Green Water - Myth or Magic

Originally Posted by Ranchu Lover

See lah! Deserve it! Who ask you to use CW? So want to replenish your stock with "kwat kwat" ones or not?

Thinking of giving up leh. If start from scratch I rather have a tank at home. But since I can't, thinking of giving up.

Originally Posted by peter porker

bro...you win lah. Can we move on and close this chapter?

Close chapter not the thread hor, Mr. Mod?

Originally Posted by Ranchu Lover

Close chapter not the thread hor, Mr. Mod?

I think close both lah.







Then start new one.

Originally Posted by peter porker

I think close both lah.







Then start new one.

Havn't come to a conclusion, want to close thread. Ok lah!

ZZZzzzzzz................

[LauLanChu]

Originally Posted by FieryBetta

You are the lao jiao again proven! This thread is talking about plant keeping (read - sarcasm). This is not science vs presumption. You better check your logic and try thinking harder, much harder. I will talk about readings when your brudder RLover is sincere about finding what is wrong. You first class hantam type, confirmed - your cwater leader is enjoying himself.

Bro,
Good in finding escape path, huh! Don't know say don't lah! I already declared his reading does not make sense and want any brother to give the norminal reading, still ask me to think hard. If I have GW I will straight away do the measurement to see what I get.
Check his setup, you think can get an answer meh! dream on! I bet you don't even have the measurement kit.
Seems everybody now is hantaming and you are the one who can think logically, you win okay. I give up.

[LauLanChu]

Originally Posted by Ranchu Lover

Why you did not get the desired result with CW is because you did not set up the system properly. Same goes for GW. If you do not know how to manage your GW properly, your fish will also have problem.

FYI, I just tried one tank of GW and let it turn green with 3 Tikus in a 2 ft tank. The Nitrate was good in the day time below 12.5ppm, but during the early hours of the morning, the Nitrate was well above 200ppm. Is 200ppm and above a good reading may I ask?

Some GW users have the misconception that NO3 (the end product of Nitrogen cycle) should be low or zero in GW. The answer is certainly wrong as we already know BB can co-exist with the algae. The BB is found in abundant on the wall, bed, subtrate and rocks and they are also competing for NH3 with the algae (I have personally experimenting it with GW and a sponge filter and measured NH3 at night after heavy feeding and found NH3 is zero. I have forgotten to measure the NO3). Therefore, when night falls and photosynthesis stops, the BB dominate and start converting the NH3 to NO3. The amount of NO3 produced depends on your load and your feed the earlier day. This should be totally wiped up the next day when photosynthesis starts again. However, situation change when you have consecutive dark rainy days and your NO3 could be creeping up to a very high level without you even noticing it and stressing up your fishes. So, what RL's claim of NO3 being very variable in GW could be true.
RL's claim of 200ppm the next day from a low level sounds rediculous fast and high. However, this should not be taken lightly without verification. So, I urged the serious GW users to take some measurements for comparison before we can further discuss.
I reiterate again, no presumption in science. Only believe in measurement and see with your own eyes. You could be very surprise by the results.

Originally Posted by LauLanChu

Some GW users have the misconception that NO3 (the end product of Nitrogen cycle) should be low or zero in GW. The answer is certainly wrong as we already know BB can co-exist with the algae. The BB is found in abundant on the wall, bed, subtrate and rocks and they are also competing for NH3 with the algae (I have personally experimenting it with GW and a sponge filter and measured NH3 at night after heavy feeding and found NH3 is zero. I have forgotten to measure the NO3). Therefore, when night falls and photosynthesis stops, the BB dominate and start converting the NH3 to NO3. The amount of NO3 produced depends on your load and your feed the earlier day. This should be totally wiped up the next day when photosynthesis starts again. However, situation change when you have consecutive dark rainy days and your NO3 could be creeping up to a very high level without you even noticing it and stressing up your fishes. So, what RL's claim of NO3 being very variable in GW could be true.
RL's claim of 200ppm the next day from a low level sounds rediculous fast and high. However, this should not be taken lightly without verification. So, I urged the serious GW users to take some measurements for comparison before we can further discuss.
I reiterate again, no presumption in science. Only believe in measurement and see with your own eyes. You could be very surprise by the results.

How come nobody commented on whether the 2 sets of test kit I showed earlier for measuring NO3 is the right one or produced by a company with very bad reputation. The other thing that at the least that some body can do is to recommend me another set of test kit.

I am still very puzzled as I cannot understand why I got such a reading?

I repeat, my tank is a 2 ft glass tank that is set high up against the aluminium grille of my balcony with very high ceiling. I provided an aeration and even perform siphoning of uneaten food at the end of the day before sunset. It took about 7 to 8 days for the water to turn green. I have 3 tikus inside the tank and I feed them many times a day with very small feed as I ususlly do for my other fish.

Because I have the set up in the comfort of my own home, I was able to take measurement as and when I like. I did the test 4 times with the 2 sets of test kits.

Just like the advertisement for radio 90.5FM. "HEAR ONLY THE GOOD STUFF!" and filter out the bad stuff.

Is it so difficult for someone to test their GW in the early hours of the morning and share your findings. Bro Jikin for one has GW in the comfort of his own home.

[LauLanChu]

So you also start experimenting with GW, sure yours is GW or dirty water... People don't believe leh. 200ppm, got read wrongly or not due to poor sleepy eyesight, maybe is just 20ppm...
Maybe your aggressive feeding produce too much and surplus NH3/NO3 for the green algae to consume.....try to explain for you but still can't find the logic. Got smoke or not
Unfortunately no one want to prove you wrong. Too bad I don't have GW, else I would be sleeping beside the pond

Originally Posted by LauLanChu

Some GW users have the misconception that NO3 (the end product of Nitrogen cycle) should be low or zero in GW. The answer is certainly wrong as we already know BB can co-exist with the algae. The BB is found in abundant on the wall, bed, subtrate and rocks and they are also competing for NH3 with the algae (I have personally experimenting it with GW and a sponge filter and measured NH3 at night after heavy feeding and found NH3 is zero. I have forgotten to measure the NO3). Therefore, when night falls and photosynthesis stops, the BB dominate and start converting the NH3 to NO3. The amount of NO3 produced depends on your load and your feed the earlier day. This should be totally wiped up the next day when photosynthesis starts again. However, situation change when you have consecutive dark rainy days and your NO3 could be creeping up to a very high level without you even noticing it and stressing up your fishes. So, what RL's claim of NO3 being very variable in GW could be true.
RL's claim of 200ppm the next day from a low level sounds rediculous fast and high. However, this should not be taken lightly without verification. So, I urged the serious GW users to take some measurements for comparison before we can further discuss.
I reiterate again, no presumption in science. Only believe in measurement and see with your own eyes. You could be very surprise by the results.

You just don't know when to stop when you should, that's why you are "hantam king no 1, no think". I've told you this is not presumption vs science. See your own post. You are also assuming.