Help for my Honey Gouramis

[joachimsim]

Guys I have 2 Honey Gouramis in a 2FT with other 8 Rummy Red Noses 1 SAE and 4 Black Neon Tetras..

They were doing well in my 3 week or so planted tank without water change...cos I use Tetra Nitrate Minus...and just inserted Act. Carbon for short term usage...yesterday when I cleaned up my external filter.

The other fish are still hungry and active but my 2 Gouramis seem to weaken, thinner and lethargic a lot ....I wonder if I could be feeding not enough to time cos they are slow feeders compared to the rest. But then again, I always use a generous portion of different types of foods...

I am worried that they are not going to survive any longer..anybody got solution for this.

[budak]

errr.... why do you use this nitrate minus product when you have plants?? Healthy plants will handle the No3 for you and high NO3 levels (up to 50 ppm or more) are ok for fish as well (it's ammonia and nitrite that are toxic even at low levels). Activated carbon is also largely useless when you have lots of plants, as it sucks up the nutrients needed. Also, remember to use your old tank water when cleaning the filter, as fresh tap water could destroy the nitrifying bacteria and put you back to square one... i actually think washing the filter once every 4-5 months is enough.

It's hard to say what's bugging the gouramis, but it could be an innate infection triggered off by the drastic environmental change (cos by the carbon??), or a response to high nitrite/ammonia . If other fish are ok, then it's probably a one-off thing. Are the tetras/SAE aggresive towards the gouramis??? But also, while it's good that you feed a variety of foods, don't overfeed either.

[joachimsim]

[quote]
----------------
On 10/31/2003 2:47:05 PM

errr.... why do you use this nitrate minus product when you have plants?? Healthy plants will handle the No3 for you and high NO3 levels (up to 50 ppm or more) are ok for fish as well (it's ammonia and nitrite that are toxic even at low levels). Activated carbon is also largely useless when you have lots of plants, as it sucks up the nutrients needed. Also, remember to use your old tank water when cleaning the filter, as fresh tap water could destroy the nitrifying bacteria and put you back to square one... i actually think washing the filter once every 4-5 months is enough.

It's hard to say what's bugging the gouramis, but it could be an innate infection triggered off by the drastic environmental change (cos by the carbon??), or a response to high nitrite/ammonia . If other fish are ok, then it's probably a one-off thing. Are the tetras/SAE aggresive towards the gouramis??? But also, while it's good that you feed a variety of foods, don't overfeed either.

>>>>>

Thanks for the opinion, ok here's my story. Last time, My NO3 levels actually increase to 25 or 50mg/l over 2 weeks. also I get some kind of algae outbreak on glass although plants are growing well. With this product..my NO3 levels I last check after 2 or 3 weeks ( Can't remember ) are less than 10ppm despite using half the dosage. I also wanted to do away with water changes completely if possible..using Act. Carbon to absorb other impurities for short periods. My water is very healthy...donno abt Ammonia..but NO2 levels are 0 despite having quite no of fish. I know what you said..I never destroyed my bacteria colony. I just threw away my filter wool...how is it possible for you to NOT Wash for 5 mths..wouldn;t eh filter CLogg up and cos HAvoc to your biological filtratio?gt;???

Nope My other fishes are not aggressive towards..them ...accept they feed much faster...but then again I feed amply like i said.

Have you had any exp with Chemi_Pure in the Freshwater Planted Tank? IT seems to not reduce trace elements in the Marine Tank Drastically..

Regards.

Joachim

[joachimsim]

Budak,

Also besides No3 , There is the possibility of accumulation of Po4 over a period of time with no water change..although its also plant fertiliser..

There are those Phosphate Removers in the market...from Seachem, Fritz etc..which I am thinking of adding to my filter...taht way I can have a fully water -maintenance free tank..

[budak]

Hi Joachim,

One fundamental basis of a planted tank, i believe, is that the plants will take care of substances like nitraite, phosphate and trace elements. That is why some of us actually add such stuff in the tank, in order that they exist in quantities and ratios that will benefit plants at the expense of algae (another maxim is that healthy plants = healthy fish = little algae problem).

Though it can be hard to accept, relatively high NO3 levels (in a planted tank with adequate light and CO2) are not a problem. What will cause problems is when other ferts are not present in quantities which plants require. With such an inbalance, plants can't mop up the nutrients optimally, and algae (whose needs are simpler) get an advantage. For myself, I keep a regime of about 10 ppm of NO3, 2 ppm of PO4 and 30 ppm of K plus microfert dosing every 4-5 days. And nowadays, I haven't even cleaned my tank glass for months. Neither do I worry much about the filter.

Water changes are a much debated issue. If you want to do without them, you still need to make sure that your plants still get sufficient nutrients in order that they grow well. But this, I feel, can be a much harder task then simply changing 30% of the water every two weeks, and topping this up with regular fert dosing (this is what i do, and i find it doesn't take up more than an hour of work every other weekend).

On chemical absorbers, I am afraid i stick to the notion that these are more trouble than they are worth. Sorry about that.

Why do you say you didn't destroy your bacteria, when you threw away your filter wool?? The slimy, dark stuff may look like ****, but it's home to the bacteria and cleaning it totally doesn't help. For me, cleaning the filter simply means giving it a quick rinse and making sure that there aren't clog-ups in the impeller and tubing. But filter wool is not really ideal, so why not take the opportunity to replace it with some other filter media that will serve as good bacterial growth areas (I think stuff like those Eheim chips and hollow cylinders are pretty ok - you don't have to wash them like siao as with wool, just rinse them to clear away excess organic matter every few months).

Chemi-Pure? Again, I find these stuff irrelevant to a planted tank's needs. Ditto for phosphate removers.

I have to brutally honest. There is no such thing as a maintenance free freshwater tank, especially a planted tank and one with heavy fish load. Attempting to get away with it is likely to mean pay-back time later on. Surely it's not too hard to dedicate about 2 hours every other week or so to do the water changes, fert top-up and general maintenance?

[joachimsim]

[quote]
----------------
On 10/31/2003 6:00:57 PM

Though it can be hard to accept, relatively high NO3 levels (in a planted tank with adequate light and CO2) are not a problem. What will cause problems is when other ferts are not present in quantities which plants require. With such an inbalance, plants can't mop up the nutrients optimally, and algae (whose needs are simpler) get an advantage. For myself, I keep a weekly regime of about 10 ppm of NO3, 2 ppm of PO4 and 30 ppm of K plus microfert dosing every 4-5 days. And nowadays, I haven't even cleaned my tank glass for months. Neither do I worry much about the filter.


====> I get those Green Spots on my Glass...donno the exact species..too tired to look up the references...find it irritating to have to scrap them off with a sponge..well I got your point abt providing enough fertiliser for plants to grow..but there is the counter theory by some hobbylists that the unused liquid fertiliser causes more algae problems.

Water changes are a much debated issue. If you want to do without them, you still need to make sure that your plants still get sufficient nutrients in order that they grow well. But this, I feel, can be a much harder task then simply changing 30% of the water every two weeks, and topping this up with regular fert dosing (this is what i do, and i find it doesn't take up more than an hour of work every other weekend).

=====> Yeah Debatable especially, if you worry abt your other lifestocks in there like fish...PLants can CUT but fish Cannot )Diana Walstad as recommended to me..by Vinz . Koah Fong also mentioned her method of low lights, Top Up for supplments and No Co2...method...quite unlikely for high light plants though.

Some how or another...my maintenance schedule goes on for hours sometimes..when I prune my plants etc...
Thats its affecting my time management for work and stuffs )) This passion of mine is taking up most of my time, all the time !!

On chemical absorbers, I am afraid i stick to the notion that these are more trouble than they are worth. Sorry about that.

====> Perhaps the use of Chemical Absorber to absorb Phenols etc and other dissolved organics from time to time is beneficial to the water quality.

Why do you say you didn't destroy your bacteria, when you threw away your filter wool?? The slimy, dark stuff may look like ****, but it's home to the bacteria and cleaning it totally doesn't help. For me, cleaning the filter simply means giving it a quick rinse and making sure that there aren't clog-ups in the impeller and tubing. But filter wool is not really ideal, so why not take the opportunity to replace it with some other filter media that will serve as good bacterial growth areas (I think stuff like those Eheim chips and hollow cylinders are pretty ok - you don't have to wash them like siao as with wool, just rinse them to clear away excess organic matter every few months).

=====> I have an external filter..first compartment is filter wool mainly use to mechanical filter out decaying organic material ( Why I want so much decaying stuff in my water...when I have enough fish and feed amply? )

THe second compartment consists of my Bag of Bio-Rings and A bag filled with half dosage of Nitrate Minus Beads from Tetra. ( I Found that after 2 or 3 weeks it has maintained my NO3 levels before 10mg /l ) I heard from Vinz that 10 mg/L is the recommened level.

Hence by throwing away the filter wool, I only thrown away some bacteria,, believe there is enough in the BI)-RIngs as well as substrate.

I used to just use a sponge filter when I lost a part of my TOM External Filter...this went on for a mth! and Cos you know how SMELLY and CLOGGED up easily a small sponge filter gets when it is used for Biological and Mechanical Filtration.

THere is the dilema of washing it with Aquarium water...and never being fully clean as the organic matter is still trapped in b/w the spores of the sponge. I used to kill all the bacteria on the sponge by washing it with tap water...but I never got any

[budak]

Hi Joachim,

Yes, I know there are still plenty of folks out there who stick to the “excess nutrients = algae” maxim, which I found pretty hard to abandon as well. But I do find the opposite approach has worked for me, and quite a few others here have similar experiences. I dose those nutrients mentioned earlier, with high CO2 (30 mg/), but my tank is actually low light (1 wpg), but still if I miss a fert dose, algae actually comes back.

Walstad’s method comes with several qualifiers, among them a very low fishstock and extremely rich base substrate. I think unless one’s expectations on the kind of layout and plants that are possible using this approach, it’s not an optimum choice.

I used to spend a lot of time maintaining as well, actually more for pruning etc….. some folks have the time, but I decided to switch mostly to non-stem plants, as well as plants like mosses, Anubias, ferns which are tied to wood…. so I hardly prune anymore. It’s ultimately a choice, and with some forethought, planning and research (into the plant’s growth speed, requirements etc), I think low maintenance (but not zero maintenance) but very nice tanks are possible. Look at those posted by lorba in the planted section….

I am not too sure about phenols…. How would these affect water quality??

I see about your filter and your bio-rings. But I really find that there’s no problem at all with that debris inside (with a bit of unclogging every few months), which is partly decaying organic matter and partly bacterial colonies. For the nitrate beads, I still don’t the point, as healthy plants will easily absorb NO3. To me, the smell of the filter media, when taken out, is definitely “organic” but not objectionable….. it’s only a problem if it actually reeks (rotten egg/sulphuric odour).

Another idea, that I think is viable, actually, is to do without filter media, or just very little, and use the filter purely to circulate water. In an established planted tank, I think it should work fine.

Well, you said it about the Australian school of thought. Plants CAN handle all the biological filtration, meaning let them grow optimally to suck up the NO3, PO4 etc…. I am really not sure about that PO4 accumulation idea, though. There are some good reasons for water changes, but I think PO4 accumulation isn’t one of them. You may right though about fert residues (e.g. the SO4 in K2SO4), but as far as I know, no hobbyist in Singapore or the US has reported adverse reactions about these.

You want little artificial maintenance, but isn’t stuff like carbon and nitrate minus an attempt to override the plants’ natural biological capabilities? A fortnightly 30% water change (1/2 hour) coupled with weekly fert addition (5-10 min) is surely much easier and the only problem resulting from that is that the plants may grow fast (which leads to another set of choices which you will have to make between time spent pruning [which I actually find therapeutic] and selecting low-maintenance plants.

Wouldn’t topping up the nitrate minus and carbon be a tedious maintenance task as well? Can I suggest you worry less about the filter debris (just stick to the bioballs) and trust that your plants will take care of NO3, PO4 etc…. like they were designed to by nature? Nature is never low maintenance – wild habitats enjoy tremendous “filtration” rates, geological and meteorological shifts, frictions between species and combine to create fragile balances that man easily destroys (e.g. by removing/introducing one species, blocking natural water outlets). I think it’s unrealistic to expect to get away with as little effort as possible while wanting a result that is pleasing and rewarding. This notion doesn’t apply to planted tanks, but to any worthwhile endeavour that requires effort in learning, hands-on work and patience.

[joachimsim]

Thanks Budak for the info..

Yeah I do not know how Phenols can cause harm...but it sure ain;t good if your water looks brownish.

No Nitrate Minus...are not Chemical Absorbents...I do not know how the expensive Denitrinators work , BUT Tetra Nitrate Minus...are biological filtration materials..apparently it hosts bacterial..( actually settles quite quick ) in my experience , that uses NO3 as their oxygen source and hence NO3 is gone..only replace every 12 mths...( I am still in my 2nd mth of usage ) we will see.

I tried it in my Marine..still yet to evaluate the results..but in the Marine tank I get higher levels..I guess due to a different system altogether plus there are not plants in my 2FT Marine or hardly.

This technology...seems new by Tetra..but its not new at all..I read abt it in a 1978 Marine Book I bought.

Budak..like an intro from you..like to know my buddy forumists better.

I am 25/m Communication Engineer trained currently unemployed and playing too hard on my hobby.

INterests include : Marine Tanks, Yet to Try Discus , Bettas, and interested in Hydrophonics.