# Unable to add fish to my tank



## queijoman (Jun 23, 2008)

Hi, I am the proud owner of the thread 
Neons almost all died

I switched my tank over to El Natural probably 3 months ago or more. Since then everything has been good except lots of BBA and that I have been unable to add any new fish w/o them dying. The existing fish seem pretty happy. I am starting this new thread because I originally lost neons that I added but have since tried other fish and have had the same result. All the new neons, Angelfish, and Guppies have died. Maybe my BBA problem and new fish dying are two symptoms of the same cause?

I thought that I might add that the Miracle Grow potting soil has a large wood particle content, as does all potting soil available in las vegas. I don't know if that detail might shed light on anything.

Specs on my tank.
Substrate: Miracle Grow Organic Potting soil 3/4" + 3/4" gravel. 
Fish: 2 Rainbows, 1 giant danio, 1 dwarf frog, 3 khuli loaches, 3 cories, ~3 ottos.
Lighting: 55w cf, + ~2 hours of window lighting. In all 12 hours per day including a 3 hour break in the middle
Size: 30g
Water: Las Vegas tap water w/ declorinator. Very hard, high PH 8.2+. Change of 50% water every other week. (at least until my algae goes away)
Filtration: 1 HOB filter w/ sponge media only
Dosing: I have been lightly dosing by adding a fertilizer tablet 1x per week to try and combat algae. (The instructions say 6x per week for my tank size) 
C02: I have a hagen ladder w/ DIY co2 that has been running to add C02 until the soil kicks in, but I haven't changed my co2 brew in over 2 months so I don't think that it is affecting CO2 levels much. I plan on taking it out soon.


----------



## Natalia (Sep 15, 2008)

Looks like something is wrong with you water, you need to check your water parameters. The old fish have gradually adjusted to your water chemistry but the new fish can not because the difference between the store water and your water is too big. They probably die from osmotic shock. I would not add anything new untill you figure out the cause.


----------



## Dustymac (Apr 26, 2008)

Every time you change your water you feed the BBA with a new batch of nutrients from your very hard water. 

All the fish I brought home from Petco didn't last a week. Fifty percent of those from Petsmart. All purchased from local fish guy and from Walmart are alive today or lived normally. Some are more than two years old. Sorry for brevity - on my cell phone. 

Hope this helps,
Jim


----------



## Zapins (Jul 28, 2004)

I just assume Petco fish are sick to begin with so I raise the temperature of the water to 86F for a week after I buy them so the ich they inevitably have doesn't get established and kill them.

The miracle grow soil you used is not the best kind of soil to use. The company that makes miracle grow soil tends to load it up on fertilizers that leach into your water for months. You probably have a high ammonia level which kills the fish when they are added to the tank. 

You certainly need to test the water and figure out what is going on before you buy more fish.


----------



## dwalstad (Apr 14, 2006)

I see no mention of quarantining new fish. Its very risky adding new fish to an established tank. 
BTW, its a beautiful tank.


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Your BBA is a result of limiting CO2, which wouldn't surprise me given 55w for 12 hours plus sunlight. Not one of the species in your tank is something that requires that much light; you might as well reduce it. 

Try an airstone as well; limited CO2 is better stable than fluctuating. By avoiding surface disturbance, you're basically hoping that the fish can breath fast enough to provide more CO2 than the plants can metabolize, which is unlikely given that they're cold blooded. Even the mass of your fish in terms of warm blooded animals will not have the metabolism to provide enough CO2. It's also been shown more than once (ask anyone at a hatchery) that limiting oxygen saturation will stunt your fish, and is another reason I like air stones in low tech.

I agree with Zapins about the substrate. The organic potting mix isn't loaded with NH4 based fertlizer, but it's full of organics that will head south on you quickly and turn in to NH4 if you've been having issues cycling the tank. It may be worth picking up a test kit.

But first, what symptoms are your fish showing before they die? I'd imagine decent diagnostics would save on a lot of conjecture and testing. The BBA may or may not be related to your high mortality rate.

-Philosophos


----------



## firefiend (Aug 17, 2009)

I'd also look at your acclimation process... I usually take 5 to 6 hours to acclimate my fish. I'm not saying that you need to do the same. But it is another thing to consider.


----------



## Emily6 (Feb 14, 2006)

I used the miracle grow organic soil and while I had some problems (tannins and loose bits drifting around), ammonia wasn't one of them. Granted I used gravel from the previous set-up, I planned for the ammonia and never got it. Though another thread recently discussed variation from bag to bag of soil.

Your pH is pretty high- are the fish your adding ok with that? It seems that a big enough gap in pH would eventually doom any fish. Is you pH that high throughout the day? I suppose with hard water it should be but maybe something is causing it to swing. My city water (Boston, MA) is naturally above 8 but the soil brings it down to 7 consistently. Perhaps the frequent water changes aren't going over well with the fish either.


----------



## queijoman (Jun 23, 2008)

I have gotten so many replies thank you all for your help.



Dustymac said:


> Every time you change your water you feed the BBA with a new batch of nutrients from your very hard water.


Thanks Jim, I'll stop doing water changes for the meantime. I thought that changing water would help not have algae.



Zapins said:


> I just assume Petco fish are sick to begin with so I raise the temperature of the water to 86F for a week after I buy them so the ich they inevitably have doesn't get established and kill them.


That's a good idea. I should try that next time I get brave enough to buy



Zapins said:


> The miracle grow soil you used is not the best kind of soil to use. The company that makes miracle grow soil tends to load it up on fertilizers that leach into your water for months. You probably have a high ammonia level which kills the fish when they are added to the tank.
> 
> You certainly need to test the water and figure out what is going on before you buy more fish.


I have had my water tested several times and the ammonia has always been zero. The things that they usually point out when I have my water tested is that it is very hard and has high PH. Are there things that I can test for that aren't part of the usual tests of Ammonia, nitrites, nitrates, chlorine, PH, and hardness...?
P.S. You are right the soil isn't the best. I have had a hard time finding soil that matches the description that I have seen as to what is best for the tank. All the potting soils available here seem to be 1/2 or more wood scraps.



Philosophos said:


> Your BBA is a result of limiting CO2, which wouldn't surprise me given 55w for 12 hours plus sunlight. Not one of the species in your tank is something that requires that much light; you might as well reduce it.


 Thanks for this tip. I'll trim the light down by adding an extra break of a few hours during the day.



Philosophos said:


> Try an airstone as well; limited CO2 is better stable than fluctuating. By avoiding surface disturbance, you're basically hoping that the fish can breath fast enough to provide more CO2 than the plants can metabolize, which is unlikely given that they're cold blooded. Even the mass of your fish in terms of warm blooded animals will not have the metabolism to provide enough CO2. It's also been shown more than once (ask anyone at a hatchery) that limiting oxygen saturation will stunt your fish, and is another reason I like air stones in low tech.


Are you recommending that I add an airstone to run at night or all the time?



Philosophos said:


> I agree with Zapins about the substrate. The organic potting mix isn't loaded with NH4 based fertlizer, but it's full of organics that will head south on you quickly and turn in to NH4 if you've been having issues cycling the tank. It may be worth picking up a test kit.
> 
> But first, what symptoms are your fish showing before they die? I'd imagine decent diagnostics would save on a lot of conjecture and testing. The BBA may or may not be related to your high mortality rate.
> 
> -Philosophos


I have seen a lot of new fish hanging out near the bottom or in corners, almost as if hiding or taking a siesta. Sometimes they look like they are losing their fins,



dwalstad said:


> I see no mention of quarantining new fish. Its very risky adding new fish to an established tank.
> BTW, its a beautiful tank.


Thanks for the compliment Diana. I have never tried quarantining new fish because I only have one tank. Do you think that keeping them in a 5 gallon bucket will work for a sufficient amount of time or will that not be a suitable enough home?



Emily6 said:


> I used the miracle grow organic soil and while I had some problems (tannins and loose bits drifting around), ammonia wasn't one of them. Granted I used gravel from the previous set-up, I planned for the ammonia and never got it. Though another thread recently discussed variation from bag to bag of soil.


That has been my experience also.



Emily6 said:


> Your pH is pretty high- are the fish your adding ok with that? It seems that a big enough gap in pH would eventually doom any fish. Is you pH that high throughout the day? I suppose with hard water it should be but maybe something is causing it to swing. My city water (Boston, MA) is naturally above 8 but the soil brings it down to 7 consistently. Perhaps the frequent water changes aren't going over well with the fish either.


For some reason I have always had high ph in my water, perhaps the gravel makes it that way? It always tests high so I don't think that there are any fluctuations, but you have a good point it may come as a shock to new fish I try to add. I think that I will try testing my water with water from my LFS to see what differences that there may be


----------



## Tex Gal (Nov 1, 2007)

Dustymac said:


> Every time you change your water you feed the BBA with a new batch of nutrients from your very hard water. Jim


This statement confuses me. People do water changes to dilute the pollute. I understand that if he has hard water he could be adding some nutrients but it's always been my experience that water changes always help. Before I went high tech and high light, if I skipped water changes I inevitably ended up with BBA. If I kept up with them I did not. How can the new water coming in be more nutritious than the tank water complete with fish and substrate?

Can you tell me what you mean by your above statement? I'd like to understand. Thanks!


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

queijoman said:


> I have seen a lot of new fish hanging out near the bottom or in corners, almost as if hiding or taking a siesta. Sometimes they look like they are losing their fins


Might be ammonia burns then. Do they have any signs of fungus? If so, does the fungus appear on the lost fins before or after they deteriorate?

An NH4 test kit is starting to sound like a good choice for you right now.

-Philosophos


----------



## Dustymac (Apr 26, 2008)

Philosophos said:


> Your BBA is a result of limiting CO2


Can you explain this to me? It seems BBA would be hurt by limiting CO2. After all, doesn't it need CO2 for growth?


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

BGA requires carbon, sure, but not so much as any plant. It's a more important nutrient to healthy growth for plants than it is to cyanobacteria. By keeping the CO2 non-limiting, you're offering a condition for which plants are able to capitalize on this inequality of nutrient use. The healthy growth of the plants prevents establishment of most forms of algae on it, which means cleaner plants and less BGA.

Of course CO2 isn't the only factor (not to detract from it). Cyanobacteria seems to fade with high current and O2 levels.

-Philosophos


----------



## Dustymac (Apr 26, 2008)

Philosophos said:


> BGA requires carbon, sure, but not so much as any plant. It's a more important nutrient to healthy growth for plants than it is to cyanobacteria. By keeping the CO2 non-limiting, you're offering a condition for which plants are able to capitalize on this inequality of nutrient use.


I understand that increasing CO2 will help the plants, but it stands to reason it will help the BBA, too. The BBA will keep growing, right? The worst case of BBA I ever saw was during CO2 infusion. None of my tanks get any extra CO2 now, there is no algae problem and the plant growth is great. What you're proposing runs counter to my experience.



> The healthy growth of the plants prevents establishment of most forms of algae on it, which means cleaner plants and less BGA.


Are you talking about allelopathy? How else would a plant prevent the growth of algae? I just don't understand any of this. How can you improve the growth environment for plants and have that be detrimental to algae when they both pretty much use the same nutrients?


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Dustymac... your other ID must be aquabillpers. If not, this exact same debate is going on over at thebarrreport, where I have just left a reply to your very question:
http://www.barrreport.com/general-plant-topics/6392-light-spectrum-algae-growth-2.html#post42502

-Philosophos


----------



## Dustymac (Apr 26, 2008)

I have no other ID on this forum and I give anyone who has access to my IP number (sysadmin, moderator) permission to verify that fact.

Second, you left your opinion here and I think here is where you should defend it. Does that sound unreasonable?

Thanks!
Jim


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Honestly? The last two or three debates I've been in resulted in the entire thread being locked, and there were zero conclusions made. Over on thebarrreport.com I know that's far less likely to happen. I don't care to waste hours of my time again starting a debate that gets shut down.

-Philosophos


----------



## Dustymac (Apr 26, 2008)

I see...

You're afraid the answer to my question is so esoteric or non-scientific I will get angry and lose it, forcing the shut down of this thread?

That's pretty funny. 

Seriously, I promise to keep my cool. My wife and I adopted a couple of emotionally disturbed kids and I have almost four years of practice "keeping my cool". And so far the discussion hasn't been personal, no four letter words have been launched and I hope everyone thinks the topic is worth the electrons wasted.

So please, feel free. And if the thread gets locked and no one purposely sabotages it, I'll follow you back over to your 'hood and we can pick up the discussion there.

That said, in case it does get shut down, I would like to say one thing. I am a total believer in freedom of speech and I think everyone has the right to spout off about anything they want as long as they don't get abusive. But I think those who come here to this "El Natural" forum and advocate the use of hi-tech methodology should be prepared to get challenged. Is that unreasonable?

Jim


----------



## Kova (Oct 21, 2009)

i saw that your java fern is in the supstrate . Is this corect ? People in the pet shop told me that java ferm go on the wood .


----------



## Tex Gal (Nov 1, 2007)

Philosophos isn't talking about allelopathy. What he's saying is that the plants will out-compete the algae for the nutrients. They will be able to grow quickly and at a faster rate using the available nutrients and keep the tank algae free as long as they have enough CO2, nutrients and light. 

You have an imbalance in your tank. You may have too much light for the available nutrients, including CO2. You may have too little macros or traces. Many who have done experiments with fertilizers, CO2 and light have found that if you make sure you have plenty of nutrients (hence EI dosing), what usually causes algae is not enough carbon. Most of us supply plenty of light. 

BTW Java fern rhizomes need to be out of the substrate. They will rot if planted.


----------



## Dustymac (Apr 26, 2008)

Tex Gal said:


> Philosophos isn't talking about allelopathy. What he's saying is that the plants will out-compete the algae for the nutrients. They will be able to grow quickly and at a faster rate using the available nutrients and keep the tank algae free as long as they have enough CO2, nutrients and light.


I understand *what* he's saying but I don't understand why. Why won't the algae take advantage of the increased nutrient level right along side the plants? What prevents algae from using the increased CO2 to its own benefit?

Jim


----------



## Tex Gal (Nov 1, 2007)

Dustymac said:


> I understand *what* he's saying but I don't understand why. Why won't the algae take advantage of the increased nutrient level right along side the plants? What prevents algae from using the increased CO2 to its own benefit?
> 
> Jim


I believe the plants use it up faster. The algae gets starved out. That's my understanding.


----------



## aquabillpers (Apr 13, 2006)

Philosophos said:


> Dustymac... your other ID must be aquabillpers. If not, this exact same debate is going on over at thebarrreport, where I have just left a reply to your very question:
> http://www.barrreport.com/general-plant-topics/6392-light-spectrum-algae-growth-2.html#post42502
> 
> -Philosophos


Hey, man, I am me and no one else. LOLOL

Bill


----------



## aquabillpers (Apr 13, 2006)

Tex Gal said:


> I believe the plants use it up faster. The algae gets starved out. That's my understanding.


Here's a link to the thread at Tom Barr's site in which the role of CO2 and algae control is discussed. http://www.barrreport.com/general-plant-topics/6392-light-spectrum-algae-growth.html

I don't believe that there is any answer to the question, "Why does increasing the CO2 reduce the amount of algae?" I asked the question there and didn't get a firm answer. In fact, that hypothesis has never been proven in a controlled environment, as far as I know.

Algae requires far fewer nutrients than do macrophytes and it responds faster to an increase in nutrients. It seems unlikely that macrophytes respond fast enough to a change in nutrient levels to outcompete algae.

If nutrients are limited, the algae gets what there is, first. Increasing the CO2 level, if it is limiting, will benefit the algae, at least in the short run.

El natural aquariums by definition do not add CO2, and many of them are algae free. Algae outbreaks are due to nutrient and lighting problems. The outbreaks are remedied by fixing those problems.

Bill


----------



## queijoman (Jun 23, 2008)

Kova said:


> i saw that your java fern is in teh supstrate . Is this corect ? People in the pet sop told me that java ferm go on the wood .


Thanks for the tip. The java fern isn't actually buried. It sinks so I put it on top of the soil. That one is my first plant that I bought over a year ago and it has 3 khuli loaches that live in it's "nest"


----------



## Dustymac (Apr 26, 2008)

Tex Gal said:


> I believe the plants use it up faster. The algae gets starved out. That's my understanding.


 I think that's pretty close. Definitely the algae gets starved out. I think increasing the CO2 raises the metabolic rate of both plants and algae. Everything starts growing like crazy, pulling on other nutrients to keep up. Before CO2 was the nutrient limiting growth. Now it's some other nutrient.

Plants do have an advantage - they can get some of their nutrition from the substrate. Algae must get their nutrients exclusively from the water. Eventually the plants and algae will scrub the water of one essential nutrient. The plants can recover that nutrient from the substrate and keep growing; the algae can't and starts to wither.

And it's very easy to see how this myth got started. Some aquarist somewhere started a couple of tanks at the same time and they both came down with identical algae problems. For whatever reason, this mythical aquarist decided to try CO2 on one of the tanks and voila! The tank getting CO2 clears up in three days and it takes the other tank two weeks before the algae starts to fade. Of course, our aquarist thinks CO2 killed the algae when in fact all it did was hasten an inevitable death.

Along these same lines of thought, it's easy to see why there is so much confusion surrounding algae and water changes. If you get algae and you have tap water that's bereft of the limiting nutrient, changing the water will dilute that nutrient so it's natural to think changing the water hurts algae. On the other hand, in the same set of circumstances, if your tap water is flush with the limiting nutrient, changing the water will replenish that nutrient leading to a chronic and frustrating algae problem.

At least that's what I think.
Jim

PS. Oh, and Bill? Mom says it's your turn to take her shopping this week.


----------



## aquabillpers (Apr 13, 2006)

Dustymac said:


> I think that's pretty close. Definitely the algae gets starved out. I think increasing the CO2 raises the metabolic rate of both plants and algae. Everything starts growing like crazy, pulling on other nutrients to keep up. Before CO2 was the nutrient limiting growth. Now it's some other nutrient.


You are assuming that CO2 is the limiting factor. What if it isn't? Lots of aquariums with plenty of CO2 have algae problems.

Algae doesn't need as much nutrient as do macrophytes, and they are faster to respond to changes, like the addition of a limiting nutrient. The myth is that plants can outcompete it.



> And it's very easy to see how this myth got started. Some aquarist somewhere started a couple of tanks at the same time and they both came down with identical algae problems. For whatever reason, this mythical aquarist decided to try CO2 on one of the tanks and voila! The tank getting CO2 clears up in three days and it takes the other tank two weeks before the algae starts to fade. Of course, our aquarist thinks CO2 killed the algae when in fact all it did was hasten an inevitable death.


How do you know that? Who was that myth starter? Did he say anything about plants outcompeting algae? 

Some of us have a tendency to develop a hypothesis and then state it as if it were a fact, even though it hadn't been tested. There has been research done on this subject; check out that Barr Report thread I quoted earlier to read about it.



> Oh, and Bill? Mom says it's your turn to take her shopping this week.


LOL. Being slow, it took me a while to get that!

Bill


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Dustymac said:


> I see...
> 
> You're afraid the answer to my question is so esoteric or non-scientific I will get angry and lose it, forcing the shut down of this thread?
> 
> ...


I don't think you will necessarily get out of line. I just spent hours of my time debating with someone over on another site (it's a popular one in the hobby; no names) yesterday though, and the thread got shut down because some moderator decided that the debate was full of personal insults. Neither I or the person I was debating with could see any, and we had a bitter laugh about it after. Over-modding has caused me to waste hours of my time, so I'm starting to prefer my debates in places with laxer rules.

Anyhow, it looks like TexGal is posting in with this one so there shouldn't be issues; I've never seen her over-mod a thread.

I don't think there's any good tautology showing why CO2 prevents algae. I think there are some decent theories, and a corelation that is too consisten to say that co CO2 isn't at least a related mechanism. You call it a post hoc, but in fact our entire existence consists of a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy; it's a matter of the stringency to which we examine the topic. Tons of people are turning up CO2, turning down their light, and getting tanks with a lack of algae with quite reasonable consistently.

I am talking about allelopathy as a possibility though, despite what Texgal said. I'm not talking about plant killing plant through elevating the phenol levels and such throughout the entire colulm. I don't think that a healthy tank should have enough decaying plant matter to manage something like that.

There are a number of books and papers touching on the subject. Here are two outlining the concept, I can toss out more instances if you'd like:

Hypothesis that allelopathy is used against algae, but why it is difficult to prove:
http://books.google.com/books?id=gl...resnum=6&ved=0CCMQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false

An example in a natural system. I don't think it's possible to get column levels in the tank high enough to make a difference (look around for Ole's Refute for allelopathy), but at the point of release it may be in high enough concentration before being dilluted by the column:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118728110/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

This is the best theory going right now. If I were bothered for conjecture, I would say that perhaps aquatic plants retain a bit of a cuticle under water and that sheds, or perhaps part of the upper epidermis sloughs off slowly. Both would provide metabolism-based reasons for plants to resist algae. As it is, I lake the equipment to test any of these ideas.

-Philosophos


----------



## Tex Gal (Nov 1, 2007)

Sorry Philo. for speaking for you. I know you can surely defend your own arguments. Glad you're speaking up again.

So many of these debates continue over and over again. I guess if the hobby turned into a lab full of scientists with control tanks and such we may be able to settle some of this. Since my goal is to have healthy algae free tanks, I try to do what has worked for others, despite the science behind the method. Some of these methods just work most of the time, as Philo. said. That's good enough for me. My tanks are healthy, my plants are growing like weeds , and my fish are spawning. The world is a good place!


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Don't worry about it Tex; plenty of people know how I feel about allelopathy as a column-wide issue. This localized leaf level thing is new to me; it's a hole I've seen in Ole's refutation to allelopathy.



> And it's very easy to see how this myth got started. Some aquarist somewhere started a couple of tanks at the same time and they both came down with identical algae problems. For whatever reason, this mythical aquarist decided to try CO2 on one of the tanks and voila! The tank getting CO2 clears up in three days and it takes the other tank two weeks before the algae starts to fade. Of course, our aquarist thinks CO2 killed the algae when in fact all it did was hasten an inevitable death.


Actually Tom Barr spent a crapload of time trying to induce various types of algae, in part to refute the PO4 myth, and at the same time did some good work showing that algae didn't thrive on plants with non-limiting levels of CO2. This is somthing witnessed repeatedly, and reproduced in many high tech tanks. This relationship between the two is something I would be shocked to see disproven. The exact methods may not be precisely known, but there are some theories out there based on knowledge of plants that already exists.

I'm not sure who got the hairbrained idea that CO2 is directly toxict to algae; there's absolutely no evidence for it. The relationship between CO2 and algae is definitely indirect, and almost definitely through the plant. High CO2 and non-limiting nutrients doesn't help to eliminate the spread of algae on driftwood or glass after all 

-Philosophos


----------



## Dustymac (Apr 26, 2008)

Tex Gal said:


> This statement confuses me. People do water changes to dilute the pollute. I understand that if he has hard water he could be adding some nutrients but it's always been my experience that water changes always help. Before I went high tech and high light, if I skipped water changes I inevitably ended up with BBA. If I kept up with them I did not. How can the new water coming in be more nutritious than the tank water complete with fish and substrate?
> 
> Can you tell me what you mean by your above statement? I'd like to understand. Thanks!


Sorry Tex Gal, I missed this one. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise; an iPhone isn't that great for
following such lengthy discussions.

About my suggestion to avoid water chnging: it depends. If you do hi-tech and dose your tank, you almost have to change the water to prevent the buildup of certain nutrients. In an NPT, you don't dose other than fish food. Some of the nutrients pass through the fish and go straight to the substrate without dissolving in the water so there is usually at lease one nutrient missing critical to algae growth.

Of course, if you do change the water and it's full of the missing nutrient then you've lost one of the great advantages of the NPT methodology. I have two tanks which haven't had a water change in about a year and they couldn't be healthier.

And it's particularly important to stop water changing if you believe as Phil does in allelopathy since 
water changing will dilute toxins secreted by the plants to kill algae. 

Jim
as


----------



## Zapins (Jul 28, 2004)

Problem with not changing your water ever is that organics build up. While plants suck up certain nutrients there is still some organic waste that doesn't get used up by the plants. In fact, there is quite a bit of this waste type, and it builds up rather fast. 

I don't believe never changing the water is a healthy tank practice, even with NPT. Some water changes should be done on a regular basis, be that daily, weekly, or monthly.


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Dustymac said:


> And it's particularly important to stop water changing if you believe as Phil does in allelopathy since
> water changing will dilute toxins secreted by the plants to kill algae.


Actually I don't believe in tank-wide allelopathy. What I'm examining is excretion rates within the barrier layers of plant leaves. Other possibilities/contributing factors involve cell sloughing and germination control.

Water changes definitely reduce algae; it's mechanical removal of spores in the column.

-Philosophos


----------



## DVS (Nov 20, 2005)

> "...so there is usually at lease one nutrient missing critical to algae growth."


Sears-Conlin hypothesized this. I think Tom Barr and a lot of others have proven this flawed. I believe you may be able to take a nutrient so low it won't support macrophyte growth but I don't believe that you can take it low enough to prevent algae from growing. NPT's is no different from all the other popular fert systems. When done properly the available nutrients are more then adequate to cover demand based on available light. I have no idea why healthy growing plants are anathema to algae but in my experience they are.


----------



## Dustymac (Apr 26, 2008)

Zapins said:


> Problem with not changing your water ever is that organics build up. While plants suck up certain nutrients there is still some organic waste that doesn't get used up by the plants. In fact, there is quite a bit of this waste type, and it builds up rather fast.
> 
> I don't believe never changing the water is a healthy tank practice, even with NPT. Some water changes should be done on a regular basis, be that daily, weekly, or monthly.


I felt the same way until getting Diana's book. I've been changing water on and off for nearly forty years. Back when I was a teenager, before de-chlorinators were commonplace, I would fill the bathtub on Friday night with hot water and then run an aerator all night to get water for changing on Saturday. Water changing is in my blood.

Now I'm free of all that nonsense and I find it highly suspect when confronted with such skepticism. I'm not trying to hurt you, I'm trying to liberate you.

I'm out of town right now but after getting home, I'll upload a couple pics of these two tanks so you can see how wonderful freedom can be! 

Jim


----------



## bartoli (May 8, 2006)

queijoman said:


> I switched my tank over to El Natural probably 3 months ago or more. Since then everything has been good except lots of BBA and that I have been unable to add any new fish w/o them dying. The existing fish seem pretty happy.


I suspect if you add more of the existing types of fish, such as rainbows, they will be fine. Some fish really need low pH. Unless the water pH can be significantly lowered from the current 8.2 level, I wouldn't bother with pH sensitive fish.


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Dustymac said:


> Now I'm free of all that nonsense and I find it highly suspect when confronted with such skepticism. I'm not trying to hurt you, I'm trying to liberate you.


Do you think that this is the end method then? That some sort of solution has been found to keeping all macrophytes? Or are you just saying that there is room for both?

I would not hand 3wpg of light, compressed CO2 and discus to someone who doesn't want to take the time for it. I would not hand El Natural to someone who wants fast plant growth, high CO2 demand plants and sensitive fish.

I have yet to see a nice HC mat with spawning apistos or CRS in a system that receives water changes every 6 months with top-offs. Most people I've known deeply into the hobby wouldn't want to keep every tank to these standards though. I certainly don't; I have high and low tech tanks, and they are that way for a reason. Both work.

There are different methods for different purposes. Depending on your perspective on anything in life, freedom to one person is slavery to another.

-Philosophos


----------



## Dustymac (Apr 26, 2008)

Phil,
I get back to real keyboard tomorrow and will respond more specifically. Generally speaking, yes, I think hi-tech is on it's way out. None of the dire scenarios you portray has any validity that I can see. Eventually El Natural will realize widespread adoption and hi-tech will become obscure. 

Why? Economics. It's simply a lot less expensive and a lot less time consuming. Ferts, 3wpg and CO2 are expensive. Testing water, changing water and vacuuming gravel takes lots of time.

Of course, there will be lots of push-back from the powers that be. Widespread adoption of El Natural would be bad for business. Half the stuff for sale in the lfs will be unneeded. Manufacturers, distributers and retailers will likely attempt to cast npts as too difficult or scientifically unsound even though just the opposite is true. The outlook is so bleak, I wouldn't be surprised to see some entrenched entities will send their minions out onto the web to nip this El Natural movement in the bud, so to speak. Where would be a better place to start than here? 

Jim


----------



## queijoman (Jun 23, 2008)

Update. 

I have changed the light schedule to have an extra break during the day. For the past couple of weeks I've seen no new carpets of algae, and it apppears that some of it may be disappearing from my anubia's leaves. I might be going crazy though, I didn't know that anything I had eats it this kind of algae....

I haven't tried adding new fish yet. With the newly arrived cold weather I'll be needing to get a heater to set up with a quarantine/acclimitization bucket. I don't want to hurt any more fish.


----------



## bartoli (May 8, 2006)

queijoman said:


> With the newly arrived cold weather I'll be needing to get a heater to set up with a quarantine/acclimitization bucket. I don't want to hurt any more fish.


With your water pH at 8.2, even if you are adding the same type of fish that has been doing well in your tank, it is very important to drip acclimate for at least several hours, very slowly.

Remember to measure the initial pH difference between the bag water and the tank water. That will give you an idea as to how much pH shock the fish will have to adjust to (remember that the difference between pH 7 and 8 is one hundred, not one). Then when you think it is ready to move the fish into the tank, check the pH difference again. If not close enough, continue to drip acclimate and then check the pH difference again.

BTW, it is often recommended that any pH difference of more than 0.5 within 24 hours tends to over stress fish.


----------



## Dustymac (Apr 26, 2008)

queijoman said:


> Update.
> 
> I have changed the light schedule to have an extra break during the day. For the past couple of weeks I've seen no new carpets of algae, and it apppears that some of it may be disappearing from my anubia's leaves. I might be going crazy though, I didn't know that anything I had eats it this kind of algae....


It looks like your outbreak is nearing the end of it's cycle. When this happens and an essential
nutrient gets exhausted, you don't need anything to eat the algae; it will disappear on it's own. It
wilts and falls apart just like a plant would if it didn't get enough to eat.


----------



## dwalstad (Apr 14, 2006)

Zapins said:


> Problem with not changing your water ever is that organics build up. While plants suck up certain nutrients there is still some organic waste that doesn't get used up by the plants. In fact, there is quite a bit of this waste type, and it builds up rather fast.
> 
> I don't believe never changing the water is a healthy tank practice, even with NPT. Some water changes should be done on a regular basis, be that daily, weekly, or monthly.


Organics are continuously decomposed by bacteria, because organics are "food" for bacteria. Organics can also be photo-oxidized and degraded by light.

Therefore, the accumulation of organics is continuously counter-balanced by its decomposition from bacteria and light.

I don't see organics as "waste" that needs to be removed via water changes. I see organics as potential plant nutrients-- carbon dioxide, nitrogen, iron, etc.

If organics accumulate, it may be due to a new tank getting established or poor plant growth.

Once a healthy planted tank is well-established, the generation and decomposition of organic matter should reach an equilibrium where water changes are quite infrequent or unnecessary.

I use conductivity measurements (salt accumulation) to determine whether my tanks need a water change. Some do after about 6 months.


----------



## mudboots (Jun 24, 2009)

Awesome! I just clicked to see which fish were having trouble being added to a new tank and got an introductory course in aquariology NPT-style. I'm pretty intrigued by the allelopathy topic, and relieved at Diana's response to the mention of organics building up over time in an NPT.

Regarding the fish and the degrading fins (from a few pages back) I experienced this as well, but was never able to diagnose it due to another infection that invaded. Treating for that particular disease cured the others as well, so I figured they were bacterially related, but never got enough information to defend that thought. The tank was very new at the time, so it could have been just about anything.


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Dustymac said:


> Phil,
> I get back to real keyboard tomorrow and will respond more specifically. Generally speaking, yes, I think hi-tech is on it's way out. None of the dire scenarios you portray has any validity that I can see. Eventually El Natural will realize widespread adoption and hi-tech will become obscure.
> 
> Why? Economics. It's simply a lot less expensive and a lot less time consuming. Ferts, 3wpg and CO2 are expensive. Testing water, changing water and vacuuming gravel takes lots of time.
> ...


I'm looking forward to a more in-depth explanation. Please do reply when you have time.

-Philosophos


----------

