PlanetCatfish.com

I realize Eupterus is a riverine species with the common stats being a pH of 6.2 - 7.5 (Baensch Atlas Vol 1 5th Edition 1990), but I have read in some other forums about people keeping Eupterus in cichlid tanks with one poster saying his tank is 8.6. It was an old post and the thread was closed so I could not ask if he was sure he had a Eupterus, or how long he'd had it. But I am curious to know if anyone here keeps a Eupterus in pH 8.0?

I would also like opinions on the "new thinking" (or new from when I started keeping fish in 1990) that pH isn't all that important, and stability is more important. We always knew stability was MOST important, but saying pH isn't important kind of sounds like something retailers started for marketing purposes. Sort of like, "Don't worry, it will only grow as large as your tank" ... WRONG!

I am particularly interested in whether people here keep the Eupertus in pH 8 because my tap ends up at 8.2 - 8.4 after 48 hrs, and for 25 years I have lugged RO water home for my Eupterus to keep the water close to 7.4/7.5. Has this been unnecessary all these years?

for 25 years I have lugged RO water home for my Eupterus to keep the water close to 7.4/7.5. Has this been unnecessary all these years?

Unfortunately, yes. Your S. eupterus will do absolutely fine in LA tapwater.

I would also like opinions on the "new thinking" ... that pH isn't all that important, and stability is more important.

pH is not really that informative a measure. It's simply the ratio of basic chemicals and acidic chemicals in the water. Roughly speaking, you could put 0.1 g of an acid and 0.1 g of an alkali in pure water, and get the same pH reading as if you put 100 g of each in. It tells you nothing about how much total "stuff" there is in the water, which is the important bit. It's better to think of the water's overall mineral content, rather than its pH. A TDS meter is much more useful than a pH meter, IMO.

Generally, fish that live in acidic blackwaters have difficulty dealing with minerals. Some may die in mineral rich water, some may survive okay, but you will certainly have trouble breeding them. Therefore you will need RO water to keep them, which naturally tends to go acidic unless you add your own minerals to the aquarium.

Fishes from the mineral rich lakes, for example, are the opposite, and do badly in mineral poor water.

Fishes from whitewater rivers are pretty easy going, and can live fine in most water types as long as you avoid extremes.

Fishes from clearwaters are generally also fairly easy going, but it's probably best to avoid really hard water for some species.

Everything racoll says above I agree with.

One thing about eupterus when compared to most other Synodontis is that they tend to get lateral line erosion more then any other...Stress for any reason will exacerbate the disease as far as I am concerned whether it is food, water or getting roughed up.
I think to your question consistant clean water conditions are more important then exact numbers....except for extremes of course.

Birger

Thanks for the reply, racoll!

racoll wrote:

for 25 years I have lugged RO water home for my Eupterus to keep the water close to 7.4/7.5. Has this been unnecessary all these years?

Unfortunately, yes. Your S. eupterus will do absolutely fine in LA tapwater.

Really? All the way up to 8.2 or 8.4?

pH is not really that informative a measure.[...] It tells you nothing about how much total "stuff" there is in the water, which is the important bit. It's better to think of the water's overall mineral content, rather than its pH. A TDS meter is much more useful than a pH meter, IMO.

I do have a TDS meter and also monitor GH, KH and the rest of the important parameters, but it's only the pH I had a question about as it's the only tap parameter way out of their supposed native range (if that range is indeed 6.2-7.5).

And I am concerned because of exactly what you go on to say:

Generally, fish that live in acidic blackwaters have difficulty dealing with minerals. Some may die in mineral rich water, some may survive okay, but you will certainly have trouble breeding them. Therefore you will need RO water to keep them, which naturally tends to go acidic unless you add your own minerals to the aquarium.

So I assume you are exempting Eupterus and speaking of fish like cardinal tetras, etc.

Fishes from the mineral rich lakes, for example, are the opposite, and do badly in mineral poor water.

Yes, like cichlids.

Fishes from whitewater rivers are pretty easy going, and can live fine in most water types as long as you avoid extremes.

Fishes from clearwaters are generally also fairly easy going, but it's probably best to avoid really hard water for some species.

This is so helpful and makes sense, thank you. I guess I always thought of 8.4 as "very extreme" but apparently it isn't?

What would be your opinion on my VERY gradually reducing the RO in the change water and transitioning to pure tap over a period of a month or so.... (continuing to use RO for evaporation of course).... after 25 years in 7.4-7.6, would a gradual rise to 8.2 or 8.4 be unwise in your opinion?

Birger wrote:Everything racoll says above I agree with.

Great to know!

One thing about eupterus when compared to most other Synodontis is that they tend to get lateral line erosion more then any other...Stress for any reason will exacerbate the disease as far as I am concerned whether it is food, water or getting roughed up.

EDIT DAYS LATER: I originally replied that "white de-pigmentation along the lateral line [...] is different from lateral line erosion or HITH." But I was wrong and Birger was correct - it's the same thing. I mis-remembered the paper I read on it. The only accurate thing I said was "large amounts of [green] algae and Vit C were effective in reversing it." A link to the paper was posted by Silurus on June 16, 2014, and this is that link for anyone who wants to read the paper themselves. It was a study done on channel catfish with this condition: http://www.researchgate.net/publication ... 94b7af.pdf

I think to your question consistant clean water conditions are more important then exact numbers....except for extremes of course.

Birger

Thanks for that! And what would you think of my transitioning them slowly to acclimate to my tap? Too late now?

Hah, yes I noticed you were the same poster only after I wrote here. I think What affects the trout is different then the S. eupterus...similar but different.
I think you are well on your way with how you keep your conditions and your ideas on feeding and a gradual shift will be okay.

Have you seen this post...careful it is disturbing...http://www.planetcatfish.com/forum/view ... 16#p283221


Birger

Birger, that is WAY too sad!! Poor little fish!! I hope they are able to save that poor little thing!

Thankfully my fish is big, fat and healthy .... just looks like someone took White Out and splotched it along his side. But as I said in the other post... he had it from 2002 to 2010 and never became ill or showed any signs of it bothering him. It just looks unbecoming.

Thanks for your vote of confidence going forward with a very gradual rise to tap parameters! I will be SO HAPPY to not have to lug so much RO!!

Really? All the way up to 8.2 or 8.4? ... the only tap parameter way out of their supposed native range (if that range is indeed 6.2-7.5). ... I guess I always thought of 8.4 as "very extreme" but apparently it isn't?

As I say, the actual pH value is of little importance. It's the mineral content that matters, and the LA tapwater happens to well within the tolerances of a hardy whitewater catfish species. The fact there is a seasonal range in their natural habitat indicates that they are likely to be adaptable. Conversely, there is a much smaller range for, say, Lake Tanganyika, and fishes from there tend to be less adaptable to soft water as a result.

So I assume you are exempting Eupterus and speaking of fish like cardinal tetras, etc.

Yes, S. eupterus is not a blackwater species like the cardinal.

like cichlids.

Cichlids from the African Rift Valley lakes and many Central Americans, yes, but there are also a lot of cichlids from highly mineral-poor blackwaters in the Amazon. You can't generalise with a group like this, although on the whole, taxa such as cichlids and characids are more sensitive and less adaptable than say, catfishes.

What would be your opinion on my VERY gradually reducing the RO in the change water and transitioning to pure tap over a period of a month or so

Should be fine if you do it very gradually.

racoll wrote:

Really? All the way up to 8.2 or 8.4? ... the only tap parameter way out of their supposed native range (if that range is indeed 6.2-7.5). ... I guess I always thought of 8.4 as "very extreme" but apparently it isn't?

As I say, the actual pH value is of little importance. It's the mineral content that matters, and the LA tapwater happens to well within the tolerances of a hardy whitewater catfish species. The fact there is a seasonal range in their natural habitat indicates that they are likely to be adaptable. Conversely, there is a much smaller range for, say, Lake Tanganyika, and fishes from there tend to be less adaptable to soft water as a result.

That's very helpful, I think I'm starting to understand... hard to un-do years of worrying about the pH!

What would be your opinion on my VERY gradually reducing the RO in the change water and transitioning to pure tap over a period of a month or so

Should be fine if you do it very gradually.

Thanks so much for your help and advice! I really appreciate it! (And Birger too... and I hope little Alfred the ill Syno keeps getting better!)

I had my water tested at the LFS and the PH was 8.23. I too tried to haul in "purified" city water that was more acidic (in the 6.0 range) and mix it to lower the ph of my water. Then I bought the "PH Down" stuff, tried using that, constantly monitoring the ph, stressing myself out, then I said the heck with it and just went to using my well water. And the tanks have been fine.

The only fish I am kind of worried about are some wild caught Olga corys I have, the LFS said they might take a while to adjust to the higher PH. They don't look particularly happy right now, but sadly I am treating that tank for an Ich outbreak so that also may be part of the problem.

All my other tank raised fish, including tetras, seem to be doing very well (knock on wood). I have 4 synos, S. Eupterus, S. Decora, S. Alberti, and a Hybrid. They are very fat and happy. I am going to have to look at getting them a bigger tank sooner than later! Stomachs with fins!

I've only been keeping Mochokidae catfish for just over 4.5 years, but from my limited experience, I've not had any losses that made me think my tap water's gH 13/14 pH 8 was the issue. In my collection I have...
11x ~5-6cm SL Synodontis cf. nigriventris (lost one during my ich epidemic from hell, another poor soul unknowingly got inside unsecure Fluval U4 lid, then raised above water)
3x ~11-14cm SL Synodontis brichardi
2x ~4cm SL Microsynodntis sp. 1 (lost 90% of the original group over a few weeks, I'm convinced these days it was the juvenile Ilyodon xantusi behind their deaths, found a companion ~17 months ago)
1x ~5cm SL Microsynodontis polli (lost the other original five within minutes of adding to quarantine, lost another 10 over a week or so of quarantining ~2 years later)
1x ~10cm SL Synodontis congicus (ordered as a S. notatus online, if I knew what I was getting, would have ordered at least another five!)
1x ~22cm SL Synodontis notatus (gentle giant)
4x ~10-13cm SL Euchilichthys spp.??? (gutted to find the fifth one dried up of the floor, think it may have been trying to flee a Steatocranus pair with a strangely timed fry brood in April)
1x ~18cm SL Synodontis cf. budgetti (Troy, a bit of a rogue with S. notatus, seems to be bizarrely triggered on water change days!)

jodilynn wrote:I had my water tested at the LFS and the PH was 8.23. I too tried to haul in "purified" city water that was more acidic (in the 6.0 range) and mix it to lower the ph of my water. Then I bought the "PH Down" stuff, tried using that, constantly monitoring the ph, stressing myself out, then I said the heck with it and just went to using my well water. And the tanks have been fine.

For those who do want to lower mineral content and bring down pH, mixing with RO is the only safe, steady way to do it imo if you don't want to use peat and discolor the water. (Assuming the same ratio is used consistently. And RO has to be used for evaporation (topping off) in any case to keep hardness from creeping up. pH products just cause crashes/rebounds.

But they key question I'd have for you, is what is your GH or hardness and TDS (total dissolved solids)? As this whole post goes to the heart of this thread, and the traditional way of thinking (which I am myself trying to break free of), of using pH as the definitive factor, rather than TDS and GH... and letting those figures guide you to what species will do well in your water. (Something I am about to ask racoll and others here more about in a second!)

The only fish I am kind of worried about are some wild caught Olga corys I have, the LFS said they might take a while to adjust to the higher PH. They don't look particularly happy right now, but sadly I am treating that tank for an Ich outbreak so that also may be part of the problem.

The TDS might be a factor more than the pH, if Olga corys come from very soft water (I don't know if they do or not). But others here can give better advice.

All my other tank raised fish, including tetras, seem to be doing very well (knock on wood). I have 4 synos, S. Eupterus, S. Decora, S. Alberti, and a Hybrid. They are very fat and happy. I am going to have to look at getting them a bigger tank sooner than later! Stomachs with fins!

Ain't it the truth.

I wanted to ask racoll more about the interesting comments he made, as I entered fishkeeping in 1990 when pH and hardness were stressed as the defining factors of whether a fish was suited for your tap or not. And too many people over the years (including me) have slaved to target a pH in the native range, which usually results in havoc until you discover you need to use RO and there is no easier way around that.

Meanwhile in more recent years, a new thinking involving TDS (total dissolved solids) emerged. TDS encompasses all dissolved solids, including minerals or GH, carbonates or KH, metals, impurities, pollution, etc.... So TDS gives an overall picture of water quality that includes GH but is more than just GH.

For example, (for those new to TDS), someone could have soft water (low GH of up to 5dGH) but comparatively high TDS from local runoff of pesticides or other pollutants. Now just measuring GH one would think s/he might be able to keep cardinal tetras... but figure in the relatively high TDS and you might find the water is not fit for blackwater fish after all.

Conversely, (and racoll and others will correct me if I am wrong) take someone like me with TDS of 453 out of the tap... and a pH of 8.2 - 8.4. I automatically eliminated the ability to keep any fish that require a pH up to 7.4 unless I hauled RO home every week and brought the pH down to 7.5 or so... also lowering the GH from 14 to about 8dGH. And I did this for my S. Eupterus... which I now learn is a fish that can handle a TDS of 453 very well... making the pH of 8.2-8.4 fine... and my years of slaving with RO unnecessary.

So to backtrack a bit to racoll's original comments, here they are, and then I have questions I hope he can clarify for me, as I really want to improve my understanding about all this. (Thanks racoll, and anyone else who helps me understand!)

Racoll said earlier:

Generally, fish that live in acidic blackwaters have difficulty dealing with minerals. Some may die in mineral rich water, some may survive okay, but you will certainly have trouble breeding them. Therefore you will need RO water to keep them, which naturally tends to go acidic unless you add your own minerals to the aquarium.

Fishes from the mineral rich lakes, for example, are the opposite, and do badly in mineral poor water.

Fishes from whitewater rivers are pretty easy going, and can live fine in most water types as long as you avoid extremes.

Fishes from clearwaters are generally also fairly easy going, but it's probably best to avoid really hard water for some species.

This helped me SO MUCH to get a better understanding of what a fish might require by way of water, by associating them not with the pH primarily, but with one of the biotope categories above. Then each category has a set of factors that play into what the fish will require that come from that type of biotope, and even how adaptable, or not, they might be.

For example we all know the blackwater biotopes are unchanging and have extremely soft, acid water year round. The fish that live there are typically in isolated jungle rivers where there is not a lot of pollution or runoff (not so everywhere sadly, but generally) and so it's low TDS, soft water, and they have not had to adapt to high mineral water and so do not do well in it (generally). No surprise there, cardinal tetras need very soft, acidic water to live a long, healthy life and thrive.

The Rift Lakes are an example of the opposite extreme... very mineral-rich or hard water (high TDS) and high pH. Also pretty self-explanatory.

What is less clear are the remaining categories. When researching fish that will be compatible with your local water supply, if the old standby stats of "Ph, GH" don't tell the whole story and in fact can be misleading without using TDS as a guiding factor, then how exactly do you determine what TDS range is native for the fish?

For fish like the Eupterus, I had no idea it was a "whiterwater river" biotope... I knew the regions it came from but the fact remained I had no idea what the ecosystem was really like, or if the fish came from the Chad basin or the Niger river or some other place there... and I had no idea that the Niger was a whitewater river, (which I consider to be sandy/rocky rushing rivers with more mineral content versus a slow moving river with more mud in the substrate, more standing water along the riverbanks, more vegetation and acidic? Is the former the definition of whitewater rivers?)

I can see that looking at fish stats and the general native region is not enough. Some geographic research is called for. I assume you (racoll) did this to learn what KIND of river the Niger was, and what KIND of basin the Chad basin is too?

And then you made another really enlightening comment... you pointed out the rivers the S. Eupterus come from have seasons. And we all know when rivers dwindle TDS (and GH) soar, as minerals and everything else is left behind... then in the rainy seasons, rivers swell and TDS & GH slowly fall, becoming diluted with rainwater. This would make the fish who live there adaptable to a larger tolerance for TDS and GH, than fish who live in more static water environments like blackwater fish. (Hence your assurances the S. Eupterus is fine in LA water with TDS 453, even though the pH is 8.4.) This is the trump card over the "required pH" .... if the TDS is good, the pH is probably fine. This makes pH a secondary factory and TDS the primary factor. Making it even more important to know how to associate a TDS range with a biotope.

To point: the "clearwater fish" category would include species like tetras and livebearers, even though I have always separated those classes in my mind due to tetras liking softer water and slightly acid to neutral pH, and livebearers liking moderately hard, more basic water (pH 7.4-8.2). So I guess that's why you made the point it's best to avoid very hard water with some clearwater species (e.g. tetras, and the neon tetras particularly). Am I following?

I ask about this because I see stats for neon tetras as adaptable from pH 5-8, and thought that was marketing misinformation. I do NOT think of the neon as a pH 8 fish, but if I understand your point, you might say "if the water is up to 12dGH [preferably less] with low TDS, the pH is unimportant" ... (yes, usually hard water has a high pH and so if the water is less that 12dGH the pH probably won't be high anyway, but there are exceptions, though if I understand you, you are saying even in an exception where the GH is 10dGH and the pH is 8.0, don't worry about it.) Do I have that right?

Are there general TDS ranges associated loosely [by aquarists] with each of those categories? Blackwater, Mineral-Rich, Whitewater river and Clearwater?

How do you find out the TDS range of the native environment? I barely found a gvmnt TDS report on the Chad basin last year after a lot of searching, and the range was ridiculous, like from the 200s to the 800s depending on where they tested the water as the Chad has some industry along some of its banks. It made me feel like the effort was pointless, not knowing where exactly the fish even came from.

Sorry this is all a bit frazzled, but thank god, I'm done!

Awesome job!

I don't know...the tanks that have driftwood in them have a hardness (GH)ppm in the 75 range (soft), but the 40, which is new and only has a small piece in it is reading in the 300 range (very hard). So I am soaking some oak leaves in there (we talked about this in Tank Talk, Shane started a thread about easily creating blackwater). While this will not probably affect things much I am going to attempt to naturally soften the water a bit (????).

The more I think about this the more vexed I get...

Actually I just quickly tested all the tanks with my test strips and they are all reading in the 150ppm GH which is "hard".

Maybe the water is just getting "bad" because it's winter. We have a well and sometimes it seems we go through these cycles/periods when the water seems more yellow, there are more rust stains in the sinks and tubs, and the soap doesn't lather. I have also been noticing when I fill the tanks they are cloudy for about 24 hours.

AAAAAAAGGGGGGRRRRRRHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I give UP!!!!!!!!

jodilynn.... 150ppm is only considered "slightly hard" (9dGH) and should be fine for species that like slightly soft to slightly hard water... Can't know the TDS from this, however. If interested, a TDS meter like this http://www.tdsmeter.com/products/tds3.html can be had for less than $20 on eBay with some shopping skills applied.

AFAIK cloudy water usually indicates air in the water, if it clears as yours does. And water that won't lather indicates softer water... hard water lathers easily. It is common for water supplies to shift... especially a well, I'd imagine, that might be subject to runoff or other factors.

But your question about the Olga Cory goes to the context of this thread... Planet Catfish stats says it prefers pH 6.2-6.4 and comes from the Meta River in Columbia. So let's see what racoll and the other experts say...

Also, that's interesting about the oak leaves creating a "blackwater" tank and I've read that elsewhere... but you sound like you're in information overload and what I always tell new aquarists (I assume you are fairly new?) is don't alter your water and just find species suited to it. Keep it simple for the first tank or two. After you've enjoyed them awhile it builds confidence and a knowledge base about working with freshwater paramters to move into specialty tanks, if desired. JMO.

Also, as a general rule the local fish store is in the business of selling fish, not warning someone the fish they want probably won't survive in their tank. Not that the Olga won't, I'm waiting to see what the others say ... though to me a pH 6.2-6.4 fish will not make it in a pH 8.3 tank... but that's why I am looking forward to racoll's reply, because classifying fish by pH like I always have isn't always accurate as we've seen! And your water IS fairly soft (being only slightly hard) so it's a perfect example of "low GH, high pH water" like I asked about in my example. So I am waiting curiously for racoll's response...

N0body Of The Goat wrote:I've only been keeping Mochokidae catfish for just over 4.5 years, but from my limited experience, I've not had any losses that made me think my tap water's gH 13/14 pH 8 was the issue. [...]
1x ~18cm SL Synodontis cf. budgetti (Troy, a bit of a rogue with S. notatus, seems to be bizarrely triggered on water change days!)

Do you happen to know the TDS of your tanks?

Sounds like Troy is stimulated by the chemistry of the change water... sure the tap is still close to the tank? I know many people put a garden hose right in the tank to add water... I always draw water into a food grade change bucket and add Prime before adding the water to the tank. I don't know what your practices are but... maybe even moving rocks/wood around on change-day to vacuum (if you do) might rile him up?

Uh, I'm actually embarrassed to say this but I've had fish since I was a child, and I'm pushing 43.

Got back into the hobby about 10 years ago with a few small goldfish for my son, about 6-7 years ago went back to tropicals. I've gotten back in quite heavily the past couple years, and much to my dismay SO much seems to have changed since I was a 10 year old or even when I was a teenager.

I can safely say due to this discussion I will be ruling out Neon or Cardinal tetras. I mean they'd only be in a 5 gallon so technically I could use city water (it goes through a purifier at Meijer, we use it for our cats, dog, cooking, drinking) but then I'd have to heat it up, or I could use the Ph Down stuff, but again that's not solving the TDS (for the record there is a lot of white/brown crusty mineral deposits on my hoods and tanks).

My Lemon Tetras are doing well, and I had some kind of white-fin Rosy Tetras for several years prior. I had wanted Hockey Stick (Penguin) Tetras for the 40 but I'm questioning that as well.

I think I am overthinking this now? The subject of my water has brought many surprised responses on several different threads.

My Olgas look very sad. They seem to perk up when I feed them (and believe me I have been babying them, live brine shrimp, frozen foods, no pellets for those guys!), but mostly they lay around fins down looking depressed. Truthfully that's kinda how they looked in the dealer tanks so after they'd been there for 2 months I figured maybe that's just how they were! Ugh.

Sadness ...

jodilynn.... congrats on your long career in fishkeeping, and apologies. And I think we ALL overthink this hobby at one time or another!

FTR some neons are tank bred and from what I understand tank bred neons are hardier with a wider tolerance than wild-caught. (OTOH some people say a few generations of tank breeding doesn't override millions of years of evolution.) But studies have been done that found calcification in the kindeys (livers? forget which) of neons kept in hard water... though YOUR water is not hard (!) and I would think tank bred neons especially would do well... though TDS would be good to know before making that decision. So don't rule neons out.... but I would only add them (or any fish) to a fully cycled tank, for humane reasons, cycled fishless. And I would avoid all pH down products. They do not permanently adjust the pH, they only make it bounce, being very stressful for the fish.

Also, wild caught or tank bred, cardinals have always been much more fragile than neons, and really require a blackwater tank, imo.

If the Olga's looked sad at the retailer he might have had high pH water too... they came from a low pH environment and while TDS might be important, a sudden change in pH is still extremely stressful to fish. So let's say they went from their native habitat at pH 6.2 (and who knows what the TDS was), likely to harder water (higher TDS) at the retailer and a higher pH to boot, maybe closer to neutral where most fish are happy.... then moved again to a pH even higher... and I don't know how long your acclimation process was but... they might be feeling not too well... I hope they improve.

Jodilynn,
For an alternative perspective, I've been using a blend of pH adjusters (SeaChem Neutral Regulator combined with SeaChem Discuss Buffer) to keep my tanks in the pH 6.4 to 6.8 range for almost two years, and they have worked remarkably well. That said, I don't know that you would have the same experience as I've had, since your water starts out very different from mine. My tapwater is pretty soft, and its pH is just above neutral. So for me, adding a small amount of these two chemicals (2-3 teaspoons of each following a 25-50% WC in a 36 gal tank) to my water at each water change works well, and so far (knock on wood, cross your fingers, pray) I've not had any pH swings show up on my tests (I test every 3-7 days). But you're starting out with a very different type of tap water, and I have no idea how effective this would be for you. Your water is starting out harder and more alkaline than mine, so maybe the fish don't want more minerals in the water.
Good luck, Eric

bekateen wrote:Jodilynn,
For an alternative perspective, I've been using a blend of pH adjusters (SeaChem Neutral Regulator combined with SeaChem Discuss Buffer) to keep my tanks in the pH 6.4 to 6.8 range for almost two years, and they have worked remarkably well. That said, I don't know that you would have the same experience as I've had, since your water starts out very different from mine. My tapwater is pretty soft, and its pH is just above neutral.

Congrats (and I say that sincerely) as you are in the tiny minority of people who happens to have soft water that is almost neutral, which is almost exactly the kind of water Seachem uses as a basis for their directions on using their buffers. (I believe they say they base the directions in RO.) Yes, they have a chart for scaling it to different water, but for most people buffers only add to the TDS when in most cases the pH is better left alone. But in your case with such great soft water and a near neutral pH, you have a cake situation

In the interest of full disclosure I say that as someone who used Seachem Acid Buffer (back when it was pink before they made it white) for years... in my case I did not need the alkaline buffer b/c my water had a KH of 8... but for all the TDS it added (to my already moderately hard water) it barely dropped the pH a few .10s ... and if it sat long enough it would rise again... regardless of how low I brought the KH down in the change water, which I made ahead of time in a 30g trash can.

So while there is an exception to every rule, and you are undoubtedly not the only one who uses buffers successfully, for the vast majority of people pH down products are a bad idea... especially pH down specifically, which is what jodilynn mentioned... But as general advice buffers are also better left out of the equation for most people and especially new aquarists (which jodilynn isn't).

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it! And I want your water!!!

PS How do you have such great water in Stockton, CA? Is it a well on your property, or... ?

FeatherFinMama wrote:Yes, they have a chart for scaling it to different water, but for most people buffers only add to the TDS when in most cases the pH is better left alone.

Exactly, and that is the point I was making about Jodilynn's water - adding more buffering compounds would only increase her TDS, and that would be worse if she's starting with really alkaline water.

FeatherFinMama wrote: ... and if it [the tanks water] sat long enough it [the pH] would rise again... regardless of how low I brought the KH down in the change water, which I made ahead of time in a 30g trash can.

See, here is where my water is different from yours - if I let my water go too long without changing it, the pH goes down, not up. There's been at least one occasion when I had to neglect water changes for 3-4 weeks and I discovered that the pH had fallen from about 6.8 to 5.something without me adding any buffers. In the past, I always thought that this worked to my advantage b/c the drop in pH, coupled with water changes afterward, seemed to really get my corys and Apistogramma excited to spawn.

In fact, I battle to keep the pH above 6. The problem doesn't seem to affect my fish at home, but when I've sold my young Corys or Apistogramma to my LFS, I've been told by two LFS that the fish I sold them died within a couple of days. That made no sense to me at first, since I had been raising the fish for at least 4 months before selling them, and they had really good survival in my tanks. But the LFS tanks are between pH 7 and 7.5, and some of the LFS owners don't do a slow water mix for the new arrivals from me - they just dump my juvies straight into their sale tanks (this tells you that either the LFS owners are very trusting that my fish aren't carrying ich or other diseases, or that they are reckless with their own fishstock). We've come to the conclusion that it is probably a pH shock that kills the juvies, and that's partly what started me using the pH buffer. Now that I buffer the pH around 6.8, my juvies don't die off when the LFS add them to their sale tanks.

FeatherFinMama wrote:And I want your water!!! ... PS How do you have such great water in Stockton, CA? Is it a well on your property, or... ?

Not so fast - everything isn't roses in Stockton's water supply. If you read one of my earliest posts here, when I first joined PC, it was all about the bad water supply in Stockton. I don't think it's so much about pH or TDS, but rather flushes of chloramines (our town just switched from chlorine to chloramines last year). Here's a sample of what I've been through in the last 12 months:
http://www.planetcatfish.com/forum/view ... fs#p279239.

Yes, I do like the pH and TDS conditions in my Stockton water (it's from city operated wells), but our water has some serious flaws too.

Cheers, Eric

Conversation moved on fast! Will do my best to expand on a couple of points.

the "clearwater fish" category would include species like tetras and livebearers, even though I have always separated those classes in my mind due to tetras liking softer water and slightly acid to neutral pH, and livebearers liking moderately hard, more basic water (pH 7.4-8.2). So I guess that's why you made the point it's best to avoid very hard water with some clearwater species (e.g. tetras, and the neon tetras particularly). Am I following?

No. It's the species that is important, not its family or higher group. There are livebearers and tetras than live in all water types, as they are found all across South/Central America and Africa. Finding out what comes from where is the important bit.

Are there general TDS ranges associated loosely [by aquarists] with each of those categories? Blackwater, Mineral-Rich, Whitewater river and Clearwater?

What is less clear are the remaining categories. When researching fish that will be compatible with your local water supply, if the old standby stats of "Ph, GH" don't tell the whole story and in fact can be misleading without using TDS as a guiding factor, then how exactly do you determine what TDS range is native for the fish?

The point being the same as with the pH, is that you don't need to try to match your conditions to what is found in the wild. The key point is the adaptability of the fish. You can get clues in three ways: (1) make an educated guess based on the water conditions the fish is found in the wild (e.g. fishes from white or clearwater rivers are more generally adaptable than those from blackwaters); (2) make an educated guess based on the extent of its native range (because widely spread species found in many rivers are usually more adaptable); and (3) get direct advice from others that have kept the fish.

If you find that the fish has specialised needs, then yes, you would need to go to some efforts to replicate their environment.

How do you find out the TDS range of the native environment?

As I say, you don't need to know the exact values. You just need a vague idea of the type of habitat it lives in, e.g. forest streams, big rivers, rapids, lakes, whitewaters, blackwaters. That is often all you need to know.

I had no idea that the Niger was a whitewater river, (which I consider to be sandy/rocky rushing rivers with more mineral content versus a slow moving river with more mud in the substrate, more standing water along the riverbanks, more vegetation and acidic? Is the former the definition of whitewater rivers?)

No. In biology, the term "whitewater" has nothing to do with the velocity of the water (i.e. whitewater rafting). It refers the amount of suspended sediment in the water (the turbidity), which colours it a muddy, milky colour. There is very little visibility in such rivers. Whitewaters typically have a higher TDS and pH than water from areas with less erosion taking place. There is variation through the year, and of course rivers mix when they meet.

For fish like the Eupterus, I had no idea it was a "whiterwater river" biotope... I knew the regions it came from but the fact remained I had no idea what the ecosystem was really like, or if the fish came from the Chad basin or the Niger river or some other place there... and I had no idea that the Niger was a whitewater river ...
I can see that looking at fish stats and the general native region is not enough. Some geographic research is called for.

It's tricky to get good information, especially for species that are new in the trade, or have been around so long that they all tank raised and are no longer wild caught. What can be useful is Google Earth (or Google Maps via the Web browser). You can view these places in the satellite view mode, and it is often very obvious what the river is like (and there are often user photos added to). But if you Google skills haven't turned up much info, then you can always ask a question on the forum (it's what it's here for). You'd be surprised who knows these things, as the audience is quite international.

Of course there cases where fishes are caught in clear or blackwater streams that drain into whitewater rivers, so knowing the larger river drainage is not always so helpful. But then it is possible to work out if it is a stream, montane or big river type fish, so you can immediately narrow down the options.

I ask about this because I see stats for neon tetras as adaptable from pH 5-8, and thought that was marketing misinformation.

FTR some neons are tank bred and from what I understand tank bred neons are hardier with a wider tolerance than wild-caught. (OTOH some people say a few generations of tank breeding doesn't override millions of years of evolution.)

Yes, farm bred fishes should in theory be pre-adapted to aquarium life, but poor quality mass-produced stock can be an issue these days. But yes, they are still small characids from mineral poor waters, and are not therefore a great choice for "liquid rock" tanks.

If the Olga's looked sad at the retailer he might have had high pH water too... they came from a low pH environment and while TDS might be important, a sudden change in pH is still extremely stressful to fish. So let's say they went from their native habitat at pH 6.2 (and who knows what the TDS was), likely to harder water (higher TDS) at the retailer and a higher pH to boot, maybe closer to neutral where most fish are happy.... then moved again to a pH even higher... and I don't know how long your acclimation process was but... they might be feeling not too well... I hope they improve.

Yes, the fish have a lot to deal with, what with getting caught, and shipped, and shipped again, and then "looked after" at the LFS. Even if the fish is adaptable, there's no harm in putting them in a quarantine tank with soft water for several weeks while they used to their new regime. Having one less shock is probably a good thing for them.

bekateen wrote: See, here is where my water is different from yours - if I let my water go too long without changing it, the pH goes down, not up. There's been at least one occasion when I had to neglect water changes for 3-4 weeks and I discovered that the pH had fallen from about 6.8 to 5.something without me adding any buffers. In the past, I always thought that this worked to my advantage b/c the drop in pH, coupled with water changes afterward, seemed to really get my corys and Apistogramma excited to spawn.

In fact, I battle to keep the pH above 6. [....] Now that I buffer the pH around 6.8, my juvies don't die off when the LFS add them to their sale tanks.

I can see you are a prime candidate for buffers and they work well for you and you are truly better off using them than not. I will deservedly eat crow for using a sweeping generalization, saying no products are better in all cases. I was wrong to say that as clearly in some cases buffers are better.

That said most people who use pH Down have hard water and a high pH... the opposite of your situation... and in those vast majority of cases pH is better left alone, and if you are going to use a product, pH Down is not the one to use. RO is better to reduce pH in hard water. JMO. And now I'll shut up about it.

But I'm very happy to hear your fish are now doing well at the LFS, and it's amazing how calloused (or stupid) some people can be to dump fish into their tanks (private or retail) not knowing the pH/GH spread or caring... even aside from quaratine issues.

Yes, I do like the pH and TDS conditions in my Stockton water (it's from city operated wells), but our water has some serious flaws too. Cheers, Eric

Thanks for the link I will read that this afternoon.

[me] the "clearwater fish" category would include species like tetras and livebearers, even though I have always separated those classes in my mind due to tetras liking softer water and slightly acid to neutral pH, and livebearers liking moderately hard, more basic water (pH 7.4-8.2). So I guess that's why you made the point it's best to avoid very hard water with some clearwater species (e.g. tetras, and the neon tetras particularly). Am I following?

[racoll] No. It's the species that is important, not its family or higher group. There are livebearers and tetras than live in all water types, as they are found all across South/Central America and Africa. Finding out what comes from where is the important bit.

I can see my generalizations are really sending me up the creek here. I used "tetras" for shorthand meaning the most common species associated with softer, slightly acid or neutral conditions: neons, glowlights... And livebearers again, shorthand for guppies, mollies, etc. Of course there are many species and it's important to look at each one individually.

[...me ] if the old standby stats of "Ph, GH" don't tell the whole story and in fact can be misleading without using TDS as a guiding factor, then how exactly do you determine what TDS range is native for the fish?

[racoll] The point being the same as with the pH, is that you don't need to try to match your conditions to what is found in the wild. The key point is the adaptability of the fish. You can get clues in three ways: (1) make an educated guess based on the water conditions the fish is found in the wild (e.g. fishes from white or clearwater rivers are more generally adaptable than those from blackwaters); (2) make an educated guess based on the extent of its native range (because widely spread species found in many rivers are usually more adaptable); and (3) get direct advice from others that have kept the fish.

If you find that the fish has specialised needs, then yes, you would need to go to some efforts to replicate their environment.

Thanks for that "tool chest." Interesting point that widely spread species would tend to be more adaptable.

[me] How do you find out the TDS range of the native environment?

[racoll] As I say, you don't need to know the exact values. You just need a vague idea of the type of habitat it lives in, e.g. forest streams, big rivers, rapids, lakes, whitewaters, blackwaters. That is often all you need to know.

OK, so you are of the mind that -- aside from the exceptions of fish that need specific conditions, whether it be very soft or very hard water, or some other accommodation [e.g. species tank or specific other conditions] -- that a fish's native stats are unimportant as long as the fish appears to be an adaptable species. That fish that fall "somewhere in the middle" can adapt to any water that is not extreme in one way or another.

So am I generalizing too much to sum this up as any "fish in the middle that is also from an environment that would tend to make it adaptable" can live in water with a pH from 6.5 - 8.5 and dGH 7-18 as long as TDS is (what is the normal TDS range ???)

(And thanks for the clarification on what a "whitewater" river is.)

[racoll] It's tricky to get good information, especially for species that are new in the trade, or have been around so long that they all tank raised and are no longer wild caught. What can be useful is Google Earth (or Google Maps via the Web browser). You can view these places in the satellite view mode, and it is often very obvious what the river is like (and there are often user photos added to).

What a great idea. In the past I Googled for images but never thought of using GE.

[racoll] Of course there cases where fishes are caught in clear or blackwater streams that drain into whitewater rivers, so knowing the larger river drainage is not always so helpful. But then it is possible to work out if it is a stream, montane or big river type fish, so you can immediately narrow down the options.

Again, very astute and very good information. Makes sense.

Re: neons and tank bred vs wild caught

[racoll] Yes, farm bred fishes should in theory be pre-adapted to aquarium life, but poor quality mass-produced stock can be an issue these days. But yes, they are still small characids from mineral poor waters, and are not therefore a great choice for "liquid rock" tanks.

Right. Well jodilynn has a rather nice 9dGH which isn't soft but only slightly hard and would seem to be okay as long as she wasn't planning to breed. But is that right? With her pH of 8.3 and 9dGH would you consider that water a candidate for neons? Or too close to the extreme end of the range due to the GH in combo with the high pH.. or would you need to know the TDS to say either way and still maintain in this situation the pH is unimportant [b/c it's in the normal range of fishkeeping]? I'm using this as an example b/c again, I am trying to understand your approach.

[me] If the Olga's looked sad at the retailer he might have had high pH water too... they came from a low pH environment and while TDS might be important, a sudden change in pH is still extremely stressful to fish. So let's say they went from their native habitat at pH 6.2 (and who knows what the TDS was), likely to harder water (higher TDS) at the retailer and a higher pH to boot, maybe closer to neutral where most fish are happy.... then moved again to a pH even higher... and I don't know how long your acclimation process was but... they might be feeling not too well... I hope they improve.

[racoll] Yes, the fish have a lot to deal with, what with getting caught, and shipped, and shipped again, and then "looked after" at the LFS. Even if the fish is adaptable, there's no harm in putting them in a quarantine tank with soft water for several weeks while they used to their new regime. Having one less shock is probably a good thing for them.

Amen. It was my thought too... to move them to their own tank and add some RO... without shocking them again.... gradually and carefully... sort of soften/lower the pH some and then let them acclimate until they are active and healthy and happy - might take a month or two ... then (if they are a candidate for harder water, I don't know b/c I am not familiar with their habitat).. slowly bring the water back to tap parameters over the course of several weeks, watching along the way to make sure they are handling it fine. Otherwise I'd stick the water wherever they're happy and drag RO home for the rest of their lives (or mine)... like I've done unnecessarily for 25 years for the cats.

But I didn't want to say this b/c I didn't know if changing their water chemistry yet again would be wise.... but if they aren't looking any better maybe jodilynn has already arrived at that conclusion. How are they doin' jodilynn?

OK, so you are of the mind that ... that a fish's native stats are unimportant as long as the fish appears to be an adaptable species. That fish that fall "somewhere in the middle" can adapt to any water that is not extreme in one way or another.

any "fish in the middle that is also from an environment that would tend to make it adaptable" can live in water with a pH from 6.5 - 8.5 and dGH 7-18

Yes, it's a good rule of thumb, all other things being equal.

Right. Well jodilynn has a rather nice 9dGH which isn't soft but only slightly hard and would seem to be okay as long as she wasn't planning to breed. But is that right? With her pH of 8.3 and 9dGH would you consider that water a candidate for neons? Or too close to the extreme end of the range due to the GH in combo with the high pH..

I would probably not keep neons in that water. It's more than slightly hard. Remember that dGH is only the calcium and magnesium cations, so you still need to add together the KH alkalinity part (the carbonate and bicarbonate anions), to get TDS total hardness (more or less).

The neons will certainly survive, and I am sure many people have kept them in such water, but I'd rather keep a fish that enjoys that kind of hardness, rather than tolerates it. It's always best to match the fish to your water.

Hello!

Well...they still look sad. However I am keeping up with the frozen bloodworms which they love and I will be getting them some live brineshrimp tomorrow. They perk up considerably when they eat, two fed enthusiastically, one ate a bit, and the fourth was more content to chase and head-butt the other three and then go back to moping under the plants.

I did stop the medication a couple days ago, as the fish that was ill died on the weekend and the others showed no sign of disease (knock on wood). That did seem to help.

Unfortunately, the hospital tank is occupied, so (and please don't smack me for doing this ) I did add one dose (5ml per 10 gallons) of Aqueon Ph Down last night (prior to me reading the the "don't mess with the water" posts ).

My thought process is this: I do have the bag of oak leaves in the tank (damn pin oak little bitty leaves), no change in the tint of the water unfortunately, so I am going to, over the course of a week or so, try to gradually lower the ph in that tank. Not a lot, certainly probably not what they were living in back in the wild. Water changes will have to involve the purified/dechlorinated city water mixed with my well water. Maybe a ph that's a "happy medium" of mid-7 range. This will hopefully allow them to regain their strength, then I will gradually allow the water to go back to just my well water. Lots of monitoring!

The fish store did tell me to slooowly introduce them to the tank (1 hour plus, float them and then little by little introduce my water to the bag), but that's pretty much what I do anyway.

I did research and the other fish I want for the tank do seem to be able to tolerate Ph in the higher ranges. But I am very sad about these guys, as they seem to be so unhappy. I actually did contemplate returning them (even though I would not get any money/credit), but then I thought they are just going to rot back at the LFS, as they were there for 2+ months and no one bought them .

Someone please remind me WHY I am in the hobby of fishkeeping!?!?!?!

I'm stickin' with Synos and Bettas!

jodilynn wrote:Someone please remind me WHY I am in the hobby of fishkeeping!?!?!?!

Hi Jodilynn,
Hopefully these little corys survive and thrive in your care. To answer your question, I'll offer four possible answers (each of these should start with "IMHO"):

1. A desire to connect with nature. By having a small piece of nature in your house, you feel more human, more alive, more "in touch" with what it means to be a creature on this Earth we call home.
2. (related to #1) A desire to create. People who decorate their aquaria, and especially those who try to recreate natural biotopes or create fancy aquascapes in their tanks, are practicing their own natural urge to be creative, to produce, to build. It is a form of personal expression, and the aquarium becomes something you can share with other people who visit your home, just like painting a picture and hanging it on your wall is. It's also a way to respond to and confront the natural human tendency to consume and destroy: fishkeeping makes the house (and by extension, the world) a more beautiful place. I also believe that fish breeding falls into this category, although for breeders the act of creation is accomplished when the fish do all the work, LOL.
3. (also related to #1) A desire to learn and grow. By learning about the fish we keep, we constantly educate ourselves, growing in knowledge and gaining an appreciation that the world is bigger than just our own little lives.
4. A desire to nurture. Fishkeepers really care about their fish and they want to provide for the fish. I suspect this desire is an extension of a bigger "desire to nurture" in your personality - you are probably a caring person by instinct, and you get energized when you help others take care of their needs.

Keep up the good work, whether you continue to keep Corys or you just stick with "Synos and Bettas."

Cheers, Eric
P.S., There are certainly other reasons why people keep fish (e.g., maybe they just have too much money and they're trying to figure out how to lose it, or maybe they have a God-complex and they like the idea of having power and control over some fishes' lives, but based on your posts in this thread at PlanetCatfish, I feel strongly that these don't apply to you at all (or to anyone else I've met at this website, for that matter).

A big +1 to Eric's post.

To jodilynn, pH Down is not recommended b/c it can cause a pH crash or at best pH bounce, both of which are bad for fish. But no smacking around here! However my suggestion is to shelf (or better yet, trash) the pH Down. When dealing with hard water it's best dilute it with softer water to dilute pH, or use organics.

So your plan to use well water mixed with municipal to gradually reduce pH to ~ mid 7's and allow them to stabilize there sounds good to me. Do you know your well water parameters? If it can't do the trick, RO would be a wonderful substitute. Can buy it by the gallon at any grocery or big box mart.

Also, especially in this situation when you are adjusting pH and dealing with fish that are already a little weak, it's always (yes I will say always) better to mix up the change water in a container first and test the pH there... before adding it to the tank. (FTR Lowe''s department stores sells a Lowe's branded food grade 5g bucket for under $5. http://www.lowes.com/pd_356492-1152-506 ... Id=3694238

Also, I have a little good news for you, for the long run when it's time to return them to tap parameters... while Planet Catfish has the Olga stats as needing low pH, Badman's has quite different stats: http://badmanstropicalfish.com/stats/co ... latus.html. Seems like the PC stats are native and the BMs stats are more along racoll's approach. Maybe it's time to apply some of racoll's mad skills and see if perhaps the little guys will be ok in your tap after all down the road.... But for now your plan sounds good to me.

Keep us posted on them... maybe start a new thread for them?

Planet Catfish has the Olga stats as needing low pH, Badman's has quite different stats:

These are a Llanos species exported out of Villavicencio, no? So they should be able to handle harder water.

Perhaps the water is not to blame for them not thriving? A badly aquascaped tank with gravel, too little shade, and no backing can also have this effect.

Good to look at other options ...