• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up

My plants are clearly unhappy and I'm not sure what to do?

Think you will find that any tank given a Carbon source will be classed as High Tech on this forum.
I would say that entirely depends on the concentration of CO2. I doubt many would consider a tank to be "high tech" if the amount of dissolved CO2 in the water is not far from atmospheric equilibrium. Have a look at <these calculations>: the recommended dosage of glutaraldehyde would add between 0.7 - 1.7 ppm CO2 to the water. This amount is irrelevant. And even if there are other chemical reactions taking place that make additional carbon available to plants, <it does not seem to have any positive effect on plant growth>. Increasing the dosage of glutaraldehyde is not a viable option due to its toxic properties. Have a look at this <EU report on glutaraldehyde>. This means that plant respiration and photosynthesis in a planted tank will produce significantly higher amounts of CO2 than glutaraldehyde. So, I would not call a tank dosed with glutaraldehyde a high-tech tank.

1643794071000.png
 
Last edited:
Thank you for both your inputs Hufsa/Arcturus!
The definition of a High Tech/Low Tech had its place a number of years back, even before Glutaraldehyde came on the scene.
Maybe we need to re-think that term when dosing Liquid Carbon as there is a better understanding now, how the Liquid Carbon works!
Cheers!
 
Well guys, I'm dosing small amounts of tropica specialized ferts to make up for the potential shortfall in phosphates, and I also got a Chihiros WRGB II 😵 Now I'm wondering what temperature settings are best for my low tech tank? I should start the intensity low and slowly increase it right?

IMG_7317.PNG
 
Oh right, back to your original question:

How do you guys make your low-tech tanks work?

For me it was plenty of ferts + finding the right intensity of light, not so much that your plants run out of the very little CO2 they have access to (~2-3 ppm), but not below their light compensation point.

Are there available PAR ratings for your light?

Have you increased your fert dose any since you posted?
For beginners, I would suggest dosing some percentage of EI levels, until you have mastered plant growth and everything is growing well. After that you can experiment with adjusting fertilizer, but as I said I suggest getting good growth first.
 
Oh right, back to your original question:



For me it was plenty of ferts + finding the right intensity of light, not so much that your plants run out of the very little CO2 they have access to (~2-3 ppm), but not below their light compensation point.

Are there available PAR ratings for your light?

Have you increased your fert dose any since you posted?
For beginners, I would suggest dosing some percentage of EI levels, until you have mastered plant growth and everything is growing well. After that you can experiment with adjusting fertilizer, but as I said I suggest getting good growth first.
I stopped dosing seachem ferts and I am dosing 0.2ml of tropica specialized nutrition daily (I have about 30L of water).

The stats for the new light can be found here, it's the 49W one.
 
I stopped dosing seachem ferts and I am dosing 0.2ml of tropica specialized nutrition daily (I have about 30L of water).
Thats still quite low, I would try 3 times that amount.
You need to give things longer time to work in low tech because the whole system is just slower.
You made things a little bit difficult since you got a brand new light at the same time as you're doing other changes.
If you get a lot of algae and plants also grow, turn the light down a bit, while if you get little algae but plants also dont do much turn the light intensity up slowly.

@oreo57 could you advise on a good low light level with this light?
 
Thats still quite low, I would try 3 times that amount.
You need to give things longer time to work in low tech because the whole system is just slower.
You made things a little bit difficult since you got a brand new light at the same time as you're doing other changes.
If you get a lot of algae and plants also grow, turn the light down a bit, while if you get little algae but plants also dont do much turn the light intensity up slowly.

@oreo57 could you advise on a good low light level with this light?
I actually have 2 other tanks around the same size and heavily planted as well. I dosed 0.5ml a day in those tanks and in a week the nitrates shot up to unhealthy levels which made some of my fish sick. Now I'm wary of dosing that much (0.5ml a day is what tropica recommends and it could be for high-tech tanks).
 
@corymbosa which levels were those and how did you notice your fish got sick?
Tropica recommended dosing is not for high tech tanks, most high tech tanks dose a lot more than on the bottle because the estimate is so conservative.
Maybe for your tank a gradual increase in dosing will be best? Since you are struggling with plant growth
 
@corymbosa which levels were those and how did you notice your fish got sick?
Tropica recommended dosing is not for high tech tanks, most high tech tanks dose a lot more than on the bottle because the estimate is so conservative.
Maybe for your tank a gradual increase in dosing will be best? Since you are struggling with plant growth
The nitrates got to above 80ppm and two of my galaxy rasboras started showing signs of white fuzzy patches on their backs (could be columaris). I quarantined them and one has died.
 
Hmm, that doesnt sound good, no..
Maybe a complete fertilizer that doesnt contain ammonia would be safer to use in your tank? I know at least some EI type fertilizers use KNO3 instead of ammonia or urea
 
Hmm, that doesnt sound good, no..
Maybe a complete fertilizer that doesnt contain ammonia would be safer to use in your tank? I know at least some EI type fertilizers use KNO3 instead of ammonia or urea
I don't think tropica's ferts contain urea or ammonia. It's more likely to be nitrates and thus be directly detected by the nitrates test.

I will test it with an ammonia test and get back to you.
 
I don't think tropica's ferts contain urea or ammonia. It's more likely to be nitrates and thus be directly detected by the nitrates test.

I will test it with an ammonia test and get back to you.
We dont know exactly what Tropica's ferts use, but it cannot be KNO3 because it would result in a much higher K value than they have. It might be a different nitrate salt, but some of us find this unlikely, as it is a lot more expensive to use those alternative nitrate salts, ammonia/urea is much cheaper, and money rules the world 😉
 
Last edited:
I don't think tropica's ferts contain urea or ammonia. It's more likely to be nitrates and thus it's detected in my nitrates test.

I will test it with an ammonia test and get back to you.

We dont know exactly what Tropica's ferts use, but it cannot be KNO3 because it would result in a much higher K value than they have. It might be a different nitrate salt, but some of us find this unlikely, as it is a lot more expensive to use those alternative nitrate salts, ammonia/urea is much cheaper, and money rules the world 😉
Hi all,

It almost certainly isn't the nitrate (NO3-).
Have a look at <"Need advice....">

cheers Darrel
IMG_7327.JPG
Well, here's the result of my simple experiment using tap water and API water test kit.

Unless we are doubting the accuracy (or efficacy) of API's water test kit reagents, I think it shows that Tropica's specialized ferts contain NO3- ions. The colour difference between the ammonia tests might be due to the colour of the ferts (greenish), but the difference between the nitrate test is night and day (we don't even need to talk about whether the tests are accurate down to a ppm level).


Nitrate toxicity
Regarding the toxicity of nitrates to fish, your paper recommends no more than 10ppm for low flow systems which most of our aquariums would fall under. And I think using aquaculture related research to inform us about toxicity of water parameters for our ornamental fishes is inaccurate for several reasons, with the most obvious one being that these fishes are much larger than most fishes we keep in the aquarium. The larger the fish, the more tolerant it will be of bad water parameters. But it is understandable that most, if not all research on this topic are on aquaculture related species because they are of commercial interest.

I'm going to cite a couple of recent papers regarding the toxicity of nitrates:
Pereira, A., Carvalho, A. P., Cruz, C., & Saraiva, A. (2017). Histopathological changes and zootechnical performance in juvenile zebrafish (Danio rerio) under chronic exposure to nitrate. Aquaculture, 473, 197-205.
Exposed Zebrafish (a model organism that is of similar size to my CPDs) to 7, 100, 200 and 400 ppm of nitrates for 28 days. Growth parameters tend to decrease with increasing nitrate levels. Histological damages tended to increase with increasing nitrate levels, particularly above 100ppm (lowest testing level). No histological damage was found at 100ppm, BUT we have to note though that the experiment ended at 28 days. To see if concentrations at or below 100ppm would induce damage in the long term, the experiment would need to go on for way longer (we keep our fishes for longer than a month).

Yang, X., Song, X., Peng, L., Hallerman, E., & Huang, Z. (2019). Effects of nitrate on aquaculture production, blood and histological markers and liver transcriptome of Oplegnathus punctatus. Aquaculture, 501, 387-396.
Exposed Oplegnathus punctatus to 21, 165 and 299 ppm of nitrates for 28 days. Findings showed chronic health impacts upon juvenile Oplegnathus punctatus at 165ppm and they recommend doing more trials at lower concentrations establish toxicity.

Gomez Isaza, D. F., Cramp, R. L., & Franklin, C. E. (2021). Exposure to nitrate increases susceptibility to hypoxia in fish. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology, 94(2), 124-142.
Showed that 50ppm nitrates resulted in differences in haemoglobin concentrations of Bidyanus bidyanus that increased their risk to hypoxia.

Davidson, J., Good, C., Welsh, C., & Summerfelt, S. T. (2014). Comparing the effects of high vs. low nitrate on the health, performance, and welfare of juvenile rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss within water recirculating aquaculture systems. Aquacultural Engineering, 59, 30-40.
Rainbow trout were exposed to low (30ppm) and high (91ppm) concentrations of nitrate over 14 weeks. Mortality began to increase for the high nitrate treatment only 1-week after treatments were initiated. From week 3 onwards, the high concentration group showed a significant difference in side swimming behavior (which I also observed in my CPDs as they started swimming at a 45 degree angle).

Li, L., Tan, L., Yang, W., Xu, X., Shen, Y., & Li, J. (2021). Conjoint applications of meta-analysis and bioinformatic data toward understanding the effect of nitrate on fish. Science of The Total Environment, 794, 148645.
This paper used meta-analysis and bioinformatic data to determine if nitrates have any negative effects on fish in general. They found that nitrate affected adult fish by altering gene expression and histology. It is interesting to note that nitrates have an effect on the cellular level as proved by the change in gene expression. Although the paper did not state numbers, the findings from this paper and the others I've read convince me that even low nitrate levels do have a detrimental effect on our ornamental fishes down to the cellular level (which we can't see). This definitely opens them up to further bacterial, viral or parasitic infection.

Again, my nitrate levels were at 80ppm when I dosed the ferts and it could've been anywhere from 80-159ppm as the next level of change is 160ppm for the API kit which is extremely different from the 'normal' levels at 20-40ppm (even if we say that the kit isn't accurate, the difference in results show that nitrates were indeed elevated by the ferts). My CPDs were fine for months before this increase in nitrate concentration. Just today I found 2 more CPDs with extreme dropsy. Tested my water and it came back 0 ammonia, 0 nitrites and 20ppm nitrates. So the most suspicious culprit was the high nitrates that might have caused health issues that only surfaced recently.
 
For low tech, I find it easier to grow tall plants that are close to the water surface and thus receive high light and where there is gas exchange. Even "hard plants" can be grown as long as they are close to the water surface and have sufficient light.

Short plants at the substrate level are a bigger challenge for me and I confess that apart from easy plants like Crypts, AR Mini, etc, I find them very difficult as well.

Here's a pic of a Rotala Wallichii in low tech. I basically have to let it grow right up to the water surface where it gets lots of light and where gas exchange is taking place:

dsc00925-wallichii-jpg.jpg
 
This thread seems to suggest that Tropica uses Ammonium Nitrate
 
Hi all,
Unless we are doubting the accuracy (or efficacy) of API's water test kit reagents,
There are some issues with most colorimetric methods for NO3- testing, often because of the requirement to reduce the NO3- to NO2- with <"cadmium (Cd) or vanadium III (V)">,
I think it shows that Tropica's specialized ferts contain NO3- ions.
but in this case I'm absolutely sure you are right, because if your fertiliser didn't contain any <"fixed nitrogen it wouldn't be a very useful fertiliser">. You can measure nitrate fairly accurately with an ion selective electrode, but I normally use the <"leaf colour and growth of a floating plant"> as a proxy.
This thread seems to suggest that Tropica uses Ammonium Nitrate
It does, and I'll stick by the comments I made in it.
Again, my nitrate levels were at 80ppm when I dosed the ferts and it could've been anywhere from 80-159ppm as the next level of change is 160ppm for the API kit which is extremely different from the 'normal' levels at 20-40ppm (even if we say that the kit isn't accurate, the difference in results show that nitrates were indeed elevated by the ferts).
You can dilute the samples with DI water for high readings, it will give you a more accurate reading, although normally this leads to recording higher, rather than lower, values. I'll be honest I don't know how you ended up with that much NO3-, because the plants should have depleted it.
The larger the fish, the more tolerant it will be of bad water parameters. But it is understandable that most, if not all research on this topic are on aquaculture related species because they are of commercial interest.
Point taken ("I get it" for UK readers), but I don't think you can say that generally, Carp or Tilapia would be tolerant of lower water quality, but Salmon or Rainbow Trout are both fairly large and have very high water requirements.
the findings from this paper and the others I've read convince me that even low nitrate levels do have a detrimental effect on our ornamental fishes down to the cellular level
I'll nail my colours to the mast, personally <"I like low nutrient levels as well">.

cheers Darrel
 
Hi all,

You can dilute the samples with DI water for high readings, it will give you a more accurate reading, although normally this leads to recording higher, rather than lower, values. I'll be honest I don't know how you ended up with that much NO3-, because the plants should have depleted it.

cheers Darrel
I have no idea too, I was shocked when I tested the water and saw the dark colour of the test. Regardless of whether the test is accurate, it was definitely way higher nitrate levels than a normal tank should have. The plants I had in that other tank are rather slow growing - Hygrophila corymbosa, anubias, java fern and crypts, so it might have something to do with that (plus the lighting on that is cheap as well and it's a low-tech).

Point taken ("I get it" for UK readers), but I don't think you can say that generally, Carp or Tilapia would be tolerant of lower water quality, but Salmon or Rainbow Trout are both fairly large and have very high water requirements.
If you compare Tilapia (probably the hardiest fish in the world) with salmonids, the former would definitely win in terms of tolerance. But.. if you compare salmonids with the fish we generally keep in our aquariums (at least for me), their size alone indicates that they are way more tolerant than let's say... guppies or mollies (not to mention the smaller ones like CPD or neons). And salmonids are impressive creatures if you consider how they can survive in both salt and fresh water, and fight their way upstream to spawn. That alone tells you something about their physiology and endurance.

But disclaimer, I'm just looking at surface characteristics to make my conclusions and I have not done formal research on this!
 
Back
Top