A surprisingly effective solution

General discussion, not specific to any sub forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
matti
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2022 8:16 pm

A surprisingly effective solution

Post by matti »

I'm dealing with soft tap water in my 90L, which isn't ideal for my fish and shrimp. I was trying to get the hardness right for my Sawbwa resplendens, which prefer levels between 54 – 268 ppm. I thought using Cuttlefish bone would do the trick, but it looks like I miscalculated. Welp, that didn't go as planned. A substantial water change should help get things back on track, right?
User avatar
matti
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2022 8:16 pm

Re: A surprisingly effective solution

Post by matti »

Did a water change and managed to bring the ppm down a bit. Thinking of doing another one tomorrow, see if I can get it more in line with what my Sawbwa resplendens prefer.
User avatar
kokomo
Posts: 103
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2022 12:19 pm

Re: A surprisingly effective solution

Post by kokomo »

The softer the water to begin with, the more it'll dissolve quickly, seems like that's what happened in your case.
User avatar
Burgermuncher
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2022 5:40 am

Re: A surprisingly effective solution

Post by Burgermuncher »

Just a heads up, 283 ppm on that tester is an estimate of Total Dissolved Solids based on conductivity. It correlates with general hardness, but it's not a direct measure. With my TDS sensor, I've noticed readings are about 75 ppm higher than general hardness tests. Adding fertilizer seems to make the discrepancy even larger.
User avatar
coltin
Posts: 861
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2022 6:07 pm

Re: A surprisingly effective solution

Post by coltin »

matti wrote: Sun Jan 19, 2025 1:36 am I'm dealing with soft tap water in my 90L, which isn't ideal for my fish and shrimp. I was trying to get the hardness right for my Sawbwa resplendens, which prefer levels between 54 – 268 ppm. I thought using Cuttlefish bone would do the trick, but it looks like I miscalculated. Welp, that didn't go as planned. A substantial water change should help get things back on track, right?
What type of hardness did you measure (GH or KH)? I'm surprised by the results, as I wouldn't expect cuttlebone to raise the GH significantly. It's possible that it increased the KH slightly, but 300ppm seems too high.
User avatar
matti
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2022 8:16 pm

Re: A surprisingly effective solution

Post by matti »

coltin wrote: Sun Jan 19, 2025 6:15 am
matti wrote: Sun Jan 19, 2025 1:36 am I'm dealing with soft tap water in my 90L, which isn't ideal for my fish and shrimp. I was trying to get the hardness right for my Sawbwa resplendens, which prefer levels between 54 – 268 ppm. I thought using Cuttlefish bone would do the trick, but it looks like I miscalculated. Welp, that didn't go as planned. A substantial water change should help get things back on track, right?
What type of hardness did you measure (GH or KH)? I'm surprised by the results, as I wouldn't expect cuttlebone to raise the GH significantly. It's possible that it increased the KH slightly, but 300ppm seems too high.
I've been doing some reading on the meter itself and it seems the calibration can be off, with some reviews mentioning it's not entirely accurate. The product page doesn't specify which hardness it tests for, just this image. I do have a liquid GH and KH test kit lying around somewhere, so I'll try using that to get a more accurate reading. Also, I removed about 2/3 of the cuttlefish bone after the water change.
User avatar
coltin
Posts: 861
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2022 6:07 pm

Re: A surprisingly effective solution

Post by coltin »

A TDS meter essentially reads the total amount of dissolved substances in the water - it doesn't differentiate between the various types of hardness or salts. It's a broad reading that encompasses everything dissolved.
User avatar
infold
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2022 5:50 pm

Re: A surprisingly effective solution

Post by infold »

I was worried you might be submerging the TDS meter too far, but after taking another look at the picture, it seems you're doing it right. That line near the top of your aquarium had me thinking that was the water level initially.
Post Reply