Would this stocking be compatible?

FishForums.net Pet of the Month
🐶 POTM Poll is Open! 🦎 Click here to Vote! 🐰
The other thing to keep in mind is that you have a pair of rams, and they will be happier if there is nothing in "their" space.
I don't even know. I'm just so..overwhelmed. Is it true that I can't keep them if I am dosing co2? Some guy over on youtube insulted me and called me an ignorant *rear end* because I would kill them if I dosed co2, because there would be pH swings, which they can't survive. Which, either I choose a new centerpiece fish, which there aren't many that I enjoy, or, I completely scrap my idea of growing any carpet plants. Which means a really unique aquascape, and that in a bad way. Then, I am also having a crisis, where I have 35 pounds of rock, and I can't come up with a hardscape. Sorry for ranting..i'm a little wound up. Thanks for helping me out.
 
2x Blue German Rams
5x Crystal Red Shrimp
Umm this wont work.

Crystal Red Shrimp are not Red Cherries and need more care.

The shrimp will become Ram food.

Maybe if you had a heavily planted 6 foot tank like the one in my signature
 
I don't even know. I'm just so..overwhelmed. Is it true that I can't keep them if I am dosing co2? Some guy over on youtube insulted me and called me an ignorant *rear end* because I would kill them if I dosed co2, because there would be pH swings, which they can't survive. Which, either I choose a new centerpiece fish, which there aren't many that I enjoy, or, I completely scrap my idea of growing any carpet plants. Which means a really unique aquascape, and that in a bad way. Then, I am also having a crisis, where I have 35 pounds of rock, and I can't come up with a hardscape. Sorry for ranting..i'm a little wound up. Thanks for helping me out.

I can understand why you're getting frustrated! I hope I can clarify why you're coming across so many potential issues.

There are two main ways of setting up a tank.

You can either decide what size tank you want, and how you want it to look, then choose fish that will be happy in that environment, OR

You can decide what fish you want to keep, then buy a suitable sized tank and set it up to suit them.

What you can't really do, and what you're trying to do, is decide what you want your tank to look like, choose the fish you like and expect them to be compatible.

The fish you like, like the rams and cardinals, come from still backwaters. Think about what that means for their environment. For a start, still waters will be warmer than fast moving ones. The lack of flow means there will be a lot of dead wood and leaf litter. Still waters and ponds don't cause erosion round the banks, so they're likely to be overgrown with trees, and organics from the rotting leaves will tend to make the water dark with tannins; that is why rams and cardinals have those bright, metallic colours; it's so they can see each other through the gloom!

The kind of aquascape you want to do is very open. In nature, that will only happen in relatively fast flowing streams, so that's the kind of fish you want to be looking at; zebra/leopard/pearl danios and white cloud mountain minnows come to mind. They have evolved in those kinds of environments, so won't mind the brighter lights, faster flow and lack of cover, although even they would appreciate some higher planting or a 'bank- like' structure they can hug. Few freshwater fish swim right out in the open; they tend to hug the bottoms and banks as a protective behaviour.

You can keep rams and cardinals without floating plants; but you'd have to have a substitute of some kind for the fish to be happy; I use very tall sagittaria that trails along the surface, as I can't seem to keep floating plants alive!; Bag2.jpg (sorry for the terrible quality of that image, but you can see what I mean!)

I hope that helps a bit :)
 
You can either decide what size tank you want, and how you want it to look, then choose fish that will be happy in that environment, OR

You can decide what fish you want to keep, then buy a suitable sized tank and set it up to suit them.
I think I am going to do fish adapted to the setup I choose, although I'm dumbfounded as to what I want to do.
he kind of aquascape you want to do is very open. In nature, that will only happen in relatively fast flowing streams, so that's the kind of fish you want to be looking at; zebra/leopard/pearl danios and white cloud mountain minnows come to mind. They have evolved in those kinds of environments, so won't mind the brighter lights, faster flow and lack of cover, although even they would appreciate some higher planting or a 'bank- like' structure they can hug.
Okay, thanks for clarifying.
I use very tall sagittaria that trails along the surface, as I can't seem to keep floating plants alive!
I actually really like how you did that! Looks much nicer than duck weed or other floaters.
 
I don't even know. I'm just so..overwhelmed. Is it true that I can't keep them if I am dosing co2? Some guy over on youtube insulted me and called me an ignorant *rear end* because I would kill them if I dosed co2, because there would be pH swings, which they can't survive. Which, either I choose a new centerpiece fish, which there aren't many that I enjoy, or, I completely scrap my idea of growing any carpet plants. Which means a really unique aquascape, and that in a bad way. Then, I am also having a crisis, where I have 35 pounds of rock, and I can't come up with a hardscape. Sorry for ranting..i'm a little wound up. Thanks for helping me out.

Fluttermoth provided a very good response, so I am just going to pick up on the CO2 issue since you raised it. My comments will parallel much of what fluttermoth posted, they are part of the same basic point.

High-tech planted tanks, which means using brighter light, diffused CO2 and daily nutrient supplementation so all of this is balanced for the benefit of the plants, place the emphasis on the plants. Fish are secondary, and in many cases not even present. Aquatic gardens. As soon as you introduce fish into the tank, you are significantly altering the intention--or you should be, if one cares about the fish. Fish first, plants secondary. To be fair to the fish, you can't really have it both ways, though you can somewhat compromise, which is what fluttermoth was referencing with the type of fish.

To the specific issue of CO2. It is now understood that the use of diffused CO2 can have detrimental effects on fish long-term. I was going to post a link to an article that appeared in Practical Fishkeeping a year or so back, but can't find it. Anyway, we all know that overdosing CO2 will poison fish rapidly, and it stands to reason that even low amounts are likely to have some effect on the fish. This is a basic principle of any substance added to an aquarium; it may be necessary (to treat disease for example), but it still does negatively affect fish, so one must use it with caution and only when it is the best solution for the problem.

I now believe that plants in tanks with fish should be able to manage with minimal or no "fertilization," as much as possible. This is one reason I use substrate tabs in order to reduce the amount of liquid fertilizer; substrate tabs like Seachem's Flourish Tabs do not dissolve into the water column so they are not getting inside the fish the way liquid fertilizer does. I do use liquid, but much more sparingly than I once did. It does limit the species of plants one may be able to cultivate, but it is superior husbandry for the fish. And I maintain that as responsible aquarists, we always need to consider the fish first and provide what they expect, or they will not be healthy. And this is proven fact.

While you may not kill the rams with diffused CO2, there is evidence they will be impacted, just as they will be bright light, or cool temperatures. The less impact to fish, the better.
 
High-tech planted tanks, which means using brighter light, diffused CO2 and daily nutrient supplementation so all of this is balanced for the benefit of the plants, place the emphasis on the plants. Fish are secondary, and in many cases not even present.
Okay. Is it possible to get away with having high light but not dosing co2? Would I have an algae outbreak? Would it kill my plants off?
Anyway, we all know that overdosing CO2 will poison fish rapidly, and it stands to reason that even low amounts are likely to have some effect on the fish. This is a basic principle of any substance added to an aquarium; it may be necessary (to treat disease for example), but it still does negatively affect fish, so one must use it with caution and only when it is the best solution for the problem.
Okay.
I now believe that plants in tanks with fish should be able to manage with minimal or no "fertilization," as much as possible. This is one reason I use substrate tabs in order to reduce the amount of liquid fertilizer; substrate tabs like Seachem's Flourish Tabs do not dissolve into the water column so they are not getting inside the fish the way liquid fertilizer does. I do use liquid, but much more sparingly than I once did. It does limit the species of plants one may be able to cultivate, but it is superior husbandry for the fish. And I maintain that as responsible aquarists, we always need to consider the fish first and provide what they expect, or they will not be healthy. And this is proven fact.
I was just thinking about dosing co2, iron, and potassium. What do Flourish Tabs actually do, if they don't dissolve? Have you had good experience using them? Also, is dry-dosing some what harmful to the fish?
While you may not kill the rams with diffused CO2, there is evidence they will be impacted, just as they will be bright light, or cool temperatures. The less impact to fish, the better.
Yes, okay. I'll just setup my tank, cycle it, and dose ammonia until I can put some fish in. Also, I've read different things everywhere. I doubt I'd even be able to keep these, based on my water parameters, but if the substrate/seiryu stone/other factors raise the kH high enough, could I keep a school of Bosemani Rainbow's? My tank is 3ft long, and I've read that they need 4ft to be happy, 2ft to be happy, and multiple other things. I know I can handle them in my bio-load, but I want my fish to be happy. I was thinking about 4-5 of them, alone in the tank.
 
There are a lot of fish websites out there but the majority are written by people who keep fish not fish experts. There is a site written by experts, and that is http://www.seriouslyfish.com/knowledge-base/ This should be the site to look at and ignore the others.

On there you will read that boeseman rainbows need a 48 inch long tank http://www.seriouslyfish.com/species/melanotaenia-boesemani/
Ignore the sites that say they can be kept in smaller. Just because someone keeps these fish in a 2 ft tank does not mean they should be kept in a 2 ft tank. Youtube videos are among the worst for this.
You will also see from that profile that boeseman rainbows need harder water. Adding rocks/substrate to harden the water will not raise your GH from 2 dH to high enough for these fish, I'm afraid.
And we come back to decor again - Seriously Fish comments that they congregate in shallow areas of dense aquatic vegetation.


I will give you an example of what Byron means by fish needing cover. I have a group of Espei's rasboras in my tank - they are close relations of harlequin rasboras. When I first got them I did not have any floating plants and the rasboras huddled in the back corner, hardly venturing out even to feed. I used to have floating plants - Salvinia - but it had all died before getting the rasboras. Then I read Byron's recommendation of water sprite, so I bought some. At first the plants covered only the corner of the tank but the rasboras stopped huddling together and swam about, but only to the edge of the water sprite. The plants multiplied and covered more and more of the surface until they now fill the entire surface. As the plants grew, the rasboras moved further and further away from the corner, but never to any part of the tank where there were no floating plants. Now that the entire surface is covered, they are all over the tank.
You would probably think my tank looks a mess. I used to have all fake plants and only started trying real plants a few years ago so my tank has evolved rather than being planned from the outset. I have lots of wood with plants attached; I have water sprite on the surface; I have stems of hornwort weighted down. But the fish seem to like it, and if they are happy, so am I regardless of what the tank looks like.
I have a fish tank with plants rather than an aquatic garden with fish.
 
There are a lot of fish websites out there but the majority are written by people who keep fish not fish experts. There is a site written by experts, and that is http://www.seriouslyfish.com/knowledge-base/ This should be the site to look at and ignore the others.
Thanks! Really helpful! No more scouring websites that say bettas can be kept in 1gals as they live in puddles in the wild.
Ignore the sites that say they can be kept in smaller. Just because someone keeps these fish in a 2 ft tank does not mean they should be kept in a 2 ft tank. Youtube videos are among the worst for this.
You will also see from that profile that boeseman rainbows need harder water. Adding rocks/substrate to harden the water will not raise your GH from 2 dH to high enough for these fish, I'm afraid.
Thanks, and how much can I expect my hardness to increase? Should I just, cycle the tank then test it? I think it will increase, as I'm using seiryu stone and ADA Aqua Soil Amazonia, both known to leach hardness. It's okay for me though because my water is so soft I can keep like 1% of the 4% of cichlids that could live in my tank. Also, regardless of water parameters, are there any big fish that I can keep in my tank? I want a school of bigger fish, like a dwarf cichlid tank almost. That's why I loved the rainbow fish, at 4" they looked like they belonged in the tank, and well they're just stunning. Any like those, that could fit in a 3' tank?

EDIT: For example a pair of convict cichlids.
 
Last edited:
Essjay has answered your last question in post #21 and I agree totally. To your other questions...

Is it possible to get away with having high light but not dosing co2? Would I have an algae outbreak? Would it kill my plants off?

Another explanation. Aquatic plants need light and nutrients and in an aquarium these have to be in balance for the plants (species and numbers) or algae will become problematical. Plants grow via photosynthesis; if photosynthesis is not able to occur, the plant dies. Light drives photosynthesis, but it must be of sufficient intensity to do this, and different plant species have differing needs when it comes to intensity. Generally, slower-growing plants need less light [just like shade plants in the garden tend to be slower growing than sun plants] while faster-growing plants need brighter light. At the same time the spectrum factors in; aquatic plants need red and blue light to drive photosynthesis, and of these, red is the more important. This is why actinic light and similar marine tank lighting that is high in blue with very little red does not work over freshwater, and LED light tends to be higher in blue though there are exceptions. Adding green to the red and blue has been proven to aid plants; while not needed for photosynthesis, it seems likely that the green adds intensity which does benefit. Plants that are green leaf are reflecting green light, just as red leaf plants reflect red light, so they need more of this light. Also, the sun at mid day is high in red, blue and green. A Kelvin of somewhere in the 5000K to 7000K range seems to provide this; "daylight" tubes/bulbs with 6500K are ideal.

Along wiith the light, nutrients must be available, all 17 of them. Light without sufficient nutrients, or excess nutrients without sufficient light, will advantage algae. Algae is not so fussy as higher plants when it comes to any of this. Over the years, I have seen algae increase with too much light (which can be as subtle as the additional daylight entering the room in summer), too little light, too much fertilizer, and not enough fertilizer. It's all about the balance.

So, having bright light with insufficient nutrients is not going to benefit the plants. Obviously, all of this is general, as we have no absolute specifics; the plant species and numbers factor in, the duration somewhat--longer duration does not make up for insufficient intensity, or the reverse, but on the borderline the duration can matter. I have my tank lights on for 8 hours, but only 7 in the 70g, and this is as long as I can manage or algae increases. If my lighting was brighter, I would not be able to go this long, but it also might be too bright period.

CO2 (carbon) is one nutrient, and a macro-nutrient so it is important. As soon as you add diffused CO2, you must have the light intensity to drive photosynthesis and the other nutrients must be available to the plants, or the additional CO2 will just feed algae. This is the case with light and any of the nutrients. Which leads me to the next question.

I was just thinking about dosing co2, iron, and potassium. What do Flourish Tabs actually do, if they don't dissolve? Have you had good experience using them? Also, is dry-dosing some what harmful to the fish?

Dosing CO2, iron and potassium is not going to benefit plants [beyond a certain point, which again depends upon the plants and other available nutrients which includes the GH (primarily calcium and magnesium)] and may, subject to the fore-going, cause algae issues. All nutrients that plants require can be supplied by fish foods and water changes; but these alone may or may not be sufficient for the plant species and numbers, and then the light intensity factors in too.

If supplementation is required, you have to be careful here too. Plants require nutrients in balance with each other. Too much of one nutrient can cause plants to shut down assimilation of another nutrient. So it is possible to kill plants with too much fertilization, just as with too much light; or with insufficient of either (which is much the same thing, only looked at in reverse).

Nutrients must get into the water in order for plants to assimilate them via roots and leaves. Liquid fertilizers are effective for this, but if you happen to overdose, then algae can take advantage. Substrate tabs can benefit because they do not break down the same way to enter the water column, or so Seachem says of their Flourish Tabs. I cannot explain how this works, but I will honestly say it does seem to be a valid claim. I changed to more substrate tabs (more often) and reduced the liquid fertilizer, and I saw a noticeable decline in algae issues while the plants did respond as well or even better (my very soft water being low in calcium was a good test, and the tabs did solve this without my having to add calcium and magnesium in liquid form). Flourish Tabs, like the Flourish Comprehensive Supplement for the Planted Aquarium both contain all required nutrients [except oxygen, hydrogen and carbon] and in a relative balance according to what botanists say the plants need. Some of the macro nutrients are minimal, because Seachem understand most have these in the water (GH being higher) along with fish foods. Carbon (CO2) will naturally occur, and usually sufficient to balance light if it is not too intense. The other nutrients are fairly easy to add via fertilizers of some sort, and the "comprehensive" ones are best in this situation. I have some planted tanks that need no fertilization, others that do, all depending upon the plant species and numbers, fish load, and light.

In high tech tanks you need more nutrients to balance the more intense light, and this is where dry fertilizers are usually used as they are less expensive and easier to dose in larger volume. The so-called Estimated Index (EI) method became popular several years back; this involves dosing excess nutrients, then doing a weekly major water change to remove any nutrient not utilized. This certainly can work, especially in high-tech systems. But it comes at a cost to fish.

Every substance added to the tank water gets inside the fish. Water is continually entering fish via osmosis through every cell, and via the gills. Fish don't drink because they take in the water this way. So every substance in the water, from water conditioners to plant fertilizers to medications and other additives...all of these get in the fish's bloodstream and internal organs. Obviously in its habitat the fish has none of these. While some of these may kill certain fish, even those that do not are still impacting the homeostasis and metabolism and physiology. So, in the interest of providing better care for healthier fish, we should do everything we can to reduce additives and only use those absolutely essential. This is why I do not recommend EI, or CO2, or bright light.

I'll end this "essay" with one simple example. I have a shoal of Paracheirodon simulans (the false or green neon, very closely related to the cardinal tetra) in my 40g flooded Amazon forest tank, along with a shoal of Nannostomus eques, a shoal of Hyphessobrycon amandae, and a pair of Characidium fasciatum. All these fish are wild caught. Their habitat waters had zero GH and KH, very low TDS (total dissolved solids, another topic), and a pH below 5 depending upon the locale (these fish are not sympatric in most cases but come from very similar waters, including blackwater). What can we assume will occur in these fish if we start dumping fertilizers into the water? One reason I have had some of these individual fish for 8 years and others less (so far) is because my GH and KH are zero, my TDS is extremely low, and the pH is at or below 5. If I started adding just one mineral, calcium, to "benefit" the plants, I risk calcium blockage of the kidneys; this has been proven to occur with cardinal tetras in harder water and it is unlikely that other species from similar habitats will have evolved much differently.
 
Last edited:
Along wiith the light, nutrients must be available, all 17 of them. Light without sufficient nutrients, or excess nutrients without sufficient light, will advantage algae. Algae is not so fussy as higher plants when it comes to any of this. Over the years, I have seen algae increase with too much light (which can be as subtle as the additional daylight entering the room in summer), too little light, too much fertilizer, and not enough fertilizer. It's all about the balance.
How do we go about "balancing" the aquarium? Is there a calculator I can use, or is it like, the amount you feed your fish, you kind of get the feel of it over time. What are the 17 nutrients? I know carbon dioxide, iron, potassium(acidic I think), and obviously the main nutrients anything really needs to live. How are plants in nature exposed to these minerals? *Besides supplements provided by nutrient rich soil beds. Surface disruption?
So, having bright light with insufficient nutrients is not going to benefit the plants. Obviously, all of this is general, as we have no absolute specifics; the plant species and numbers factor in, the duration somewhat--longer duration does not make up for insufficient intensity, or the reverse, but on the borderline the duration can matter.
How can I reduce lighting, do I have to use tint? How do I know if I have too much lighting? Is there a way of measurement? Does a plenum work to help balance the aquarium?
Dosing CO2, iron and potassium is not going to benefit plants [beyond a certain point, which again depends upon the plants and other available nutrients which includes the GH (primarily calcium and magnesium)] and may, subject to the fore-going, cause algae issues. All nutrients that plants require can be supplied by fish foods and water changes; but these alone may or may not be sufficient for the plant species and numbers, and then the light intensity factors in too.
Why wouldn't iron/potassium still benefit the plants? Why would the cyanobacteria/algae be the only ones benefiting, assuming it is already balanced.
In high tech tanks you need more nutrients to balance the more intense light, and this is where dry fertilizers are usually used as they are less expensive and easier to dose in larger volume. The so-called Estimated Index (EI) method became popular several years back; this involves dosing excess nutrients, then doing a weekly major water change to remove any nutrient not utilized. This certainly can work, especially in high-tech systems. But it comes at a cost to fish.
I wasn't really talking about using the Estimative Index. I was trying to use a nutrient calculator, called "Rotala Butterfly," using the "Dose to reach a target." method. I don't really fully understand it though.
So, in the interest of providing better care for healthier fish, we should do everything we can to reduce additives and only use those absolutely essential. This is why I do not recommend EI, or CO2, or bright light.
What additives are essential? Is bright light directly harmful to the fish, even with floaters? Thanks for all the help, I truly appreciate it. Is KNO3 useful at all?
 
Last edited:
How do we go about "balancing" the aquarium? Is there a calculator I can use, or is it like, the amount you feed your fish, you kind of get the feel of it over time. What are the 17 nutrients? I know carbon dioxide, iron, potassium(acidic I think), and obviously the main nutrients anything really needs to live. How are plants in nature exposed to these minerals? *Besides supplements provided by nutrient rich soil beds. Surface disruption?

There is no calculator, because there are many factors. This is just another example of why "calculators" really don't work well, whether they are fish load calculators or plant nutrient/light.

The factors that affect balance for plant light/nutrients: Plant species, plant density, fish load and feeding, light intensity/spectrum (duration somewhat), GH of source water, water changes, filter and tank maintenance. Taking just the latter item for an example--if you are an aquarist who thoroughly vacuums the substrate every water change, you are removing the prime source of CO2 for plants. Everything is related in an aquarium, which is an artificial enclosed system that functions according to natural laws that we cannot alter but only accept, understand, and work with and not against.

The response of the plants (and algae) are how you assess the balance. If the plants are growing, you are probably providing the balance. If algae is increasing, something is out of balance, which can be too much or too little of light or one nutrient. This can be as simple as a fluorescent tube wearing out; T8 and T5 tubes wear out long before they burn out, and should be replaced roughly every 12-15 months, by which time their intensity is so low the plants are likely struggling--and algae usually begins to appear.

Tom Barr says that you should decide on the lighting, then starting from zero add nutrients up to the point where they are in balance. Many start with excessive nutrients and encounter incredible algae problems, which are not always easy to pin down and correct. I have found over the past few years that I was definitely over-dosing nutrients. But it can take experience and trial and error. But keep those poor fish in mind throughout.

Macro-nutrients: calcium, carbon, hydrogen, magnesium, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, potassium and sulphur.

Micro-nutrients: boron, iron, chlorine, nickel, copper, manganese, molybdenum and zinc.

Some of the micros will come in fish food and natural decomposition; carbon also, and of course water, hydrogen and oxygen should not be problematical. The GH is calcium and magnesium.

In nature, things are different. No where in nature will you see anything even remotely close to what most "expect" in a planted aquarium. One or at most two maybe three plant species in the entire habitat watercourse. Or more often, no aquatic plants at all. Plants are known to release inhibitors against some other plants. This has not been studied well, but there are a few examples in the literature which slip my mind at the moment. The light in most tropical watercourses is no where near sufficient for aquatic plants, which is why floating tend to dominate, though many watercourses cannot support even those due to the forest canopy and/or marginal vegetation. Nutrients primarily occur in the substrate, at least those taken up by roots. Nutrients do occur in the water, from organics, and most tropical streams are heavy with organics. Blackwater the best example.

Floating plants have a big advantage--what we term the aerial advantage. Leaves at the surface can assimilate CO2 from the air rather than the water, and this is about four times more rapid. Another reason floating plants in the aquarium are so beneficial; they never have a shortage of CO2, so their rapid growth habit serves as an ammonia sink, but not just ammonia, other substances as well.

How can I reduce lighting, do I have to use tint? How do I know if I have too much lighting? Is there a way of measurement? Does a plenum work to help balance the aquarium?

You start by acquiring the lighting you need for what you intend. Light is the prime factor in all this, as I hope I explained previously, as it drives photosynthesis. But plant needs vary.

I'm not good with lighting technical aspects. We used to be able to use watts per gallon, but no longer, as "watts" is only the amount of energy needed and bears no direct relation to intensity unless you are comparing identical bulbs/tubes. I have used T8 fluorescent lighting (and incandescent, now CFL spiral bulbs on my small tanks) since the 1980's so I know what to expect. I want moderate or low light for the sake of my fish, and this provides it. So I select plants that will thrive with this, and add nutrients according to how they respond.

Why wouldn't iron/potassium still benefit the plants? Why would the cyanobacteria/algae be the only ones benefiting, assuming it is already balanced.

Adding iron and potassium will only help if everything else is already present, in sufficient or near-sufficient levels. I mentioned problems with excess of some nutrients. Some plants can store excess nutrients to a degree, some cannot; if the nutrient exceeds even this additional storage level, it can become toxic and harm if not kill the plant--solely because there is too much of something. Excesses of copper, manganese or zinc can induce iron deficiency in some plants. It is not always easy to spot the problem. A calcium deficiency for example causes plants to develop an iron excess, where iron is used by the plant in place of the missing copper, and brown spots slowly kill the leaves. Iron kills cells, destroys proteins, and whatever else when it is toxic.

What additives are essential? Is bright light directly harmful to the fish, even with floaters? Thanks for all the help, I truly appreciate it.

Dechlorinator is essential for most of us with chlorine (or chloramine) in the tap water. So we use this, but no more than necessary, because it is the safer option; not using it means immediately dead fish from chlorine.

Species of fish, like species of plants, differ in their response to light. Floating plants definitely make life easier for the fish; their response I have mentioned, and essjay's observation, are not isolated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hyr
The problem is, is that I have to dose co2. In order to keep my aquarium balanced, I have to. With strong lights, that are just about equivalent to a Kessil Amazon Sun, (I am pretty sure) I need to, to prevent algae outbreaks. Now I could limit my lighting to 6 hours a day, but that's illogical. Is there anyway I could prevent co2 poisoning? For example, only dose during the day, moderately, maintaining about 15ppm or mg/L. To maintain this, I must account for surface disruption, fish respiration, and fish food, correct? This would also lower my pH, making it slightly acidic, as my tap is neutral. Would my pH swing, and if so, could it disturb, or even kill the fish?
Thanks, Hyr. You've been a great help! EDIT: It's also possible I may not have to dose co2. This all depends on my water parameters after I setup the tank. I just want to maintain a sufficient mg/L of various nutrients.
 
Last edited:
that are just about equivalent to a Kessil Amazon Sun, (I am pretty sure) I need to, to prevent algae outbreaks. Now I could limit my lighting to 6 hours a day, but that's illogical. Is there anyway I could prevent co2 poisoning? For example, only dose during the day, moderately, maintaining about 15ppm or mg/L. To maintain this, I must account for surface disruption, fish respiration, and fish food, correct? This would also lower my pH, making it slightly acidic, as my tap is neutral. Would my pH swing, and if so, could it disturb, or even kill the fish?

This one?
No idea as I have never used CO2, I once looked into it and decided it has no place in my fishtanks because its un natural and dangerous.
 

Most reactions

trending

Staff online

Back
Top