OP
OP
angelfishguy
Fish Addict
looking on ebay there are cheaper ones but they say wave makers, so im guessing thats for marine but would it work for what i need it to do?
Tpn+ Overdosing
- Thread starter angelfishguy
- Start date
looking on ebay there are cheaper ones but they say wave makers, so im guessing thats for marine but would it work for what i need it to do?
they are the same thing, however they do make ones that rotate and reverse the motion, and to my understanding they are a bit bigger than Koralias. I have never used one, i have only ever used Koralias and they are great.
OP
OP
angelfishguy
Fish Addict
not having as much money as we would like(billions lol)
will have to go for something cheaper.
what do you think about this
As an eBay Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
thats 5000lph! you already have 3000lph coming from your internals, 8000lph gives you about 17/18 give or take times turnover in your tank. The only thing you will have to watch is the fish, you don't want a whirlpool. I would be tempted at seeing if they did a 3000lph, i don't know what the others think...
OP
OP
angelfishguy
Fish Addict
the filters are
eheim classic 2217
fluval u4
and an un-named brand one that says its 1000/lph
so should i look for one thats about 3000/lph
which would be giving me about 15 turnover?
to tell you the truth i dont think the filters are actually turning over that much water
The filters won't be turning over that much, due to media, but we'd go by manufacturers guidlines. As you'd know e aim for 10 times min, this ables nutrients and c02 to be distributed well throughout the tank. I would probably have a look at a 3000lph or 2 1500 lph and angle them accordingly
SuperColey1
Planted Section
I'm a little in the dark here as I don't know your exact setup. lol
Can you remind us of the following:
Tank size, lighting type (CF, linear, MH etc), lighting wattage.
With the filters you say there are 3 @ 1000lph. Can I ask why there are 3 and not 1 x 3000lph? Are they all linked into the hose? If not where are the 3 intakes/outakes positioned? (Diagram would be nice)
From the pictures on this page, it looks to me like a substrate problem. I see in the close up of the sand a dark patch. I am guessing a rock used to be sat there!!!
Cyano (BGA/green slime) would suggest to me that it is a dirty substrate problem. It shouldn't matter in a non CO2 tank that there is poop or detritus on the substrate. Mine gets zero cleaning.
Other things I notice is that there are not many plants in there. It is mainly hardscape and whilst that is fine, you can't really adapt the tank to planted conditions until there is a large amount of planted area and/or attached plants (anubias ferns etc)
It is the high colume of plants that counteract the algae problems in essence. Some good fast root growers like Crypts would help alleviate any substrate problems as they will suck in the cr*p from underneath and also bring O into the substrate whilst making sure that the substrate doesn't get too compacted.
As for lighting levels if it is truly 1WPG then these problems shouldn't be appearing. Similarly for the amount of plants to the ratio of fish I see in there you shouldn't be needing to add ferts daily. Maybe a little top up of KNO3 and nothing else every few weeks or so.
As for flow in a heavily planted CO2 enriched, fertilised tank (any level of light) I would suggest that 17x is fine. Might sound a lot but less than I used to use and a lot less than many use (some use 30x and more) Far from it being a problem to the fish and plants the fish tend to have quiet periods away from the flow and 'fun' periods where they deliberately go to the high flow. Call it exercise if you like or call it playtime.
However in a non CO2, non fert, low light tank then not so much energy is needed as the uptake is lower and therefore you aren't fighting to push the nutrients and C into the whole tank. It builds and falls naturally and shouldn't be too much of a problem.
I currently use an Eheim 2224 (700lph) in my 125ltr so 5.6x flow. No algae problems. When it was CO2/fert enriched I used 17.6x and that was most definately needed.
I'll take a look at the reply later
AC
Can you remind us of the following:
Tank size, lighting type (CF, linear, MH etc), lighting wattage.
With the filters you say there are 3 @ 1000lph. Can I ask why there are 3 and not 1 x 3000lph? Are they all linked into the hose? If not where are the 3 intakes/outakes positioned? (Diagram would be nice)
From the pictures on this page, it looks to me like a substrate problem. I see in the close up of the sand a dark patch. I am guessing a rock used to be sat there!!!
Cyano (BGA/green slime) would suggest to me that it is a dirty substrate problem. It shouldn't matter in a non CO2 tank that there is poop or detritus on the substrate. Mine gets zero cleaning.
Other things I notice is that there are not many plants in there. It is mainly hardscape and whilst that is fine, you can't really adapt the tank to planted conditions until there is a large amount of planted area and/or attached plants (anubias ferns etc)
It is the high colume of plants that counteract the algae problems in essence. Some good fast root growers like Crypts would help alleviate any substrate problems as they will suck in the cr*p from underneath and also bring O into the substrate whilst making sure that the substrate doesn't get too compacted.
As for lighting levels if it is truly 1WPG then these problems shouldn't be appearing. Similarly for the amount of plants to the ratio of fish I see in there you shouldn't be needing to add ferts daily. Maybe a little top up of KNO3 and nothing else every few weeks or so.
As for flow in a heavily planted CO2 enriched, fertilised tank (any level of light) I would suggest that 17x is fine. Might sound a lot but less than I used to use and a lot less than many use (some use 30x and more) Far from it being a problem to the fish and plants the fish tend to have quiet periods away from the flow and 'fun' periods where they deliberately go to the high flow. Call it exercise if you like or call it playtime.
However in a non CO2, non fert, low light tank then not so much energy is needed as the uptake is lower and therefore you aren't fighting to push the nutrients and C into the whole tank. It builds and falls naturally and shouldn't be too much of a problem.
I currently use an Eheim 2224 (700lph) in my 125ltr so 5.6x flow. No algae problems. When it was CO2/fert enriched I used 17.6x and that was most definately needed.
I'll take a look at the reply later
AC
OP
OP
angelfishguy
Fish Addict
I'm a little in the dark here as I don't know your exact setup. lol
Can you remind us of the following:
Tank size, lighting type (CF, linear, MH etc), lighting wattage.
With the filters you say there are 3 @ 1000lph. Can I ask why there are 3 and not 1 x 3000lph? Are they all linked into the hose? If not where are the 3 intakes/outakes positioned? (Diagram would be nice)
From the pictures on this page, it looks to me like a substrate problem. I see in the close up of the sand a dark patch. I am guessing a rock used to be sat there!!!
Cyano (BGA/green slime) would suggest to me that it is a dirty substrate problem. It shouldn't matter in a non CO2 tank that there is poop or detritus on the substrate. Mine gets zero cleaning.
Other things I notice is that there are not many plants in there. It is mainly hardscape and whilst that is fine, you can't really adapt the tank to planted conditions until there is a large amount of planted area and/or attached plants (anubias ferns etc)
It is the high colume of plants that counteract the algae problems in essence. Some good fast root growers like Crypts would help alleviate any substrate problems as they will suck in the cr*p from underneath and also bring O into the substrate whilst making sure that the substrate doesn't get too compacted.
As for lighting levels if it is truly 1WPG then these problems shouldn't be appearing. Similarly for the amount of plants to the ratio of fish I see in there you shouldn't be needing to add ferts daily. Maybe a little top up of KNO3 and nothing else every few weeks or so.
As for flow in a heavily planted CO2 enriched, fertilised tank (any level of light) I would suggest that 17x is fine. Might sound a lot but less than I used to use and a lot less than many use (some use 30x and more) Far from it being a problem to the fish and plants the fish tend to have quiet periods away from the flow and 'fun' periods where they deliberately go to the high flow. Call it exercise if you like or call it playtime.
However in a non CO2, non fert, low light tank then not so much energy is needed as the uptake is lower and therefore you aren't fighting to push the nutrients and C into the whole tank. It builds and falls naturally and shouldn't be too much of a problem.
I currently use an Eheim 2224 (700lph) in my 125ltr so 5.6x flow. No algae problems. When it was CO2/fert enriched I used 17.6x and that was most definately needed.
I'll take a look at the reply later
AC
ok dont know where to start replying lol..
the patch of algea didnt have a rock there.
the sand is only 2 weeks old.
tank is 412ltrs
lighting type..not too sure all i know is that they are arcadia 54wt etra high output x2
filters.. there are 3 seperate non conecting filters 2 internal 1 external(ill try draw a diagram)
plants.. we only just moved house so we dumped most of the plants that were covered in algea(orderd the fish house collection from java so there will be plenty of plants in soon)
powerhead..should we go for the 5000ltr/ph or a 3000ltr/ph?
think that might of been everything lol
OP
OP
angelfishguy
Fish Addict
ok im guessing you wont be able to understand this lol
its a veiw from the top lol
its a veiw from the top lol
SuperColey1
Planted Section
Looking at the diagram the spraybar is on the left and the internals underneath?
If so I would put 1 internal in the front right corner to move the water in a more circular motion. See if that gets some movement. Its a big tank so a long way for the filters to push along from that side I think Radar is right in it being flow related but with non CO2 I don't think you need any more 'energy' in the tank r.e. distribution levels. I think you can just improve the way you currently have it. The Eheim intake should be next to the spraybar on the left. You are currently pushing water from the filter to the right, then it hits the glass and goes downward and then it goes back to the filter. You should always have inlet and outlet at the same end so the water that exits the filter near the water surface has to go away and then return to the same end. (circular motion, Circulation )
You have T5HO tubes I assume and whilst only just over 1WPG t5HO are quite intense. They penetrate very well and therefore you may have patches of the tank that get intense light directly under the tube whereas at an angle not so intense. I don't mean dark patches and light patches. We are talking actual light rather than brightness so it may appear pretty even light to our eyes.
The pictures you show of staghorn in the pictures above are normally the first algae to appear when the light is high and CO2 unstable. By light being high they nearly always appear close to the tube and the higher up the tank the worse it gets. By CO2 being unstable I mean that it is a young tank, the substrate is not yet creating CO2, water changes are bringing in CO2 from the tap water etc.
There's not much you can do r.e. the lighting unless you want to totally retrofit it with less intense tubes. It shouldn't need it though. Even with them being T5HO it is within the realms of non CO2 injection territory. They do look bright in those pics of the tank though
What I would suggest is to alleviate the problems would be:
Decrease the photoperiod to 5 or 6 hours total
Stop fertilising until the new plants arrive, you're adding nutrient to already existing nutrient (from the fish waste etc) and there aren't enough plants to counter the algae threat. You basically have good conditions for algae to succeed. A full heavily planted setup will have a better chance. You may need to dose some ferts after they arrive dependent on the plants. They will tell you.
When the plants arrive I would personally (and it is a pain but should be worth it.) remove all the hardscape and give it all a good scrub. Remove fish. Get something like a pencil (or a finger ) and gently stir the whole of the sand part of the substrate (if there is a planted substrate below then you don't want to be moving that around too much.) Then remove 2 thirds of water which will take out 2 thirds of the nasties (including algae spores) that are in the water. Throw that water away. Gently gravel vac the substrate.
Reset Hardscape, add in the new plants, refill and get up to temperature. Then re-acclimitise the fish. This process could take a whole day. The fish will be fine in a container with a blanket around them for over a day.
Once you are running again, leave the lights at 5-6 hours total and then every week up it 1 hour until you are back up to 8-9 hours total.
On the fertilising front it will depend on your setup, i.e. how well the substrate works, water change regime etc. The substrate will eventually help create CO2 for the plants. The water change regime should be minimal or non existent. 10% weekly maximum unless it is vital (r.e. fish health). Try to put the plants in and then leave them where they are. Resist the urge to move them or disturb the substrate from this point on. Don't gravel vac and if you do have to move plants then do it carefully and follow it with a large (50%) or 2 medium (30%) water changes. That will remove the spike that will surge out of the substrate with disturbance.
Not sure on your fish stocks but you could add some fish that will gently and naturally disturb the substrate. YES I did say don't disturb it but I meant from not being disturbed by a plant 'reshape' and an ammonia spike (even if it is too low for a kit to register) The Bolivians will already be digging a little and sifting. Something like Corys or small plecs (pitbulls are awesome for this) or Kuhlis. They will naturally move the sand and there will be no spike. In fact there will just be a constant gentle release of free nutrient. This will also stop any build of baddies in any area that 'collects' detritus'.
So a month after the plants are in you should be back to 8-9 hours, hopefully algae free. It will take that long to see really but this is the key stage. Get that first month right and it can get pretty simple from thereon. Get it wrong and it is a ***** of a fight If you get it right we can think about going the whole non CO2 route and eliminating water changes and minimal ferts.
If you update the journal (or link to any newer one you have) we can see how you are progressing.
If you can find something like Riccia then you could use that as a floating 'sunshade'. Grows quickly though and is hard to remove if/when you decide you don't want to remove it but that will help block some light.
AC
If so I would put 1 internal in the front right corner to move the water in a more circular motion. See if that gets some movement. Its a big tank so a long way for the filters to push along from that side
I think Radar is right in it being flow related but with non CO2 I don't think you need any more 'energy' in the tank r.e. distribution levels. I think you can just improve the way you currently have it. The Eheim intake should be next to the spraybar on the left. You are currently pushing water from the filter to the right, then it hits the glass and goes downward and then it goes back to the filter. You should always have inlet and outlet at the same end so the water that exits the filter near the water surface has to go away and then return to the same end. (circular motion, Circulation )You have T5HO tubes I assume and whilst only just over 1WPG t5HO are quite intense. They penetrate very well and therefore you may have patches of the tank that get intense light directly under the tube whereas at an angle not so intense. I don't mean dark patches and light patches. We are talking actual light rather than brightness so it may appear pretty even light to our eyes.
The pictures you show of staghorn in the pictures above are normally the first algae to appear when the light is high and CO2 unstable. By light being high they nearly always appear close to the tube and the higher up the tank the worse it gets. By CO2 being unstable I mean that it is a young tank, the substrate is not yet creating CO2, water changes are bringing in CO2 from the tap water etc.
There's not much you can do r.e. the lighting unless you want to totally retrofit it with less intense tubes. It shouldn't need it though. Even with them being T5HO it is within the realms of non CO2 injection territory. They do look bright in those pics of the tank though
What I would suggest is to alleviate the problems would be:
Decrease the photoperiod to 5 or 6 hours total
Stop fertilising until the new plants arrive, you're adding nutrient to already existing nutrient (from the fish waste etc) and there aren't enough plants to counter the algae threat. You basically have good conditions for algae to succeed. A full heavily planted setup will have a better chance. You may need to dose some ferts after they arrive dependent on the plants. They will tell you.
When the plants arrive I would personally (and it is a pain but should be worth it.) remove all the hardscape and give it all a good scrub. Remove fish. Get something like a pencil (or a finger
) and gently stir the whole of the sand part of the substrate (if there is a planted substrate below then you don't want to be moving that around too much.) Then remove 2 thirds of water which will take out 2 thirds of the nasties (including algae spores) that are in the water. Throw that water away. Gently gravel vac the substrate.Reset Hardscape, add in the new plants, refill and get up to temperature. Then re-acclimitise the fish. This process could take a whole day. The fish will be fine in a container with a blanket around them for over a day.
Once you are running again, leave the lights at 5-6 hours total and then every week up it 1 hour until you are back up to 8-9 hours total.
On the fertilising front it will depend on your setup, i.e. how well the substrate works, water change regime etc. The substrate will eventually help create CO2 for the plants. The water change regime should be minimal or non existent. 10% weekly maximum unless it is vital (r.e. fish health). Try to put the plants in and then leave them where they are. Resist the urge to move them or disturb the substrate from this point on. Don't gravel vac and if you do have to move plants then do it carefully and follow it with a large (50%) or 2 medium (30%) water changes. That will remove the spike that will surge out of the substrate with disturbance.
Not sure on your fish stocks but you could add some fish that will gently and naturally disturb the substrate. YES I did say don't disturb it but I meant from not being disturbed by a plant 'reshape' and an ammonia spike (even if it is too low for a kit to register) The Bolivians will already be digging a little and sifting. Something like Corys or small plecs (pitbulls are awesome for this) or Kuhlis. They will naturally move the sand and there will be no spike. In fact there will just be a constant gentle release of free nutrient. This will also stop any build of baddies in any area that 'collects' detritus'.
So a month after the plants are in you should be back to 8-9 hours, hopefully algae free. It will take that long to see really but this is the key stage. Get that first month right and it can get pretty simple from thereon. Get it wrong and it is a ***** of a fight
If you get it right we can think about going the whole non CO2 route and eliminating water changes and minimal ferts.If you update the journal (or link to any newer one you have) we can see how you are progressing.
If you can find something like Riccia then you could use that as a floating 'sunshade'. Grows quickly though and is hard to remove if/when you decide you don't want to remove it but that will help block some light.
AC
OP
OP
angelfishguy
Fish Addict
Looking at the diagram the spraybar is on the left and the internals underneath?
If so I would put 1 internal in the front right corner to move the water in a more circular motion. See if that gets some movement. Its a big tank so a long way for the filters to push along from that side
You have T5HO tubes I assume and whilst only just over 1WPG t5HO are quite intense. They penetrate very well and therefore you may have patches of the tank that get intense light directly under the tube whereas at an angle not so intense. I don't mean dark patches and light patches. We are talking actual light rather than brightness so it may appear pretty even light to our eyes.
The pictures you show of staghorn in the pictures above are normally the first algae to appear when the light is high and CO2 unstable. By light being high they nearly always appear close to the tube and the higher up the tank the worse it gets. By CO2 being unstable I mean that it is a young tank, the substrate is not yet creating CO2, water changes are bringing in CO2 from the tap water etc.
There's not much you can do r.e. the lighting unless you want to totally retrofit it with less intense tubes. It shouldn't need it though. Even with them being T5HO it is within the realms of non CO2 injection territory. They do look bright in those pics of the tank though
What I would suggest is to alleviate the problems would be:
Decrease the photoperiod to 5 or 6 hours total
Stop fertilising until the new plants arrive, you're adding nutrient to already existing nutrient (from the fish waste etc) and there aren't enough plants to counter the algae threat. You basically have good conditions for algae to succeed. A full heavily planted setup will have a better chance. You may need to dose some ferts after they arrive dependent on the plants. They will tell you.
When the plants arrive I would personally (and it is a pain but should be worth it.) remove all the hardscape and give it all a good scrub. Remove fish. Get something like a pencil (or a finger
Reset Hardscape, add in the new plants, refill and get up to temperature. Then re-acclimitise the fish. This process could take a whole day. The fish will be fine in a container with a blanket around them for over a day.
Once you are running again, leave the lights at 5-6 hours total and then every week up it 1 hour until you are back up to 8-9 hours total.
On the fertilising front it will depend on your setup, i.e. how well the substrate works, water change regime etc. The substrate will eventually help create CO2 for the plants. The water change regime should be minimal or non existent. 10% weekly maximum unless it is vital (r.e. fish health). Try to put the plants in and then leave them where they are. Resist the urge to move them or disturb the substrate from this point on. Don't gravel vac and if you do have to move plants then do it carefully and follow it with a large (50%) or 2 medium (30%) water changes. That will remove the spike that will surge out of the substrate with disturbance.
Not sure on your fish stocks but you could add some fish that will gently and naturally disturb the substrate. YES I did say don't disturb it but I meant from not being disturbed by a plant 'reshape' and an ammonia spike (even if it is too low for a kit to register) The Bolivians will already be digging a little and sifting. Something like Corys or small plecs (pitbulls are awesome for this) or Kuhlis. They will naturally move the sand and there will be no spike. In fact there will just be a constant gentle release of free nutrient. This will also stop any build of baddies in any area that 'collects' detritus'.
So a month after the plants are in you should be back to 8-9 hours, hopefully algae free. It will take that long to see really but this is the key stage. Get that first month right and it can get pretty simple from thereon. Get it wrong and it is a ***** of a fight
If you update the journal (or link to any newer one you have) we can see how you are progressing.
If you can find something like Riccia then you could use that as a floating 'sunshade'. Grows quickly though and is hard to remove if/when you decide you don't want to remove it but that will help block some light.
AC
thanks for the long reply.
ok so we orderd everything we need for co2 injection last night.
when the plants arrive ill do like you said.(remove everything)
was thinking of doing this anyways because i didnt leave much space around the back and sides of the tank for plants.
stocking in the tank
8 corys
5 khulie
12 cherry barbs
25 lemon tetras
4 angels
1 bolivain ram
2 kribs
4 swordtails
and a few mixed teras
i will re arrange the filters like you said right now
i will also cut down the amount of time the lights are on and stop dosing..
do you think it would be a good or bad idea to add another 2x 54wt t5s when the c02 arrives?
that will bring the tank to just over 2wpg?
thanks
edit we also orderd a 6000lph sunsun powerhead
SuperColey1
Planted Section
The Corys and Kuhlis should help with the sand. Is there a nutrient substrate under the sand?
Don't add more light. You don't need more light. You can already see from the algae you have had that there is enough as it is
With CO2 you will definately need the extra powerhead. I would put into as many positions as possible to find where you can get the best distribution of bubbles (normally in the path of the powerhead.) MUST be presurised on a tank your size. DIY just won't cut it.
With CO2 of course comes extra growth and using TPN+ you are going to be eating a huge hole in your wallet. Cheaper over a year to buy a small set of 'herb' or 'jewellery' scales and some KNO3, KH2PO4, Trace and then mix your own. You don't have to go EI, there are many many recipes. Try the PMDD+P one on JamesCs site that showed you the algae.
What many people think is that you need higher light and CO2 but the reality is that if you supply unlimited CO2 then you can use lower light Once the plant is not fighting to get as much CO2 as it wants it transfers it's energies into gleaning light. Becomes more efficient if you like so good CO2 means that it can utilise the light available better.
In general 1 full length (of the tank) T5HO is enough to grow most plants with pressurised CO2. You already have 2 so you have more than enough. Don't get fooled by the path of 'you must have' and 'you must do' because many people still think you have to have X amount of light for X plant. they forget that they are increasing the light and attribute the success to the 'high light'. In most cases it is actually the increased CO2 that is giving the result.
Good Luck and enjoy
AC
Don't add more light. You don't need more light. You can already see from the algae you have had that there is enough as it is
With CO2 you will definately need the extra powerhead. I would put into as many positions as possible to find where you can get the best distribution of bubbles (normally in the path of the powerhead.) MUST be presurised on a tank your size. DIY just won't cut it.
With CO2 of course comes extra growth and using TPN+ you are going to be eating a huge hole in your wallet. Cheaper over a year to buy a small set of 'herb' or 'jewellery' scales and some KNO3, KH2PO4, Trace and then mix your own. You don't have to go EI, there are many many recipes. Try the PMDD+P one on JamesCs site that showed you the algae.
What many people think is that you need higher light and CO2 but the reality is that if you supply unlimited CO2 then you can use lower light
Once the plant is not fighting to get as much CO2 as it wants it transfers it's energies into gleaning light. Becomes more efficient if you like so good CO2 means that it can utilise the light available better.In general 1 full length (of the tank) T5HO is enough to grow most plants with pressurised CO2. You already have 2 so you have more than enough. Don't get fooled by the path of 'you must have' and 'you must do' because many people still think you have to have X amount of light for X plant. they forget that they are increasing the light and attribute the success to the 'high light'. In most cases it is actually the increased CO2 that is giving the result.
Good Luck and enjoy
AC
OP
OP
angelfishguy
Fish Addict
cool thats extra money saved then
yeah its pressurised co2 not diy
there is some plant substrate underneath the sand, not to sure which type though
we are just using the last of the tpn+, im not sure who told us but someone on this forum gave us the ingrediants to make our own tpn+ so we have the dry ferts and the scales but think we have to get dionised water or something to mix it up.
thanks alot for all your help
J&D
yeah its pressurised co2 not diy
there is some plant substrate underneath the sand, not to sure which type though
we are just using the last of the tpn+, im not sure who told us but someone on this forum gave us the ingrediants to make our own tpn+ so we have the dry ferts and the scales but think we have to get dionised water or something to mix it up.
thanks alot for all your help
J&D
Similar threads
Most reactions
-
348 -
228 -
228 -
192 -
187 -
180 -
161 -
153 -
143 -
142 -
139 -
134 -
115 -
94 -
91