水草情迷

Cybercatt:

Don't so angry la....If words is good to listen, then listen, otherwise, let it be la...

THINK...
Why does their tanks have "black" algae ? it's because of high no3, phosphate or whatever that screws up.
Now they're saying they intentionally grow "black" algae to lower No3....Wow, that's interesting !
What is the cause & what is the effect ?

I don't know about Fat Kee.
However, I read some articles from Tropical Fish Hobbiest.
Some Discus Keepers use different kind of Algae in sump filter to remove no3, phosphate fot their non-planted aquarium.
The result is excellent stable water quality.

They just use an powerful uv light between the sump filter and the main tank to kill the algae's "seed" to avoid those algae spreading to the main tank.

小弟個人看法:支持這些藻對水質的穩定是有好大的作用!
但唔想評論發記是否有心養出來!因為:天才會知道!

看回上期的 AQUAZOO, 內有一篇有關養殖日本金魚 "土佐金" 的文章, 此魚的生長環境, 就是需要養在一個有藻類的圓缽內, 靠藻去維持水質, 如果沒有了藻類和太潔淨的水質, 魚就會很易死去了.

_________________
多多交流, 多多研究, 多多搜尋
我的水族相簿

我就覺得佢用黑毛藻放在鯛缸內必有一定的作用(是乜就唔知道), 就連新發記開新缸一開始已有存在.

Guys, that's the question....
Why would anybody need "black" algae to stablize the water IF the water is stablized enough to prevent algae growth ?
Cause.....Effect.....Get it ??

It depends what klind of fishes you keep and if your main target is to keep plants or keep fishes.

Few plants can absorb so much PO3 and PO4 as Algae do.
Instead of remove PO3 and PO4 chmically or by changing water. Some people just use Algae.
'
And it is essential for Discus as some people believe Discus need "OLD" Water that they seldom change so much water. And discus are very sensitive to chemical.

If using "black algae" is the most economic, effective and simple method to stablize the water, why not use it?
And this is the "bio" method, no chemicals and high technicals involved, still can get good effect, why not use it?

所謂各師各法,我會用莫絲多Ｄ.

我聽過有人話水草缸入面係一定會有水藻.呢個係唔可以避免的.但係我地要好好地控制佢地的生長速度.因此會有各式各樣的方法去控制.
水藻同水草一樣都係水生植物,佢地之間存在著彼此競爭.水藻強水草弱,反之水草強水藻弱.以家有人話有水藻有利於穩定水質.咁我就有d唔明.
1. 水藻的蔓延有賴不穩定的水質,那他們如何控制水質呢?
2. 向好的方面還是壞的方面呢?
3. 水藻的滋生令水質變壞還是變好呢?
4. 如果是變好,那麼水藻是否在制造一個不利自己生存的環境呢?
5. 如果真是這樣,為何要買工作魚呢?我們只要任由水藻自生自滅便可...

Okay, so some said Yes & some said No.
Why don't we just buy a pair of DC from Fat Boy & measure the water parameter within the plastic fish bag? That's supposed to say it all . To be fair, will somebody do the testing, within...say 30 minutes , after the purchase so the DC won't pollute the "well managed" & "stabilized" water?

以下只是我猜猜玩玩的閒聊，有錯請指正喔！

1. 水藻的蔓延有賴不穩定的水質,那他們如何控制水質呢?
我想它們不是在控制水質，而是由於有適當環境便盡快並盡量繁衍，這是一般低等生物的共有特徵。

2. 向好的方面還是壞的方面呢?
不知道想指的是甚麼的好壞？但假設一切不變，水中的氨及鏻含量應會少了，但同時其他肥料亦然。

3. 水藻的滋生令水質變壞還是變好呢?
假設一切不變，水中的有毒物質會較少。

4. 如果是變好,那麼水藻是否在制造一個不利自己生存的環境呢?
它們應不能製造環境，但它們會選擇有利的環境繁衍。

5. 如果真是這樣,為何要買工作魚呢?我們只要任由水藻自生自滅便可
問題是我自己覺得我的水草生得比它美，而它們為了繁衍會與我的水草們爭肥，可惜的是美麗的水草雖然高等但吸收能力相比起就不太強，又長得相對地慢，所以唯有捨醜取美了。

你唔講又唔係好覺,講開我又發覺種莫絲真係對水質都幾好,
小弟由初開缸到現在都ok

長頸利兄的問題,好似有d基本概念上的錯誤:

就你的看法,容許小弟發表一下:
1. 水藻的蔓延有賴不穩定的水質,那他們如何控制水質呢?
藻是植物,但比草低等好多,所以要求的養份亦有d唔同,能夠吸收一些水草唔要的東西作生長,如麟(基本上甚至一些有毒物質,亦是它們的養份)。藻or草都係靠差不多的養份滋長,同樣會做光合作用,在草缸的功能上是差不多:有淨化及達到生態循環水質的作用,但個樣實在太醜,無人喜歡!(個人睇法是這樣,有錯請輕批!)

2. 向好的方面還是壞的方面呢?
視乎你喜歡藻還是草!

3. 水藻的滋生令水質變壞還是變好呢?
對水質不會有壞的影嚮,只會變唔靚!

4. 如果是變好,那麼水藻是否在制造一個不利自己生存的環境呢?
先要知道對什麼水體而言,對水草,因藻類搶走養份令水草難以生長,生存的競爭只在水草之上,戰爭是在植物的生存上互相競爭上,而非魚類身上。所以實際上只要一直有養份滋養佢地,包括魚屎,魚糧以及其他肥料等,佢地就會繼續生長,繼續光合作用,繼續使水質淨化(小弟唔識化學原理,但小弟觀念上是這樣想的)

5. 如果真是這樣,為何要買工作魚呢?我們只要任由水藻自生自滅便可...
此即表示無人會喜歡藻類lor!

小弟曾看過影片,地球上氧氣的主要來源除左樹木,就係藻類!小弟亦曾經養過"藻缸", 真的看到d藻好似鹿角台出泡一樣!

小弟只係得閒,隨便說說,大家吹吹水,交換意見而已,有唔arm,請指正!