Freshwater Aquarium Setup

1. Choosing the Right Aquarium:
Although it is important to choose an aquarium that you think will look good in your living room, there are other equally important considerations that affect the ongoing expense as well as the health of the inhabitants!

     In general we have found that stability of the environment is the most important secret to successful fish keeping. A lot of material has been written about the ideal environment for various species of fish, whether they like warm water or cold water, high Ph or low Ph, hard water or soft water, but this is generally useful only if you are attempting to breed the fish or are planning on keeping a very sensitive fish that is known to be challenging. In choosing all of the items and the fish themselves, always keep in mind the stability of the environment.

     One of the first choices you will face is whether to purchase a glass or acrylic aquarium. The differences are listed in the box below.

Acrylic Aquarium vs. Glass Aquarium

1. Acrylic is a better insulator than glass so a smaller heater will work for the same sized aquarium and temperature fluctuations happen slower. This is good for stability!

2. Acrylic is clearer than glass. It actually lets 14% more light through than glass.

3. Acrylic can have a much greater variety of shapes. Acrylic aquariums commonly have rounded corners (rather than seams) and usually have a more 'contemporary' look. Acrylic coffee tables and even bubble tanks can be found.

4. A disadvantage of acrylic is that it scratches much easier (be careful with inside decorations) so special cleaning pads must be used. NEVER use a brillo pad or a green pot scrubber on an acrylic aquarium.

5. Perhaps the biggest disadvantage of acrylic is the cost. Usually an acrylic aquarium will cost 2 to 3 times what a similar sized glass aquarium would.

6. Acrylic can be shipped via postal, UPS, or FedEx. Glass aquariums cannot be shipped by these carriers so you must purchase them from a pet store.

2. Size of the Aquarium
     Always choose the largest size that fits your living room and your budget!

     Don't be fooled into thinking that the smaller the aquarium the easier it will be. Actually, the larger the aquarium is the more stable it will be and the easier it will be to maintain healthy fish. The amount of oxygen available (which is critical to fish survival) is determined mainly by the amount of surface area of the aquarium (not just the size) since oxygen enters the water primarily at the surface. Although aeration, with an air stone or a power head, seems like it is directly adding oxygen to the water, most of the benefit comes from moving water from the bottom of the aquarium to the surface where oxygen is exchanged for carbon dioxide.

     Water movement at the surface also increases oxygenation and will generally increase the stocking capacity as well as the health of the fish. Keep in mind that airstones and powerheads can (and generally will) fail at some time or another so don't overstock an aquarium to the point that your fish will die if the power goes out for a couple of hours! It is almost always more desirable to have a few less fish that are colorful and healthy than to push the limits of the tank and risk loosing some of your fish. Not only are fish happier, but the maintenance is easier!

     The larger the aquarium, or the fewer the fish, the greater is your chance of having a successful experience!

3. Filters and Filtration

     There are three main types of filtration for freshwater aquaria: biological, mechanical, and chemical.

     Utilizing each of these three types of filtration will provide you with the most stable and most easily maintained aquarium. General aquarium filters manufactured today include each of these three main types of filtration in some manner.

     We will also mention several other methods below, that are more commonly used in reef systems, but that can also be beneficial for fish only systems.

The three main types of filtration are:

1. Biological Aquarium Filtration:

     This is the most important type of filtration for stability and reduction of toxic wastes.

    

 Nitrification: In any biological environment there will be a production of ammonia from normal respiration (fish release ammonia from their gills) and the breakdown of wastes. Ammonia is toxic to fish and in nature is reduced to nitrite by a bacteria called Nitrosonomas. Nitrite is also poisonous to fish and is further broken down into nitrate by bacteria called Nitrobacter. Nitrate is relatively harmless to fish but is a primary food for plants and algae. Frequent water changes (say 10% every week or two) will control nitrate levels. Collectively the process of turning ammonia to nitrate is called nitrification and is carried out in the presence of oxygen (aerobic conditions).
     

Denitrification: This is the process where nitrates are converted to nitrogen gas in the absence of oxygen (anaerobic conditions). Denitrification is generally not of concern to the freshwater aquarist unless the control of nitrates is desired (See Reef Aquarium Basics ).

Sponge filters work by passing water over a highly porous sponge where bacteria are allowed to grow. They are almost purely biological with some mechanical filtration provided by the sponge itself. The sponge should not be cleaned or allowed to dry out because this will kill the nitrifying bacteria. Sponge filters are good for breeding situations where very small fish are at risk of being sucked up by the strong intake currents of canister filters or overflows. They are also good for fish like bubble-eyed goldfish that may be injured by strong intake currents of power or canister filters. Sponge filters can be powerd by air pumps or small water pumps.

 Undergravel filters are the most common type of biological filter and work by pulling water down through a bed of gravel at the bottom of the aquarium and pulling it up through the uplift tubes. Reverse flow undergravel filters are set up to pull water from the top of the aquarium by pushing it down the uplift tubes and up through the gravel. Reverse flow filters are slightly more efficient since they take water from the top of the aquarium which contains more oxygen.

     

Since nitrification is more efficient in the presence of oxygen and the air contains about 20% oxygen, as compared to about 7% oxygen for water, trickle or wet/dry filters were developed in the 1980's which increased the efficiency of biological filters dramatically. They place the bacterial growing medium, filter balls with large surface areas, in the air (usually outside the aquarium) and trickle the water to be filtered over them. Many kinds, sizes, and shapes of trickle filters have been in use since they were introduced. Although many trickle filters are external devices used in a sump or hang on the back type of filters, several manufacturers including the "Sea Clear System II" aquarium contain trickle filters built into the back of the aquarium itself. The problem with trickle filters is they usually produce high levels of nitrate, and so are not often used in reef aquariums or other situations where nitrates are undesireable. 

     

Canister filters have a containers or baskets inside the filter for various filter media. For biological filtration you would fill it with some sort of biological media, such as bio balls. This media will either come with the filter or can be purchased separately. Once the bacteria colony has been established on this media you will not need to remove it or clean it.

     

Standard Power filters use disposable cartridges that have a floss pad surrounding them. This pad is primarily for mechanical filtration but will also house nitrifying bacteria. The drawback to this as a primary biological filter is when you dispose of the cartridge, you dispose of the bacteria colony as well. Today there are more advanced power filters that include a separate area for biological media. These are usually in the form of a compartment in the filter filled with biological media or an attached external 'bio wheel', a pleated wheel that the water flows over as it is leaving the filter and returning to the aquarium.

2. Mechanical Water Filtration:

Mechanical filtration is good for keeping the water clear and free of debris!

     

Mechanical filtration refers to the removal of particulate matter from the aquarium.  Canisters and power filterswhich force the water through some kind of floss or pleated cartridge are both examples of mechanical filtration. Some canister filters such as the "Hot Magnum" provide one media basket for your choice of mechanical filter media or carbon. Other canister filters have more than one basket for a combination of mechanical, chemical (carbon), and biological filtration. Undergravel filters also act as mechanical filters by trapping debris in the gravel. This is one reason the gravel should be siphoned periodically to remove trapped debris.

     

Diatomaceous earth filters, commonly available in canister filters, can remove particles as small as 3 microns in size which really 'polishes' the water. They can be used to remove bacteria and algae blooms but generally clog after a short period of time and should not be used on a continuous basis.

3. Chemical Aquarium Filtration

Chemical filters are most useful in getting rid of the yellow color that often develops in aquarium water over time!       Chemical filters are used to remove things that are dissolved in the water, and therefore cannot be removed by mechanical filters. The most common chemical filter is activated carbon, used mostly in canister and power filters, it traps many substances in it's minute pores. According to Martin Moe in his book, The Marine Aquarium Handbook, some of the substances removed by activated carbon are: copper, ozone, chlorine, antibiotics, some dissolved proteins and carbohydrates, iodine, mercury, cobalt, iron, methylene blue (a common medication), malachite green (another medication), sulfa drugs, organic dyes, and many other elements and compounds.       Other chemical media include: Ammo-chips for removing ammonia Nitra-zorb for removing nitrates Phos-zorb for removing phosphates     Nitrate and phosphate control is usually not needed in freshwater aquariums unless the levels become very high, or there is a continual problem with undesireable algae blooms.       Mini-reef aquariums are the most likely candidates for nitrate and phosphate removers if other means of control don't work.       Note: Many of the common aquarium medications including antibiotics are removed by activated carbon. Therefore activated carbon should not be used when treating the aquarium for disease.

Other aquarium filtration methods:

Foam Fractionators, or protein skimmers Protein skimmers work by passing a large stream of small bubbles through a column of aquarium water. Many different substances (proteins) will adhere to the surface of the bubbles and be removed from the water in the foam that bubbles from the top.      Skimmers are beneficial because they remove substances before they enter into the nitrification cycle which reduces nitrates and increases oxygenation of the aquarium water. One of the drawbacks to skimmers is that they remove trace elements and iodine which, if needed by any of the aquarium inhabitants, must be replaced periodically. This is not usually an issue in freshwater or saltwater aquariums, but both types can benefit from the use of a protein skimmer.

Ultraviolet sterilization
Ultraviolet sterilization works by passing water through ultraviolet light. If the water is exposed long enough, at a high enough concentration of light, bacteria, algae, and parasites can be destroyed by the light. This is used extensively in ponds to help with algae and green water. Treatment of diseases in aquariums requires the most amount of exposure. The smallest units ( 8-9 watt) are made for tanks up to 50 gallons, while the larger 40 watt units are made for tanks up to 180 gallons. For pond applications, 8 watts per 1000 gallons is needed to kill off algae (green water) but is not effective for disease control.

Ozone
     Ozone can be passed through aquarium water to oxidize all forms of organic pollutants and kill many of the same organisms that ultraviolet radiation does. Commonly used in skimmers, one should make certain the materials used are "ozone safe" and that the water is passed through activated carbon before returning it to the aquarium because any residual ozone in the water is extremely toxic to the fish. Ozone is useful mainly in large public aquariums and ponds to keep the water from coloring.

Choosing the Inhabitants

1. Stocking Capacity of a Freshwater System
     The first thing you probably want to know is how many fish you can keep in a particular sized aquarium.

     The two most common formulas for the amount of fish you can safely keep are:

Simple method:   Keep one inch (1") of fish for each one (1) gallon of water.
     This simple method doesn't take into account the surface area of the water (for oxygenation), the filtration system (for removal of wastes), and the general size of the fish. For instance, a fish that is 6 inches long needs a lot more oxygen than 6 fish that are 1 inch long. In general you should reduce the amount of fish if they are larger, and increase the amount of fish if they are smaller.

Surface method:   Calculate the surface area of the aquarium.
     Multiply the length of the aquarium times the width of the aquarium (in inches) and divide by 12 to get the number of inches of fish the aquarium can handle.
     This surface method takes into account the aquarium shape but not the filtration or the size of the fish. The second formula favors aquariums that are shorter and wider i.e. not 'showtanks' which are taller and skinnier.

     Note: Neither formula is for coldwater aquariums! In coldwater aquariums you should keep about 2 1/2 times LESS fish than in a tropical aquarium. This means that the surface area should be divided by 30 to get the number of COLDWATER fish for a freshwater aquarium.

     In general the more complicated formulas are not worth the trouble if you don't approach the maximum number of fish calculated by the above formulas. Perhaps if anyone shows interest, we can write more on this later.

2. Community Aquarium? or Species Aquarium?     

One of the funnest things about setting up an aquarium is choosing the fish!

You should probably have some idea of what type of fish you want to keep before stocking the tank to avoid problems later. Do some research on each fish before adding them to your aquarium.
     Some fish are predatory or aggressive and so should be kept either by themselves, or with other predatory species. Aggressive species include Oscars, Jack Dempseys and many cichlids.
     Some fish are slow feeders, or are very shy and should be kept by themselves in a species tank. A good example of this is Discus fish.

Maintenance, Care, Feeding

1. Water Quality
     By most accounts freshwater systems need partial water changes on a regular basis.

     The recommended water change is to change about 15% per month. Note that this is lower than what is usually recommended for saltwater. In deciding how much and how often you wish to do water changes, keep in mind that for stability, smaller water changes done frequently are best. The main reason for water changes is to remove compounds that are not removed by any of the filtration methods such as nitrates and phosphates. Water changes also serve to replenish trace elements, and to clean the gravel of accumulated detritus and waste.

     Any activated carbon you are using should be replaced monthly.

2. Feeding
     Make sure and find out any special feeding requirements your fish may have before purchasing them and be sure you can provide them what they need!

     In any case, get your fish to eat as many different kinds of food as you can to ensure they are getting everything they need. Some fish are used to eating all the time so they should be fed as often as is practical (always small amounts at least once per day) while others, like eels can go for several days without food at all. The more you feed your fish the faster they will grow to their maximum sizes.

Aquarium Set-up Basics

1. Obtain as large an aquarium as possible.

2. Purchase the following aquarium set-up components.

• For filtration we recommend an undergravel filter for both stability and ease of maintenance. Provide a minimum of 2 inches of some kind of non-calcerous gravel on top of the undergravel filter.
• Buy a thermostatic heater, thermometer, and either a good air pump with airline tubing, or a powerhead that pumps at least 3 times as much water per hour as the size of the aquarium.
• Make sure you purchase some kind of a water conditioner that removes chlorine unless you know there can be no chlorine added to the water. It is better to be safe than sorry in this situation.
• Purchase test kits for ammonia and nitrite (minimum).
• Now is also a good time to buy any ornaments that meet your fancy.

3. Set up the aquarium on a sturdy floor in a draft free area

• Put the undergravel filter in place with either the air stones or the powerheads in the uplift tubes.
• Rinse the substrate material thoroughly before placing it on top of the undergravel filter.
• Fill the aquarium with water, be sure you treat it with a chlorine remover.
• Place the heater, ornaments, thermometer, and any lights in or on the aquarium.

4. Run the aquarium for several hours.

• Let the aquarium 'run' for at least a few hours, preferably 12-24 hours, so the water is oxygenated and the temperature is stabilized.

5. Cycle the Aquarium and then add fish

• Three methods of cycling the aquarium are described here, see Cycling the Aquarium.
• You must monitor the ammonia and nitrite levels, using test kits, until they are both zero (or very close to zero). During this period (called the nitrification cycle) the ammonia will peak first then drop off as the nitrite peaks, then the nitrite will drop off to complete the cycle. The aquarium is cycled when they are at zero and that will indicate when it is safe to add fish.
• Don't add fish in the middle of this process. The initial fish will have a good chance of surviving because the levels go up gradually instead of all at once, so they are able to adapt to these changes.
• After about six weeks, when the aquarium has "cycled", it will be safe to add additional fish. This is indicated by the levels of ammonia and nitrite having drop to zero.
• Add new fish slowly and keep an eye on the ammonia and nitrite levels to make sure the aquarium is stable.

courtesy: http://animal-world.com/encyclo/fresh/information/freshwater.htm

Straight Talk Express

Ranked 4th in ADA ROCK STAR IWAGUMI contest

Guys, it was a dream come true for me to compete and then get judged by Amano himself. Great honour for some one like me. I ranked 4th place in the competition. Some pics

Guys I ranked on IAH Planted tank Competetion

http://indianaquariumhobbyist.com/community/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=152554#152554

The Estimative Index - What is it?

The Estimative Index - What is it?

The Estimative index is a simple method to dose nutrients for any tank without test kits. In a nut shell, the aquarist doses frequently to prevent anything from running out (plant deficiency) and does large weekly water changes to prevent any build up (Plant inhibition). In this manner, we can easily maintain a close approximation or an “estimation index” of the nutrient levels during the week, not too high, not too low and…..no need for a test kit because the accuracy is close and in most cases closer than a test kit. This uses a common habit that most aquarist already are doing and are familiar with, the weekly water change. I’ve done numerous test runs over a week or three week time period using very high light (450 micromoles/m^2/sec @ 8 cm from light source) and many different species of fast growing stem plants. This will give an assumed “maximum uptake rate”. This rate is important in setting the upper limit of the needs of the plants. Once the aquarist knows this rate, they can be confident that they are not going to run out of any nutrient at most any lighting variable. This “rate” of uptake or dosing is what is truly important rather than maintaining some static “residual” level. A stable range is all that's needed for good healthy growth. This range concept is supported by observations from many people all over th world with a variety of tap water qualities, as well as review of the relevant research in the Barr Report volumes 7 and 8, 2005. This range has proven to be quite large on the upper limits. With a general 50% weekly water change, the aquarist will build up a maximum of 2x the dosing they add per week. So if you want to maintain 10-20ppm of NO3, this is quite easy to do with out ever picking a test kit (see figure 1 below and the example). Similar ranges can be targeted for the other nutrients and narrower ranges can be achieved using the fertilizers diluted in water.

These maximum rates are also variable, but the rates I am suggestion are only a guideline, different plants and different set ups may use more, but the plants will not run into deficiencies at these rates. The aquarist is not limited to 50% weekly water changes, they can change more precentage, for example 75% and this re sets 75% of the water volume just like making a standard solution for measuring and calibrating a test kit. More frequent water changes can also be performed, but hitting the target set by the aquarist can be achieved relatively easily for those less confident of 50% weekly changes.

Plants can take up more than they need for growth, something called "luxury uptake". The other issue is that a plant might be starved for a nutrient and the uptake rate may be very rapid in the first few weeks then taper off later. This is referred to as “surge uptake”.

Some Typical uptake rates at high light and CO2 levels per day (24 hours):



NO31-4ppmNH4
0.1-0.6ppm(do not dose NH4!It will cause algae)PO40.2-0.6ppm

These rates do not assume that you will show deficiencies if you dose less than this, but adding more than these rates will not help further plant health.
This is a point that the aquarist needs to understand. Basically, it is extremely unlikely your plants will ever need more than these rates even at high light intensities. Adding enough nutrients to prevent anything from becoming deficient is the goal, not precise uptake and growth requirements.

Note: these ranges and test in this article used Hach or Lamotte test kits and where checked against known standard solutions. Most hobby grade cheap test kits often are inaccurate and create many problems for aquarist. While some may work, it is always a better idea to check the test kit against and known standard. This way you verify the accuracy and this is what is done in research science. Do not assume that a test kit is accurate. This causes a great deal of frustration, confusion and poor horticulture and was one of the main reasons I suggested this idea for dosing.

The need for such precision is not needed as plants have a very wide range of nutrient concentrations (BarrReport volume 5,7 and 8, 2005) that are above the deficiency level before excess nutrients level become problematic (see figure 3). Today I use a much more sophisticated testing method than a Lamotte or Hach test kit, I use a colormetric multiparameter spectrophotometer that is over 100X more precise and accuracte over wider ranges, self test, uses a blank and autocalibrates. This is a very user friendly device and is used to answer specific questions rather than monitoring a "routine" as a matter of practice for the average aquarist but it will not hurt the aquarist in doing so.




I truthfully do not know what levels of NO3 and PO4 (for example) cause problems for plants or induce algae in a fully planted tank. NO3 levels above 40ppm can cause fish health issues. PO4 at very high levels can influence alkalinity (KH) above 5ppm-10ppm.

Clearly these are far beyond the needs of plants and the range makes for a very large target to dose even if the aquarist is off by a factor of 2X.

Lighting is very expensive to measure correctly in an aquarium(I use a PAR meter that measures light in micromoles/m^2/sec) . It is one of the biggest unknown variables in keeping planted tanks, watts/gallon does not tell you much, but rough guides are fine if the aquarist maintain the CO2 and nutrient levels well. Dosing can be done using dosing pumps if the aquarist wishes, but it is relatively easy to do with a good routine. They can later tailor their routine to add “just enough” and further maximize their nutrient dosing to their individual tank’s needs. An important aspect of this method is the knowledge that excess nutrients do not cause algae blooms as so many authors in the past and many today still maintain without having tested this critically in aquariums with a healthy plant biomass. It is a welcomed relief knowing that “excess” phosphate, nitrate and iron do not cause algae blooms.

For many years this has been the assumption but it is incorrect. Ammonium (NH4+) at low levels have been the primary causative agent for algae blooms in terms of an "excess" nutrient. This is why a planted tank using CO2 with moderate to high lighting cannot have enough nitrogen supplied by adding progressively more and more fish to the tank without getting algae blooms. It does not take much ammonium to cause the bloom. If you add NO3 from KNO3 you will not get any algae bloom, if you add even 1/20th of the ammonium you will get a very intense algae bloom. This test can be repeated many times and ran again and again with the same result. Adding NO3 will not induce the bloom. See if you can prove this to yourself.

With the exception of NH4 and urea, higher levels of PO4 (phosphate), K+, potassium, and NO3 to large extent as well (to 20-30ppm or so) and Fe (iron) can be maintained without any negative effects even at extremely high light wattages (e.g. 5.5 w/gal at 30cm depth, using mirrored reflectors, U shaped power compact lamps-450 micromoles @ 8cm distance from the lights, most submersed aquatic plants fully saturate photosynthesis at 600micromoles/m^2/sec or so, at least the one's that have been tested at non limiting CO2 values, other species may have different levels).

The reason I chose this high light intensity was to reduce the time before an algae bloom would occur and prevent competition for light. This is similar to taking a "test drive" at high sppeed in a new vehicle. If algae was to occur due to higher nutrient levels, if would occur when the light, CO2 and nutrients were non limiting for both sets of variables. With less light, down to a point (Light compensation point, the LCP), we can assume less uptake and less issue maintaining a “stable range” of nutrients. It is much more difficult to tease apart the relationships when the rate of growth is slower (e.g. less light), it takes more time to note differences in plant growth and places less stress/growth rate on the system. It also reduces error since the uptake rates are high enough to get good test kit resolution whereas at 1.5-2.0w/gal with normal Fluorescent lights it takes much longer for 5 ppm of NO3 to be removed. Good test kits like Lamotte were used also to increase accuracy in the results. These test kits were tested against a series of known standards to confirm the accuracy. In this manner I could test the ideas with much more confidence. If I chose to test a non CO2 plant tank, this would have taken a very long time with very expensive test kits and methods. Additionally, many of the nutrients would be used up quickly before I had a chance to measure them.

Returning back to non CO2 planted tanks after gaining this knowledge at high light and CO2 enrichment allows some fairly good predictions/correlations of uptake rates for non CO2 planted tanks as well. The rate of uptake is reduced due to less light and less CO2. I generally use about 6 to 1 slower uptake rate ratio for non CO2 tanks but the fish loading can change this ratio. Basically the non CO2 tank grows 6-10x slower than a CO2 enriched tank.

This method is specific for CO2 enriched systems with higher light but works even better with lower light CO2 or SeaChem Excel dosing for carbon enriched tanks or salt water and other tanks needing a certain amount of nutrients. I suggest 30ppm of CO2, while a tank with 2 w/gal might be okay with 15-20ppm, many with power compact bulbs and reflectors need to have their CO2 levels higher, 20-30ppm range is optimal for the lighting period. This was found by adding more CO2 until there was no net gain in plant growth while keeping the nutrient and lighting levels consistent during the testing period. Research on three aquatic weeds showed that the plants will reach and carbon fixing maximum at around 30ppm of CO2 no matter what light intensity is used (Van et al 1976). The maximum CO2 level no matter what light set up you might have is about 30ppm for these three very fast growing weeds, which we can assume have higher CO2 needs/demand than slower growing aquarium plants subjected to less intense lighting than sunlight. While the needs of some plants might exceed some of these parameters, it’s very unlikely that this will occur and I’ve found no evidence to support otherwise having grown close to 300 species of submersed freshwater aquatic macrophytes. The CO2 level is enough to support non limiting growth, just like PO4, NO3 and traces. So in a sense, CO2 is over dosed since it's an easier target to hit and measure. Adding more will not harm plants and is only limited by fish health and O2 levels.

While many have discussed the merits of nutrients, fasr too many new people fall victim to low CO2,even the expert often gets caught trying to keep a good CO2 level in their tanks from time to time. No nutrient routine will perform well without good stable CO2 or Excel(Seachem).


Using tap water

Tap water is cheap and water changes take less time than the testing (salt water is the exception perhaps, salt mixes cost a fair amount money). Water changes also cost less than test kits/testing and are more fool proof method of estimating the nutrient levels in your planted tank when dealing with NO3, Fe and PO4. It's also simpler and requires less knowledge of chemistry and testing against known standards. Plants are most often starved of nutrients and inaccurate test kits are largely responsible. Many people feel tap is unsuitable for plants, this is simply not true. Old myths still abound claiming excess PO4 in tap water causes algae, this has clearly been shown by many hobbyist to be patently false. The tap water has nutrients in it, then you do not have to dose these nearly as much, this is actually a good thing! Why take something out and then add it back again?

Have hard water?

Great, you do not have to add any baking soda and GH builder to your tank. Adding enough GH to bring the levels to 3-5 GH degrees will address higher light tank needs over a week's time. You can use SeaChem Equilibrium for this or a mix of CaCl2 (or CaSO4 although it is not as easy to dissolve into water) and MgSO4 at a 4:1 ratio to increase GH. You can add this without knowing what your GH is by adding 1 degree's worth after a weekly water change (or slightly less with less frequent water changes)

Plants prefer soft water? Not so, neither myself or other experience aquarist have found plants that are soft water dependent, although there may be a few exceptions out perhaps 300 species, it is safe to say that plants prefer harder water and there is research to show this is true, (Bowes 1985), (T. Barr, C. Christianson observations of clear hard water springs in Florida, USA and in Brazil). A few plants, about 5 or 6 or so species do seem to prefer softer water, but this is due to KH, GH seems to have little bearing as long as there is enough Ca and Mg. So the GH can be dosed a little higher if in doubt or if you want to check to see if that is causing an issue or not.
KH on the other hand does seem to influence these specific plants(most are not affected) to about 5-6 degrees. There is really no limit on how low the KH can be for good plant health, but it can make CO2 measurements trickier. There is a way around that though. Still, any plant can be grown at a KH of 5 and a GH of 5-10, or less. This would not be considered "soft" water, actually it would be ideal. Thus unless you desire to grow a few eclectic species, there is no need for RO, nor DI, carbon filtration of the tap water, but doing so will do no harm to the plants as long as there is enough GH for the plants and KH to determine CO2.

Water changes: use Python like bucket less water change systems, or DIY garden hose systems that attach to a faucet for draining a filling. Large diameter drain hoses make quick work for large tanks. Dedicated plumbing also can make the water change very easy. If the tank is far away from the faucet, a longer hose is all that’s needed. Hard plumbed systems and automatic water changers are commonly detailed on the web.

The Problem

#1 Dosing.
This can be very tricky when dealing with many variables. Often the suggestion is "buy a test kit" and test to see what your nutrient levels are.
I suggested this almost ten years ago:

http://www.sfbaaps.com/reference/barr_02_01.shtml

This works well for CO2 (but folks should double check to be sure before proceeding on) and GH but the other nutrients like NO3, K, PO4, iron as a proxy for the traces are more problematic. Often times the poor aquarist chases one nutrient to the next and spends a small fortune and time as well carefully testing each week, or several times each week trying to figure out what is missing. Generally many never find what is wrong after doing all that.
95% of the time is was CO2 levels were too low and the issue had nothing to do with the nutrient dosing routine. Simply doing a large water change removes all the variables, and dosing known amounts back in to the tank of the nutrients effectively re sets the tank each week. Even if you are off by a little, you do not have to worry about running out since the levels I’ve suggested are for high light tanks and you know if the CO2 is in good shape there is no fear of algae from these levels of nutrients in the water column either. Knowing this allows great flexibility and a very simple method to keep a fairly constant level of any nutrients in your tank and no need to test. You can guess the doses for the reminder of the week and then repeat. Chuck Gadd's dosing calculator works well for the chemistry challenged and those wanting to know how much of what to add. See here: http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/aqua/art_plant_aquacalc.htm

There is no hard and fast rule here when dosing or doing 50% weekly water changes. This method can be applied to water changes once a month or once every two weeks, better more consistent results will be obtained when doing 50% weekly water changes, but a well run tank can go longer without a water change. The aquarist can note plant health and dose slightly less as they gain experience of their individual tank's needs. As they get a feel for the dosing they can tailor the tank's needs further.



This is an exampled for folks using 10ppm of NO3 dosed each week and assuming 0, 25, 50, 75% uptake by plants/bacteria. the maximum build up in this case is 2x the weekly dosing rate. This shows the range in a mathmatical model (thanks Gomer) so that while no test kit is needed by the EI user, a very accurate test has verified these curves and ranges and match well with observations, models and testing methods.

So this begins to get very close to stable nutrients level and much less merely "guess" work.

#2 Testing
This is huge issue for most folks. Test kits cost as much as a filter or much more in some cases. Some folks can afford nice Lamott/Hach kits, most cannot nor wish to invest 300$ in this. Cheaper kits are not offered for K. NO3 kits are very problematic and color reading scales are difficult to assess with cheaper kits. Some folks are color blind. Many folks don't ever want to test and/or feel there's no need to test. I could not get some hobbyist to ever test no matter what I told them to do! I fell into that group for many years. I did as well as I do today but I am much more consistent now and I also know why it works! I know the rates of uptake and have done a lot of testing since my bad old days. I also did large weekly water changes so if I messed up dosing, I always reset the tank each week. I have a relative simple methodology to side step much of the drudgery especially with testing iron and NO3. At issue here is the maintenance of the nutrient levels within a certain range. The focus will be on 2 groups, nitrate (NO3), phosphate (PO4), potassium (K), the so called macro nutrients and the trace elements represented by iron (Fe) as a proxy for the other trace elements that are included in trace nutrient mixes. There are a few specialized test kits and meters available for many of the trace metals and Boron, but virtually no hobbyist ever measures these. So everyone is guessing about the traces as it is, even the most ardent proponent of testing for dosing!


Using teaspoon (Dry powders) and milliliter measurements (liquid solutions) we can be very accurate.

Perhaps a better question is how close to a good range of nutrients do we have to be to have excellent plant growth and no algae?

Using an "estimative index" the accuracy can be as follows for teaspoons and liquids for the traces, note, further accuracy can be achieved by diluting grams of each of these nutrients into DI water and adding mls of a concentrated liquid into their tanks in place of dry powder, but thios does not gain the user much in terms of plant health and growth, which is the main reason to help improve a routine:

(+ or -) 5ppm of CO2 is fine in a 20-30ppm range.
(+ or -) 1ppm or so of NO3 is pretty reasonable.
(+ or -) 2ppm of K+ is pretty reasonable.
(+ or -) 0.2ppm of PO4 is pretty reasonable (?)
(+ or -) 0.1ppm of Fe is reasonable (?)

CO2 range 25-35ppm
NO3 range 5-30ppm
K+ range 10-30ppm
PO4 range 1.0-3.0 ppm
Fe 0.2-0.5ppm or higher (?)
GH range 3 degrees ~ 50ppm or higher

Note:
PO4 and Fe are two nutrients that are difficult to assess without first assessing the other nutrients. If the NO3, K, and CO2 are in good shape, you can add a fair amount of these within a wide range. I have added to almost 3ppm of PO4 consistently week after week. Plant's response is incredible.
Green spot algae has never been an issue when high PO4 levels are maintained even under high light with Anubias. Adding traces has been a focus for me lately. Many have stuck with the old standby of a residual of 0.1ppm of iron(namelt from the work done developing PMDD). Well what does this residual tell us? Does it tell us what is available to the plants? Is this enough? Do higher doses cause algae?


Setting up a test
I can tell from my own experiences that high levels of traces (Fe) have in no way contributed to any algae presence. I double checked the other nutrients before drawing a conclusion. Few hobbyists and it seems no aquarium companies bothered to look at it from this controlled perspective. In order for the aquarist to draw a conclusion about a nutrient, it must be isolated and you must test only for the dependent variable. This is relatively easy using the Estimative Index; essentially they are making a reference solution each week of the proper nutrient levels and guessing closely till they perform another water change. This gives the aquarist a powerful simple and easy to use tool/method to provide a more controlled environment without nearly as much work. At some point the plants will not take up any more traces. Same can be said for PO4. Adding more simply will not improve plant growth any further. Many plants will take up excess, often called “luxury uptake” of nutrients like PO4 and NO3. So it may not improve growth even if the plants are taking in these nutrients. We must be careful not to assume that uptake=growth/need.

This is where the top end of a range should be. No need to waste expensive trace nutrients. Aquarists that have had issues with algae prior may want to try adding the PO4 and then adding more traces in conjunction. This works well even at the very high light levels. If an algal bloom was to occur, it will express itself more rapid and intensely at higher light. I had been dosing large amounts of traces all along since my reference sometime ago had been Karl Schoeler's 0.7ppm recommendation and I felt like a little more might help if the tank was doing well as many recommendations seemed middle of the road. Karen Randall has suggested a number of aquarist in the past found levels of CO2 higher than the commonly suggested 10-15ppm of CO2 although few have come forward to suggest this recently. Although I had tested numerous times and tried to look for some correlation with the test kits for uptake, I became less focused on the testing aspect and came up with what I think is a better method for the traces. I still contend most aquarist under dose the traces a great deal. I was never scared of algae blooms due to in large part all the battles I’d done with algae in the past and then went on to study and induce algal cultures in marine and freshwater. Few hobbyists are willing to destroy their tanks with an algae bloom to figure out why algae are really there. That is what was required to figure out what causes algae and then this process must be repeated to make sure the results are not an isolated case and can be repeated by other researchers elsewhere. Often times, we only test after the algae is already there, often missing what really caused the algae to begin with. So knowing how to repeat the bloom and induce it, is a key role in understanding of the cause of the algae in our tanks.

The estimative part
Aquarists simply add a set amount of traces to a known volume of water (mls/day/liter of tank volume). If the tank has less plants, low light, this can/may be reduce in frequency but not dosage. A similar pattern can be done for the macro nutrients. In this manner you essentially are making a "reference solution" each time you dose and you assume a certain amount of uptake the other one or two times prior to making a large water change at week's end. If you have low plant density or have low light (two watts or less Normal output FL's) you can get by on once a week. By knowing what the tap water is comprised of and giving the water company a call to find out what the PO4, NO3, K, and Fe levels are, you can replace the water with water changes and use plain old chemistry or Chuck's calculator to figure out what you need for your nutrient levels without a test kit. Even if you are off a little that's okay (see above pluses and minuses). The water utility will have some variation but if you are close to the middle ranges it should still come out fairly close. So imagine a tank where you don't test except for CO2 (pH and KH) and only that once in a while. Everything grows well. No guessing. Sound good? The results certainly are. Tanks never seeing any algae are quite common, 10 years ago, this was not the case.

Aquarists have tried the substrate dosing only method for many years with hit and miss results. Eventually the substrate runs out of the nutrients, then the plants suffer. While you can either tear the tank down and start completely over each year or so, or re-enrich the tank, you generally are left with having to wait till something goes wrong before you do something about it rather than keeping a close level maintained like the water column. Some tanks with moderate/low light and good fish loads can support the plant’s needs without adding macro nutrients for extended periods but that is still dosing, just the rate is slow enough to maintain the plant needs for that lighting/CO2 level, but the algae are far from limited. Anyone with a bloom that has tried to water change the algae away knows that is not true. The other issue about folks that often do not add macro nutrients/traces etc, is many do large water changes. These folks often do not know what their tap water has in it. If it is rich in NO3 and PO4 like many regions of the USA and Europe, then each week they do a large water change, they are adding nutrients and CO2. People wondered why my plants did so well with the water changes I did each week and when they tested found high levels of PO4, I was adding KNO3 and lots of traces and high light and high trace dosing and had no algae and dramatic plant health and growth. Several methods suggest substrate fertilization in the start up phase followed after a period of a few months of slowly adding water column fertilizer. Any long term method eventually becomes a water column dosing method unless the substrate is re enriched or torn down and re fertilized. Substrate nutrient content is extremely difficult to measure while the water column is much easier to measure and dose consistently, providing a more stable nutrient level for the plants.


You can extend this method out to include all the other nutrients like traces and PO4 even KH and GH. You can try whatever you feel is "perfect" for plant growth and experiment around. Good sized weekly water changes are an excellent way to do this and avoid build up and any **dosing** errors or **testing** errors. Test Kits (good ones) are not cheap and many are too inconsistent or do not want to be bothered to use them. This method used KNO3, KH2PO4 and Trace mixes and you can use a variety of trace mixes to try out your own routines. KH2PO4 (Fleet or generic enemas can be substituted, these are sodium phosphate based) and KNO3 are very cheap and traces are relatively cheap unless you have a very large tank, there are cheap dry mix traces available as well. The good thing about this method is that the fertilizers are available the world over, cheap, consistently the same, not brand name aquarium products and thus much cheaper. When I suggest to Wu in Singapore to dose ¼ teaspoon, 1.67 grams of KNO3, he can dose the same thing I use here, he might not be able to get some brand I like here of some aquarium product. So this method can be used the world over, not just in the USA.

A Typical Tank
A typical routine for a high light tank with low fish load:
Volume 80 liters (20 gal high standard tank)
5.5 watts/ gal. - two 55watt 5000K/8800K lamps
CO2-25-30ppm (I turn my CO2 off at night)
Canister filter
Fluorite (any porous iron rich material will do) about 7-10cm depth

A Typical Dosing Routine
1/4 teaspoon of KNO3 3-4x a week (every other day)
1/16th-1/32nd teaspoon of KH2PO4 3-4x a week (every other day)
Traces added on off days as the macro nutrients, so 3x a week, 5mls each time.
SeaChem Equilibrium 1/8 teaspoon after water change.


So the aquarist dose only 3 things really, KNO3, KH2PO4 on the day of the water change then every other day there after, traces of the off day till the next week rolls around. Do a 50-70% water change, dose the macro nutrients back, add the traces the following day and repeat. You can slowly back off this amount till you notice plant growth differences to tailor your individual tank’s need, but all you will do is waste some macros and traces by adding more than the plant needs. You should give each change in your routine about 3 weeks before making another change. This will take time but is worth the time spent. It will not cause algae unless you over look something, namely CO2 or under dosing KNO3 which both of these account for about 95% of all algae issues. If you focus on the plant’s needs, the algae will no longer grow. I hope this helps and ends much frustration for the aquatic gardener so then aquarist may focus on aquascaping and growing plants rather than asking how to kill algae. The aquarist does not have to stick with merely a weekly routine with the water changes or accept 50% as their volumes. This will level off the dosing at 2x the dosed amount so that nothing will ever be overdosed beyond 2x the target range.

The math behind this is as follows:

http://fins.actwin.com/aquatic-plan...1/msg00416.html



Example #1
Suppose you dose 10ppm of NO3 total to a tank per week. Assume you do a 50% weekly water change. If you do the math, you find out that:

If you assume that NONE of it is used up, you can build up a maximum of 20 PPM

If you assume that 25%of it is used up, you can build up a maximum of 16 PPM

If you assume that 50%of it is used up, you can build up a maximum of 13.3 PPM

If you assume that 75%of it is used up, you can build up a maximum of 11.4 PPM

The concentration will not be 15ppm with 25% weekly uptake because of the previous week’s build up if factored into the equation.



Typical model nutrient removal experiment graphical data of concentration versus time

• Types of uptake experiments: Problem: cells become saturated w/time so uptake is underestimated at low concentrations. Uptake depends heavily on light, this unit is poorly measured in the aquarium hobby and presents challenges in the field for researchers due to changes over time, seasonal, monthly, daily, minute by minute, second by second (Clouds, sun flecks etc).
• There is a distinction between uptake from the medium and assimilation into organic compounds, especially Nitrogen [NO3-] and [NH4+] and amino acids. This depends on the ability to store inorganic ions, the rate of the enzymatic steps and the cell needs.
• Cells can adapt and acclimate to chronically low nutrient levels by surge uptake capacity (Vm)
• 2 basic models: Monod model: based on external concentrations, which maybe below detection limits but still biologically relevant and the Droop Model which is based on internal concentrations which is often more important and easier to measure since the concentration is higher than the instanenous external concentration. External concentration is a scale problem as well: micro algae may perceive micro patches of nutrients in microliter volumes whereas we measure integrate typically in then milliliter ranges. Put another way, comparing a the elephant and mouse model, both are herbivores: but we are measuring only large scale plant mass(say trees), not the small patches of short lived herbaceous plants that can feed the mouse but if the elephant has to rely on solely, would starve. Some plants are better than others at this uptake also due to surface: volume ratios.
• Myriophyllum has much high surface: volume ratio than Anubias, The surface area to volume ratio allows Myriophyllum to be a much better competitor for nutrients than Anubias in the water column, but the Anubias makes up for this by growing slower and can withstand lower light levels. Adding excess nutrients and CO2 allows both plants to grow well together without competition.

This is typical generalized model for growth and uptake of a variety of autotrophic organisms. Based on Figure 3 above, from a horticultural perspective, it is more productive to provide non limiting conditions (green box-good target range) for aquatic Macrophytes as the target concentration is much wider as well as higher associated growth rates. Maintaining a set static concentration continuously through time is difficult and impractical to most horticulturists, but a useable range is rather easy to accomplish. Aquatic macrophyte limiting can be useful when exploring individual species differences and responses, but this is hardly a good method for stable horticulture. Non limiting nutrient and light levels need to be quite high before inhibition occurs. These inhibitory levels are unknown for many nutrients as far as aquatic Macrophytes are concern and are generally bounded by toxic concentrations to fauna such as fish and invertebrates (see table 1 for more on the maximum ranges tested individually in isolation1). This range provides an enormous useable range that is relatively easy and simple to target to provide stable levels for horticulture. The limiting range is much narrower and more difficult to provide a stable range from a practical standpoint by not providing much error in dosing and loading rates. Since light typically drives uptake rates, lower intensity of light will provide for less error at low limiting nutrient levels as long as the light compensation point is still being met. Generally, lower light intensities near the LCP have a lower range when non limiting nutrients are provided as well. The study done by Tropica showed this with Ricca and Van et al (1986) showed this same result with three submerged aquatic Macrophytes. In both cases from a horticultural perspective, non limiting nutrient levels are superior with more robustness in stable culturing methods with lower light intensity.

The end result is dramatic macrophyte growth and low algae presence with a simple to use method that allows the aquarist a wide range of dosing routines and healthy growth.
While many books and articles will suggest otherwise, higher nutrients levels and relatively low light can provide dramatic growth. All you need to do is test and try it for yourself to see that this is the indeed the case. The theoretical suggestion for the support of their contentions does not follow, nor does the practical experimentation.

Once applied, EI can be very easy to do and cost very little. It is a simple procedure and basically only CO2 related issues affect the tank and plants, effectively ruling out all the nutrients other than CO2.

Additional References:
Bowes G. 1991. Growth in elevated CO2: photosynthetic responses mediated through rubisco. Plant, Cell and Environment, 14: 795-806 (invited review)
Madsen TV, Maberly SC, Bowes G. 1996. Photosynthetic acclimation of submersed angiosperms to CO2 and HCO3-. Aquatic Botany, 53: 15-30
Additional reading:
Canfield, D.E., Jr., K.A. Langeland, M.J. Maceina, W.T. Haller, J.V. Shireman, and J.R. Jones. 1983. Trophic state classification of lakes with aquatic macrophytes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 40:1713-1718.
Canfield, D.E., Jr., J.V. Shireman, and J.R. Jones. 1984. Assessing the trophic status of lakes with aquatic macrophytes. pp. 446-451. Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the North American Lake Management Society. October. Knoxville, Tennessee. EPA 440/5-84-001.
Canfield, D.E. Jr., and M.V. Hoyer. 1988. Influence of nutrient enrichment and light availability on the abundance of aquatic macrophytes in Florida streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45:1467-1472.
Canfield, D.E. Jr., E. Phlips, and C.M. Duarte. 1989. Factors influencing the abundance of blue-green algae in Florida lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 46:1232-1237.
Agusti, S., C.M. Duarte, and D.E. Canfield Jr. 1990. Phytoplankton abundance in Florida lakes: Evidence for the frequent lack of nutrient limitation. Limnology and Oceanography 35:181-188
Bachmann, R. W., M. V. Hoyer, and D. E. Canfield Jr. 2000. Internal heterotrophy following the switch from macrophytes to algae in Lake Apopka, Florida. Hydrobiologia 418: 217-227.
Bachmann, R.W., M.V. Hoyer and D.E. Canfield, Jr. 2004. Aquatic plants and nutrients in Florida lakes. Aquatics: 26(3)4-11
Bachmann, R. W. 2001. The limiting factor concept: What stops growth? Lakeline 21(1):26-28.
Van, T. K., W. T. Haller and G. Bowes. 1976. Comparison of the photosynthetic characteristics of three submersed aquatic plants. Plant Physiol. 58:761-768.

I would like to thank Neil Frank, Karen Randall and especially Steve Dixon for their input over the years as well as Paul Sears and Kevin Conlin, Claus from Tropica, SFBAAPS folks, each added to the development and understanding of EI. It was team effort to address the many algae issues we had at the time.


Copyright Tom Barr 2005

1 Note: this is for individual inhibitory concentration level, not combinations or two or more


Credit http://www.barrreport.com/estimative-index/62-estimative-index-dosing-no-need-test-kits.html