# Tank chaos in a nut shell



## Emily6 (Feb 14, 2006)

Sorry to have disappeared but the battles with my tank continued beyond the point of daily description. 

Anyway, the happy ending to all of this was phenomenal. To play catch up, my high ammonia I was frantically trying to find the source of was in fact non-existent- a trick of the test kit. :-( Having solved that, I added more fish. (my clue was that even at 8ppm, all the fish were totally fine) Then the aglae bloomed all over the tank. Turns out my tank was severely limited by CO2. I got a better CO2 fermenter, removed a bulb and magic! Almost all the aglae went away and the plants are growing again! Fish are happy, snails are happy... Emily's happy. 

Since this the frogbit has taken over the surface, allowing me to add a bulb back.

On the side, my CO2 is still leaving something to be desired. Anything I can do el natural style to help this? The fermenter was to compensate for my previous over-cleaning of the tank (leaving nothing to decompose). Thanks!


----------



## rohape (Feb 7, 2005)

Does your tank currently have soil substrate? If so try to overfeed for a little while to jump start the mulm process to compensate for removal of the CO2. Or you could continue the CO2 if you wish, it goes against the idea of El Natural, but I wouldn't think it would hurt anything, especially since it's not pressurized.

On the side of algae, personally I have just accepted that I will always have algae. My only problem is when it gets severe. Normal green dust algae is fine. I'll never have the time, patience, or money to go high-tech.

Congrats on the recovery!! Those pesky test kits!:boxing:


----------



## Emily6 (Feb 14, 2006)

I do have soil with a light gravel covering. I think now the fermenter has brought the CO2 up appropriately, I might start weening the tank as you suggested. 

I have accepted some amount of algae. My tank was previously plagued with the black bush algae coating EVERYTHING. That stuff is tenacious. Anyway, I think everything is under control *knock on wood* Thanks for your help!


----------



## rohape (Feb 7, 2005)

Emily6 said:


> I think now the fermenter has brought the CO2 up appropriately, I might start weening the tank as you suggested.


That's the bad part about DIY CO2, the inconsistency. Can make things tough to control and track properly. Good to see things are starting to get in control.


----------



## dwalstad (Apr 14, 2006)

Emily6 said:


> Almost all the algae went away and the plants are growing again! Fish are happy, snails are happy... Emily's happy.
> 
> Since this the frogbit has taken over the surface, allowing me to add a bulb back.
> 
> On the side, my CO2 is still leaving something to be desired. Anything I can do el natural style to help this? The fermenter was to compensate for my previous over-cleaning of the tank (leaving nothing to decompose). Thanks!


Glad to hear you've got frogbit "taking over". Here's a very fine floating plant!

It sounds like you're doing everything right and beginning to reap the benefits.

Thanks for an uplifting letter!


----------



## Emily6 (Feb 14, 2006)

*CO2- continued from Tank Chaos.*

I find that my CO2 still isn't really enough- my Red Sea meter (the little R2D2 submersible) consistently shows the CO2 as being sub-par even with the fermenter. The only exception seems to be for a week-long period where the canister I guess is at it's peak production. Any thoughts? Perhaps it isn't enough for my plant volume? I'm working on posting a photo- maybe that will help judge my CO2 need.


----------



## aquabillpers (Apr 13, 2006)

Welcome back!

I'm sure you know that you don't need CO2 in an NPT tank, so why are you trying to use it? It just adds complexity and another variable to the problem.

I admire your perseverance. Eventually you'll get it right. But you are working much harder at it than you have to work.

Good luck!

Bill


----------



## Homer_Simpson (Apr 2, 2007)

aquabillpers said:


> Welcome back!
> 
> I'm sure you know that you don't need CO2 in an NPT tank, so why are you trying to use it? It just adds complexity and another variable to the problem.
> 
> ...


I always thought that NPT concept involved non injection of C02?


----------



## aquabillpers (Apr 13, 2006)

Homer_Simpson said:


> I always thought that NPT concept involved non injection of C02?


Yes, it assumes that the carbon will come from the atmosphere, the substrate, and the animals.

Bill


----------



## dwalstad (Apr 14, 2006)

aquabillpers said:


> Yes, it assumes that the carbon will come from the atmosphere, the substrate, and the animals.
> 
> Bill


Let's not forget decomposition of organic matter-- probably the main carbon source in an NPT. Organic carbon (mulm on tank bottom, dissolved organic carbon, fishfood, filter debris, etc) decomposes-- thanks to bacteria. Bacterial decomposition of organic matter results in CO2 for plants.

That's why zealous tank cleaning can be counterproductive.

The atmosphere, in an NPT situation, does not contribute CO2. In fact, the opposite is true. CO2, generated by respiration and decomposition, would be expected to move from the water into the air. That's why vigorous aeration, water movement, etc is counterproductive in an NPT.


----------



## aquabillpers (Apr 13, 2006)

dwalstad said:


> Let's not forget decomposition of organic matter-- probably the main carbon source in an NPT. Organic carbon (mulm on tank bottom, dissolved organic carbon, fishfood, filter debris, etc) decomposes-- thanks to bacteria. Bacterial decomposition of organic matter results in CO2 for plants.
> 
> That's why zealous tank cleaning can be counterproductive.
> 
> The atmosphere, in an NPT situation, does not contribute CO2. In fact, the opposite is true. CO2, generated by respiration and decomposition, would be expected to move from the water into the air. That's why vigorous aeration, water movement, etc is counterproductive in an NPT.


Not to quibble, but


> The decomposition of sediment organic matter . . . releases CO2 . . . into the water. Almost all lakes have more CO2 than that that which would result solely from the equilibration with atmospheric CO2. (D. Walstad, Ecology of the Planted Aquarium, chapter IV)


I think it's safe to say that most of that decomposition takes place in the substrate into which the sediments eventually flow. The substrate also produces CO2 through the decomposition of the organics that were in it originally. That CO2 - and atmospheric CO2 - are probably more important in the early months of an NPT, before the decomposition of the sediments reaches a point where it can produce enough CO2 to meet the needs of the plants.

Bill


----------



## dwalstad (Apr 14, 2006)

aquabillpers said:


> Not to quibble, but
> 
> That CO2 - and atmospheric CO2 - are probably more important in the early months of an NPT, before the decomposition of the sediments reaches a point where it can produce enough CO2 to meet the needs of the plants.
> 
> Bill


I know this is silly quibbling on a minor technicality, but this may be worth a little of my time for such a knowledgeable hobbyist. 

Air provides water with 0.5 mg/l of CO2. That's not a lot, especially since the atmosphere's CO2 diffuses into water very slowly-- generally slower than what plants (during active photosynthesis) are taking up. Believe me, if air CO2 was the magic bullet, then aquatic botanists would be bubbling in air to grow plants for their experiments. And hobbyists growing plants in gravel with multiple air-stones and clean tanks would be reporting satisfactory plant growth.

Decomposition of fresh soil organic matter and excess fishfood in hobbyist's tanks probably starts within a week (see my book, Fig V111-6, page 131). It may not reach a maximum until 4-6 weeks. Nevertheless, if there's food, neutral pH, and warm temperature, chances are good that bacteria will start cranking out CO2 for plants fairly rapidly.

Plants get most of their carbon either from CO2 produced by bacterial decomposition and fish respiration, or they get it from bicarbonates--assuming the water is sufficiently alkaline and the plants can use bicarbonates as a carbon source.


----------



## Homer_Simpson (Apr 2, 2007)

dwalstad said:


> ... And hobbyists growing plants in gravel with multiple air-stones and clean tanks would be reporting satisfactory plant growth...


I was really debating about whether I should post this. But I do have a tank at work(approx 2.5 gallon) with an air-stone and weekly 50 % weekly water changes and one peppered cory catfish. The tank has been up and running with the plants for 4 months now. The tank contains java moss, java fern, and an Aponogenton. The substrate is plain gravel and there is another submersible filter with polyfibre and Seachem Matrix stones. Lighting is the fluorescent office light set at 8 hours a day. The catfish gets no food while I am away on weekends or holidays and gets a algae wafer every second day on weekdays. Hell, the tank even undergoes a weekly blackout. I would think that based on the water changes, minimal feeding, and use of plain gravel, this tank would be considered to have a very low organic decompostion or waste.

While there is some minor algae on the bottom glass of the tank, it is confined there, and never spreads to the rest of the glass which is as clean as a whistle. There is algae on the rock that the java fern is tied to and one old java fern leaf seems to have some algae on it. The java fern leaves that have emerged over the last month remain algae free, the aponongenton leaves have no algae whatsoever, and the java moss as no algae. Overall the algae is very minimal and hardly noticeable and does not really significant enough to effect the overall asthetics. If I wanted, all I would have to do every week is wipe off what little algae there is, but since it is so little and remains confined and has been for months, I don't bother.

* And believe it or not, the plants are growing and doing well. The java fern has developed several plantlets and I find myself pruning the aponogenton leaves which grow like weeds
*

Surpisingly, the peppered cory has not uprooted any of the plants. He seems livlier and more active than I have ever seen him. I mean this guy is 7 years old if you can believe it and he displays the energy level of a year old fish. I think he really treasures the plants. When he does rest, he often rests under his favourite spot: that one algae covered java fern leaf(that is why I left the leaf alone). I believe he really treasures those plants.


----------



## aquabillpers (Apr 13, 2006)

dwalstad said:


> I know this is silly quibbling on a minor technicality, but this may be worth a little of my time for such a knowledgeable hobbyist.
> 
> Air provides water with 0.5 mg/l of CO2. That's not a lot, especially since the atmosphere's CO2 diffuses into water very slowly-- generally slower than what plants (during active photosynthesis) are taking up. Believe me, if air CO2 was the magic bullet, then aquatic botanists would be bubbling in air to grow plants for their experiments. And hobbyists growing plants in gravel with multiple air-stones and clean tanks would be reporting satisfactory plant growth.
> 
> ...


I agree. Being a "knowledgeable hobyist", how could I not? 

What I meant was that the CO2 came from the substrate from the decomposition of the organics that flowed into it. Those organics, in turn, come from the life processes of the animals in the aquarium, as well as from what is already in the soil part of the substrate.

Almost 5 months ago I set up a tank with an inert substrate, good light, and about one inch of well-fed fish per gallon. I dosed nutrients. Later I set up another one next to it similar but with a soil substrate. The plants in the inert gravel tank have grown but very little; the soil-based tank is rapidly becoming a jungle and needs a pruning, which will be its second. The only difference would seem to be the amount of carbon available to the plants.

To complete that experiment, I could inject CO2 to the inert substrate tank, but that isn't going to happen. Perhaps I'll start adding some Excel. Either would show the effect of removing the carbon limitation.

Thanks for your response.

Bill


----------



## aquabillpers (Apr 13, 2006)

Homer,

That sounds like a nice tank. I bet it's refreshing to spend a few minutes looking at it after a hectic time in the office.

The plants that you have are slow growing and don't make too many demands. They can get along quite well on the amount of CO2 that is absorbed from the atmosphere, but they would grow faster with more of it.

Bill


----------



## Homer_Simpson (Apr 2, 2007)

aquabillpers said:


> Homer,
> 
> That sounds like a nice tank. I bet it's refreshing to spend a few minutes looking at it after a hectic time in the office.


Absolutely!  It also makes me want to come to work, even on those days when I am not feeling well or need to take a "Mental Health" day off. I always worry about the little guy when I am away, especially when needs to be fed or needs to have his water changed. It is also interesting to watch the fascination and amusement of my client's children who are just awestruck at watching "George"(Lol, I didn't name him. Actually, he was nameless until a co-worker saw him and suggested or should I say "insisted" that I name him George, so he is known as George). Today, I added to the plant load by putting in a petite anubias and moss ball.



aquabillpers said:


> ...the plants that you have are slow growing and don't make too many demands. They can get along quite well on the amount of CO2 that is absorbed from the atmosphere, but they would grow faster with more of it.
> 
> Bill


You won't get an argument from me there. The only point that I was trying to make is that you can still get satisfactory growth using clean gravel and an airstone. I guess it really boils down to your choice of plants and what you consider "satisfactory" growth. Given that I am only using a 2.5 gallon tank, I would much prefer slower than more rapid growth. With anubias, java ferns, and java moss, it has been said that these plants are so slow growing to begin with that you would not notice huge growth gains injecting C02 tank. I believe this to be true as I have a couple of tanks at home with anubias, java fern, and java moss, c02 injection and regular fertilization. They have been up and running for a few months now, and I am not seeing monsterous growth.

Regards


----------



## Emily6 (Feb 14, 2006)

Emily6 said:


> Anything I can do el natural style to help this? The fermenter was to compensate for my previous over-cleaning of the tank (leaving nothing to decompose). Thanks!


 I realize this deviates a little right now but I'm hoping to get it all straight at my own pace. I think I need more fish and more food- I do not wish to keep adding CO2 but it really helps my algae situation. Once I get a little more cash to get more fish, I think I'll be able to back off on the fermenter. 
Also, I have an open-top tank. I got the tank for free and it's an odd size. So I allow the frogbit to cover the top to keep a little light/air out and CO2/fish in. This seems to work out alright and is very attractive. But do you think it's still too much air circulation? I have a weak 30 gal. HOB filter, a small submersible and no air stones.


----------



## Emily6 (Feb 14, 2006)

Ou! I also had a moment to add photos of the tank on my profile.


----------

