fishplants

Hi SamH, I have recently priced parts for a DIY T5 setup. I have a written quote for an Osram twin ballast (QTI) that will run a multitude of differing sized tubes (including T8) for $61.50 plus GST, this quote is from Rexel. If you are looking at having the tube/s exposed to water the problem you will have is getting water proof/resistant end caps in NZ. I have a quote to purchase these from a UK retailer for a good price and minimal freight. Another option is the Hagen Glo Electronic ballast, I have one of these in 2 x 39w and am really pleased with it. Cheers

Thanks Jennifer, much appreciated.

Hi Jennifer, could you please confirm that Levamisole and Fenbendazole are not effective on tapeworms. I thought in a previous thread you said that Fenbedazole (Panacur) did both roundworms and tapeworms? The reason I ask is that I want to do a precautionary dose on some new discus I am getting, and just wanted to use one chemical rather than two. Thanks

Salt is good for a lot of skin related issues. I use 1 tablespoon (20ml) per 20 litres, just like the label says. My discus, hatchets loaches, plants etc seem quite happy - after all it is only a concentration of approximately 0.1%. Not necessarily a cure-all though. I'd be wary of constantly moving fish, showing Ich symptoms, to a QT for treatment and ignoring your main tank. As a number of posters have said on this thread, the medicine does not work on the parasite attached to the fish, it only works on the free swimming stage (that cannot be seen with the naked eye). I suppose as you completely empty your main tank of fish the parasite will eventually die out! :lol: As long as there is a single fish in your main tank there will still be ich present. As for dosage, I have used double doses on clown loaches with apparently no long term effects. Clowns always seem to get Ich first and the last to get rid of it! These are based on my experiences, others may disagree.

Personally, I agree wholeheartedly with P44 on this one. I feed a variety of flake/freeze dried/granules/sinking tablets, of both types of food intended for herbivorous and carnivorous fish. I do feed my discus a couple of times a week a treat of frozen blood worms and frozen brine shrimp, however, I'm not sure if it is a treat for me or for the fish. I feel this approach gives a balanced nutrition to avoid all sorts of issues including Hole-in-the-head. While it might be rewarding and stimulating to create your own secret recipe, it is safer and definitely easier to use pre-prepared foods. Also recall reading that too much protein is not too good for discus (much like in dogs I suppose). The other thing I like is that the majority of prepared foods have a good nutritional analysis attached to them. Unless you have the skills that JenniferH obviously possesses, your home grown preparation is but a stab in the dark (albeit maybe a reasonably well informed stab!). My $0.02 worth.

Thanks Smidey, that is a cracker fish!

Wow! 20 years old! Is that a typical lifespan? 10" is a damn big fish (as far as home aquariums go).

Cool, thanks for the reply BikBok.

Hi P44, what do you mean by this? A friend of mine is just about to treat with Furan 2 (fin rot), is there something special he should know about using it (before he does!)? Thanks.

Furan 2 is listed as effective on columnaris (Black Molly Disease). Obviously though you will need to treat in quarantine. good luck.

Any news on your Discus? Did you manage to get some Metro?

Thanks all. Much appreciated.

Hi guys, thank you all very much for you time and effort in answering my long list of questions. It has been really good for me, and I am sure others, to see some of the theories and science that different people apply to their aquarium-keeping. My favourite quote so far is by Cricketman and it formed part of an extensive and informative post; To me, this sums it up perfectly. Aquarium-keeping involves a lot of science but the art itself is not an exact science. Due to the huge number of variables involved in keeping an artificial eco-system in a tiny glass container, there is no black and white and no 100% right or 100% wrong answers. As I have mentioned elswhere, what works for me is my 180l tank with a 10 year old 204, light pressurised CO2 injection, no phoszorb, no nitrazorb, no liquid fertilisers, 60w T8, weekly 35% warm water changes mainly for the Discus (and now fewer gravel vacuuming sessions!). This tank has been in balance since the blue green algae outbreak six months after setup, and the last 9.5 years has seen virtually no algae and healthy plants and fish. This tank is in balance and I am happy with the minimal work I perform on it, but as cricketman said, this setup may not work for others. As I am typing this I am watching the Discus in my other tank, the adult Brown and adult Blue Turq are dancing around each other and have been acting rather odd with each other all week - maybe some romance is on the cards! Just one last question Cricketman, you used the word 'aeration' in your post, did you actually mean 'adding air to the water'? Or did you just mean water movement? The reason I ask is that aerating the water removes CO2. One last point, fish food contains varying levels of phosphorous. In a study I read recently, farmed trout were shown to excrete faeces containing 2.6% phosphorous! I have just looked at my dry food and was shocked to see that Tetra colorbits contained a minimum 1.5% phosphorous. The Nutrafin max flake contained a maximum 0.9% phosphorous. Something to keep in mind. cheers

Hi All, I placed this post in a previous thread, but haven't managed to elicit any responses - happy to hear from anybody. I am very interested in this and I think others might be as well. You should be able to get the gist of it from the below, if not I can explain the background. Phoenix44 and Cricketman, would you mind elaborating? (and sorry bottlerocket for hijacking your thread). If I have read correctly, leaving fish poo/plant pieces etc in the gravel is a good thing as it is a natural fertiliser and the denitrifying bacteria break this down into nitrate, when you are talking about a heavily planted tank. The bit I would like you guys to help me understand is - if it is good to have this detritus in the gravel, why would you want massive fitration which means more of it gets trapped in the filter and less in the gravel? While obviously the results of the breakdown of the detritus (NO3) is still available via the filter, why bother with massive filtration if the gravel is sufficiently performing the task? It sounds like you guys are not really using the filter mainly for it's biological capabilities? Is the filter there (almost) purely as a water polisher ie cosmetic value? I suppose that where I am going with this is, that if you have 'trained' the bacteria living in your gravel to deal with massive amounts of waste (more so than if you vacuumed weekly/fortnightly/monthly, then a biological filter is less of a requirement rather than more. Make sense? In my (rather simple) mind, your gravel will be doing such a great job that you could run one filter with filter wool only (no biological media at all) just to ensure suspended matter is removed from view? Also, if NO3 for the plants is so desirable, why have such large/frequent water changes? Your thoughts would be most welcome. cheers Something else I just thought of - if you are adding fertilisers to a planted tank why would you have Phoszorb and Nitrazorb in your filters? Essentially you are putting the fertiliser in to have the good bits removed. Also, the nitrates that are being created by the intentional leaving of fish waste, for the purpose of plant health, will also be removed by the Nitrazorb. I am a smidgen confused! Always willing to learn. cheers

Hi all, here in Canterbury, our tap water is neither chlorinated nor fluoridated, it is just spring water (yes, the same stuff we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars buying in plastic bottles). How do you guys deal with the chlorine in your water when doing frequent water changes, or do you not worry about the chlorine? Any long term effect on fish, beneficial bacteria? Thanks

Phoenix44 and Cricketman, would you mind elaborating? (and sorry bottlerocket for hijacking your thread). If I have read correctly, leaving fish poo/plant pieces etc in the gravel is a good thing as it is a natural fertiliser and the denitrifying bacteria break this down into nitrate, when you are talking about a heavily planted tank. The bit I would like you guys to help me understand is - if it is good to have this detritus in the gravel, why would you want massive fitration which means more of it gets trapped in the filter and less in the gravel? While obviously the results of the breakdown of the detritus (NO3) is still available via the filter, why bother with massive filtration if the gravel is sufficiently performing the task? It sounds like you guys are not really using the filter mainly for it's biological capabilities? Is the filter there (almost) purely as a water polisher ie cosmetic value? I suppose that where I am going with this is, that if you have 'trained' the bacteria living in your gravel to deal with massive amounts of waste (more so than if you vacuumed weekly/fortnightly/monthly, then a biological filter is less of a requirement rather than more. Make sense? In my (rather simple) mind, your gravel will be doing such a great job that you could run one filter with filter wool only (no biological media at all) just to ensure suspended matter is removed from view? Also, if NO3 for the plants is so desirable, why have such large/frequent water changes? Your thoughts would be most welcome. cheers

Thanks Cricketman, great explanation! I'm more than happy with my 10 year old 204 that has been running 24/7 for that time (apart from last year when it sprung a leak!) on the same 180l tank, with moderate-high fish load and healthy plants. And the money I saved on not buying a 304 (or multiple filters) has been spent many times over on fish and plants! The current Discus seem real happy and the 10 year old Bristlenose ( 2cm long when I bought the tank) is still happily bossing everyone around! Oh, and by the way, the water is crystal clear.

At the risk of being accused of 'having the last word' (!!) . Quite clearly I am not flattering myself, I am calling it the way it looks. If you are not upset, then why, and I quote directly, "I just don't care any more"? I do not wish to continue this as it is starting to get into a situation that is rather silly, and this thread is supposed to just be offering advice to bottlerocket. I hope the little bit of science that I have provided in my posts will assist bottlerocket to make an informed decision. cheers

There are plenty available on the internet, if you can be bothered with ordering overseas!

What, you're upset because somebody disagrees with you?!?!?!

You're not a salesman by any chance?

Fish poo contains a lot of ammonia, plants can't use ammonia, ergo need more filtration. Quite simple really, and relevant.

Hmmmm, but I understand you only vacuum your gravel twice a year? The point I was making is that if you have only a moderate/moderate-high fish load the extra money spent on a bigger filter is not really going to show any improvement - so effectively that money is wasted. The denitrifying bacteria will only grow to the amount of food (ammonia/nitrites) available, having a greater volume of water going past the biological media ain't going to make a scrap of difference if the bacteria is already at maximum population. After all, it is hard to get nitrites and ammonia any lower than 0ppm by adding a bigger filter. I have had a 204 running on a 180l tank for 10 years and that has been fantastic, even when I hadn't done water changes for a few months at times (I say rather guiltily!). I suppose I don't want to see Bottlerocket wasting money that could be spent on fish (especially as there is already an internal filter running)!

IMHO a 305 is a bit overkill for a 180l tank, even more so when you are also running a large internal filter in unison. Yes, you can get spray bar kits for the Fluvals, but I haven't found them in NZ.

Hi Aquavitamins, I have spent a lot of time researching fluorescent tubes and Kelvin ratings, CRI, spectrum graphs, lumens etc, etc, etc. Based on my limited observations I have the following to offer; - there is absolutely nothing wrong or 'cheap' about 6500K tubes (Cool Daylight), especially if you buy the Triphosphor ones (Osram Lumilux T8/T5, Philips TLD/TL5). These have a very long life and output > 80%. After all, plants have grown in natural sunlight for a few years quite successfully (sunlight is 5500K). These tubes have a high lumen rating because they produce a lot of light humans can see. - The above tubes have a CRI in the 80's - hence the code 865. The 8 stands for CRI of 80-89. There are higher CRI tubes but these are relatively inefficient. - the reason plant tubes were invented is that plants mainly use light that we humans cannot see well, ie far red and far blue. A tube has a limited output and if most of the energy is restricted to the green part of the spectrum as in 865 (that humans see best and plants use least) then a lot of energy is 'wasted'. These tubes do generally have a poor CRI, but can be great for highlighting reds and blues in fish. And they have a lower lumen rating. - Basically, a plant tube produces what plants need, more efficiently. But the light can be a bit weird, too blue (power Glo) or too pink (Gro Lux or Aqua Glo). That is why a lot of people (myself included) like to mix plant tubes with daylight type tubes. - There is absolutely nothing wrong in mixing a 6500K Cool Daylight with a 18000K Power Glo. You will end up with a relatively 'blue', bright light that accentuates blues and reds in fish, and green of plants. A better option might be a 4000K tube with the Power Glo as the Power Glo lacks a little in the red (hence the 18000K rating). The two will complement each other quite well and the light look 'pleasant'. However, turn one of the tubes off and the light will look quite 'yellow', or dark and 'blue', depending on which is turned off. - My 10 year old planted tank has only 2 x 30w T8 tubes, one is an Osram Lumilux 865 and one is a Triton (10000K). This provides plenty of plant light and viewing light. I have Java, Windelov, 4 types of crypts, Anubias Barteri Barteri, Anubias Barteri Nana, Anubias Minima, Rotala (and I can hear you all saying that those are all low light plants), and 3 x E. Bleheri, and an E. Osiris (the swords have been in the tank for 6 years). BTW, the tank is 90 x 45 x 45. - I consider the Triton to be the perfect plant/fish tube, but unfortunately you can't get them any more in New Zealand. However, I have just ordered 4 GE Fresh and Salt Aqua from the UK which apparently are very similiar. - One more consideration, if you are trying to combine Discus, or other shade loving fish, with a planted tank, then the plant tubes are the best bet. High emission of photosynthetic light with relatively low emisions of visible light. This is the issue I am currently grappling with in my other tank! Hope this helps