Just My Bad Luck Or Potential Advice To Noobs ?

[SlyT]

All,

I am in the process of cycling my tank and my experience may show I have done something wrong, or alternatively be a lesson to others.

I have put quite a lot of plants in my tank (about £70 worth). It has been mentioned in the forums that you can cycle a tank as normal if its planted, which is what I have been doing, i.e. using 4ppm of ammonia to force the growth of the ammonia -> nitrite bacteria.

What I have found is that many of the plants are being burned or killed off by the high levels of ammonia. As a result all of the grasses along the back of my tank look dead. In addition a few of my mid and foreground plants also look they might be dead also.

Whilst nitrites are now present, my ammonia levels are still around 4ppm, this is without me adding any more ammonia to the tank. I assume this is due to the decomposition of the plant matter. With nitrites off the chart now, the levels of ammonia being produced by the tank itself must now be very high.

Either I am suffering poor luck, or alternatively the advice should be that you should not add such high levels of ammonia at the outset to your tank. In retrospect, I believe that the levels of ammonia should be built up gradually in line with the bacteria development. Initially a dose of 1-2ppm of amonia should be added and no more until the tank has cleared this completely. Once the tank can clear the ammonia in 36-24 hours should you build up to 3ppm and then 4ppm. This would reduce the risk of killing off your plants.

I would be grateful for others comments or experience, however bear in mind that I have 3 buckets of substrate, and have been feeding the plants with fertilizer and liquid carbon. I cannot believe I have under provided for the plants and can only deduce that the high levels of ammonia have been too much for them.

Alex

PS I am happy to post some shots of the plants if others are interested. Also if there is any chance the plants are not dead, and it is just the leaves that are burnt, I would also be grateful for comment as I am not relishing the replanting of much of the tank.

A

 

[WILDER]

Bump

Try posting here aswell.
http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?showforum=10

 

[SlyT]

Bump

Try posting here aswell.
[URL="http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?showforum=10"]http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?showforum=10[/URL]

Thanks Wilder, I have posted on the Plants and Planted Tanks forum, hopefully some others may not suffer the same fate as I did.

Alex

[URL="http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?showtopic=288841"]http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?showtopic=288841[/URL]

 

[waterdrop]

Its not the ammonia Alex, its just the first lesson round about how hard plants are. Even with the extra effort you put in by using liquid carbon and ferts, plants are just quite a bit more difficult to "learn." Its extremely hard to be sure of getting them right in the first few rounds of trying I feel. Hang in there though and you'll eventually tease out what your problem is!

~~waterdrop~~

 

[aaronnorth]

Its not the ammonia Alex, its just the first lesson round about how hard plants are. Even with the extra effort you put in by using liquid carbon and ferts, plants are just quite a bit more difficult to "learn." Its extremely hard to be sure of getting them right in the first few rounds of trying I feel. Hang in there though and you'll eventually tease out what your problem is!

~~waterdrop~~

ammonia can be toxic to plants at high levels.

plants... hard... you just need to choose the correct species!! lol. He does have some non-aquatics as seen in his other thread.

 

[gaz gun man]

hello Alex

yeah pictures would definately help, we might be able to I.D your plants, as some are easier to grow than others.

 

[waterdrop]

Its not the ammonia Alex, its just the first lesson round about how hard plants are. Even with the extra effort you put in by using liquid carbon and ferts, plants are just quite a bit more difficult to "learn." Its extremely hard to be sure of getting them right in the first few rounds of trying I feel. Hang in there though and you'll eventually tease out what your problem is!

~~waterdrop~~

ammonia can be toxic to plants at high levels.

<...>

Aaron,
Do you feel that the 5ppm concentration of fishless cycling would have been the main thing that killed his plants?

~~waterdrop~~

 

[aaronnorth]

IMO yes, or it could be just emersed growth dieing off, more info is given on this thread:
http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?showtopic=288841

looking at the pictures, almost all the plants are brown.

three fingers thinks it might be down to liquid carbon dosing, or the acidic water but it shouldnt affect the other plants aswell.

 

[waterdrop]

Yes, now I've seen the thread you've linked in the planted section.

Aaron,

Are you saying you feel the whole Fishless Cycling thing is a mis-guided approach for community tank beginners that was brought about by hobbyists more focused on fish than on plants? Being only a "one year and a half or so Re-Beginner" in the hobby I don't really feel too qualified to be able to judge how broadly the fishless cycling technique should be applied.

For instance, for discussion's sake, let's divide freshwater startups into 3 categories: Plantless tanks (fish, no plants); Community-beginner tanks (fish, few to medium number of plants); Planted tanks (low fish stocking, heavily planted).

The establishment of a mature biofilter via fishless cycling seems like a clear-cut "good thing" in the the first case of the "Plantless Tank," right? At the other extreme of the "Planted Tank" we might be very comfortable introducing a few fish to "Fish-In" cycle in the heavily planted environment, knowing that few water changes will be needed to keep them safe and that the biofilter will eventually establish itself, alongside the plants.

That leaves the "Community-beginner" mixed sort of setup that is a mystery. Should we fishless cycle it or should we avoid allowing it to be like that and instead push for a much greater number of plants to be established?

In fact, it makes me go off on a rather roundabout set of thoughts. The old problem with the LFS not being able to sustain a business model if they bothered to mess with fishless cycling information is one thing, but what if the entire middle avenue of the hobby, the so-called "community-beginner" tank that has lots of fish and a medium or less number of plants is really just "not a good thing!" I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just trying to "think out loud" about the different "approaches" of the hobby. Just because something is widely done or widely written about doesn't mean its right. Perhaps all tanks should either be plantless or should be planted tanks (!??)

Sure would be interesting to hear various members thoughts (assuming they're able to follow my ramblings... sorry, LOL!)

~~waterdrop~~

 

[aaronnorth]

Are you saying you feel the whole Fishless Cycling thing is a mis-guided approach for community tank beginners that was brought about by hobbyists more focused on fish than on plants? Being only a "one year and a half or so Re-Beginner" in the hobby I don't really feel too qualified to be able to judge how broadly the fishless cycling technique should be applied.

i havent had much experience either (nearly 4yrs) and out of 7 tanks i have never fishless cycled. of course for many people the fishless cycling was brought about primarily being for fish, and plants can be added as an after thought. I dont see the point in adding plants when fishless cyling anyway (From now on i shall call it 'FC' lol). for one there is always the risk of algae, adding plants only to watch them being detroyed is pretty disheartening, and even algae in itself can be. It also creates doubt in yourself, and you question your ability to grow plants, and it isnt always your fault. Especialy when you buy non-aquatics because you know no better. which is why i said this earlier:

"plants... hard... you just need to choose the correct species!!"

going slightly off here but snowflake? recently setup a tank with a few simple plants and a decent fert and everything is ticking over nicely.

The establishment of a mature biofilter via fishless cycling seems like a clear-cut "good thing" in the the first case of the "Plantless Tank," right? At the other extreme of the "Planted Tank" we might be very comfortable introducing a few fish to "Fish-In" cycle in the heavily planted environment, knowing that few water changes will be needed to keep them safe and that the biofilter will eventually establish itself, alongside the plants.

That leaves the "Community-beginner" mixed sort of setup that is a mystery. Should we fishless cycle it or should we avoid allowing it to be like that and instead push for a much greater number of plants to be established?

i would always go for more plants when in that situation. They are dead cheap. about 10 stems of egeria densa (pond weed) costs £1. Buy a few and leave them floating in the tank, or even get some hygrophillia which IME has even quicker growth. slightly dearer, but still worth it by floating them they block out some of the light aswell.

it also depends on stocking though.
a communtiy-beginner setup would highly depend on stocking. It is ok to have a medium amount of plants, if you stock carefully. Adding a few neons wont hurt, but then adding a few larger rainbows may just push the ammonia level a bit too high for the plants to cope. Hence why we suggest a minimum of 75% substrate coverage, as it *should* cover any problems!

In fact, it makes me go off on a rather roundabout set of thoughts. The old problem with the LFS not being able to sustain a business model if they bothered to mess with fishless cycling information is one thing, but what if the entire middle avenue of the hobby, the so-called "community-beginner" tank that has lots of fish and a medium or less number of plants is really just "not a good thing!" I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just trying to "think out loud" about the different "approaches" of the hobby. Just because something is widely done or widely written about doesn't mean its right. Perhaps all tanks should either be plantless or should be planted tanks (!??)

Sure would be interesting to hear various members thoughts (assuming they're able to follow my ramblings... sorry, LOL!)

interesting question, if any communtiy-beginner tanks do crop up, then the staff would have to make a decision. sell more plants, advise on stocking levels, or reccomend fishless cycling,
it isnt too hard to get around these problems when you know.

 

[waterdrop]

Whenever I get in discussions like this it does make me feel it might be better to strengthen our advice here in the beginner section to urge beginners who are going to fishless cycle to either do it with a bare/darkened tank method or else to push it up to above 70% substrate coverage level if they want to have plants in there during the fishless cycle.

As an aside Aaron (yes, yet another aside, lol) I've become really interested lately in yet another thought about the differences between tanks that "are up to speed" in major planted equipment (ie. lighting has been thought about and adjusted, pressurized CO2 delivered to tank and water movement is removing dead pockets, stuff like that) and how they might be "more indifferent" so to speak, to, say, pH and hardness, like I was talking about earlier.

A lot of this comes from thoughts while reading Diana's book (which I'm sure you've read too) and thinking about these low-tech tanks she does with soil substrate and slower growth. I just have got into this thing of wondering whether a "slow" tank like this might exhibit much more "sensitivity" to a number of other parameters like hardness and pH and perhaps other things, whereas when the plants have enough carbon and light to be charging ahead at "full steam" then one just doesn't see these kinds of sensitivities as much?

Am I communicating that enough? Kind of like there are added problems that come into play when the -rate- of growth is slowed and its not more of a high-tech-pushed growth situation.

WD

 

[OldMan47]

I love my tank that I run on Diana's basic principles. It does not grow plants as quickly as my higher tech tanks but I never have to deal with a CO2 crisis in that tank either. The plants grow and thrive while the fish try their best to reproduce to levels that the plants can't support. I do give in to an extent and run a sponge filter on the tank rather than just the power heads but I think that one small variation gives me a measure of insurance against overpopulation compared to the number of plants. The substrate in that tank is well over 70% covered with plants and the surface has a nice crop of duckweed on it as well. I do have the need to do a water change 3 times a year but tank maintenance on that tank is almost an afterthought. Daily heavy feeding makes the fish grow fat and happy and keeps the plants growing nicely.

 

[waterdrop]

OM47, what do you think about Diana's discussion about hardness and pH on pp. 112 to 118? That's the bit that I was thinking about in my thing above with Aaron. I kept noticing that lots of the UK members who were newly cycling would report (and post pics) that their plants were doing "great", despite them knowing nothing about CO2 or having begun to use fertilizers or substrates but it seemed like a lot of them had hard water and high pH. In contrast, I kept noticing that lots of the fishless cyclers who were suffering big slow-downs in their cycle due to the pH dropping way down usually had pretty acid water and were often the same ones reporting that all their plants went brown and died quickly. Then later, when I was reading this portion of her book it just "struck a nerve."

I started wondering if hardness and pH perhaps had a significant effect on growing plants in a low-tech situation but kind of disappeared as a factor when doing high tech, since the members on our planted forum have seemed pretty convinced that hardness and pH are -not- a factor to be concerned about.

~~waterdrop~~

 

[aaronnorth]

Whenever I get in discussions like this it does make me feel it might be better to strengthen our advice here in the beginner section to urge beginners who are going to fishless cycle to either do it with a bare/darkened tank method or else to push it up to above 70% substrate coverage level if they want to have plants in there during the fishless cycle.

As an aside Aaron (yes, yet another aside, lol) I've become really interested lately in yet another thought about the differences between tanks that "are up to speed" in major planted equipment (ie. lighting has been thought about and adjusted, pressurized CO2 delivered to tank and water movement is removing dead pockets, stuff like that) and how they might be "more indifferent" so to speak, to, say, pH and hardness, like I was talking about earlier.

A lot of this comes from thoughts while reading Diana's book (which I'm sure you've read too) and thinking about these low-tech tanks she does with soil substrate and slower growth. I just have got into this thing of wondering whether a "slow" tank like this might exhibit much more "sensitivity" to a number of other parameters like hardness and pH and perhaps other things, whereas when the plants have enough carbon and light to be charging ahead at "full steam" then one just doesn't see these kinds of sensitivities as much?

Am I communicating that enough? Kind of like there are added problems that come into play when the -rate- of growth is slowed and its not more of a high-tech-pushed growth situation.

WD

yes, when light is the limting factor, therfore slower growth, it does take plants a lot longer to adapt, as they cannot get the sufficient energy needed to go at 'full speed.' It is the same when you introduce new plants which have been grown emerged, it can take up to 2 months IME for them to completley die off and reproduce new leaves again.

I started wondering if hardness and pH perhaps had a significant effect on growing plants in a low-tech situation but kind of disappeared as a factor when doing high tech, .

Of course it dissapears, as soon as you move into the "high tech zone" plants have it easy so to speak. Everything is supplied in none-limiting amounts so optimum growth is achieved, they do not have to worry about about carbon shortages,

since the members on our planted forum have seemed pretty convinced that hardness and pH are -not- a factor to be concerned about

they aren't, depending on other factors (mainly light). Like you say they dissapear as soon as you go into a high tech system. In low tech tanks adaptation is much slower, however algae is much quicker to pounce on these opportunities.
I, along with other people, have grown plants in low & high tech, soft & hard, acidic & alkaline waters.

so you belive that soft & acidic water in a low tech tank is more of a problem? Taking the El Natural approach, you do water changes every 6months or so, in the meantime acidic substances are building up slowly turning the waters pH lower (like old tank syndrome), co couple this with KH it *should* be a recipe for disaster. I dont know OM47's water parameters but i am pretty sure out of all the people who have tried this technique someone will have a low KH

i shall have alook around to see if i can finad any info!.

 

[aaronnorth]

just found this which gives a more scientific background on pH and plants:
http/ukaps.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=37&...w=unread#p68267