Magnifique! Good job man.
-
You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up
Mike's fish room musings
- Thread starter MichaelJ
- Start date
Myrtle
Member
That was definitely my problem 10 years ago when I started in the hobby. The high tech route didn't suit my life, the amount of time I could dedicate to it and the limited knowledge I had (and still have!). There is the impression that you can't have a nice, lush tank without going high tech and I think low tech is still seen as the amateur choice in some parts of the internet, which it definitely isn't!
FISHnLAB
Member
I'm just going to add this link in case you guys haven't found it. I have found it to be informative...Hi @jaypeecee.
Thank you! I could not have done it without all the insightful posts (yours included) that I've read over the years - even way before I signed up here on UKAPS!
Yes, that was a vague blanket statement without going into much details; I am assuming all beneficial bacteria including nitrifying bacteria - chemolithotrophic organisms - and heterotrophs to the extent they are beneficial to my aquatic environment
You might be. There are definitely not a lot here that speak much about ORP, but keep up the work and accumulation of practical experience - the hobby needs it.
Cheers,
Michael
Aquarium Redox Balance | Fish Health | Potential & Reduction | rH
FISHnLAB
Member
Yes, that definitely is the problem a lot of the time I think. That said, one needs to understand that not everyone wants to dedicate a decade or more to one hobby. Life is short and there are just so many fun hobbies to learn and participate in in this world. There is only so much time in the day and so much days in ones life so one has to choose how much they want to limit their life experience.
I think some go high tech just to speed things up so they can make mistakes and learn faster to hopefully achieve their goals at a faster rate. Maybe to achieve success before they loose interest in the hobby and move on to another. This will likely be why I try high tech in addition to trying some hard to grow plants that need CO2 to thrive. Whether or not I achieve success is yet to be seen though...
MichaelJ
Member
MichaelJ
Member
Hi @Myrtle, That would be a limiting factor for me as well. My two 150L low-tech tanks with the simplifications I've made to my maintenance routine over time is just the right amount without me fearing to burn out on the upkeep.
Agreed. The notion that you can't have a nice tank without high tech is of course completely silly. You just have to approach the hobby a little differently, have more patience and accept certain limitations in terms of certain hard-to-grow plant choices.
Cheers,
Michael
FISHnLAB
Member
How long did it take you to figure out the right balance? Did you have to scale back at any time in the hobby from high tech or too many tanks? I ask as I am trying to figure out the right balance too. Right now I'm thinking ultimately a 75L low tech and a 166L high tech. I have definitely learned that running too many projects can become overwhelming.
Definitely, there are plenty of examples of beautiful low tech tanks. I look forward to seeing how nice I can make my new low tech in relation to a future high tech that will be in the same room(Pics incoming... In a long time as I have a lot of learning and saving to do😂). I will say that if I can achieve anything like you have Michael I will be very happy with my efforts👍.
MichaelJ
Member
Hi @FISHnLAB,
I've been in the hobby on and off since the early/mid 80ties. By far the most tanks I've had were larger scarcely planted Cichlid tanks (Rift Valley and mostly large South Americans), medium planted dwarf Cichlid and Discus tanks. The livestock was always the focal point for me and still is. The most tanks I've had up and running at some point back in the late 80'ties/ early 90ties was 4 tanks (~480L, 325L where the biggest)... just too much of a good thing, even though at that time I had a great setup for maintenance and water changes etc. The work, cost etc. just made me eventually burn out on these tanks - too many other things going on in life as well... Sold everything off except the 325L and one of the smaller tanks and took a break from the hobby. Later on I settled with two tanks and randomly throughout the years I've at most had two tanks, but often just one. Mostly medium planted tanks - plants that would often not do well for long, die off and I would buy new... hey, before you laugh, keep in mind this was some 30 years ago. The hobby was just beginning to come out of the stone-age and I couldn't just go on UKAPS and ask Darrel/@dw1305 why my plants are dying or what the deal is with the green fuzzy stuff on my plant leaves
Before I rebooted the hobby some 3 years ago I think I had a 12 year hiatus, which is why it really was a big learning experience for me to setup these tanks as I wanted to go for the rather densely planted setups. My current setup of 2 x 150L is sort of a compromise. I originally wanted slightly smaller tanks, but couldn't get the dimensions that I wanted to match the designated space for the tanks and sort of jumped on an offer from a warehouse sale, but I guessed I could still make it work with water changes and maintenance. From the onset I wanted two more or less identical setup (different livestock but similar/same plants). As a bonus it gives me the option of moving plants around between tanks and possibly livestock.
As we all know, before deciding on tank sizes, it's critical to figure out whether we have the time, stamina and infrastructure to provide for the regular WC's, trimming, dosing etc. I think I found a reasonable balance with my current low-tech setups, but there are always room for tweaks.
I have never done CO2 so I don't have any hands-on experience with the added maintenance it imposes, but I believe it is much, much less forgiven if you for some reason start to slip on WC's and general upkeep or just don't get it right from the start.
Yes, it pays off to study up on your undertaking and factor in cost along the way. This hobby is not cheap, especially if you have to experiment with a lot of different equipment etc. to find the sweet spot.
Thanks. It's definitely my ambition to document my tanks to the extent that anyone with basic skills in the hobby and patience can go replicate it or at least pick up some tidbits of knowledge or inspiration.
Cheers,
Michael
Last edited:
MichaelJ
Member
WC day
Just did a water changes earlier today in both tanks (35%). In the shrimp tank (tank 1), which this update is about, I weeded out frogbit and duckweed, trimmed a few leafs that looked lackluster...cleaned filter sponges... the usual routine...
Took a measurement after dosing traces: 23.2 C (73.7 F), 103 ppm TDS. I also measured my EC for the conductivity-purists - you know who you are!
185 uS/cm. In this tank Pre-WC TDS was 108 ppm and WC water was 95 ppm, so the math checks out fairly well... In any event, I don't try to be more precise than what the underlying uncertainties can justify.
I got "reprimanded" about my N : P dosing by a trusted friend and plant expert, so I changed that up a bit - added a tiny bit more N (Mg(NO3)2) and dialed down the KH2PO4 to get more in line with his recommended 7.5:1 to 10:1 ratio.... I didn't want to make an abrupt change so I opted for a ~5:1 ratio... Whether it makes a difference for a tank like this time will tell... If it works, I'll gradually tweak this a bit further in line with 7.5:1. This change was planned for a while though, just didn't have the opportunity to discuss a more ideal dosing. It didn't move the needle noticeable on my TDS as the slight increase in MgNO3 dosing made up for the decrease in PH2PO4 dosing.
Cheers,
Michael
Just did a water changes earlier today in both tanks (35%). In the shrimp tank (tank 1), which this update is about, I weeded out frogbit and duckweed, trimmed a few leafs that looked lackluster...cleaned filter sponges... the usual routine...
Took a measurement after dosing traces: 23.2 C (73.7 F), 103 ppm TDS. I also measured my EC for the conductivity-purists - you know who you are!
185 uS/cm. In this tank Pre-WC TDS was 108 ppm and WC water was 95 ppm, so the math checks out fairly well... In any event, I don't try to be more precise than what the underlying uncertainties can justify.I got "reprimanded" about my N : P dosing by a trusted friend and plant expert, so I changed that up a bit - added a tiny bit more N (Mg(NO3)2) and dialed down the KH2PO4 to get more in line with his recommended 7.5:1 to 10:1 ratio.... I didn't want to make an abrupt change so I opted for a ~5:1 ratio... Whether it makes a difference for a tank like this time will tell... If it works, I'll gradually tweak this a bit further in line with 7.5:1. This change was planned for a while though, just didn't have the opportunity to discuss a more ideal dosing. It didn't move the needle noticeable on my TDS as the slight increase in MgNO3 dosing made up for the decrease in PH2PO4 dosing.
Cheers,
Michael
Last edited:
FISHnLAB
Member
Yes, we are kind of spoiled now a days.Hi @FISHnLAB,
I've been in the hobby on and off since the early/mid 80ties. By far the most tanks I've had were larger scarcely planted Cichlid tanks (Rift Valley and mostly large South Americans), medium planted dwarf Cichlid and Discus tanks. The livestock was always the focal point for me and still is. The most tanks I've had up and running at some point back in the late 80'ties/ early 90ties was 4 tanks (~480L, 325L where the biggest)... just too much of a good thing, even though at that time I had a great setup for maintenance and water changes etc. The work, cost etc. just made me eventually burn out on these tanks - too many other things going on in life as well... Sold everything off except the 325L and one of the smaller tanks and took a break from the hobby. Later on I settled with two tanks and randomly throughout the years I've at most had two tanks, but often just one. Mostly medium planted tanks - plants that would often not do well for long, die off and I would buy new... hey, before you laugh, keep in mind this was some 30 years ago. The hobby was just beginning to come out of the stone-age and I couldn't just go on UKAPS and ask Darrel/@dw1305 why my plants are dying or what the deal is with the green fuzzy stuff on my plant leaves
Yes, it can quickly become overwhelming if one gets in too deep it seams.
Good info to know👍.
Yes, it sure gets out of hand fast, especially if you want the good stuff. That's why I decided to put off my 90 build until spring and just focus on the 60 for now. I'd rather do it right from the get go even if it takes longer.
Thanks so much for that detailed post Michael. It was super helpful to me particularly as you have been into this for so long(I had no idea). It's quite interesting to hear about others journey's in the hobby too. I'm thinking my final setup will just be the new UNS 60U and a matching UNS 90P or ADA 90-P. It appears two tanks seams to be where many settle...
MichaelJ
Member
Hi @jaypeecee ,
After about 24 hours following the WC of the above tank, I took an ORP reading with the MW500:
After a (long) while the reading stabilize at 285 mV - which according to some sources indicate a healthy tank - albeit at the lower range:
Quote:
| 280-400-mV | represents very good to excellent quality of water, excellent fish health, excellent plant growth, very little algae, although some sensitive plants may show some problems in the upper part of this range. Snails are not very successful at values above 320 mV. |
I will do a reading prior to the next WC to gauge the drift.
I am still quite a bit fuzzy on what to derive from this reading. Thoughts and opinions on this are welcome!
Cheers,
Michael
Last edited:
Wookii
Member
Hi all,
This is my personal take on <"REDOX and ORP">.
cheers Darrel
You should always get <"positive values in the water column">, you really <"need a lot of BOD"> before you don't.
This is the <"Canford Park scenario">, proving that you can have too much of a good thing. Have a look at <"Oxidation-Reduction Potential for water disinfection.... ">
This is my personal take on <"REDOX and ORP">.
cheers Darrel
Hi @MichaelJ
The reading of +285mV is indicating a decent balance between oxidizing and reducing reactions in the water column. As an example, if there was a build-up of dissolved organics, this figure would drop. The extent to which the figure drops would be an indication of TOC*. I aim to keep ORP around +350mV. If organics are not kept in check, the heterotrophic bacteria population grows and consumes precious dissolved oxygen in the process. And this would lower the ORP measurement.
I recommend taking ORP measurements as frequently as is practical for you. Different times of day, lights on, lights off. Before and after addition of ferts, etc. It's a learning process and it satisfies my scientific curiosity. I don't consider myself an 'ORP Expert'.
If there is sufficient interest, I'll pull together some more information on this topic.
*TOC = Total Organic Carbon
JPC
MichaelJ
Member
Hi @jaypeecee ,
One thing that struck me as a bit puzzling was the part about snails @ ~320 mV and above:
I suppose it might be because of less organic waste and the assumption is that waste is the only food source for the snails... unless I overlooked something, I don't think this could be an issue in my tank as I generously feed, without overfeeding, both snails and shrimps.
Thanks a bunch @jaypeecee ... This is very helpful!
Cheers,
Michael
Yes, thats what I figured. Thanks for the confirmation.
I don't think I will ever be able to be as meticulous as you are on the ORP measurements, but I will at least start doing more pre- and post and some in-between WC measurements from now on.
Well, regardless, right now your it!
I think it's a chicken and egg thing, I think it will stir interest if you pull together some information on the topic.
One thing that struck me as a bit puzzling was the part about snails @ ~320 mV and above:
I suppose it might be because of less organic waste and the assumption is that waste is the only food source for the snails... unless I overlooked something, I don't think this could be an issue in my tank as I generously feed, without overfeeding, both snails and shrimps.
Thanks a bunch @jaypeecee ... This is very helpful!
Cheers,
Michael
Last edited:
MichaelJ
Member
Hi all,
It is the same effect we get if we drop <"hydrogen peroxide (H2O2)"> on our skin, or we see with <"moss damage and a Twinstar reactor">.
cheers Darrel
It isn't a food thing, it is the <"too much of a good thing"> effect.
Snails have a large area of unprotected body. This means that the strongly oxidising nature of the water, at these elevated ORP values, begins to damage their body by "frying" their outer cells.
It is the same effect we get if we drop <"hydrogen peroxide (H2O2)"> on our skin, or we see with <"moss damage and a Twinstar reactor">.
cheers Darrel
Last edited:
MichaelJ
Member
Hi Darrel, Of course that makes sense. I didn't think of that quite honestly. I suppose that would apply to other invertebrates such as shrimps as well?
Which makes me think that around 285 mV is not a bad place to be.
Thanks for clarification!
Cheers,
Michael
Hi all,
I'm guessing their should be some ORP values from "Giant Prawn" (Macrobrachium spp.) aquaculture and that Caridina and Neocaridina shrimps will be similar in their response.
I'll see what I can find.*
* this is interesting, via former forum member Marcel G <"Aquarium">
cheers Darrel
I don't know, shrimps would be better protected by their chitin based exoskeleton, but they would still have the issue of damage to the gills.
I'm guessing their should be some ORP values from "Giant Prawn" (Macrobrachium spp.) aquaculture and that Caridina and Neocaridina shrimps will be similar in their response.
I'll see what I can find.*
* this is interesting, via former forum member Marcel G <"Aquarium">
cheers Darrel
