New set up 100 litres tank

New to fishkeeping? This is the place to find out whatever you need to know!

Re: New set up 100 litres tank

Postby Carylnz » Thu May 16, 2013 3:49 am

Some plants are heavy root feeders so need the extra stuff added to the substrate. Anubias isn't one of them.
My home forum is The NZ Fishroom http://www.fnzas.org.nz
User avatar
Carylnz
Moderator
 
Posts: 7483
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Blenheim, NZ

Re: New set up 100 litres tank

Postby Panda » Thu May 16, 2013 10:17 am

Some plants are heavy root feeders so need the extra stuff added to the substrate. Anubias isn't one of them


Ah...ok...I get the idea now..thnx Carylnz
Panda
Member
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 1:45 am

Re: New set up 100 litres tank

Postby ady » Sat May 18, 2013 9:25 pm

anubias and java ferns will be ideal....as said they are tied to wood/stones/coconut shells..

you defo dont need an substrate ferts with these plants...i started off my planted tank odessey with those very 2 plants.

a liquid fert will help you,but not essential.. 8)
humans are the only race,with the intelligence to save the earth...shame we have the ignorance to ignore the salvation!!!!!
ady
Member
 
Posts: 843
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:53 am
Location: suffolk

Re: New set up 100 litres tank

Postby Panda » Thu Jun 13, 2013 10:11 am

Update on my tank....

Moved my fish to the big tank, my Eheim filter works wonders, I have cristal clear water.
I have got some plants :2 java fern, a small anubias (didn't buy this but was cought in the others), and some java moss. they don't seem to be doing great, they look rusty on the edges, but they were like that when bought.. I added fertilizer once.....but no changes. the little anubias its all covered in algae and looks a bit yellowish :( .

The algae starts to invade my tank.....thinking to reduce the hours of light but that won't healp the plants.

Wanted to add some neon tetras but was told in the petshop they are to small and they could get stressed by the shark.they have asked me to rehouse the shark first...but I dont feel like giving him away yet...he is still tiny ....I am open to advise from experienced fish keepers on what can add at this point.
Panda
Member
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 1:45 am

Re: New set up 100 litres tank

Postby SRThomas » Thu Jun 27, 2013 7:21 pm

Going back to the issue of the shark. It seems to me (as an academic commercial lawyer) that you possibly could make a claim with regard to selling the bala shark with a 14l - it's clearly not fit for purpose (the shark is 'goods', which must be fit for purpose under the Sale of Goods Act 1979): whether you would want to is of course, well, unlikely (it'd be a waste of time re the cost), but you could make the threat ;). Their behaviour (particularly the 'diseases' claim - how is it going to get any diseases when it was bought from the store? Surely any problems would have come from the store...) is awful; i would not use them again (and name and shame).

Light: You will probably only need around six hours a day at most (and possibly less). But algae arises from a combination of light, (over)feeding, and natural presence (in water etc). Light alone is only one factor: limiting the feeding is probably the most effective method of reducing algae.

I have a feeling the shop is talking nonsense re tetras and the shark: the stress will come from being in the size of tank, and not from the fish being together per se. And since they (mis)sold you the shark (assuming it's the same shop), it's rich them telling you to re-house the shark...
SRThomas
Member
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 9:45 pm
Location: Loughborough

Re: New set up 100 litres tank

Postby Carylnz » Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:07 pm

I think you have it backwards there. The tank is not fit for the purpose of the shark. We do not name and shame here either. There is as much fault on Panda's side as he did not research the fish's requirements before purchase. Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law. At least he knows now and will do his best to find a suitable home for the shark.
It is best to rehouse the shark before it gets too big. They can go from peaceful to aggressive overnight as they grow and a tank that is too small will slow down its growth. A shark can definitely stress other species as they know a predator when they see one and have nowhere to go to escape from this one!
Anubias is known to attract algae as it is such a slow grower with wider leaves for the algae to attach. The algae will be stopping the light from reaching the plant, hence it turning yellow. In the plant section there is a sticky listing the different types of algae, their causes and cures. Have a good read of that.
8 hours minimum is usually recommended for plants to allow photosynthesis to occur. The type of lighting you have can also have an effect on plants.
My home forum is The NZ Fishroom http://www.fnzas.org.nz
User avatar
Carylnz
Moderator
 
Posts: 7483
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Blenheim, NZ

Re: New set up 100 litres tank

Postby SRThomas » Fri Jun 28, 2013 10:25 am

Re: purpose of the goods - It doesn't matter which 'direction' the purpose goes. If they recommend the shark as being appropriate for the tank (whether explicit, or implicitly), then the seller is making a statement of fitness for purpose: this seems clear from Panda's statement 'I did say I don't have any experience with fish and said what tank I have at home and he recommended a guppie and the bala shark.' If you a purchasing goods (under English law), you do not have to research the appropriateness of that purchase, if you are relying on the seller's knowledge: the obligation is on the seller to put the buyer right (it's the shift from caveat emptor to caveat venditor). This is further supported by the provisions on consumer purchase.

I'm going to warn that what follows is some (UK) law, but I feel it is very important all people understand their rights as buyers and/or consumers. The key provisions are in the Sale of Goods Act 1979 section 14 (available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54), and specifically sub-sections

(2) [goods must be satisfactory quality],

(2)(a) [satisfactory quality includes 'fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied'] (and possibly (2)(e) [durability]),

(2)(c) [goods are not unsatisfactory if there issue making them unsatisfactory is 'is specifically drawn to the buyer’s attention before the contract is made' - here this is the opposite to what happened],

(2D) [If the buyer deals as consumer or, in Scotland, if a contract of sale is a consumer contract, [determining whether the goods are of satisfactory quality includes] ... any public statements on the specific characteristics of the goods made about them by the seller, the producer or his representative, particularly in advertising or on labelling.'],

and probably most useful here:

section 14(3): if 'the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known— (a) to the seller ... any particular purpose for which the goods are being bought, there is an implied term that the goods supplied under the contract are reasonably fit for that purpose, whether or not that is a purpose for which such goods are commonly supplied, except where the circumstances show that the buyer does not rely, or that it is unreasonable for him to rely, on the skill or judgment of the seller' [here this seems to be clearly the case].

To my mind, this indicates a breach of the implied term to supply goods of satisfactory quality. I won't go on about the obligations on buyers to reject the goods on time and so on, but I will say that it is the seller who has the responsibility in cases like this. Whilst the ease of access to information makes it a good thing to do the research before hand, the law (thankfully) does not require such research, in order to protect buyers. Better protection for buyers makes better sellers, which means happier buyers (and, hopefully, healthier and happier fish).

I can understand the wish to not name and shame (though I feel there may be an argument either to prevent poor practice from the seller, or to protect other people from making the mistake of relying on such a seller).

As for the lighting: I got that wrong (and I'm not entirely sure why...): I meant to say something like 8-12 hours (it'll vary due to amount of ambient light, type of lights, type of plants etc etc etc). Experimentation is key, because of the huge number of variables involved.
SRThomas
Member
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 9:45 pm
Location: Loughborough

Previous

Return to Beginners

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests