# 180 Gallon Tank - Fish feeding question



## JustinScott (Nov 27, 2010)

Hi everyone, new to this forum... 

I have a 180 Gallon freshwater which has been running for a little less than a year now.

I have around 70-80 inches of fish in the tank. I'm allowing for each fish to double its size; some species will grow more than that; others are already as big as I expect them to grow... The fish have been in there for about 4 months now, and for the most part no fatalities/diseases. 


--The Problem--
Anyway, my problem is my mechanical filter gets clogged litterally every other day & I'm constantly cleaning it. I think I'm over feeding them; but I don't know how much I should feed them. Everywhere online says 'feed them enough that they stop eating within 5 minutes'... I think this guideline must be for smaller aquariums; because my fish eat 3/4 ton in 5 minutes. I'm three them several large (very large) pinches twice a day. They tear through it in under a minute.

---Fish note---
I do have 3 goldfish and 1 black moor in my tank. The black moor will stay as he is breathing fine and is my wife's favorite. The 3 goldfish (starter fish that I never took out) will go out to my Koi pond when the weather gets better... right now the temp shock would simply kill them.
-->The goldfish/moor & the angels fish tear through the food 10x faster than anyone else.


Aquarium details:
Other than the tannens from a irritating piece of bogwood; the water is clear. 
One Fluval G6 - expensive, but I love it. Willing to get another, but would rather solve this problem.
One UV seralizer
One Water mover (salt water water pump)
I am trying to plant the tank right now.

Water details (from this morning):
Ammonia is at 0
Nitrate is around 30 (safe zone) this morning -- usually less... but never 0
Nitrite is around .2
Hardness (GH:75) soft
chorine 0
Alkalinity (KH80) moderate
ph 7.2 -- never seems to get any less - never gets above 7.8

Fish details (of note -- as there are way too many):
2 plecos
4 angels
4 bala
3 goldfish, 1 black moor
10 tigerbarbs (regret these little bastards)
the rest are community tetras


----------



## thefishboy (Aug 20, 2010)

Firstly Goldfish are coldwater fish and the others are tropical they are not suited for each other....
Tiger Barbs are to fast for the sedate Angel Fish..
And Angel Fish should be kept in groups of 5-6 unless breeding pair.. Could you return the Tiger Barbs and get quite alot more Angel Fish???
Some one else will chime in soon..
Goldfish are poop machines!! Cut down feeding for a while and see if that helps but if i were you i would definatley get rid of the goldfish then Tiger Barbs and get more Angel Fish you could have a nice array in that sized tank.......


----------



## JustinScott (Nov 27, 2010)

Thanks for the quick reply.

The angels are very large compared to the tigers... So they leave the angels alone, thankfully. They are little jerks though. They constantly bother my 'small army' of cory cats. I've really have about had it with them. If one of my LFS would give me a trade, I'd probably take it.

I really can't do much with the goldfish, my gma picked them out for me and she's not doing very well right now... so they are 'sentimental goldfish'. So I'm unwilling to sentence them to freeze to death & I'm unwilling to give them to the LHS goldfish machine. What I might be willing to do is move them to the hospital tank... but that is ONLY if I'm sure they are the cause. I'd first need to tune the community's food rate.

BlackMoor (a variant of goldfish) cannot be removed from tropical tank, wife would kill me.


----------



## thefishboy (Aug 20, 2010)

i would just set up another tank for the gold fish because there not supposed to be tropical fish.......


----------



## JustinScott (Nov 27, 2010)

Bump.. That's it? Get rid of the poor goldfish?

Back to my original question... How much food should be dispensed?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MukiTheFish (Aug 21, 2010)

First I have a question, is the gunk that clogs your filter food or waste?
It it's waste the fish produced then I'd say it's just how your goldfish are. 

If it helps, I can tell you how I feed my fish.
I feed them mostly twice a day, by giving a very small amount of food in the water and wait untill I see all the food eaten, then I add another pinch and wait again etc., untill I feel they had enough. I have 10 rasboras and they are small so i'd say i give alltogether roughly 8 food flakes crumbled in small pieces in about 3- 4 pinches. 

I agree with putting all the coldwater fish in a different tank. If it helps with survivability, ask your wife if she'd like to spend 24/7 in a sauna?


----------



## sik80 (Mar 16, 2010)

you would be surprised how little food fish need to survive. I have roughly 40 fish in my tank and they get a tiny sprinkle of flake or micro pellets plus 2 sinking pellets once per day. Twice a week I will feed bloodworms or chopped earthworm and no flake or pellets that day. all my fish are healthy and some have even bred. I've just been away for 4 days and the fish haven't been fed at all but are fine on my return.

one more point - i see you have a water mover - imo this is not needed in your tank. the canister filter will provide enough water movement. angel fish in particular do not like a high rate of water flow as they come from habitats with very slow moving water


----------



## Byron (Mar 7, 2009)

I second the advice/suggestions on the incompatible mix of fish. 

I concur with sik80 on feeding; one feeding per day is more than sufficient, perhaps too much at that--unless the fish are young fry that need frequent meals. I feed once a day in the mid-morning when the fish are most active [though they will learn to become active if fed at a different time regularly]. On water change day I omit feeding completely. Fish (aside from fry) can manage for 1-2 weeks with no food provided they are healthy.

They will always (if healthy) appear "hungry" and will eat if food is provided whether they need to or not, it is their natural instinct because they don't naturally know when they may next find food. Depending upon the size of the fish of cours, a morsel of food daily is quite sufficient.

Byron.

P.S. I moved the posts about angels and tiger barbs to a new thread, in case anyone wonders what happened to them.


----------



## JustinScott (Nov 27, 2010)

I caught one of the goldfish and is now living in the hospital tank. The other two saw what happened to their friend and are evading me. 

I reduced the amount of food I'm feeding them & cleaned the filter. Will see how long it takes to gunk up. One of the great things about the g6... It tells you when it's clogged! 

How can I tell if it is waste or food? It just looks like dark green muck.

I actually disagree with you sik80; I don't think the water is moving nearly fast enough for a 180 gallon. I will eventually buy another g6 as I don't think one is enough.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Byron (Mar 7, 2009)

> I actually disagree with you sik80; I don't think the water is moving nearly fast enough for a 180 gallon. I will eventually buy another g6 as I don't think one is enough.


This is difficult for us to ascertain, and you being there may be correct. However, sik80's point was valid and correct; some fish do not appreciate water movement and will be stressed by it.

We often tend to think of filtration as "the more the better" but nothing could be farther from the truth. Filtration is a matter of fish and tank size; the type of fish and the number of them in relation to the water volume should indicate how much filtration is necessary. Tied to filtration is water movement, and this is also important to fish health. Fish from stagnant ponds and swamps (like gourami) and flooded forest and slow-flowing streams (like angels, most but not all tetra, rasbora, etc) are "programmed" for such waters and will be stressed if having to fight currents. This is why one should always consider all aspects of a fish's natural habitat when selecting compatible fish for a community aquarium. Fish that prefer similar to identical environments and water parameters will naturally be more healthy together.

Another reason to separate out the goldfish; their are waste producers and increased filtration and good water circulation are important. But not to the angels.

I hope that explains it a bit.

Byron.


----------



## noledoc (Nov 17, 2010)

Byron, you said, "We often tend to think of filtration as "the more the better" but nothing could be farther from the truth. Filtration is a matter of fish and tank size; the type of fish and the number of them in relation to the water volume should indicate how much filtration is necessary."
Would you elaborate?
For instance in a large planted tank, would you be able to safely increase the number of fish by increasing the amount of mech and bio filtration and water changes?
thanks




Read more: http://www.tropicalfishkeeping.com/...nk-fish-feeding-question-56248/#ixzz16jXPOvIo


----------



## JustinScott (Nov 27, 2010)

I'm also curious why too much filtration is an issue? Seems like the bio would just grow to meet the food supply nothing more, mech would simply be less dirty per day, and chem would be the only question... But you could just not put as much carbon in.

Perhaps power heads & undergravel would be an issue... As they spit out a lot of water movement. But my g6 for example doesnt throw high speed water out just more volume.

Which brings me to why the water mover is in there, the g6 pumps a lot of water... But seemingly at lower water speeds & large tubes. The mover, circulates the upper third of water & the plants & decor seem to keep the rest slow moving. I think it's right, if not a little lacking.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Byron (Mar 7, 2009)

Responding to the questions/issues from the last two posts.

Filtration has three components: cleaning the water, clearing the water, and moving the water. Some of all three occur naturally in a biologically balanced system. Adding equipment to increase one or more of these components depends entirely upon the relationship between the fish, plants and tank volume. But at that point, one must remember the limited effectiveness and still strive to create a balanced biological system.

Taking the simplest and completely natural method first, a planted tank. If the fish load is balanced with the plant load for the water volume, the tank will filter itself. Diana Walstad and many other authorities on planted aquaria set up tanks with no added equipment filtration and they perform minimal or no water changes [Diana writes of one every six months]. Fish stocking must be moderate, and most importantly the fish must be "compatible." Compatibility is multi-faceted, referring not only to behaviours, but equally to identical water parameters (for all fish and plants in the system) and the same environmental needs (plants, wood, rock, substrate, water flow rate, light intensity--all these things are highly important). If all of this is in sync, the tank's biology will be balanced and the fish will be extremely healthy.

There is more at issue than the waste produced by the fish, though that is significant. Fish also produce pheromones, and these have to be handled. In the afore-mentioned _*balanced*_ planted tank, the plants take care of all this. But most of us want more fish in our tanks than what the natural system in such a confined space can handle. The more fish there are, or the larger the fish size, the more water volume is needed to maintain the balance. [This also applies if the "compatibility" issue is askew; introducing fish with different needs in terms of water parameters or environmental aspects means introducing more weight on the biological equilibrium and this requires far more space in terms of both physical space and water volume, although there is a limit to this too.] But even this comes up lacking fairly quickly. At this point we introduce filter equipment. From here on, unless stated otherwise, by using the words "filter" or "filtration" I am referring to added equipment filters/filtration, not natural.

Keeping the water clear--what we term mechanical filtration--is the only real job of filtration in a planted tank. With this comes some water movement, sufficient to allow the removal of particulate matter from the water column by the filter, but not beyond the needs of the plants and fish [for sake of brevity, I won't go further into this]. Some mechanical filtration is therefore advisable in planted aquaria.

Keeping the water clean is handled by the plants, but in our "over-loaded" tanks this is inadequate. The level of nitrifying bacteria (nitrosomonas and nitrospira) in a well-planted tank is quite low, much less than in the same tank with few or no plants. Plants assimilate a lot of ammonium as their preferred source of nitrogen, and this comes from the ammonia produced by the fish and bacteria. And most of the bacteria exists not in the filter but elsewhere; it colonizes all surfaces covered by water, from every grain of substrate, every plant leaf, every bit of wood, rock, etc., the tank walls--everywhere. Encouraging excess biological filtration can be detrimental to plant growth because it robs them of essential nutrients. Therefore, in a well-planted aquarium, the filtration we add should be the least needed to perform the task. And that task is one of gently moving the water to bring nutrients to the plants and remove debris from the leaves and trap it in the filter media.

Then we come to plant-less tanks. Here the tasks performed by the plants must be performed by the filtration we introduce into the system. However, adding more filters only works to a point. It is a fallacy that using several filters means you can maintain more or larger fish than the aquarium will naturally support. And it is not just the issue of nitrification, but removing the pheromones I mentioned previously. Massive and frequent water changes will do this better than any filter system. As an obvious example, housing a 10-inch cichlid in a 20g tank is not going to be more successful regardless of how many filters are used. Assuming that we can extend the capability of the biological system by using more and larger filters is not a correct assumption. All the filters can do is move the water more or faster; they can't remove the "crud" any more, once we go beyond the biological limit of fish to water volume. And chemists have pointed out that faster water movement actually deters nitrification because the water flows past the bacteria too quickly. So we come back to that balance.

I don't know if I have fully answered your questions; follow-up if not.

Byron.


----------



## rgsmith (Jul 7, 2008)

*Filtration*



Byron said:


> Responding to the questions/issues from the last two posts.
> 
> Filtration has three components: cleaning the water, clearing the water, and moving the water. Some of all three occur naturally in a biologically balanced system. Adding equipment to increase one or more of these components depends entirely upon the relationship between the fish, plants and tank volume. But at that point, one must remember the limited effectiveness and still strive to create a balanced biological system.
> 
> ...


 
For me I believe that for any tank over 120g with large fish or fish that eat a lot (e.g. Malawi-Lake cichlids, a sump system is best. These provide great filtration, great biologic and mechanical filtration, and great flow of water.Otherwise I would use a large cannister filter (e.g. Eheim, or Fluval) with a Marineland outside filter with rotating biowheel as a backup. With Cichlids plants are often difficult to maintain as they become part of the "mixed" diet of the lovely fish, esp the Mbunas.
Garth


----------



## noledoc (Nov 17, 2010)

Byron, your detailed and patient discussion of balanced systems is greatly appreciated. My questions are theoretical probes driven by my own need to have the whole thing make sense to me. It's in my nature to move where ever possible to Occam's Razor, that is to keep it simple if possible. The ammonium/nitrite/nitrate cycle is fairly straight forward. Addding in pheromones to me signifies the need for water changes or maybe more plants since pheromones are organic amino acids and possible plant food.

Here's my hypotherical situation:
A planted tank with fish is very close to being in balance aka Walstad. If you add a pair of platies without adding plants, you should be able to balance this with a bit more mech and bio filtration, more bacteria grow to match the increased "food supply." For the sake of argument, you do a 1/4 water change weekly.

Let's say however, that when you added your pair of platies, you also arranged to run all the water in your tank thru a huge bed of floss (or dozens of sponges, etc). As the platies had babies, more ammonium >> nitrite >> nitrate was produced. As this happened, more and more of the floss would be colonized by bacteria. 


Would the plants continue to get what they need out of the tank as a priority? I would assume the growing culture of bacteria would take care of what they plants didn't need.
Would the bacteria get to the point that they would be removing significant amounts of oxygen out of the water?
Does the bacterial colony produce CO2? If so would that not also add to the CO2 from the additional fish and encourage more plant growth?
Last question: Do you enjoy this reparte or find it to be a nusance? Thanks very much!


----------



## Byron (Mar 7, 2009)

> Here's my hypotherical situation:
> A planted tank with fish is very close to being in balance aka Walstad. If you add a pair of platies without adding plants, you should be able to balance this with a bit more mech and bio filtration, more bacteria grow to match the increased "food supply." For the sake of argument, you do a 1/4 water change weekly.
> 
> Let's say however, that when you added your pair of platies, you also arranged to run all the water in your tank thru a huge bed of floss (or dozens of sponges, etc). As the platies had babies, more ammonium >> nitrite >> nitrate was produced. As this happened, more and more of the floss would be colonized by bacteria.
> ...


Yes, as I understand it. I have read that plants are basically quicker at grabbing the ammonia, which is why nitrosomonas bacteria are fewer in planted tanks than in identical tanks with no plants. 



> Would the bacteria get to the point that they would be removing significant amounts of oxygen out of the water?


Not likely. But this would apply in any aquarium. If the ammonia is so great that the bacteria increase to the point where they rob the fish of oxygen, there is something very wrong with the biological load. There is the gaseous exchange at the surface introducing oxygen, plus plants producing copious amounts during photosynthesis. Plant roots produce oxygen for the bacteria in the substrate. 



> Does the bacterial colony produce CO2? If so would that not also add to the CO2 from the additional fish and encourage more plant growth?


Yes. There is (I am told by biologists) more CO2 occurring from bacteria than fish in any aquarium (unless it is way overloaded or something). As I wrote elsewhere only today, I have had tanks of plants with no fish and obviously CO2 came from something to keep the plants growing since I was not adding it. However, plants use a lot of carbon, and in most "natural" tanks the CO2 is frequently close to being exhausted by mid-day [mid-day here meaning half way through the light period, whenever that may be]. Which is why the "siesta" method works against difficult algae: it is not the light being off for a couple hours, it is the CO2 replenishment during those 2 hours so that when the light is back on the CO2 is stronger and plants photosynthesize faster which decreases the opportunity for algae. However, to keep it natural, rather than adding CO2 the aquarist would be better to limit the light. I have algae increases during the summer, which I am certain is due to the increased strength of daylight that enters the room even through blinds.



> Last question: Do you enjoy this reparte or find it to be a nusance? Thanks very much!


We are all here to exchange ideas and learn, I have learned a great deal in my time here, and I hope I offer some help to others. Such discussions are bound to be useful not only to those taking part but those reading. This only becomes a nuisance if it is intended solely to initiate arguments :argue: with no other purpose--and I most assuredly do not get that impression here.:thumbsup:

Byron.


----------



## JustinScott (Nov 27, 2010)

This is all great theory, but I still had no hard way to tell how much food to feed my fish nor really any way to know if I have enough / too much filtration & water movement.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Byron (Mar 7, 2009)

JustinScott said:


> This is all great theory, but I still had no hard way to tell how much food to feed my fish nor really any way to know if I have enough / too much filtration & water movement.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Well, you did ask the question, so I provided my reasoning. As for theory, one of the challenges of this hobby is that each aquarist must take the theory/information and apply it to his or her aquarium. One of the problems you are facing is the mix of non-compatible fish, and that has to be resolved in order to sort out filtration for the other fish.

I did answer your question on feeding, as did someone earlier. My neighbour, who knows nothing about fish, one day asked me how did I know how much to feed them? I thought and then realized I couldn't answer that. I just know; we all learn this. The main thing is to feed less rather than more, only once a day, and even not feeding once or twice a week.


----------



## JustinScott (Nov 27, 2010)

Don't take me wrong I'm grateful for your help and knowledge. And i am interested in the theory. I guess I just cant figure out how to apply to real life. 

I guess I mean:

Other than dead fish.. How can I tell I'm not feeding them enough?

Other than fishie heart attacks, how can I tell if there is too much flow?

Other than green water how can I tell if I have enough bio filtration? & how can I tell if I have too much?

And how can I tell if I have poop or food stuck in my mech filter?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## noledoc (Nov 17, 2010)

Byron,
You my new friend are a wisdom factory! Thanks very much. There are nuggets galore in your posts. I'm copying them and compiling my own rapidly growing folder of fish facts and aquatic science.
One thing I'm trying to do is find ways to build my own stuff on the cheap. The nutrients for instance. Would a piece of a multi vitamin tablet dissolved in the water make available most of the micro nutrients needed?
Regarding CO2 injection for a planted tank, would it make sense to allow a small pocket of CO2, say 50 cc or so, collect under an object that is underwater (say an overturned cocconut shell) so the water - CO2 interface gives more time for the water to dissolve the gas?
So many questions, so much ignorance, eh?
Thanks very much
Paul


----------



## Byron (Mar 7, 2009)

JustinScott said:


> Don't take me wrong I'm grateful for your help and knowledge. And i am interested in the theory. I guess I just cant figure out how to apply to real life.
> 
> I guess I mean:
> 
> ...


The "experience" we all gain as we progress in the hobby teaches us what to do or not do, what works or doesn't, etc. Of course, reading/researching online articles and participating in this forum is to my thinking essential to learn from others so we can avoid costly mistakes. When I had my first tank some 50 years ago, there was no internet and I made the mistakes.

It is very unlikely you would ever under-feed your fish; the reverse, over-feeding, is much more probable. Therefore, feed less. If every fish "appears" interested and grabs at one flake or whatever of food, chances are high it is eating sufficiently. Over-feeding causes many more problems that under-feeding, and as I say, unless you never fed the fish, you are unlikely to ever be under-feeding.

Flow depends upon the fish. Some prefer water movement, even needing it (like the plecostomus species that occur in fast-flowing streams and rivers), others do not (the majority of "forest fish"). However, it is the extremes that must be avoided; the gray area in the middle is very wide. But at present you have waste-producing fish (goldfish) which affects all this, and that issue must be dealt with.

You can't "see" the level of biological filtration, though you can see the result if it is insufficient. The stuff in your filter (which is either waste from the fish or excess food, or both) means the fish load is heavy (or you are grossly overfeeding). Without seeing it I can't say, but I would suspect it is mainly waste. You need to resolve the tank inhabitants issue.


----------



## Byron (Mar 7, 2009)

Paul, thank you for your kind words. they are appreciated very much.



> One thing I'm trying to do is find ways to build my own stuff on the cheap. The nutrients for instance. Would a piece of a multi vitamin tablet dissolved in the water make available most of the micro nutrients needed?


No. First, aquatic plants require specific nutrients (17 of them) and in specific proportions to each other. An excess of some can cause the plants to stop assimilation of another; while this is unlikely if properly dosed, the point illustrates why it is important to provide the right mix. We cannot mess with nature--what we are doing to our planet should teach us that much.

There are two methods to fertilize aquarium plants; a comprehensive complete fertilizer or mixing dry nutrients and adding those to the water. In either case, the nutrients are bought specific for this purpose, aquarium plant fertilization. Even terrestrial plant fertilizers will not work, as they contain different proportions and include some nutrients that aquatic plants have no need of, and this can induce terrible algae blooms along with poor plant growth.

I have never messed with dry nutrients, but some members here may have and can provide insight. I have always used a prepared liquid fertilizer, along with (sometimes) substrate fertilizer tabs/sticks depending upon circumstances. My present tanks are managing solely on liquid fertilizer added twice weekly; I use and recommend Seachem's _Flourish Comprehensive Supplement for the Planted Aquarium_. It is the only one as far as I know that has all essential nutrients in proportion [oxygen, hydrogen and carbon are not included and no liquid fert contains these as they occur naturally in the aquarium]. In the 1990's I used Kent Freshwater Plant, but as I have been unable to track this down recently I assume it is no longer available; the Kent "Pro-Plant" line is the same manufacturer but not the same product, and I have not myself used these.

Flourish is not expensive; it takes very little, 1/2 teaspoon (2.5 ml) per 30 gallons is the dose, so in my 115g thats 1.5 teaspoons. I find twice a week (they recommend once or twice) necessary or my swords being to pale. When I used substrate sticks next to the swords, I could manage with once a week. Swords are heavy feeders. A nutrient-enriched substrate would help with swords, crypts and aponogetons, but they are very expensive by comparison to plain small gravel (which I use) and for larger tanks this is a consideration. With my 6 tanks, a 2 litre jug of Flourish lasts me several months and probably works out around $5 to $10 per month.



> Regarding CO2 injection for a planted tank, would it make sense to allow a small pocket of CO2, say 50 cc or so, collect under an object that is underwater (say an overturned cocconut shell) so the water - CO2 interface gives more time for the water to dissolve the gas?


This I'm not sure about. I have never used CO2 and never will, solely because for my purposes it is totally un-necessary and an expense I cannot thus afford when it is not essential. You have seen the plant growth I have from my photos; that satisfies me perfectly. I am personally not a fan of high-tech setups because of the increased light, which I believe is detrimental to the fish. There is also the increased cost to setup and maintain--triple light means triple use of electricity, daily dose of nutrients, plus the CO2. The benefit would be faster plant growth and perhaps growing some plants I can't grow as well now. For me there is no purpose in faster plant growth; the balance in my aquaria is stable and the fish are spawning somewhat regularly, so I've no desire to tamper with that.

On the issue of CO2 dissolving in water, it is not the slowness of this but the slowness of aquatic plants to assimilate CO2 from water. This is the issue with water movement and surface disturbance, which also affects the plant's assimilation of other nutrients. Aquatic plants take 4 times longer to assimilate CO2 from water than plants do from air, so maintaining a proportionally high level of dissolved CO2 is important. At the same time, oxygen cannot be allowed to increase (the other aspect of faster water movement) since increased oxygen is detrimental because it binds with some nutrients, especially iron, which then becomes too large to be assimilated by the plants. High oxygen also prevents plants from easily assimilating other essential nutrients.

Byron.


----------



## noledoc (Nov 17, 2010)

The question of CO2 injection has ramifications having to do with, for one thing, whether a large system will be so user unfriendly as to make it impossible. I'm all for making things as easy as possible. I think you've pursuaded me to forgo the CO2. Thanks.
This is such a helpful, friendly place. In fact, you are a wealth of resources. Kym as also helped greatly as have several other very kind and knowledgeable folks.


----------



## PRichs87 (Dec 30, 2009)

JustinScott said:


> Don't take me wrong I'm grateful for your help and knowledge. And i am interested in the theory. I guess I just cant figure out how to apply to real life.
> 
> I guess I mean:
> 
> ...


Byron has provided myself with much guidance in my less than one year of being an aquarist, his threads convinced me to convert to a planted tank and I find it is much easier to maintain than a plantless tank.

Research, research, then execute with patience is my motto in keeping my aquariums. 

A lot of keeping and knowing what is right and wrong I think comes from experience. I've unfortunately lost a fair amount of fish in my first year, mostly in the first 3 months. Since becoming patient, researching the types of fish I have, and then putting my new knowledge to use I have become much better at keeping fish and plants alive and healthy. 

When you can't figure something out, search these boards for answers, if you can't find one, post a new topic. I've learned more things about aquarium keeping from other people's questions on here more than my own.


----------

