# Looking for opinions on spray bar positioning



## RogueGypsy (Jun 23, 2009)

Hello my Fishy friends, 

As I'm sure most of you have come to realize 'The Aquarium' is an ever evolving and changing creature. I'll post some updated pics and vids soon for all you Loach fans. My tank has taken a decided turn toward the 'Dutch Style' of appearance and is nearing what I think I want it to look like. 

In all the rearranging and positioning I've come to place where I'm not well enough informed to continue without some help. Any opinions or thoughts are welcome no matter how unorthodox they may seem.

The details of the set-up are in my 'Loach tank' profile so I'll just mention the obvious here: This is a; planted, with fish 55 gallon tank. I'm using an Eheim Pro3 with a spray bar and a Koralia 3 for filtration and circulation. I also have a Koralia 1 and 2 that I can use as well. There are 4 Dojo loaches, 5 Kuhli loaches (always hiding because the dojo's are bullies), 7 otos, 7 Harlequin Rasboras, 7 Cardinal Tetras, 1 Siamese algae eater (his partner got eaten by a Loach), 10 Amano Shrimp and 30 Ghost Shrimp. I have the filter intake in the back left corner of the tank. The spray bar outlet just below the surface across the left side pointing straight out just below the surface. The Koralia 3 is half way down and toward the back on the right side below the spray bar pointing up at a 45 degree angle toward the surface. I have good flow through out the tank and the surface is agitated about 3/4's of the way across the tank.

Here is my dilemma: I would like to move the spray bar away from the surface, either vertically down the right back corner spraying along the back or horizontally on the right side about 3" off of the bottom. And I have no idea what to do with the Koralia. I would like to reduce the flow in the tank and still maintain a light current for the plants and fish. What I don't know is if I reduce the surface agitation, will it have an adverse effect on the O2 levels in the tank or will the plants put out enough O2 for the fish???? If I need the surface movement I can use one or more of the Koralias. 

Sooo, what do you think??? 
Any advantages or disadvantages to moving the spray bar away from the surface??
Are the plants and fish better off with a strong or light current??
What is your preference with spray bars and circulators???? 


TIA, 

Brock


----------



## Byron (Mar 7, 2009)

I remember seeing photos of the tank when you set it up; it was and is very lovely. But I can't remember how long that has been. If this has been setup more than 2 months, I would expect more plant growth, assuming the video is recent.

This is not a heavily-planted aquarium, but it is also light on the fish load. And that means CO2 is not in abundance. From the video I think you have much too much surface disturbance; this drives off CO2 quite rapidly, and the only source of CO2 is fish respiration and biological processes ongoing in the tank. You need to conserve as much of it as you can.

In a natural or low-tech system, the balance between the 17 nutrients (one of which is carbon) and light has to be there; so anything that may impact however slightly can become a critical factor in less success. The one thing we cannot "control" in this type of setup is the CO2, by which I mean that it is entirely dependent upon the fish and biological processes; with light we can control it, in intensity and duration, to balance, as we can with the other macro- and micro-nutrients through fertilization. Plants will photosynthesize up to the factor in least supply--this is known as Liebig's Law of Minimum. Many have planted tanks that fail because the CO2 is the limiting factor, and algae will take over because it is better able to use carbonates for carbon than most (but not all) plants. The point here is that nothing should be allowed to negatively impact the CO2 in a natural planted aquarium.

The rate of water flow through the filter plus the level of surface disturbance has an impact on the amount of oxygen drawn into the water, and carbon dioxide (CO2) expelled from the water in what we call the gaseous exchange. Surface disturbance speeds this up, as does higher flow filtration, airstones and bubble effects and powerheads. There are two detrimental issues to this: CO2 which is extremely important for plant growth is driven out of the water faster, and oxygen is brought into the water at levels beyond what is good for the plants. Plants have more difficulty assimilating nutrients when the oxygen level increases. But the more significant aspect is the CO2.

Submerged plants have difficulty obtaining enough CO2 in nature and in the aquarium; this fact is believed by many to be the reason for the inherently slow growth and low productivity of aquatic plants over terrestrial. Further, freshwater emerged plants have been shown to be more than four times more productive that submerged plants. The reason is because CO2 diffuses so slowly in water as opposed to air, and this limits the underwater plant's uptake of CO2 because the CO2 molecules don't contact the leaves quick enough to meet the plant's needs. Aquatic plants have to use enzymes to rapidly capture the CO2. When the CO2 levels in the water become depleted, these enzymes sit idle, so to speak, but the plant still has to provide energy to them. This results in a reduction in photosynthetic efficiency and therefore growth of the plant because energy is being wasted. Thus, any thing that removes CO2 in however small an amount will be detrimental to the plant's growth.

With respect to oxygen for the fish, in a planted tank the oxygen produced during photosynthesis by the plants greatly exceeds what the fish require even during the night--provided the tank is not overstocked. There is never an issue over low oxygen in a healthy planted aquarium.

The water flow is important for bringing nutrients to the leaves and roots, and keeping the leaves free of sediments. But there has to be a balance so as not to adversely affect the plants ability to assimilate nutrients including carbon from CO2. In planted aquaria, the filtration should be minimal and suited to the fish (rasbora, characins prefer little or no water movement; loaches like a little current. And the plants require a small flow past them.

In my tanks with spraybars they are positioned along the end wall and directed toward the wall and slightly down so I have the absolute minimum of water movement throughout the tank, and basically no surface disturbance. The outflow to the filter should be positioned at the opposite end of a 4 foot tank to provide this flow throughout the tank.

Byron.


----------



## RogueGypsy (Jun 23, 2009)

Thanks Byron, I think I get the idea.

You're right, there is a lot more growth than what is in those pics and videos. They are a couple of months old and I think the tank is around 6 months old now. I divided the plants into a couple of other tanks to get them started too.

This pic was taken today.













...


..


----------



## Angel079 (Feb 14, 2007)

NICE set up, I like that a LOT, job well done!!!


----------



## Byron (Mar 7, 2009)

You've changed quite a bit around. Still a nice looking setup though. Reduce that flow/surface disturbance and you'll be fine. B.


----------



## RogueGypsy (Jun 23, 2009)

Angel079 said:


> NICE set up, I like that a LOT, job well done!!!



Thank you, it's been a learning process and a lot of fun. Once the plants fill in it should be a lush and happy place. :-D




..


----------



## RogueGypsy (Jun 23, 2009)

The evolution of this tank established 07/06/09, started out looking like this:











It is now 5 months almost to the day and looks like this:


----------



## Angel079 (Feb 14, 2007)

You took quite some plants out hadn't you - for other tanks or did they not wanna grow on you?
I like it a lot! Just keep an eye on the Pennywort in the center back - That stuff grow SO FAST, I had to clip mine more often then i did w/c


----------



## RogueGypsy (Jun 23, 2009)

The Waliichi all died out or got thrashed by the loaches as did the other delicate plants in the tank whose names escape me. The Penny Wort, Temple Green and Java Moss were all reduced to about what you see in the first pic when the tank was first planted. The trimmings and new plants were used to start two new tanks. One group became food for Gold Fish and Silver Dollars while trying to find plants that will survive those two species. The other group is in a breeding tank currently hosting 7 White Cloud Minnows, who despite being bloated with eggs, refuse to breed.

So what you see in the current photo grew from a similar density to the first tank to what it is now in about 2 months on an 8 hour light period. I had a massive algae bloom, so my LFS recommended cutting back to an 8hr light period until it subsided. It's back on a 12hr light cycle as of 2 days ago.







..


----------



## Byron (Mar 7, 2009)

RogueGypsy said:


> The Waliichi all died out or got thrashed by the loaches as did the other delicate plants in the tank whose names escape me. The Penny Wort, Temple Green and Java Moss were all reduced to about what you see in the first pic when the tank was first planted. The trimmings and new plants were used to start two new tanks. One group became food for Gold Fish and Silver Dollars while trying to find plants that will survive those two species. The other group is in a breeding tank currently hosting 7 White Cloud Minnows, who despite being bloated with eggs, refuse to breed.
> 
> So what you see in the current photo grew from a similar density to the first tank to what it is now in about 2 months on an 8 hour light period. I had a massive algae bloom, so my LFS recommended cutting back to an 8hr light period until it subsided. It's back on a 12hr light cycle as of 2 days ago.
> 
> ...


The algae bloom is not a surprise. I think I mentioned previously in another thread when this tank was being set up that the light was double the intensity necessary. Reducing the period may help a bit. The only problem with this approach is that at some point the period will be inadequate. Plants require light of a specific intensity and duration, and increasing either does not work if the minimum of both is passed. HO light is approximately 1.5 times the intensity of regular (T8) tubes of the same length, and you have two of them over a 55g. I would myself consider reducing the intensity if the reduced period does not clear up the algae issue. I also consider the fish; floating plants would help with that (and the algae of course). Studies have shown that 1 watt per gallon of regular full spectrum with floating plant cover provides all the light necessary for all but some of the stem plants.

Byron.


----------



## RogueGypsy (Jun 23, 2009)

Byron said:


> The algae bloom is not a surprise. I think I mentioned previously in another thread when this tank was being set up that the light was double the intensity necessary. Reducing the period may help a bit. The only problem with this approach is that at some point the period will be inadequate. Plants require light of a specific intensity and duration, and increasing either does not work if the minimum of both is passed. HO light is approximately 1.5 times the intensity of regular (T8) tubes of the same length, and you have two of them over a 55g. I would myself consider reducing the intensity if the reduced period does not clear up the algae issue. I also consider the fish; floating plants would help with that (and the algae of course). Studies have shown that 1 watt per gallon of regular full spectrum with floating plant cover provides all the light necessary for all but some of the stem plants.
> 
> Byron.



I think I recall you telling me to reduce the light period as well. It worked. The algae is gone but for a few spots here and there.

The fixture is going to go over a 75g that I have to reseal, I'm using it on the 55g to stimulate growth that I'll transplant in to the 75g. Then the original hood will go back on the 55g.

I positioned my spray bar as you suggested, at the opposite end of the inlet with the bar facing the end glass and just slightly down. The surface turned to a massive protein slick. Is this bad for the fish or the plants?
I repositioned it last night so that the spray bar is running down the back corner, spraying across the end glass and into the front glass. It gives the tank a nice light current, but still have the slick on the surface.

I had the bar positioned so that the top of the bar was just at the surface of the water, when horizontal at the end. The surface was agitated between the bar and the glass and there was a slight surface current, but it did not seem to break up any of the protein.

I seem to recall you mentioning that you do not have a surface protein issue. Should the spray bar be below the surface to allow the protein over the top of the spraybar and into the agitated area between the bar and the glass???

Thanks again for your help, 


B





...


----------



## Byron (Mar 7, 2009)

RogueGypsy said:


> I think I recall you telling me to reduce the light period as well. It worked. The algae is gone but for a few spots here and there.
> 
> The fixture is going to go over a 75g that I have to reseal, I'm using it on the 55g to stimulate growth that I'll transplant in to the 75g. Then the original hood will go back on the 55g.
> 
> ...


All water will develop a surface scum naturally. The more light and nutrients available, the thicker it will be, in my experience. I have it from time to time, some tanks more others hardly ever. Like algae [I have read authorities commenting on certain algae appearing in one tank but never others] there are probably several factors involved.

I used to use the surface skimmer attachments on my Eheim filters, but have taken them off because in two tanks I have very small fish and they kept getting pulled in. Adding a fine screen was useless, because then it gets clogged up with the scum and plant leaves. My spray bars are as previously described, and there is minimal current out into the tank. This seems to work in the 90g and 115g. The 70g was getting it quite thick, I just syphon it off during the start of the weekly pwc, and interestingly it hasn't been around the past couple of weeks. May go through a cycle? I also have cyanobacteria in that tank (I know the biological balance is off, still working on this tank) and it appeared when the surface scum disappeared, so probably some connection with nutrient availability.

The scum presumably inhibits the gas exchange at the surface, but in a planted tank that needs to be minimal anyway, and I've seen no discernable issue in tanks with scum compared to those without.

Byron.


----------



## stephanieleah (Oct 31, 2009)

Byron said:


> The point here is that nothing should be allowed to negatively impact the CO2 in a natural planted aquarium.
> 
> The rate of water flow through the filter plus the level of surface disturbance has an impact on the amount of oxygen drawn into the water, and carbon dioxide (CO2) expelled from the water in what we call the gaseous exchange. Surface disturbance speeds this up, as does higher flow filtration, airstones and bubble effects and powerheads. There are two detrimental issues to this: CO2 which is extremely important for plant growth is driven out of the water faster, and oxygen is brought into the water at levels beyond what is good for the plants. Plants have more difficulty assimilating nutrients when the oxygen level increases. But the more significant aspect is the CO2.


So limiting surface disturbance is good for the plants because it minimized the loss of CO2...am I reading this correctly? I always have my water level below my filter output because I like the water sound and the bubbles in the tank that it creates. Is this maybe why my plants always look a little more yellow than green?


----------



## Byron (Mar 7, 2009)

stephanieleah said:


> So limiting surface disturbance is good for the plants because it minimized the loss of CO2...am I reading this correctly? I always have my water level below my filter output because I like the water sound and the bubbles in the tank that it creates. Is this maybe why my plants always look a little more yellow than green?


I can't say what specifically may be causing your plants to not grow (be greener) better, as it could be any one or a combination of things. But, absolutely, water movement drives off CO2. In a low-tech or natural type of planted aquaria (one without CO2 injection) you want to conserve as much CO2 as possible, since it only comes from the fish and biological processes that release it, and it is limited by the number of fish (and type of fish, size, etc). CO2 is usually the culprit in planted tanks that are not successful when the light is adequate and fertilization is supplied. The aquarist can control the light and fertilizer (mineral nutrients), but not directly the carbon, so you should do nothing that is likely to reduce the CO2.

Plants will grow (photosynthesize) up to the point at which one of the essentials is no longer available. This is known as Liebig's Law of Minimum. The limiting factor for plants should always be the light. If it is something else, then algae will inevitably take control. For instance, with more light than CO2, algae will occur because it is better adapted to absorb carbon from carbonates than the majority of plants; bog plants are particularly weak at doing this, because they have abundant carbon from CO2 in the air and when submersed the water, and many aquarium plants are bog plants in nature (swords, crypts...).


----------



## Angel079 (Feb 14, 2007)

stephanieleah said:


> Is this maybe why my plants always look a little more yellow than green?


Not to disturb you 2 here...but more often then not, your plants leaf turning yellow is less a sign of your filter set up then more a sign of poor or no nutrition.;-) 
Also don't forget the w/c > The more water you change and dump back in the greater you're driving out the CO2.


----------



## Byron (Mar 7, 2009)

Angel079 said:


> Not to disturb you 2 here...but more often then not, your plants leaf turning yellow is less a sign of your filter set up then more a sign of poor or no nutrition.;-)
> Also don't forget the w/c > The more water you change and dump back in the greater you're driving out the CO2.


Re the water change, this actually has minimal effect. While the tank water will have some CO2 in it, the fish are continually producing CO2 whatever the water in the tank, and provided there is no surface disturbance or unnecessary strong flow from the filter, the CO2 will get replenished fairly quickly. Remember that plants are slow in their uptake of carbon from CO2. The real critical issue is eliminating that water movement and surface disturbance to retain the CO2 in the tank so the plants have time to use it.

I agree yellowing is most likely lack of mineral nutrients, but the CO2 question was asked and that is again an important point in a balanced planted aquarium.

One other observation, many report increased algae near filter outflow into the tank. In other words, where water movement is greater. Brush algae is known for this; certainly is in my aquaria. Perhaps another reason to keep that water movement down in the tank?;-)

Byron.


----------



## stephanieleah (Oct 31, 2009)

So if I am adding Flourish Excel (it is supposed to help supply CO2), and have just enough light, then my plants should "flourish" and if they are still yellowish, then I need to look at other fertilizers?

(on a side note, I bought the Flourish Excel after Byron recommended Flourish Comprehensive but the LFS didn't have it, so I've been using that for about two weeks now and I think it's making a difference--a small one, but a difference nonetheless).

This has all been very helpful, thanks. It makes me want to go and buy an aquarium book so I can learn all these subtleties.


----------



## Byron (Mar 7, 2009)

stephanieleah said:


> So if I am adding Flourish Excel (it is supposed to help supply CO2), and have just enough light, then my plants should "flourish" and if they are still yellowish, then I need to look at other fertilizers?
> 
> (on a side note, I bought the Flourish Excel after Byron recommended Flourish Comprehensive but the LFS didn't have it, so I've been using that for about two weeks now and I think it's making a difference--a small one, but a difference nonetheless).
> 
> This has all been very helpful, thanks. It makes me want to go and buy an aquarium book so I can learn all these subtleties.


Plants require 17 nutrients, one of which is carbon that Excel provides. The others include nitrogen (obtained from ammonium/ammonia from the fish and such) and some 15 minerals in rough proportion to each other. If any of the essentials are lacking, the plants won't grow, or will grow poorly, depending upon what nutrient is missing or insufficient.

As carbon is easily obtained from CO2 produced by the fish, I would start with a comprehensive fertilizer like Seachem's Flourish Comprehensive or Kent Freshwater Supplement. I would not use Excel at the start. Reason being that I would want to see if the CO2 from the fish will balance on its own; if it does, then you save money not having to use Excel. Using Excel at the start will offset the balance if you understand what I'm getting at, and more minerals will be needed to balance.

Excel should make a difference, being carbon, and depending upon what minerals are available via tap water, fishfood, etc. I would recommend stopping the Excel, observing plant growth over 2-3 weeks, and during this time be prepared to use a comprehensive liquid fertilizer. One thing I can be certain about, and that is that if you continue dosing Excel you will be providing carbon and assuming the light is adequate there is going to be a deficiency in minerals. All authorities who suggest CO2 (carbon) supplementation make a strong point of using mineral fertilization sometimes daily to balance. I would not suggest starting out that way.

Byron.


----------



## LisaC144 (Oct 22, 2009)

Rogue, have you found a plant that your Silver Dollars don't devour yet?


----------



## RogueGypsy (Jun 23, 2009)

So far the only thing they don't eat is Temple Green. I keep the tops trimmed so it bushes out instead of shooting up and looking leggy.

They really like: Java Moss, Italian Val (twisted), Star Grass, Blixa Japanica, and a couple others I can't remember. Penny Wort holds up pretty well, but they do keep it trimmed.


----------



## stephanieleah (Oct 31, 2009)

Byron said:


> All authorities who suggest CO2 (carbon) supplementation make a strong point of using mineral fertilization sometimes daily to balance. I would not suggest starting out that way.
> 
> Byron.


Really great point, B. I actually wondered about this but you brought it home. In my gut I don't feel like it's a CO2 issue but rather an overall issue with all nutrients. I am guessing that finding the balance between the tank's natural equilibrium (with the nutrients produced by the fishload), fertilizer supplements, and light, will be a trial and error thing? How long does it take to figure this out (for a newbie like me)?

On a side note, I was vaccuuming my gravel VERY thoroughly until I read a post that leaving some junk under the gravel's surface acts like compost is to a garden. ie. beneficial to plants. So I stopped doing such thorough vaccuuming during my water changes and just vaccuum the surface now. Do you agree with this logic?


----------



## Byron (Mar 7, 2009)

stephanieleah said:


> Really great point, B. I actually wondered about this but you brought it home. In my gut I don't feel like it's a CO2 issue but rather an overall issue with all nutrients. I am guessing that finding the balance between the tank's natural equilibrium (with the nutrients produced by the fishload), fertilizer supplements, and light, will be a trial and error thing? How long does it take to figure this out (for a newbie like me)?
> 
> On a side note, I was vaccuuming my gravel VERY thoroughly until I read a post that leaving some junk under the gravel's surface acts like compost is to a garden. ie. beneficial to plants. So I stopped doing such thorough vaccuuming during my water changes and just vaccuum the surface now. Do you agree with this logic?


I only vacuum the gravel where it is open (free of plants) which is where my Corydoras feed, so I like to keep that area clean. There is a complex bacteria cycle going on in the substrate and the detrius provides food for all that. It is possible to have an aquarium "too clean" and then there are biological problems.

I always start a new tank by using liquid fertilizer once a week and observing the plants. If after a couple weeks I note yellowing leaves, I do a second weekly dose and observe for a couple more weeks. All this assumes the light is OK from the start, one watt of full spectrum per gallon, and of course some fish to provide CO2. In a new tank there can be algae issues too, due to the unstable biology. After 3 months or so, things should have settled down and it is then easier to play around a bit with ferts; I try to use as little as necessary, but sufficient to provide good plant health.

Byron.


----------

