Ive got a question how do you manage to keep giant angel fish with cardinals?
Cheers
They are slow and plenty of hiding spots.
Discus are worse, once the cards get fattened up, we put them in and not much issue.
Shrimp are pretty good, but they are cheap relative to the cost of the tank and other considerations. They hide really well and clean okay.
No algae other than some diatoms of all things about 1 years ago and that was about the only algae issue I've seen so far. We changed the CO2(go figure.......and got some nice equipment to control and monitor the CO2 better, dialed the light down, now it's relatively easy to manage and growth rates are slowed but healthy.
Light and CO2 are the real issue for tanks, not the nutrients so much, but folks focus only where the old advice mentions and where their test kits and LFS tell them. Few use light meters and CO2 meters, but that's where all growth, the rates of growth are determined, not nutrients alone.
CO2 will dramatically affect NO3, PO4 etc if there are plants there............and the proof is clear when you measure these other 2 parameters critically.
We use colorimeters for NO3, PO4, but it's more to check once the plants are doign well, the plants and fish are the real "test kits". That and developing a new model for growing aqutic plants is what I did. Then you go back and try and see what and why, how.
You do not start with a conclusion, then run around trying to fit evidence to your conclusion.
You start with observations, many folks have a wide range of nutrients all over the place...and many of those routines work................others have issues.........so.........just maybe..........it's not the nutrients alone, it's something other than then nutrients causing issues and controlling things?
Common sense would suggest so.
Such as light and CO2, the two most poorly measured parameters that drive growth rates far more than any nutrient might.
Does not matter to me, not one person can tell me that high NO3 or PO4 or some ratio influences algae etc, when this tank has been up and running well for sometime now with those high levels, high fish load, and at such a large scale. That cannot possibly be a correct accepted hypothesis, otherwise if it was..........why don't I have algae? Tank after tank after tank, year after year. Folks do not pay you well to louse their tanks up and cause algae blooms.
You must address those questions to support such and hypothesis. Most say "well, I cannot answer that.... but........." they just ignore that part and wander off on why they mess up and have algae or what they think, not what they critically tested, why they have algae if they dose. sometimes they turn on me personally, which is not the topic one bit. Doesn't make me any pals, but that's not the goal or the topic, the topic is the hypothesis that these folks keep on claiming, "the earth is flat". I suppose if you wanna believe that, but the facts are quite different and not in their favor. It's a basic principle of falsifying something, the same logic is used in law, Critical thinking, writing etc. It does not say why/how you personally screwed something up or not. Just test that dependent variable, nutrient/s. Good testing and monitoring uncovers a lot more than the same old tired methods and cheapo test kits. You measure a nice well run tank, not one that's all messed up, for a control, then treat with high PO4, CO2, NO3 etc one by one and in conjunction. You do not start with assuming everything is fine with an algae covered tank. There are many confounding factors there, but few if any, in a well run tank. Good CO2/light is critical in comparing treatments as well. Most have trouble with those, so they really cannot say that much about nutrients. This is not just about nutrients.
Other folks have stopped over and seen this tank, my tanks, open house meetings etc. So there are no secrets.
I should get a video and post it sometime in the next month or two. That is the best way to see it minus being there.
I'll see.
Regards,
Tom Barr