counter that acid drop your substarte is trying to provide hence Dennerle's advice. Reading back through the post I think maybe where the confusion has came in maybe.


----------



## tayloss (30 Sep 2017)

After a good nights sleep, I’ve decided that this is going to be a planted only tank and am not going to worry about the PH or other parameters.

So, if the substrate depletes, it’s not going to be an issue as I’m not worried about it.. so, to recover the situation, it sounds like a 50/50 mix of RO/Tap will help? I’ll have to do it slowly as not to shock the plants? 

I’ll use the RO agent on a Shrimp only tank, if the wife will allow another tank!!

The buffering I was advise was to help keep the water softer for the shrimp as they require a PH below 6.. as I already have another tank that uses 50/50, the PH is at 7.5, obviously this tank will be below that until the substrate is exhausted. Not sure how long it will take tho...

What affect would it have if I removed the CO2, would I still need the fertiliser?

Perhaps that’s a better option to drive the tank?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tayloss (7 Oct 2017)

Just a little update on progress.. changed my mind and purchased some blue velvet shrimps and introduced them today... they jumped straight onto the algae and started munching away and also swimming about quite happily... not sure if it takes a while for them to be unhappy or it’s an instant sign?

PH is stable at around 6-6.2 and was advised by other shrimp keepers at my local LFS (who happen to have a shrimp open day!!) not to add any KH to the tank with a buffering substrate and that they will adapt to the conditions presented.. 

I opted for 4 as a starter and got 6 by surprise  I’ll monitor closing over the next few days, but they seem to be eating etc..

I guess only time will tel huh?!? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tayloss (9 Oct 2017)

I’ve decided to remove the CO2 system from the tank as it’s not helping with the algae issue and the shrimps aren’t happy.. so, can see me turning this into a shrimp only tank as it’s harder to run planted than even I thought... not sure if I need to dose daily ferts or turn to weekly?

Shrimps are ok, but the algae is just growing out of control...

Thanks, chris


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

