Nicely detailed water report! Yes, your Ca:Mg ratio is a staggering 20:1 (you still get some Mg though 🙂 ). Alkalinity (CaCO3) levels matches up with what Darrels suspected above about your water being about 18 GH/KH. Quite a bit of Nitrate, but you would only take on 33% (~6 ppm) of that if you go1/3rd Tap 2/3 RO. Moreover, it will make a big dent in your conductivity (~500 uS down to ~165 uS) which will benefit your livestock as well.
I had considered excess of ferts too, which is why I'm currently dosing Tropica's line of ferts. It seems it's making my problems worse, it hasn't even been a full week yet I've had a big outbreak of algae and worsening of chlorosis. I'll still continue it for another week for a proper assessment, but it's not looking good so far.
Thanks for the assessment - looks like my water is a lot harder than I had previously thought. My plan moving forward is to continue this lean dosing for another week, after which time I'm 99% sure nothing will change, and then I'll move on to deionised water.
Yes, move slow! if you end up going for 6 GH/KH after your first 50% WC it would be a big drop down to 11 GH/KH, and after the second it would be 8.5 GH/KH. Third: 7.25 GH/KH Forth: 6.6 GH/KH. The first 50% from 18 to 11 is too big of a change, but you can taper it off by initially doing smaller but more frequent changes - say first week two 25% WC's 4 days spread apart.
Well, to my knowledge, Celebes Rainbows are tricky in this respect as they distinctly prefer harder water and slightly above 7 pH... their natural habitats are almost brackish - the main reason I never found them suitable for my tanks (I do love them though). So there is that. Someone with Celebes Rainbows experience will have to advice you on that. Personally, I always consider the needs and wellbeing of my livestock first and plants as a distant second.
Are you changing the water because the fish are unhappy or the plants? Personally I'd stick with fish happy parameters, and work out why the plants are failing.
Fantastic advice, thank you. I will do the initial smaller water changes so that the first leap isn't so big.
Admittedly the plants, I am definitely tired of seeing such unhealthy growth in the tank, and the maintenance is higher since I'm constantly cleaning up after the bad growth. On the positive, it does seem (from looking up all the species) that my fish should be okay in the new water, with the possible exception of the celebes rainbowfish, I will have to look into this species further.
Could you please expand a bit more on this? What makes you think CO2? Because from what I've read from the likes of @ceg4048 I would agree that it makes sense that CO2 issues would cause structural abnormalities, but I just can't understand how that's possible in my case. If I increase the CO2 further the fish gasp at the surface, I have a 1.5 pH drop with yellow drop checkers and the distribution affects all plant leaves. The CO2 is stable too and at the right level come lights on. I don't know what else I can be missing. 🙁
I've tried upto 1ppm weekly, I guess I could try a bit more? Although I didn't notice any improvements between 0.5 and 1.0ppm
Sure thing... and thats why we both suspect CO2 first hand when these things comes up, and much less fertilizers as long as there is enough of everything...
Well, they didn't, but there are powerful alternatives... and - just as you - I keep my water soft ...
That's a big shortcut and generalization you are making. You are forgetting they are using most of the time rich substrates and there is no mention how hard that water is and in what proportions. He could inject more CO2 that I don't see his problems going away. You could always claim that the issue is CO2 distribution but then again he is using a CO2 reactor and both his DCs on both sides are showing yellow. Finally, using soft water makes everything much easier and I am sure they will also both tell you that.
I'll be honest and I do not think one sec your CO2 is the problem nor your level of fertilization. You have shown your PH drop and DCs coloration. I'll stick to my initial assessment and that is your dKH levels and also possibly your dGH levels (Mg not being enough), but primarily your carbonate levels. If you were in a low tech setup things would be easier to handle and you probably would not see what you are seeing.
This right there. Looking at the report, Ca levels are at 100ppm while Mg levels are at around 4-5ppm which is low. I would recommend raising that up to 10ppm.
No need. You are already well above in excess. 0.5ppm is already high. What you could try are different chelators or even Fe Gluconate which works well.
This is where I'm leaning too. I'll get that dKH down and see what happens.
With EI I have been adding 10ppm extra each month, and for a while I tried 20ppm (for a better ratio), unfortunately it didn't do a thing.
I've tried EDTA, DTPA, EDDHA and EDDHSA, I've also tried a combination of 0.2ppm DTPA with 0.5ppm gluconate. Adding the stronger chelators made an improvement over the EDTA, but they never improved growth beyond it's current state. The gluconate unfortunately didn't improve anything either.
Hmm I wasn't adding it before lights on - I added it about 30-60 mins into the photoperiod when I figured there would be maximum uptake. I also was adding it 3x per week along with the micros, so not everyday. Is there not any concern about precipitation when dosed alongside macros?
Fe Gluconate usually doesn't last more than an hour in solution. It will then precipitate. It's also photosensitive and will degrade with light hence why it's better to dose it when lights off. As far as I know plant still absorb nutrients even during the dark period. Finally, Fe gluconate is also more suitable when you have softer water. For harder water DTPA Fe and EDDHA Fe are usually better.
Fair enough, maybe not the best call I've made.
I'll try, but should point out I'm no co2 or plant growing guru.
This is an interesting note (about the gluconate) - I will bear it in mind moving forward. I think I'm just going to go with your suggestion of softer water and see what happens, I feel more confident about that idea than continuing down the iron route, I've spent many months trying that so far.
I'm a bit confused about the frogbit, because I spoke to Darrel @dw1305 privately and he said the new growth does look a bit pale. I don't have much experience with the plant, so I can't really comment on what it 'should' look like. It doesn't help that it seems to look different in different lights.
This is a valid comment, and is one I have taken into account myself. I actually used to use a standard outtake pipe but swapped to a spray bar after reading many of Clive @ceg4048 's posts. My hygrophilia compacta at the front of the tank displays this loss of lower leaves and pinholes, and yet these very lower leaves that it loses are constantly visibly swaying in the flow, so I would struggle to accept it being flow in that specific plant. I also topped my limnophilia (which loses it's lower leaves), and replanted the cutting at the front of the tank where I can see the lower leaves move in the flow, and it still loses them too.
I'm going to go with lowering the dKH and see what happens. I really don't see what else I can do with the CO2.
You could be right and I wont debate this because I am no bio-chemist, but this is what I have read somewhere and what I have done for a long time and my tanks shows no Fe deficiency. It doesn't mean I'm right hough. My micro dosing (which incorporates Fe DTPA and Fe Gluconate @ a ratio of 1 : 2.3) is pumped in my tanks 1 hour prior lights on BUT also 1 hours after CO2 is on. This means water is acidified it could be that this is what keeps the iron in solution before lights fire up. It could also be that Fe Gluconate is totally gone when lights are on and it's the remainder Fe DTPA doing the heavy lifting. No matter the case, Fe Gluconate needs to be dosed daily because of how short lived it is.
I think the new leaves <"may look a bit pale">?, but not a obviously as the Hygrophila. Have a look at <"Dying plants">.
I should have done <"this this bit as well">.
Ahh, sorry, this may be a bit of trickery on my end - in the very top-left corner is 'hygrophila siamensis 53b', and in the bottom-left is 'Hygrophila polysperma 'Rosanervig'', the Rosanervig variant is supposed to throw out those white-veined leaves. Interestingly, this 'Rosanervig' variant grows better than the other hygrophilia... a bit pale still but it doesn't have many structural abnormalities.
