David R

Needs NAN light... :sml1:

Love that second pic!!!

Stop worrying about your pH and have a look at your hardness. As danval suggested, if you have tap water with a high mineral content you're most likely going to be pushing the proverbial uphill with a rake trying to lower your pH with peat. In habitat a low pH is usually associated with soft water and low TDS [Total Dissolved Solids] (eg; a blackwater stream), and high pH usually associated with hard water and high TDS (eg; lake Tanganyika). The mineral content of the water is of far more concern to your fish than pH as it affects how they osmoregulate, but because pH is usually a rough indicator of the hardness/mineral content the aquarium hobby seems to focus on that. Outside of habitat, there can be all sorts of variations for many reasons, as in my previous post where I mentioned the water companies adjusting the pH of the water up without really increasing the hardness. You really have two options; A, stick some peat in your filter and plenty of driftwood in the tank (along with removing anything that would buffer the hardness up) and watch what happens to the pH, or B, get a GH/KH test kit from your LFS and find out what you're dealing with. With option A you may (or may not) find the peat lowers the pH, but it will not change the hardness, which is what matters more to your fish. I keep my Amazonian species at a pH of around 7-7.5 and they are thriving, probably because the hardness is very low and the TDS <60ppm. I am on rain water supply for our whole house, but we are out of the city so pollution isn't an issue. That would be a start, it would remove the minerals from the water and give you pure H2O with a TDS of 0ppm. If you used that in your aquarium without any sort of buffer you would probably find the pH fluctuating considerably (and there's debate about the minerals needed for fish etc etc). Using rainwater is almost the same thing, my tap water has about 6ppm TDS, I find that having beach sand (crushed shell) mixed in with my substrate prevents the large quantity of driftwood from crashing the pH without jacking the hardness/TDS up too high.

Good point danval, if you're going to start trying to alter your pH then you really should test you hardness to get an idea of the buffering capacity of the water. Most of the things suggested won't do squat if you have hard alkaline tap water. Some water companies increase the pH to avoid problems from having acidic water running through the pipes, my Auckland tap water has off-the-chart blue [high] but had a fairly low mineral content [hardness] so would drop down easily with driftwood in the tanks. Rain water presents another set of problems, it has no mineral content so the pH will fluctuate easily, if you have wood in your tank and use rainwater with out some sort of mineral buffer you could end up with the pH well below 6. What sort of fish are you keeping, and why do you want to adjust your water?

The delhezi in the 3rd to last pic has fantastic markings!!

Good suggestion Hovmoller, I was going to wait to hear the size of the footprint before suggesting eartheaters but I guess even in a smaller 4' a small group of altifrons would be ok!

Jags almost certainly too big in the long run, oscars pushing it unless it's a 4x2' footprint. +1 to Smideys comment on what your tap water is like. If you're getting your water from a limestone bore then we're wasting our time telling you to keep Amazonian fish. It would be helpful to know a little more about your set up, dimensions, filtration, water etc. But I'll throw a couple of generic ideas in the mix anyway; - blackwater community. Kinda like a planted tank without the plants! Lots of tangled driftwood, fine sand, rocks, maybe some leaf litter if you want the really authentic river look. Large school of tetras, smaller cichlids like Apistogramma, rams, etc (could probably keep a couple of pairs in a tank that size), corydoras, smaller plecs, maybe angelfish. - smaller central american cichlids, similar scape to above but less wood and perhaps a few more rocks, more open areas. Possible species are convict, firemouth, salvini, sajica, along with some fast-moving midswimmers like scissortails, giant danios, rainbows etc, and perhaps some robust bottom dwellers. I'd personally avoid pairs to save on the hassle/aggression of breeding, keep an all-male group would be best (at least all one sex of the same species). - or if you want something completely different to having a bunch of small colourful fish, how about one big one? A true "wet pet" like a large male jaguar, midas/red devil, or texas cichlid is something everyone should keep once IMO! Probably best to either look out for a large male here or on trademe, or buy a group of young and grow them out, then pick the dominant one to keep. Again, I'd avoid a breeding pair to save on the hassle of raising/separating fry, but as Sam said the breeding behaviour of large CA cichlids is amazing to watch, and you could probably house a pair of texas or midas in that tank. Either way, don't worry too much about scaping as they'll sort it out themselves as they grow! - lastly. there are a few "oddballs" that would fit your tank; smaller spiny eels, smaller bichirs, ctenopoma, pantadon butterfly, elephant nose. Mix with some appropriate-sized schooling fish, a little wood and a few easy to grow plants. HTH!

Thanks! Yeah I've been keeping a close eye on their facebook page, cheers for the link to the review!

HFF aren't stocking it anymore, wasn't competitive with the price available on the net at places like www.kensfish.com

Cool video, there's some big money in that mouthful!!

Fingers crossed eh! One species I'd love to get my hands on nearly as much as L46...

I've been feeding them this; http://www.kensfish.com/aquarium-suppli ... rmula.html Several people on MFK swear by it for panaques, and coincidentally have had problems with Hikari algae wafers causing bloat in Panaques. They have less protein than the NLS, but they're main ingredient is "fish meal" which is nowhere near as good as the krill meal used in NLS (fish meal is a byproduct of processing fish, where as krill meal has the whole krill, not just the left overs). I haven't seen the NLS wafers, might grab some to try next time I order.

:-? sounds a bit strange, what something nasty in the tap water?

With the exception of clove oil, which is by far the easiest and least-painful way to euthanise a fish.

You're indeed right it is a balancing act, and that is why I stay well away from any carnivore-specific foods like the Hikari sinking carnivore. The more reading I do the more impressed I am with NLS as an all-round food, I've seen large Panaques as well as Scobinancistrus [being kept by different people] thriving being fed a staple diet their sinking pellets. My fish certainly seem to be doing well on it, and I'm not even sure if I'll bother buying more Hikari wafers once this lot runs out.

Phantoms and nuggets are omnivorous, I wouldn't be at all concerned with the feeding unless you're feeding your other bottom dwellers lots of meaty foods like shrimp or massivore. Much to the distaste of the purists I'm keeping L14, L128, L81 and L190 all in the same tank, and all are doing well on a mixed diet of mostly NLS plus Hikari wafers and veges once a week. Generally speaking "vegetarian" plecs (and fish in general) are rarely strictly vegetarian, most of the green stuff they eat has plenty of small organisms in it that make their diet more omnivorous. And often in the same sense "carnivorous" fish get a fair bit of green stuff in the gut of their prey, though with Hypancistrus I'm not sure if that would be the case. I'm not particularly familiar with their diet so won't comment, though I did see a thread recently on PlanetCatfish where they had been housed (and bred) in a large tank kept together with L190, so I would suspect a quality food like NLS would make a good staple diet for both species.

What are the dimensions of the tank? I'm not sure I'd put angels in a 160L tank, they do get fairly big (though not compared to the balas, redspots or clowns!) and require a fair amount of depth to be happy. I agree with Ammelia about re-homing your sharks, clown and pleco too. This type of situation is far too common in the aquarium hobby, and I'm sure most of us have been there at one stage or another. A friend of mine had a group of 6-7 bala sharks all around the 12" mark in his 3000L tank, seeing them kept like that gives you a new appreciation for the size they reach and the amount of space they need. It makes me sad seeing them sold in LFS, knowing the vast majority will never see an appropriately-sized tank. Don't let that put you off though, there are many interesting fish that can be kept in a tank of your size! You could replace the sharks with a school of tetras or barbs, the clowns with some dwarf chain loaches, and the redspot plecs with something small like clown plecs.

L128 or L200 Hemiancistrus are nice looking at won't outgrow your tank. Any Hypancistrus would work, though the loaches may out-compete them for food?

I can see a few problems; 3 of just about any cichlid is a bad number, you're likely to end up with a pair and a spare. Keep an eye on them, and if one is getting picked on be prepared to separate them. Ideally you'd keep a group of 5+, but given that G. altifrons (they're not true G. surinamensis btw) grows to ~25cm you're pushing the limits of your 350L tank (especially if it is one of those tall narrow ones). And, you're already over-stocke before the Geophagus. IMO you should ditch most if not all the silver dollars, the redspot pleco, and possibly the upside down cat (depending on species and size). The clown loach should really be with a group of other clowns in a larger tank. I think that a pair of "surinamensis", pair of keyholes, a few spotted mets or smaller mid-swimmers, and a few bottom dwellers like the chocolate cat, upside down cat, and perhaps a smaller pleco or two would be comfortable for a tank of your size (again, depending on the dimensions and filtration).

Clown loaches are normally not kept well, which is why they are normally fat. Just remember you're talking about a foot long fish that inhabits fast-flowing rivers. Anything less than 6' length with good circulation is likely to lead to obesity, even without over-feeding. On the other hand, being a bit chubby is certainly better than being too skinny!! A little information about your set up would be helpful.

I haven't seen them for some time, thankfully. I doubt there would be many people in NZ able to give them a "forever" home, bar a few public displays perhaps.

Looks good!!

Never used it, and couldn't see a list of actual ingredients on their website. I did a bit of quick searching/reading on MFK as there has been some interesting discussions on the ingredients of fish food recently, and it looks like the #1 ingredient is 'fish meal', which is a byproduct and nowhere near as good as the krill meal used in NLS. Their CA/SA cichlid pellets were completely lacking in vege foods, and subsequently they suggest feeding a mixture of their different formulas (vs NLS which is generally considered to be a complete food. This was posted by someone very knowledgeable on fish nutrition; http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forum ... s-thoughts I think I'll stick with NLS.

Tha Jagers can be calibrated though, if you care. But I'd agree, buy a half-decent thermometer and use that to set/monitor the temp of your tank rather than relying on the numbers on the heater.

Very nice!!