Plant questions
Admiralla
floating about in a tank with goldfish and I selected ones with lots of
roots on them as opposed to some of the ones without. None of them were in
little pots or anything, they were just floating around in the tank. When I
brought them home, I planted them into the gravel and turned on my tank
light for most of the day to help let them adjust.
One of them looks like a small household version of a spiderplant and
another one has long narrow leaves that branch out. It had some roots
further up it's stems, but the main roots were on the end. Another one was
light green and had streaks of white on it's leaves. The leaves looked to be
a bit heavier and they all branched out from the main stem.
My question is, do most common aquarium plants grow in gravel like that? I
know that there are certain floating plant species, and I'm a bit of a green
thumb when it comes to gardening but these didn't look like they'd be at
home just floating around. Now that I have a few plants, what can I do to
keep them healthy and growing?
I've been to a few sites via Google and it seems that unless I know exactly
what kinds of plants I have, I can't really get any solid information on how
to care for them.
Any help would be appreciated...
Dick
wrote:
Sucess with plants is wrapped up in how much you want to challenge
yourself. I finally took the easy route, namely "low light" plants.
When I first got my 75 gallon tank, I didn't know much about plants.
I bought the tank through eBay and drove 650 miles to Oklahoma City to
pick it up. On the way home I stopped at a fish store and bought some
gravel, fish and plants. It was a rainny day and the owner had some
time to talk to me. When we got to plant selection, I selected plants
that were attractive to my eye. The man looked up their names in a
book to see if they were suitable for my tank. He had already looked
at the flourescent lights and determined they were only 40 watts. I
now know that was very "low" light. One of the first new purchase was
for an additional hood with 2 40 watt lights. That gave me 120 watts
for the 75 gallon tank. Still only suitable for "low light" plants.
The original plants didn't do well. I found an internet vendor that
sold tropical fish plants and sold assorted plants by tank size.
These looked great at first, but started falling apart. It hit me, I
hadn't looked for light ratings. So, this time I found a vendor that
offered a "low light" assortment. Thus began my successful gardening
of what had "grown" into a "tank farm" of 5 tanks.
I will let others coach you on fertilizers, CO2, light hoods, etc. I
have happily stayed with the simple approach. My fish provide the
fertilizer and I stay within the "light budget" .
Unless you specifically ordered higher light, you probably will find
your light to tank ration is less than 2 watts per gallon which means
you should look for only those plants rated as such.
Plants are funny. You can buy floating plants with no roots, plant
them and roots will grow. Some plants with roots can be anchored to
the bottom with no gravel and still grow nicely. Annubias like to be
anchored but I have had great successs with planting cuttings.
AS to identifying what you have already bought, go to an internet
vendor of tropical fish plants. They provide pictures and desirable
conditions. If the pictures are not clear, but look similar, search
Google for those possible names and often you can find better
pictures.
If you want to go "high maintenance" here is a newsgroup to visit"
rec.aquaria.freshwater.plants
dick
Ozdude
"Dick" <rem...@christophers.net> wrote in message
news:9ji601lrg50nm51b5...@4ax.com...
> I will let others coach you on fertilizers, CO2, light hoods, etc. I
> have happily stayed with the simple approach. My fish provide the
> fertilizer and I stay within the "light budget" .
What is your current wpg? Mine is 1.44 and I'm starting to wonder if it's
enough. It's close to 1.5, but I quite often hear 2wpg bandied about as
"medium" light.
All of my plants are growing at a fair rate I must add - Blue Stricta, Asian
Ambula, Water Wisteria, Brazilian Pennywort.
I have 15ppm CO2 happening and they all pearl at certain times in the day,
but I just ordered 4 more plants from the LFS and they are mauve and red
types - after I ordered them it struck me that I may not have enough light
for these new plants?
> Plants are funny. You can buy floating plants with no roots, plant
> them and roots will grow. Some plants with roots can be anchored to
> the bottom with no gravel and still grow nicely. Annubias like to be
> anchored but I have had great successs with planting cuttings.
I can propagate Florida banana lilies (because they grow out of control in
my tank) just by cutting the floater leaves about 5cm under the leaf and
letting it float for a while. It grows a new crown and lots of white roots,
then I remove the floater parent leaf eventually and a new banana lily plant
is had. I can see why this plant would be a disaster over here if it ever
got into the water ways like salvinia and duck weed has.
I read the other day on some site (The Skeptical Aquarist I think) that
aquatic plants usually can grow either submersed, emmersed or floating. The
optimal method is planted in substrate, as the uptake of nutrients and root
health is less when floating.
I quite often let the Pennywort and Wisteria bits just float around to get
little "pups". Or another method I've just discovered by accident is to lay
a stem down on the gravel and weigh it down with stones and all the nodes
will shoot roots down into the substrate - you just section the nodes and
viola - lots of cuttings that will take root in the gravel and grow into
full plants.
It's a shame I don't really like the look of Wisteria because this plant
loves to do this.
Oz
--
My Aquatic web Blog is at http://members.optusnet.com.au/ivan.smith
Admiralla
I took some pics this afternoon and put them in my online album. Here;s the
link. Maybe this will help in identifying them
http://ca.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/heat...@nl.rogers.com/album?.dir=/2f1c&.src=ph
As to wpg I honestly have no idea what it is, but I'm sure if you tell me
where to look I can find it.
Addie
"Ozdude" <ivsm...@hote-mail.com> wrote in message
news:4203853a$0$25187$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Margolis
news:3PydnREmkJE...@rogers.com...
> Actually, had I been smart, I could have done this before now....LOL!!
>
> I took some pics this afternoon and put them in my online album. Here;s
the
> link. Maybe this will help in identifying them
>
>
http://ca.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/heat...@nl.rogers.com/album?.dir=/2f1c&.src=ph
>
> As to wpg I honestly have no idea what it is, but I'm sure if you tell me
> where to look I can find it.
>
> Addie
>
your wpg is your Watts per Gallon. What is the wattage of your lighting and
the size of your tank?
btw, your link didn't work. I get this
"the file you are looking for is inaccessible, please sign in and try again
or check with the owner of the file"
--
Margolis
http://web.archive.org/web/20030215212142/http://www.agqx.org/faqs/AGQ2FAQ.htm
http://www.unrealtower.org/faq
still...@webtv.net
3 gallons of water when I clean my 20 gallon tank. The 3 gallons of
fresh water contain calcium, magnesium and sulpher (plus "trace
elements" is what it said) for the plants and all I have to do is add
the iron which is in the plant fertilizer bought in pet stores. thats
seems to be it for my tanks (the 30 gal I replace about 5 gals of
water.) This simple thing I read, plus 12 hours of light, 12 of darkness
(like outside with the sun) seems to do the trick, the plants have
flourished since.
Admiralla
http://ca.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/heat...@nl.rogers.com/my_photos
My tank is 20 gallon and it says "Lamp 15w" on the back of my canopy.
Margolis
.75wpg. For a low light tank you will want 30-40W of light on that tank.
My 20 gallon has a 65W light
And that link didn't work either, this is the message I got:
"Sorry, heatherl@(email) has not enabled any public albums in their
account."
Dick
wrote:
>In that case your tank won't even qualify for low light since you only have
>.75wpg. For a low light tank you will want 30-40W of light on that tank.
>My 20 gallon has a 65W light
>
>And that link didn't work either, this is the message I got:
>"Sorry, heatherl@(email) has not enabled any public albums in their
>account."
Something is fishy Margolis, not with your conclusion, but with the
information. Admiralla is already growing an assortment of plants.
Not only is the rated wattage suspect, but even that would be on the
high side as the lamp aged. I have no experience with CO2 and
pearling, so I can't add anything of use, but something doesn't sound
right.
Admiralla, Is it possible that the original hood lamp has been
altered at sometime?
dick
Dick
wrote:
>
>"Dick" <rem...@christophers.net> wrote in message
>news:9ji601lrg50nm51b5...@4ax.com...
>
>> I will let others coach you on fertilizers, CO2, light hoods, etc. I
>> have happily stayed with the simple approach. My fish provide the
>> fertilizer and I stay within the "light budget" .
>
>What is your current wpg? Mine is 1.44 and I'm starting to wonder if it's
>enough. It's close to 1.5, but I quite often hear 2wpg bandied about as
>"medium" light.
Tanks are not space ships. Trying to measure anything at such close
tolerances is fooling yourself. The plants do not work in
"hundredths." Also, flourescents deteriorate over time. I have read
6 months to be an expected lifetime for full output.
If you are trying to "fudge" and convince yourself you have enough
light to get "medium" light range plants, why not just buy some and
see what happens?
>
>All of my plants are growing at a fair rate I must add - Blue Stricta, Asian
>Ambula, Water Wisteria, Brazilian Pennywort.
>
So, you have several doing well, if you want to add more, go for it.
>I have 15ppm CO2 happening and they all pearl at certain times in the day,
>but I just ordered 4 more plants from the LFS and they are mauve and red
>types - after I ordered them it struck me that I may not have enough light
>for these new plants?
Ah, the real worry! The "special" plants are on their way. Can you
afford to let them die? That is the worst that can happen, right? In
a few weeks you will know if your lighting is sufficient.
>
>> Plants are funny. You can buy floating plants with no roots, plant
>> them and roots will grow. Some plants with roots can be anchored to
>> the bottom with no gravel and still grow nicely. Annubias like to be
>> anchored but I have had great successs with planting cuttings.
>
>I can propagate Florida banana lilies (because they grow out of control in
>my tank) just by cutting the floater leaves about 5cm under the leaf and
>letting it float for a while. It grows a new crown and lots of white roots,
>then I remove the floater parent leaf eventually and a new banana lily plant
>is had. I can see why this plant would be a disaster over here if it ever
>got into the water ways like salvinia and duck weed has.
>
>I read the other day on some site (The Skeptical Aquarist I think) that
>aquatic plants usually can grow either submersed, emmersed or floating. The
>optimal method is planted in substrate, as the uptake of nutrients and root
>health is less when floating.
>
>I quite often let the Pennywort and Wisteria bits just float around to get
>little "pups". Or another method I've just discovered by accident is to lay
>a stem down on the gravel and weigh it down with stones and all the nodes
>will shoot roots down into the substrate - you just section the nodes and
>viola - lots of cuttings that will take root in the gravel and grow into
>full plants.
>
>It's a shame I don't really like the look of Wisteria because this plant
>loves to do this.
>
>Oz
Oz, I feel suckered! Here I gave you my opinions thinking you were a
newbie, where as you have more experience than I. Had I read this
post before the original, I wouldn't have pitched my 2 cents into the
pot. You are playing with dollars!
dick
Margolis
>
> Something is fishy Margolis, not with your conclusion, but with the
> information. Admiralla is already growing an assortment of plants.
> Not only is the rated wattage suspect, but even that would be on the
> high side as the lamp aged. I have no experience with CO2 and
> pearling, so I can't add anything of use, but something doesn't sound
> right.
hmmm, Something is fishy alright. Where did it say that she was already
growing an assortment of plants? I missed that. And where was co2 and
pearling mentioned?
Ozdude
> Tanks are not space ships. Trying to measure anything at such close
> tolerances is fooling yourself. The plants do not work in
> "hundredths." Also, flourescents deteriorate over time. I have read
> 6 months to be an expected lifetime for full output.
I'm sorry, but I don't get your angle. Your answers seem very cinical. My
point it this: WPG figures are out there on the net and generally quoted as
less than 1 wpg "low light", 1-2 wpg "medium light" above 2wpg "high light".
My novice experience so far has proven to me time and again that these
generalised figures, from inches of fish per gallon, to heater wattages per
gallon , to lighting watts per gallon and so on are nothing more than
generalisations based on people's past experience with *their* tanks.
They are useful as guides to me though, but don't have the individual
experience contained with-in them from users "on the ground".
All of our tanks are quite individual and we are all here asking for advice
and opinion, or at least I thought this is what this groups and the other
aquarium groups were for - sharing of experience and advice.
I am on a very low budget FYI and I can't afford to make huge mistakes. The
only way I have to not waste money is to research, research, reasearch and
finally after making informed choices and decisions, ask people here what
their opinions are.
I am fully aware that an aquarium isn't a space ship: I am more than fully
aware that it's a living thing and contains living things and it's my
responsibility as an intelligent being to some how simulate "nature" as
closely as possible. That means being quite accurate with my figures versus
the generalised information I am absorbing.
Now, too much knowledge can also be a bad thing, and I have a feeling from
observing your posting style, intonation and rsponsiveness to certain people
here, that you aren't that worried about your particular aquaria and
probably more relaxed than I, for a start. That's great and I appluad you
for that attitude - what I don't really need though is to be picked on for
asking questions backed up by number figures - that's just the way I talk -
just in case someone asks for more information - it's there and they can
round it out as they feel the need to, if they want to at all.
The difference is that if I buy A$22.00 worth of plants and they all die
because I was just throwing them into the aquarium and "seeing what
happened", that's $22.00 I could of spent on food for myself, or something
that had more value than, ulimately, curiosity.
I certainly don't want to kill any living beings through ignorance, neither
do I want them to suffer if possible; that's my humanity and also my
"religion". Fore armed is fore warned I say.
I am asking the questions about wpg, mauve and red "medium light plants"
with the full knowledge that 6 months or less is the amount of time it takes
a fluoro tube to half it's output and therfore affect intensity. I am also
fully aware that the most important things about plants are substrate
fertilisation, light period/intensity and correct substrate.
I inject CO2 because I can. It costs very little and is effective and
because the plants like it. I said my plants pearl at various times in the
day, and that's all well and good, but that doesn't mean they are healthy by
a long shot and I would hope that people wouldn't take pearling, for
instance, as a value of good plant health because it's not - it simply means
my plants photosynthesise and nothing more.
Sure, I could go out on the web to the plant sites and find out why leaves
are showing signs of this and that, and access one of the two really good
plant databases out there that give me lighting recommendations, but in my
experience, the real knowledge comes from asking people questions. There is
no harm in that. And being accurate can help those people with the answers
if they happen to be technical themselves, or desire figures like 1.44,
instead of 1.5.
>
> If you are trying to "fudge" and convince yourself you have enough
> light to get "medium" light range plants, why not just buy some and
> see what happens?
See above - I can't afford to experiment with limited money.
> Ah, the real worry! The "special" plants are on their way. Can you
> afford to let them die? That is the worst that can happen, right? In
> a few weeks you will know if your lighting is sufficient.
And so I will. The difference will be though, I won't be sitting there
scratching my head wondering why they died. I will learn that adding
anything other than low light types isn't going to work in this tank, as I
have no intention I adding another 72W of light just to grow specific
plants. I can barely afford 2 X 36W/12 hours per day/over a year in
electricity now, not to mention running 20W total of pumps 24 hours/365
days. I have to budget for everything and this is the most I can afford
until things improve on the financial front. As you probably well know -
tanks aren't cheap to run, especially if you have a few of them.
> Oz, I feel suckered! Here I gave you my opinions thinking you were a
> newbie, where as you have more experience than I. Had I read this
> post before the original, I wouldn't have pitched my 2 cents into the
> pot. You are playing with dollars!
Please refrain from generalising and projecting about me - please. I am NOT
more experienced than you at all, and neither do I know whether you are more
experienced than me really - that's not the point anyway - it's not about my
ego.
I have just done a *lot* of reading and have a lot of knowledge but the
experience level is "novice" at best, more live a beginner to be honest with
you.
The last time I had a tank was in the late 1970's when I was a teenager and
there was no talk of cycling, ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, KH, GH etc., no
canister filters, internal power heads - only noisy air pumps and box
filters with filter wool and carbon - UGF's were big in those days too. My
memory of that time is of a simple understandings, musings on why my neons,
guppies and platties used to die suddenly and wondering why the Siamese
Fighter used to blow bubbles in the absence of a female.
Things are radically different in the 21st century, and to be honest, I
can't help thinking that there is too much to consider these days. TMI IMO.
I'll stop asking questions about the unknown experience if you like, but you
also have the choice as the individual you are to just pass and not respond.
Cheers,
Admiralla
Well, so far so good. I believe one of my plants is a Giant Hygro (narrow
leaf). At least that's what it looks from the internet pics I've seen. There
were a few roots further up the stem and from what I've seen over the past
couple of days, they seem to be reaching down into the gravel to the point
where it looks like they're going to dig themselves in. New as I am to
growing water plants, this to me is a good sign. The one with the white
edged leaves looks okay too. I'm not sure about the grassy looking one,
though. The ends seem to be going all stringy, like white threads. I'll keep
my eye on it though...
I'm going to give the link to the pics one more try. I sent myself a copy of
the photo album so I could get the correct link so let me know if it
works....tp://ca.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/heat...@nl.rogers.com/album?.dir=/2f1c&.src=ph&.tok=phq94eCBKT9mepiK
Also, I really appreciate all the input I'm getting. I'm learning so much
just from reading the posts here. You guys are great!
Dick
wrote:
>"Dick" <rem...@christophers.net> wrote in message
>news:3889019me9ca71ui2...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Something is fishy Margolis, not with your conclusion, but with the
>> information. Admiralla is already growing an assortment of plants.
>> Not only is the rated wattage suspect, but even that would be on the
>> high side as the lamp aged. I have no experience with CO2 and
>> pearling, so I can't add anything of use, but something doesn't sound
>> right.
>
>
>hmmm, Something is fishy alright. Where did it say that she was already
>growing an assortment of plants? I missed that. And where was co2 and
>pearling mentioned?
>"All of my plants are growing at a fair rate I must add - Blue Stricta, Asian Ambula, Water Wisteria, Brazilian Pennywort.
>I have 15ppm CO2 happening and they all pearl at certain times in the day,
>but I just ordered 4 more plants from the LFS and they are mauve and red
>types - after I ordered them it struck me that I may not have enough light
>for these new plants?"
Margolis, these are the two paragraphs mentioning "pearling" and
other plants from a February 5th posting.
dick
Dick
wrote:
>"Dick" <rem...@christophers.net> wrote in message
>news:3889019me9ca71ui2...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Something is fishy Margolis, not with your conclusion, but with the
>> information. Admiralla is already growing an assortment of plants.
>> Not only is the rated wattage suspect, but even that would be on the
>> high side as the lamp aged. I have no experience with CO2 and
>> pearling, so I can't add anything of use, but something doesn't sound
>> right.
>
>
>hmmm, Something is fishy alright. Where did it say that she was already
>growing an assortment of plants? I missed that. And where was co2 and
>pearling mentioned?
I see my problem, I confused to authors. Ozdude listed several plants
and pearling.
dick
Dick
wrote:
>
>"Dick" <rem...@christophers.net> wrote in message
>news:0d79015munrhjlelo...@4ax.com...
>> Tanks are not space ships. Trying to measure anything at such close
>> tolerances is fooling yourself. The plants do not work in
>> "hundredths." Also, flourescents deteriorate over time. I have read
>> 6 months to be an expected lifetime for full output.
>
>I'm sorry, but I don't get your angle. Your answers seem very cinical. My
>point it this: WPG figures are out there on the net and generally quoted as
>less than 1 wpg "low light", 1-2 wpg "medium light" above 2wpg "high light".
>My novice experience so far has proven to me time and again that these
>generalised figures, from inches of fish per gallon, to heater wattages per
>gallon , to lighting watts per gallon and so on are nothing more than
>generalisations based on people's past experience with *their* tanks.
>They are useful as guides to me though, but don't have the individual
>experience contained with-in them from users "on the ground".
>
I agree that "expert" opinions have little value for individual
applications. I listen to individual experiences as a guide to the
"possible."
>All of our tanks are quite individual and we are all here asking for advice
>and opinion, or at least I thought this is what this groups and the other
>aquarium groups were for - sharing of experience and advice.
>
>I am on a very low budget FYI and I can't afford to make huge mistakes. The
>only way I have to not waste money is to research, research, reasearch and
>finally after making informed choices and decisions, ask people here what
>their opinions are.
I do not know any answer to risk taking.
I live in a small town with no LFSs, everything I buy is via the
Internet. Talk about risk taking. I find I "waste" money on some
things I want, and am tight as can be on others. Never figured this
one out.
>
>I am fully aware that an aquarium isn't a space ship: I am more than fully
>aware that it's a living thing and contains living things and it's my
>responsibility as an intelligent being to some how simulate "nature" as
>closely as possible. That means being quite accurate with my figures versus
>the generalised information I am absorbing.
>
I know what you mean when you say you try to simulate nature. Not
really possible. We jamb all sorts of species together, provide
reliable food, only accidental predator contact and various qualities
of water. As to lighting, a central point in this discussion, no
river or lake has the fixed sort of lighting we provide. I have no
idea how to factor in cloudy days versus sunny days. I provide what
the hood lights provide. Long ago I settled on "survival of the
fittest", a very "natural" policy, to guide my tank environment. I
buy fish and plants hoping they will be healthy when I get them and
that they will thrive in my tanks' environment.
>Now, too much knowledge can also be a bad thing, and I have a feeling from
>observing your posting style, intonation and rsponsiveness to certain people
>here, that you aren't that worried about your particular aquaria and
>probably more relaxed than I, for a start. That's great and I appluad you
>for that attitude - what I don't really need though is to be picked on for
>asking questions backed up by number figures - that's just the way I talk -
>just in case someone asks for more information - it's there and they can
>round it out as they feel the need to, if they want to at all.
You are wrong to assume that I don't worry about my "aquaria." I
factor in what support I am apt to support reliably. I put things off
that are too demanding and do not trust my reliability in things
chemical. So, not relaxed, just practical. By the way, I don't like
price labels that include ".99" if that adds to you understanding of
me. In this area of aquaria I don't think additional decimal places
adds useful information.
>
>The difference is that if I buy A$22.00 worth of plants and they all die
>because I was just throwing them into the aquarium and "seeing what
>happened", that's $22.00 I could of spent on food for myself, or something
>that had more value than, ulimately, curiosity.
I don't like to waste money either. I am retired and what I have is
has to last for those years I have left. Frustrating as I have no
idea how many those may be. In my life I have regreted money spent
many times. I now give myself a break and take the attitude "shit
happens." Once I spend my money, I consider it gone. I don't let
myself think of what else I could have done with it. Life is full of
"what ifs" whether it is what job, spouse, community or purchase,
there are lots of "roads not taken."
>
>I certainly don't want to kill any living beings through ignorance, neither
>do I want them to suffer if possible; that's my humanity and also my
>"religion". Fore armed is fore warned I say.
It would be wonderful if research could "arm" you to avoid problems.
I wish you well, but suggest that there will always be problems
whether due to poor research, unknown variables or unique
circumstances.
>
>I am asking the questions about wpg, mauve and red "medium light plants"
>with the full knowledge that 6 months or less is the amount of time it takes
>a fluoro tube to half it's output and therfore affect intensity. I am also
>fully aware that the most important things about plants are substrate
>fertilisation, light period/intensity and correct substrate.
>
>I inject CO2 because I can. It costs very little and is effective and
>because the plants like it. I said my plants pearl at various times in the
>day, and that's all well and good, but that doesn't mean they are healthy by
>a long shot and I would hope that people wouldn't take pearling, for
>instance, as a value of good plant health because it's not - it simply means
>my plants photosynthesise and nothing more.
>
>Sure, I could go out on the web to the plant sites and find out why leaves
>are showing signs of this and that, and access one of the two really good
>plant databases out there that give me lighting recommendations, but in my
>experience, the real knowledge comes from asking people questions. There is
>no harm in that. And being accurate can help those people with the answers
>if they happen to be technical themselves, or desire figures like 1.44,
>instead of 1.5.
The problem here is lack of consistency in expert opinion. I consider
1.5 wpg as the dividing point between low and medium plants. Does
this mean that individual plants might not tolerate wide lighting
variables? I think not. Consider the natural variation the plants
come from. The sun reaches under the water with lots of variation.
"Evolutionary" theory teaches that genetic changes which survive lead
to variation in the species. I don't think that plant vendors are
consistent in their varieties, do you? There is a lot of trial and
error getting a tank to work well, in my opinion.
>
>>
>> If you are trying to "fudge" and convince yourself you have enough
>> light to get "medium" light range plants, why not just buy some and
>> see what happens?
>
>See above - I can't afford to experiment with limited money.
I see no way to do that.
Experimentation is equivalent to taking risks. Life is all about
taking risks, not with just money.
>
>> Ah, the real worry! The "special" plants are on their way. Can you
>> afford to let them die? That is the worst that can happen, right? In
>> a few weeks you will know if your lighting is sufficient.
>
>And so I will. The difference will be though, I won't be sitting there
>scratching my head wondering why they died. I will learn that adding
>anything other than low light types isn't going to work in this tank, as I
>have no intention I adding another 72W of light just to grow specific
>plants. I can barely afford 2 X 36W/12 hours per day/over a year in
>electricity now, not to mention running 20W total of pumps 24 hours/365
>days. I have to budget for everything and this is the most I can afford
>until things improve on the financial front. As you probably well know -
>tanks aren't cheap to run, especially if you have a few of them.
If they die, I suggest you will be scratching your head. All of the
opinions expressed by me or others in these groups come from
"scratching" our heads, then trying again.
>
>> Oz, I feel suckered! Here I gave you my opinions thinking you were a
>> newbie, where as you have more experience than I. Had I read this
>> post before the original, I wouldn't have pitched my 2 cents into the
>> pot. You are playing with dollars!
>
>Please refrain from generalising and projecting about me - please. I am NOT
>more experienced than you at all, and neither do I know whether you are more
>experienced than me really - that's not the point anyway - it's not about my
>ego.
>
>I have just done a *lot* of reading and have a lot of knowledge but the
>experience level is "novice" at best, more live a beginner to be honest with
>you.
We all are beginners in the sense that we never know enough.
>
>The last time I had a tank was in the late 1970's when I was a teenager and
>there was no talk of cycling, ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, KH, GH etc., no
>canister filters, internal power heads - only noisy air pumps and box
>filters with filter wool and carbon - UGF's were big in those days too. My
>memory of that time is of a simple understandings, musings on why my neons,
>guppies and platties used to die suddenly and wondering why the Siamese
>Fighter used to blow bubbles in the absence of a female.
>
>Things are radically different in the 21st century, and to be honest, I
>can't help thinking that there is too much to consider these days. TMI IMO.
I am constantly amazed when I consider what young people are faced
with. So much to learn. As you know, I work with limited variables
in dealing with my fish and plants. I find this works for me and that
is all I want. BTW I had my first tanks as a teenager in late 40s.
As I recall, it was equally challenging. Since I have limited the
variables I deal with, I think my technological level equivalent, only
now I have come to relay on frequent water changes and limited
feeding. I was much too busy as a teenager to deal with water changes
reliably. I don't even recall it being an issue.
>
>I'll stop asking questions about the unknown experience if you like, but you
>also have the choice as the individual you are to just pass and not respond.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Oz
Oz, I enjoy sharing. I live alone. I know I take a less
sophisticated approach to our hobby. The message I want to give is
fish as a hobby does not have to be so complicated. However, I also
know, many people enjoy the high tech road. I don't respond when I
think the author is into the high tech approach. I respect their
perspective.
dick
Norm
where to get a simple? chart that deals with the variables of wattage,
tank height, and height of lighting over the water surface?
Norm
Ozdude
> I do not know any answer to risk taking.
> I live in a small town with no LFSs, everything I buy is via the
> Internet. Talk about risk taking. I find I "waste" money on some
> things I want, and am tight as can be on others. Never figured this
> one out.
Sounds like a good policy to me ;) We all make mistakes, no matter how
informed we are. It's the doing of the knowledge (i.e. experience and
wisdom) that ultimately determines a success. We are just "human" after all
;)
> I know what you mean when you say you try to simulate nature. Not
> really possible.
That's the whole dilemma with anything human artificial though isn't it? It
simulates, but isn't actually it.
I say you can't beat the real thing.
> We jamb all sorts of species together, provide
> reliable food, only accidental predator contact and various qualities
> of water. As to lighting, a central point in this discussion, no
> river or lake has the fixed sort of lighting we provide. I have no
> idea how to factor in cloudy days versus sunny days. I provide what
> the hood lights provide. Long ago I settled on "survival of the
> fittest", a very "natural" policy, to guide my tank environment. I
> buy fish and plants hoping they will be healthy when I get them and
> that they will thrive in my tanks' environment.
I look at it this way - I watch documentaries (like the BBC's Amazon which
was just aired here) and observe the information about the species "au
naturel". Since watching this show for instance and observing the plants and
fish in the river, it occurred to me that pristine dark green, pearling
plants in a tank are most un-natural. That said, I am also aware that tank
or commercially farmed raised fish and plants aren't in their natural
states, but essentially are forced evolved for and by us.
A good example of this is the common Neon Tetra, who's natural habitat has a
pH of 3-6, contains black water, has rotting plants and fungus all over it's
biotope and depends on sunlight to escape predators; but I am aware that
farmed Neons are reared and adapted for a pH of 7 or more and like clear
water. They will revert to instinctive patterns if presented with the
conditions though, and as humans with the control we have responsibility to
control the tank properly.
As for plants - I find out as much as I can (region, natural growing
conditions, biotope) about them and basically (at this moment in time) hope
they will grow in a tank. If they come from tropical equatorial regions
(most of mine do) they get 12 hours of artificial light per day. When there
is an electrical storm here, and there have been a few lately, I turn the
lights off, open the curtains and let the lightning illuminate the tank, and
then afterwards leave the lights off with the day light coming in - this
simulates a rainy day for me, and I try do it at least once per month.
I just figure that's about as close as "natural" as I can get it for the
plants. I don't know of any environment on this planet that has water, high
temperatures and exactly 12 hours of light and exactly 12 hours of dark. I
could get really into it I suppose and ramp the lights up and down either
side of the 12 hour period, but that's a real cost and not really worth it
IMO.
I can do it with natural day break light in the morning, and at night, a
single orange hued room light at night, which changes into a bluer light out
of view of the tank. I think doing the orange (setting sun) for 30 minutes,
then the blue (twilight) for 30 minutes simulates as best as possible
considering I don't want to have some fancy dimming or ridiculously complex
array of different colour temperature tubes over the tank, like I saw plans
for once ;)
> You are wrong to assume that I don't worry about my "aquaria." I
> factor in what support I am apt to support reliably. I put things off
> that are too demanding and do not trust my reliability in things
> chemical. So, not relaxed, just practical. By the way, I don't like
> price labels that include ".99" if that adds to you understanding of
> me. In this area of aquaria I don't think additional decimal places
> adds useful information.
That's a problem I haven't yet sorted out personally - projecting and
generalizing and I apologise. It just seemed that way from the way you
"speak" - sorry.
As I responded additional decimal places aren't really necessary, but it's
not a huge jump to round them up or down to the general figures we see. I
have 1.5wpg in my tank - there :)
> It would be wonderful if research could "arm" you to avoid problems.
> I wish you well, but suggest that there will always be problems
> whether due to poor research, unknown variables or unique
> circumstances.
That's true but I consider glaring mistakes can be avoided with a bit of
information.
Ultimately, it's not until you "run with it" you see the result - good or
bad. We may think many things into existence in our ignorance, and for me
it's about not doing that if possible.
> The problem here is lack of consistency in expert opinion. I consider
> 1.5 wpg as the dividing point between low and medium plants. Does
> this mean that individual plants might not tolerate wide lighting
> variables? I think not. Consider the natural variation the plants
> come from. The sun reaches under the water with lots of variation.
> "Evolutionary" theory teaches that genetic changes which survive lead
> to variation in the species. I don't think that plant vendors are
> consistent in their varieties, do you? There is a lot of trial and
> error getting a tank to work well, in my opinion.
Totally agreed. I think the same way myself. My plant vendors are consistent
actually, but I do agree with the trail and error methodology. As stated
earlier - all of our tanks are individuals and vary just like the people
that own them. What works for one doesn't necessarily work for all, or
others. But it is nice to have many opinions as I find it leads to "all
things considered" ;)
> I am constantly amazed when I consider what young people are faced
> with. So much to learn. As you know, I work with limited variables
> in dealing with my fish and plants. I find this works for me and that
> is all I want. BTW I had my first tanks as a teenager in late 40s.
> As I recall, it was equally challenging. Since I have limited the
> variables I deal with, I think my technological level equivalent, only
> now I have come to relay on frequent water changes and limited
> feeding. I was much too busy as a teenager to deal with water changes
> reliably. I don't even recall it being an issue.
And neither did I 30 years later ;) Water changes in the 1970s? What's that?
LOL!!!
> Oz, I enjoy sharing. I live alone. I know I take a less
> sophisticated approach to our hobby. The message I want to give is
> fish as a hobby does not have to be so complicated. However, I also
> know, many people enjoy the high tech road. I don't respond when I
> think the author is into the high tech approach. I respect their
> perspective.
I think we are getting to know each other a little, that's all that's going
on here.
I am glad we all get along, we share and correspond on the whole. I find it
interesting to watch the threads of hi-tech conversations, but my personal
philosophy has always been and will forever be KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid)
:)
All the best,
Ozdude
"Norm" <nwa...@orgobject.com> wrote in message
news:1107704111.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Boy, am I out to lunch here. What is "pearling" and does anyone know
> where to get a simple? chart that deals with the variables of wattage,
> tank height, and height of lighting over the water surface?
Pearling is when the plants are photosynthesising and bubbles of oxygen come
off them, either in a steady stream or individual larger bubbles. It means
they are photosynthesising only in my book and doesn't indicate general
well-being. It can also happen when the amount of dissolved oxygen in the
water reaches it's maxium.
I think www.thekrib.com would be a good place to start.