henward

yeah its weird, thats why i tried it. mmmmmm

why would kumara do that? i remember, the large polkadot pleco was the most voravious with the kumara, i mean, it demolished it! gaping chunks were taken out of the kumara. wonder why it would bloat them? usually they scrape the toplayers off,

just got flowerhorns a little over a month ago, size was about 1 to 1.5 inch max. after just under 2 months, they have grownt to about 3 inches. one is clearly a male, the other i suspect is a female. this mornign i saw the female start to get 'lines' on its body and the 2 bigges tones, male and fem is courting, and dug a next in the corner of the tank!!! is it possible for such small FH to breed? lol its crazy.

i have a cactus, sailfin, blue phantom, royals and BNs in the tank. i awhile ago, i fed courgette, THEY LOVED IT, demolished it and went nuts, i mean... it was almost instant attraciton. then i tried kumara, after demolishing that. the big polka dot and my blue phantom looked EXTREMELY full. then they stopped eating, bloat - then death 5 days later. any reason for this? the salfin was fine. was it maybe they ate too much? should i have cooked the kumara? any other experiences like this.. reason i ask is that i really wanna feed courgette to royals, everyone says how much they love it, but im quite weary of it cos of that. should i blanche, is blanching for hygiene or digestibility? i dont have to feed kumara, im hapy with courgette, they seem to strip the skin off first! then the qhite flesh. questions 1) should i blanche courgettes? 2) how long should i leave the courgette for? 3) do they eat the seeds or just the outer layers?

you hae to select the right pond filter. because pnd filters a lot of them do not have compartments for bio media! i have seen them. make sure it does, then yes, that is no problem, media can be changed. but to be honest, the amount of money you are spending on a pond unit and another pump (buying a cheap pump will cos tyou more in the longrun in power) you might as well buy a fx5. they are extremely efficient. i would put fx5 ahead of a pond pump anyday. for UV, gotta ask the question, 'how good is the uv in a pond pump' ? rather buy a dedicated uv unit i think.

Your equation makes sense. i do k now wha tyou mean. basically in a nutshell. what you are saying is its better to FIRST remove old water, then new water pumped in. i agree to a degree. but with a sump, its almost impossible, because the sump will dry out. So i have to maintain a ceratain water level. but i agree with you and your equation in principle, i just think when it comes to dilution though, the water gets dispersed rapidly, after the initial high turnover, maintenance is essentially the same. also, i want the old water to stick around as well, that helps 'age' the new water and dilute its 'new ness' if that makes sense:D helps stability. key with red arowanas are water stability. clown loaches too. ALso, i guess depends on fish, and yes, nitrate isnt really harmfull untill it reaches plague proportions, but i personally like to keep my water constant AND low nitrate. also i do feed a Lot, i mean.... i think most people would squirm with the amount i feed:D so that helps me maintain that.

at very maximum (basing on a 24x 15 minute stints of pump) my tap can be turned to churn out 1500 litres a day, its a small via aqua. IF required. at one stage actually i had 6 tanks hooked up to it. 1x 360L 1x 250l 1x 200l 1x 150l 2x 1200L all from one drum, 2 pumps. 1 pump for the 1x 1200L 1x for the others. in some cases, i could not actually turn down the tap lower than 250 litres a day, so when i bred flowerhorns, the flowerhorn tank had no filter, only a 300w heater to heat it. and I DO feed A LOT :lol:

Interesting, how did you work that out? I guess you take into account that the old and new water will diffuse and you get a mix of new and old water. i see wha tyou mean. i dont know the exact equation but i agree in theory i guess:D i guess i calculated it in lay terms 350L*7 = 2400L so calculating it in term sof WATER VOLUME I PUMP IN, but not the exactly of what comes out. but good point, water diffusing still dilutes it effectively in essense though, in that regard, the effect is the same. "In most cases nitrate is not a problem and in my view the consistant conditions created by an automated water change system are a big advantage. Most problems are caused by rapid and large changes to water chemistry so you need to do very regular and reasonably sized water changes to avoid that." This is very true, stability of water is key. massive water changes i try to avoid. i dont like the temp drops, consistent water parameters is very important.

well, using my basic chemistry knowledge, i find that my system works very well. maintaining such low nitrates is something almost impossible to do for most. reason is this. when you do a 25% wc then leave the tank, the nitrate still accumulates AGAIN then you have to remove it. also temp drop is always stressfull, my tank doesnt deviate more than 1c in temp fluctuation, now i added an extra jager 300w, it doesnt deviate AT ALL. . i have figured out that staying at approx 100 to 120 percent wc cycle a week is key. because anymore, then you are just replacing clean water. as for jaxx comment, i disagree, auto water changer is not a waste. i will explain. All the toxins we are worried about are solution in water. amonia, nitrite should not be removed manually but bio filtered. ONly nitrate is the culprit we are concerned with wc regimes. nitrate is water soluble measured in 'parts per million' parts per million is directly related to the ratio between the nitrate and the water volume. so 100ppm in 100 litres becomes 200ppm in 50l. in 200 litres, its 50ppm.... (bare with me here.) when you say that automatic water changer does not work, i believe you are misguided (no offence) I have been to a massive discus farm in singapore when i wanted to be a distributor of discus about 12 years ago - and they had a automatic water change system, only a syphon to take out poo, but the water is changed like mine is, in fact, my model of the changer is based on commercial breeding set ups, except not as pretty and not controlled by a irrigation computer that measures in exact litres (costs a arm and a kidney) jaxx, if you think of it this way, my new clean water goes into the sump, the sump returns the water to the other end of the tank, by the time the water goes over the overflow, it is fully diffused in the water. anything that goes out is a mixture of clean and dirty water. but the dilution method is still 100% effective. doing more than 100% is overkill - so i wont do that, but the wc is undisputable to be very effective. I hvae seen some fish breeders do manual water changes, refusing to accept automated systems, citing that its better for the fish. I disagree. i guess, i would challenge a breeder that would tell me right now that automated feed systems are not good and ask their reasons. my reasons why it is good. 1) it avoids water parameter shock. by removing say, 80% of water from a discus tank, and replacing it, the ph and water parameters change immediately. this is no good forany fish. 2) temperature you may pre heat the water, this can fix it, but having the tank in a low level for 5 minutes can stress out fish, i have seen discus fish almost on their side during a wc in a breeding set up. That cannot be good for the fish 3) filtration is usually very minimal in these tanks, replying on manual removal of wastes to clean the water, bio filtration is usually minimal or ineffective. Amonia spikes happen, this cannot be good. I guess hardy fish will thrive, but still, amonia exposure is never good no matter what fish, hardy or not. just my main 3 reasons. i hardly syphon my tanks because the bottom dwellers always bring up all the debris - but the grow out where there is no bottom dweller to do so i siphon regularly. "To me auto Wc isnt a good method, because you will discharge clean water at the same time..money down the drain x2.." If you actually look at wha tyoua re doing, you are doing exactly the same thing. You are pumping clean water one end and siphon at the other. What is the difference with what i do? i put clean water, it over fills and drains at the other end. That is identical. I think there are many 'Old wives tales ' out there. i have seen this in the hobby a lot. I think it is ONLY the perception that you are donkg something different. By manually siphoning water at the other end, you are just draining water faster, but if you use the science of water diffusion, dilution and the principles of calculating PPM, i think you will find it is identical if not my method will be more effective. I will explain why. 1) who here can maintain a nitrate around 10 to 15ppm? I can do this because, the first week of my wc cycle, i do a very high turnover, at the start. ages ago. Then i turn it down, by this time the nitrate level is extremely low and i maintain that by changing the water regularly. iw ould love to do a controlled experiment, but in essense i have tried both ways, i used to do manula 30% cdhanges. i had higher nitrate them even doing it twice a week than what i do now. the nitrate would spike 2-3 days after the wc,. my new method provides extreme water stability in all accounts. i suggest you try it - i think for most people, they dont try it due to the perception of COST and EFFORT. my system cost me 250 to 300 dollars. that includes pumps, hoses, timers, drum, toilet ball cock system, food save nylon woven hose, tap fittings, taps to regulate flow, drilling of sump, fittings and pvc pipes to drain. sounds like a lot? in 4.5 years now, i have not done a manual water change. i just had a white spot start out 1.5 week or so ago. to change the water 50%, no need to take out water and put cold water in, instead i just pump u my changer and did 950 approx litres over 24 hours of preheated water in my drum. no drop in temp, faster recovery, easier maintenance. I think the thought of setting this up puts people off. or maybe its impractical for you (thats fine) my tank is in a garage, if yours is in a lounge, then you cant do it, its too difficult of course. :lol:

I dont have plants in the tank. i find the water from okura resevoir is very good. i dont age it or treat it. havent done so for years now.

yeah, a lot of reptiles change colour. mostly darker or lighter, this helps with thermoregulation as well as signal other animals. beardies will not nly get darker to absorb more heat and visa versa. they also have the ability to flatten their body to absorb more light and heat from the bottom, a rock or warm surface.

oh, i can account and testify to the effectiveness of auto wc system i have. My n itrates rae NEVER higher than the second colour on the tester kit. IN fact, i hardly ever see it past the first colour. if i remember correclty, 15ppm is consdiered high in my tanks. i can vouch for the effectiveness, also the good thing about it is that the auto changer system avoids any spike in nitrates. so instead of the nitrates reaching say 50ppm in my tank, it never does, it fluctuates from almost none to just about 15 ish. also the advantage of this is that IF in the event that you have a possible amonia spike. it dilutes that and gives you an added margin. Say my current changer setting does about 300L to 350L a day over 24 hours period. my system is 2000 litres total. so if there was a possible spike that the 3x fx5 and massive sump could not handle. then i have a 15 to 20% wc in the day that will give me that safety margin. (as you know i feed a fair amount) i guess i am wondering, is it worth doing much more than 100% wc a week. i guess in theory, there isnt. cos the entire volume of the water is displaced weekly. as for water trickling in, amonia, nitrite and nitrate are all dissolved in the water, which means it is diluted, so by putting water in and removing it automatically, it dilutes and disperses into the system, thus reducing the contaminants.

yeah, thats what i will havew to do, and it is a real pain! but it could potentially save me heaps, will do it some stage, i think interchanging parts is the way to found out what part is faulty.

cheap pumps use 3 to 4 times the power. the money you initially save will be dwarfed by the power you use in a year. just keep tha tin mind. 100w over 24 hours, 7 days a week is about $4 to $5 depending on where you are. $4 x 52 weeks, thats $200. so keep that in mind! (ally07 knows full well of my obsession with the power details lol) also, the pond filters are mech, not bio.

ok, technically, if your wc regime chanes about 100% water a week, is there much point of doing more? is that just a waste? technically, 100% means just that, the whole tank water is changed during the month. so if you change it more, then you are not really doing much to the water but cooling it. is this right?

yeah, it aint something i would build while renting dont think lol..... note i say DONT THINK. cos i may suddenly find the not so impulsive urge, is there such a thing as a well planned impulse buy?.......... :sml1: King's VIP Crossback is looking spectacular!!! mmmm

one of my fx5 is a lot weaker than the other 2 (got 3) i took the motor apart, cleaned it, improved a little but i found on the impeller there were some deepish scratches on the impeller, and some on the motor housing the impeller, but nothing to dramatic, i think it is due to at some stage, ME or the old owner getting sand/grit up there and it just crunched and crunched. anwyays, i am considering either 1) new motor/impeller unit 2) or just impeller. what ya think?

PM'd :dunno: just in case .....

:thup:

how about divided by a stack of driftwood, big and small chunks, so everything can pass through but the aros cant? viable if done right?

interesting, yeah, i never really had dividers before. i was thinking no holes on the divider except a few at the bottom with very smoothed out edges of course. the return pump of sump would redistribute water evenly easily enough. 2 overflows, large high capacity overflows. If the glass doesnt hvae holes on the higher parts, would the fish still damage its snout still? theyw ould challenge each other but i think it should stop after a while? i guess alternative is, just divide it completely but still sharing the same system, maybe black glass and have 2 distinct set ups in one.

this is just a Goal right now, nothing immediate but wanna discuss anyhow. dimensins: 420cm length x 100cm width x 70 Height according to some aquarium tools, it needs 13 mm glass, safety factor of 2.5 is that safe? i would assume it would be 15 mm, dont think they come in 13mm standard. anyways, my idea was... making this 14 foot tank, divided by glass in the middle, completely in the middle. It would be one system, to maximise efficiency of heating and pump power use. and filtration. option 1: Illusion of one tank... the 2 sides will have one type of arowana each showcasing them with out fighting issues, giving the illusion of 1 tank but actually 2 tanks in essense. Also, at the bototm, would be holes in semi circles cut out, enough to let fish like plecos, clown loaches, eels through. Larger fish and larger plecos will be confined to one area. but not letting arowana through. option 2: 2 distinct tanks look but same system Divider does not let any fish pass through, so each side can have different stocking themes and decor. just a thought on the pros and cons of this set up, really an open forum to just throw ideas around. tank can be built with plywood too as i only want the front for viewing. its the concept of dividing i am throwing around, also the glass safety factor etc.

The internet is full of information as well as this forum the key is that do your homework first before buying. and 1 advice i have, DO NOT CHEAP OUT ON THE REPTILE BULB!!!

mmm that is cool

if you hae a canister, just lift the outlet so it isnt submerged, this is plenty. unless your tank is heavily stocked, you dont need that muc aeration but in saying that, it can only be good to have heaps of oxygen! air stone with a pump is good, you cant really beat that when it comes to aerating. but if you have a sump system and over flow, that is plenty of oxygen, more than enough that is required.