proper chemistry to grow plants

[muskieswen]

This is my first time on this board so please be gentle.
What is the proper kh and gh for a planted/fish aquarium? I have a 55 gallon tank with community fish and lots of plants. The plants seem to be doing fine, but I think they could be more green. I checked my water with a tetra test kit and found that my ph is 8.0, my kh is 16 and my nitites and nitrates are in the proper range. From some of the reading I have been doing, I believe my kh is to high. What do you think. Also I am going to be installing a co2 tank system to hopefully lower the ph. Am I going in the right direction. Thanks for the responses in advance.

[promethean_sprk]

My kH is 12 and w/ pH of 7.5 using CO2 and peat, plants do ok but I'd like to lower it so I can get my pH a little south of neutral so that tetras and angels will be happier. I'm under the impression that CO2 works better at lower kH as well, something about the carbon being in carbonate above 7 and CO2 below.

I'm using a tap water filter to reduce the hardness of my tap water. Using that water for water changes until the kH is where I want it, at which point I'll premix my water.

[Leopardess]

How many watts per gallon do you have? Co2 will not be beneficial unless you have enough light for your plants to photosynthesize fast enough to be aided by the increased carbon.

Also, are you fertilizing at alll?

There really isn't a "proper" value for those things. You kind of get what you get and work with it.

Welcome to the board!

[muskieswen]

I have two 4 foot lamps that are I believe 60 watts each

[Leopardess]

Are they just standard 48" flourescent bulbs (as I assume they are)? If so, they are more than likely to be 40watts each. So, you've got a total, of say 80 watts on a 55 gall. At that rate, I do not think CO2 will be beneficial to the plants...

If everything is going well and the fish/plants are doing ok in that pH - I'd say not to mess with it.

But, I mean, if you're planning on using something other than a DIY Co2 (which can be a little unpredictable and hard to control), I suppose you could inject co2 anyway -simply as a way of lowering the pH a bit. Then, however, you're spending a lot of unnecessary money...and, without plants that are truly absorbing a lot of that co2, you can be faced with excess amounts of Co2 in the water in overnight (fish gasping at surface in the mornings). Obviously, this is not a good situation. The other option would be to turn the co2 off at night -which can cause another, different set of problems - your pH would fluctuate, which is also not a good situation.

[TomFromStLouis]

Good advice, Spotted One.

Unless you want to grow plants that you have been unable to grow, I would leave well enough alone. Higher light, CO2, ferts.... it is a whole 'nuther world. A high tech tank is considerably more work and effort and comes with a learning curve - don't bother unless it offers something you want and can't get any other way.

[Slappy*McFish]

According to Tom Barr, though not absolutely neccessary in low-light set-ups, CO2 is still useful to plants....they don't use as much, but they still would benefit from it. In high-light set-ups, CO2 is a must. You can add CO2 right now if you want and not have to raise your light levels any..just stick to mainly low-light plants or whatever you currently have. The CO2 will help bring your pH down some and your plants will do better with the CO2....and if you ever decide to go high-tech, you'll already have the CO2 system. My 55g is currently at 1.5wpg lighting and is doing very well without CO2, even though I've used DIY CO2 in the past with decent results. The plants grew somewhat faster with the CO2, but I can't really see any difference as far as how healthy the plants look with or without CO2. Though, I do supplement them with Flourish Excel as an extra source of bio-available carbon.

[Leopardess]

The problem with that is that a Co2 setup may provide too much Co2, which can lead to the two situations I mentioned.

I suppose that if an expensive pressurized system were set up, it could be regulated to a low amount. However, at that light intenisty and whatnot, I can't see the expense being justified. I don't know- I just see the benefits as being minute. Yah, im sure some of the plants will use some of the extra carbon...but it won't boost growth that much, imo. Plus, the lack of 'greenness' might not even be related to the co2 issue, and a decent amount of carbon will be available to the plants through other means.

I guess I'm just thikning along the lines of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

[muskieswen]

Thanks for the good advice. I definetly am new to this and have alot of questions. I have read alot on this board and others and now am more confused than ever. I think I was considering c02 for the healthy plants and the pearling effect but the way it sounds here it might be just a waste of money. My fish are healthy and my plants overall are healthy so maybe I should leave well enough alone.

[muskieswen]

Leopardess,
You are correct on the wattage. I have 2 - 40 watt 10,000 kelvin lamps with a reflector on a 55 gal tank. The substrate is flouro something. Eheim canister filter. Ph is 8,gh is 5, kh is 15 nitrites and nitrates are 0. Is this looking ok. My fish are all healthy and plants look ok. My Vall something( long grass looking thing) is the only plant that looks bad. It is very pale, like it lost its color. The other plants are dwarf sagittaria, rossette swords, java moss, java fern, red ludwigia, green and redish brown cryptocorn and some green bacopa. All these plants look good except the vall. This is why I thought maybe to go to C02. I also have 4 corys, 4 angel fish,5 sepae tetraes, 4 ottos, 5 rummy nose tetraes, 8 harlequin rasbora's and 5 marble hatchets. What is your opinion or any others about this set-up. Is c02 not needed?

[promethean_sprk]

I think vals have a problem with high ph, high kH, or both. My ph is 7.5 and kH 12. Got a val 2 or 3 weeks ago and it's been losing leaves/color and growing algae. It's down to 3 leaves 4 inches long and hasn't thrown up a new one yet, from about 8 leaves to start with. Since everything else is growing well (Java fern/moss, anubias, swords, TONS of h. difformis, and L. repens), I figure the val must have a problem with one or more water parameters. It could also have just been a weak plant.

I've heard vals sulk sometimes for weeks before growing, but this guy looks like he's dying. Maybe I'll try sags instead if it dies.

[Leopardess]

you may want to think about incorporating some lower rated bulbs in terms of the K rating. Generally (there are exceptions) plants 'prefer' between 5500 and 6700K. Maybe just changing out one of the bulbs would help a little also.

As for the vals, they might be suffering due to 'lack' of light...Since they are a grassy plant, they can often prefer a little big higher lighting than what you've got on.

Have you considered adding one or two more 40w bulbs?

[TomFromStLouis]

It sounds to me like you are doing fine Muskieswen. I think that few of us are 100% growing these plants.

The tank I had when I was 14 ( over 30 years ago) was quite low light and I managed to grow some Vallisneria successfully. It grew slowly, but reproduced and did everything I wanted it to. I shuder when I think of what little I knew and did for them.

Fast forward to now: same town, so I presume similar water, high light, CO2, ferts, and more active manager and, voila', total Val failure. Some plants you can grow and others you move on from.

[plantbrain]

Muskieswen,
With 2x40w on a 55 gal tank, add a reflector if you can.
I would highly suggest adding CO2 to this tank BUT __not more__ light.

What type of substrate do you have?
Flourite or Eco complete are great substrates.
Takes about 4 bags(60lbs).

You can add CO2 by the DIY yeast + sugar method, very easy, cost nothing almost.

A simple DIY CO2 reactor runs about 10$ and will dissolve all the CO2 produced.

Dosing the water is easy and the tank results are well worth the effort done here.You would only need to dose once a week with this light amount(more if you have more light etc)

You can go either way with the CO2 or not, but the plant health will be better and you can grow most plant species you want.

The substrate advice will be the same with either method(CO2 or not). You can also add SeaChem's Excel, which is not a non CO2 method really per se, non Carbon enriched might be a better way to say non CO2 methods.


Your tap water is great and you'd do more water changes with the CO2 method(50% weekly), and none essentially with the non CO2 method. But you will need much more patience for the non CO2 tanks.

Those that cannot wait, use CO2.
I can walk to work, but I'm lazy and don';t want to spend the time, so I bike which is more$ and more complicated, but......:)

I really do not care which path you take because I like both paths.
That will be your choice.

As far as plants perferring a pH, no, they prefer CO2, that's what they like. That's the key, not a pH. You can find places with lots of plants and the water might be very soft and the pH might be 6 in the mornign and by late afternoon, 9 or 10.
Some places have had a pH of 8 all day in a river and dense plant growth. Other places like the Ichetucknee river which is a solid 6 miles worth plants has a a pH of 6.7 but has hard clear waters. It also has 25ppm of CO2.

Regards,
Tom Barr

[TomFromStLouis]

How does a natural river maintain such a high CO2 concentration oh Brained One? I have wondered why some plants required such high CO2, suggesting that they actually find it out there. I thought that an aerated bucket of water would equalize itself around 3ppm, so I can't help wondering how large moving bodies of water sustain 25ppm....

[Robert H]

With a pH of 8.0 you have virtually no C02 in the water. There is no "hopefully" C02 lowers the pH, the more you put in, the lower it goes. With rock hard water and no C02, plants will suffer,

Whether or not you should raise your lighting is debateable. I personaly would not be happy with the growth from the lighting that you have. I wouldn't expect very much, and you will be limited in what plants you can grow. Stick with ferns, anubias, Cryps, and the most prolific stem plants. Getting C02 should be your first priority.

[plantbrain]

Tom from ST lou,
Spring water has very high CO2 levels.
The rain falls on the ground, goes through the soil and bacteria which give off CO2 when they respire, the water picks this up as it dribbles through the ground to the aquifer.

Once in the aquifer, just like the beer bottle, there's no way for the CO2 to escape till it's released from the ground or you pop the cap off a cold one.

Also, colder water holds more gas, CO2, Argon, O2 whatever gas you want to pick.

All FW waters pretty much have an excess of CO2 and are constantly giving off CO2 except during high periods of photosynthesis.

The drain on CO2, nutrients etc is VERY low in a lotic system(moving waters like rivers/streams). You can have less CO2/nutrients in the water column and still have good plant growth, but still most of the best plant growth in nature has clear hard water, good CO2 and good sandy substrates. Some other places, have rich organic soil and shallow soft water peat ladens waters. You'll often find the same species growing in both places.

Regards,
Tom Barr