• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up

CO2 choices and decisions ???

That's great news as I may be purchasing one fairly soon so thanks for that, makes me feel my moneys well spent now.

I was starting to think about building one for use on my FX5, as longterm my plans are to use two FX5 on this tank, so I'd be selling my Pro2 on.

As the pipe size is huge on the fX5 is there still ways to introduce CO2 in the same way, but I guess this would mean id be building one huh? And buying straight pipe to replace the ribbed one fluvals come with.

Cheers
 
Yep, unless you can find reducing hardware to get the ribbed hose down to the inlet spud size. Then of course you'd be back-pressuring the FX and effectively killing your flow rate from that unit.

Cheers,
 
Whats to stop me just having a length of hard tube that a new smooth pipe for the FX5 outflow would fit over and having a few baffles of some sort on it to diffuse the CO2.
I could drill into the side of the tube to bring CO2 into it. And if I do this instead of increasing the diameter considerably for the diffusion chamber, I'd expect to get away with the need for a bleed valve.
Hmmm id be interested to hear from folk who've designed their own so far, as to whether they think this would work.
I'm thinking this would be very cheap and very easy.

Cheers
 
Hi gollum...,
How much do you think yours cost you? And was it the same design or slightly different? Is there any need for the bleed valve? And did you have a T piece inline to introduce the Co2 before the reactor or does yours bring the gas straight into the cylinder?

mine cost about £25 to make, and i have not installed a bleed valve, for the simple reason i saw no need to. my gas is turned off at night so any build up will dissipate. i chose to insert the gas at the reactor as is done on the rex grigg model. i have tested for leaks with a hosepipe turned up full and the opposite end blocked up, far more pressure than will ever be created by the filter. i have not used it yet as i'm waiting for my pipe brush to be delivered and i will clean the pipes and install the reactor at the same time.

hope that helps.
 
Please come back to me and let me know how it works once up and running on the tank.

I'm thinking that on a large diameter outflow pipe if we stick CO2 into it somewhere nearer the filter, it will diffuse before it reaches the tank outflow end, especially if the majority of that length of hose is the fluval ribbed stuff. But I'm no expert :-/

Ive yet to work out what's so special about a reactor as far as dimensions go. Length to diameter ratio, and the reactor diameter compared to hose diameter. Are these important factors at all?????

Cheers

Gavin
 
Hi all

Ok, my CO2 kit is all on order. After much deliberation and looking at many things that were not appropriate and things that could have perhaps saved me money, I ordered a slightly tweaked TGM kit. This will get me started and if down the line I choose to buy a bigger bottle, well, I'll have a spare.
I will be running a diffuser mounted on the tank glass beneath the intake of my FX5 filter so we'll see how that goes. How long the seals last and how good the diffusion and efficiency turns out to be.

My next major puzzler for me is where to start with a bubble count for my tank.

The points to consider:-
1.)
At the moment it's not heavily planted. 3 onion plants, 3 bunches of java, and alot of anubias (approx 5 tropica XL anubias caladefolia) that has 70% been cut back to dispose of torn and badly damaged leaves.

2.)
The fish I have, that im wanting to be cautious of with high CO2 and high nitrates through dry ferts dosing, are the young adult Geophagus aff. Altifrons group I have.

So where do I start with setting the close to correct bubble count rate???

And where do I start with the dry ferts dosing???

I have read the long post on dry ferts but I'm wary of following someone elses guidelines for a tank that has plants as a priority and a small amount of small fish, compared to my own stocking.

Hope I'm not causing too many groans :-/

All help is hugely appreciated!

Cheers

Gavin
 
GROAN... :thumbdown:

Nothing more can be said if your mind is already set. No one has ever killed these types of fish by adding EI levels of KNO3 or KH2PO4. The more you continue to fear nutrients then the more problems you'll have...

CO2 toxicity is the only real concern. For a 180G tank you can start with about 8 bubbles per second.

Cheers,
 
Clive,

What were you referring to 'if your mind is already set' ?
My choice of CO2 kit, the diffusion through the filter? ?

Its not so much that im worried about using dry ferts, it's more the point that whatever ferts I use will be adding nitrates, and I know the plants will take up these nitrates, but what I want to do is er' on the side of caution to avoid excess nitrate levels which I know will harm the fish I have. So I guess it's the 'take up rate' that's important here, and whereas in your post on EI you talked of the ideal situation where the plants are never at any time short of nutrients, I'd be happier if at the latter stages, before the next dosing, they actually did run out.
Id rather this than there be an unnecessary nitrate level left and then I'm adding more. Do you know what I mean?

Everything I've read and all the south American cichlid keepers I've talked to stress the same thing over and over, Geophagus NEED low nitrate levels. So this is something I've been very conscious of from the start.

My tank is about 187 US gallon, so with all the decor its probably holding 140 to 150. Is 8 bubbles per second a good starting rate then?
And if I started out dosing less than you'd recommend would my plants be ok? I mean would it be best to have this bubble count and half dose for a while? Or half dose CO2 and nutrients together?

What would happen if I stopped dosing ferts let's say if I ran out? Would the set bubble count of CO2 be harmful in any way to fish or plants?

I'd like to avoid the situation you mentioned earlier of 'turn the bubble count down'

Cheers

Gavin
 
Hi Gavin,
What I mean is that everyone seems to have their mind set on this theory that NO3 is the boogieman. Everyone accepts it without ever having tested it for themselves. Do you really think that the only benefit of doing a water change for example is solely to get rid of nitrate? Has anyone actually done controlled experiments with these fish to determine the short term and long term effects? Has anyone ever seen the results of a postmortem when a fish dies to see if in fact the death was caused by excessive NO3? Without any data it's all speculation.

So all these chiclid keepers talk about the need for low nitrates but how do they accomplish it? Do they simply use nitrate absorbing resins without doing a water change? I'll bet they do large regular water changes and therefore they can never really separate the effects of nitrate removal from any other toxicity removal. The fish do well and so all this seems to validate their principles. But this is something psychologists call "confirmation bias", where the individual tends to pay attention to only the evidence that supports their preconceptions, and to ignore evidence to the contrary. In the article, at the very top is a paragraph entitled "The Fear of Dry Powders" in which I addressed this issue and I tried to reassure the reader that:
Even the most sensitive species are completely unaffected by addition of the dry salts and will breed quiet happily assuming breeding parameters are satisfactory.
Because most people can't be bothered to learn the science of a phenomenon they can only go by what a majority of other people say, but what if the majority don't study the science either? If not then they can easily be wrong. While the available data indicates that there is a toxic limit to NO3 level, we are nowhere near this limit. What I always try to explain to the paranoid, is that there are a lot more toxic things in the water than NO3. In fact, adding food to the tank generates more toxicity than adding KNO3. NO3 is actually nature way of detoxifying the environment. Check the following thread and the links it contains;
About to start EI dosing a 190L

Folks inevitably discover that dosing inorganic NO3 is not a big deal and that it's actually a benefit to the fish because of what it enables the plants to accomplish with the water chemistry. More KNO3 generates more photosynthesis, which in turn generates more Oxygen. More Oxygen means more nitrifying bacteria which reduce the NH3 and NO2 content which are the real boogiemen. More Oxygen also is better for fish. Keeping the tank clean is one of the most important things you can do. It's the organic waste in the tank that you need to worry about, not the NO3.
Gfish said:
My tank is about 187 US gallon, so with all the decor its probably holding 140 to 150. Is 8 bubbles per second a good starting rate then?
Everything that we calculate already takes into account the amount of water in the tank so the suggested initial bubble rates are what they are.
Gfish said:
And if I started out dosing less than you'd recommend would my plants be ok?
Dosing less than baseline might easily work out to be fantastic. I cannot answer the question honestly because every tank is different. I do know that in general, large tanks have to be dosed more, not less in order to account for the inefficiencies caused by the large volumes. But again, this is a question borne of paranoia. The idea is always to start with the baseline numbers and to either go up or to go down based on the results.

Gfish said:
What would happen if I stopped dosing ferts let's say if I ran out? Would the set bubble count of CO2 be harmful in any way to fish or plants?
CO2 is toxic because the concentration level in the water affects the fishes ability to expel CO2 from their bloodstream. When this happens the blood CO2 levels rise and a small amount of Carbonic acid forms in the blood. This acid interrupts the electrochemical processes that occur naturally in the tissues, such as the nervous system. This toxic effect is independent of any other component in the water column so that the nutrient level has a negligible effect. It could be argued however, that a nutrient shortfall will also cause a decline in CO2 uptake, thereby increasing the water's concentration level. The change in level won't be significant though. CO2 is not toxic to plants, only to fauna and vermin such as snails.

If you review the dropchecker article you'll see where we suggest to do this on a day off where you can monitor the tank. Don't just set the bubble rate and then go off to play rugby or something like that. In that size tank an 8bps should be fine as a starting point and will probably not move the dropchecker color all that much. I have a 150G and I can't even count the bubbles. I just listen to the singing tone as the bubbles enter the system. It's like a flute. D sharp means I'm good to go, B flat means I'll have hair algae within days...

Cheers,
 
Clive

We could talk about this for hours couldn't we, but I know very little and as you say, I'm going on all I've read on the Internet as I'm still an inexperienced fishkeeper who wants to learn more.
I was under the impression that other than nitrate, other toxicity could be ammonia and nitrite. And these can be caused by a number of things, I do know that, but I thought that with filters working correctly these are taken care of. But again, its only what I've read :)

Thanks for your time on this, I have to say, I'm wondering what you do for a living?

Ok, I sat down with the EI page of James' Tank guide and worked out amounts to start dosing the dry ferts. I chose this page to work from as it dealt quite simply with the 3 tubs available from Aquaessentials.

Now taking into account, my low lighting (less than 1 watt per gallon) and the lesser amount of plants stocked at this stage, he suggests 50% of the guidelines he wrote for various tank sizes. So ive worked out these amounts for the 3 times a week dosing:-
0.83 tsp KNO3
0.25 tsp KH2PO4
0.25 tsp Traces

Does this sound like about right for starting measures?
And with your suggested 8 bps rate?
Is the bubble rate easy to set? Having not yet held or looked at all this equipment, I'm not sure of what I'm going to be doing when it comes to setting up and making adjustments.

Also, how many light hours do you suggest?
Its amazing, I cannot imagine how bright my tank would be with twice the amount of light. I think my lighting is perfect, and yet nobody seems to have such a low wattage as mine???
I have two 54watt T5 one a bright White Phillips, the other a sylvania growlux. And I also have a short 18inch White tube for moonlight which is on for an hour or so in the far left corner, late evenings.

I've got to try get this tank looking good, and I will obviously be doing all I can to keep the place clean and to preserve fish health.

Thanks again for your patience,

Gavin
 
Hi Gavin,
Yes it's clear that most of what we "know" is what we are told or what we read. AS it turns out, we only truly "know" something when we study and experience it for ourselves. If you think about it. most of us don't even "know" our own language. We just hear our parents mumbling from the time we're in the crib, simply repeat whet we hear them say. When we finally start uttering words it's really only because we start life out as parrots. It's only when we grow a bit and study English or Danish, or whatever, that we understand the how and why of what we say.

My opinion is that if I'm going to read what someone else says of a thing then it's best to read from someone who actually gets paid to study that same thing that I'm interested in. As I mentioned before, few people even bother trying to understand why ammonia, nitrite and nitrate are toxic or even what the mitigating factors could be. I encourage you to study a document such as: Ecological and toxicological effects of inorganic nitrogen pollution in aquatic ecosystems: A global assessment a modern assessment of nitrogen pollution worldwide. Nitrogen poisoning due to agricultural use of fertilizers and the run-off, which infects the ground and surface waters, has been implicated in a wide variety of species decline such as amphibians (frogs, salamanders and so forth). You have to buy the article, which immediately puts people off. People don't mind spending money for rubbish such as pH Down, Phosphozorb and the like, but paying money for knowledge? No way, it's better to stumble around in the dark. :rolleyes:
In any case, the article has a very good description of the toxic mechanisms. Lets start with ammonia.
The ionized ammonia (NH4+) and unionized ammonia (NH3) are interrelated through the chemical equilibrium NH4+-OH-?NH3·H2O?NH3+H2O
The relative concentrations of NH4+ and NH3 are basically dependent on the pH and temperature of the water: as values of pH and temperature tend to increase, the concentration of NH3 also increases but the concentration of NH4+ decreases. The concentration of total ammonia is the sum of NH4+ and NH3 concentrations, and it is total ammonia that is analytically measured in water samples.
From this basic description you can immediately tell for example that your fish, being in a high pH and high temperature environment are more susceptible to ammonia/ammonium poisoning than fish kept in more acidic and/or cooler conditions. This means that controlling ammonia buildup via water changes are critical in a Rift Lake Chiclid Tank. Lets hear some more:
Unionized ammonia is very toxic to aquatic animals, particularly to fish, whereas ionized ammonia is nontoxic or appreciably less toxic. Moreover, unionized ammonia can cause toxicity to Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter bacteria, inhibiting the nitrification process. This inhibition can also result in increased accumulation of NH4+ (plus NH3) in the aquatic environment, intensifying the toxicity to bacteria and aquatic animals.
So what does that tell you about the lunatics who dump ammonia into their tanks thinking that this speeds up the cycling of the tank?
The toxic action of unionized ammonia on aquatic animals, particularly on fish, may be due to one or more of the following
causes
(1) damage to the gill epithelium causing asphyxiation;
(2) stimulation of glycolisis and suppression of Krebs cycle causing progressive acidosis and reduction in blood oxygen-carrying capacity;
(3) uncoupling oxidative phosphorylation causing inhibition of ATP production and depletion of ATP in the basilar region of the brain;
(4) disruption of blood vessels and osmoregulatory activity upsetting the liver and kidneys;
(5) repression of immune system increasing the susceptibility to bacterial and parasitic diseases. In addition, ammonium ions can contribute to ammonia toxicity by reducing internal Na+ to possibly fatally low levels
These negative physiological effects can result in reduced feeding activity, fecundity and survivorship, decreasing populations sizes of aquatic animals....On the basis of acute and chronic toxicity data, water quality
criteria, ranging 0.05–0.35mgNH3–N/L for short-termexposures
and 0.01–0.02 mg NH3–N/L for long-term exposures, have been
estimated and recommended to protect sensitive aquatic animals

OK, lets see what's said about Nitrite Toxicity(NO2):
The nitrite ion (NO2
-) and unionized nitrous acid (HNO2) are interrelated through the chemical equilibrium (NO2-)+(H+)?HNO2
The relative concentrations of (NO2-) and HNO2 are basically dependent on the pH of the water: as the value of pH tends to increase, the concentration of (NO2-) can also increase, but the concentration of HNO2 decreases. The HNO2
concentration is 4–5 orders of magnitude less than the (NO2-)
concentration within the pH range 7.5–8.5.

Both chemical species, nitrite ion and unionized nitrous acid, may contribute to the total toxicity of nitrite to aquatic animals. Furthermore, as in the case of unionized ammonia, HNO2 can cause toxicity to Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter bacteria, inhibiting the nitrification process. This inhibition can also result in increased accumulation of (NO2-) (plus HNO2) in the aquatic environment, intensifying the toxicity to bacteria and aquatic animals. Nevertheless, because in aquatic ecosystems the (NO2-) concentration usually is much higher than the HNO2 concentration, nitrite ions are considered to be major responsible for nitrite toxicity to aquatic animals.
No surprises there. Lets see the mechanism:
The main toxic action of nitrite on aquatic animals, particularly on fish and crayfish, is due to the conversion of oxygen-carrying pigments to forms that are incapable of carrying oxygen, causing hypoxia and ultimately death. In fish, entry of nitrite into the red blood cells is associated with the oxidation of iron atoms (Fe2+?
Fe3+), functional hemoglobin being converted into methemoglobin that is unable to release oxygen to body tissues because of its high dissociation constant. Similarly, in crayfish, entry of nitrite into the blood plasma is associated with the oxidation of copper atoms (Cu1+?Cu2+), whereby functional hemocyanin is converted into methemocyanin that cannot bind reversibly to molecular oxygen. In addition, the following toxic effects of nitrite on fish and crayfish have been found:
(1) depletion of extracellular and intracellular Chloride (Cl-) levels causing severe electrolyte imbalance;
(2) depletion of intracellular K+ and elevation of extracellular K+ levels affecting membrane potentials, neurotransmission, skeletal muscle contractions, and heart function;
(3) formation of N-nitroso compounds that are mutagenic and carcinogenic;
(4) damage to mitochondria in liver cells causing tissue O2 shortage;
(5) repression of immune system decreasing the tolerance to bacterial and parasitic diseases. Among the different environmental factors that can affect nitrite toxicity to aquatic animals, the water chloride concentration seems to be the most important. Because, in the gills of fish and crayfish, nitrite ions enter via the same route as chloride ions by being competitive inhibitors of the active branchial chloride uptake mechanism, elevated Cl− concentrations in the ambient water may inhibit the (NO2-) uptake and thereby protect fish and crayfish against nitrite toxicity. Calcium (Ca2+) and seawater (probably because of the high concentration of chloride and other ions) also can significantly reduce nitrite toxicity to fish and crayfish...
On the basis of acute toxicity data, Alonso (2005) has recently estimated water quality criteria, ranging 0.08–0.35 mg
NO2–N/L, that may be adequate to protect sensitive aquatic animals, at least during short-term exposures.
OK, lets hear about Nitrate:
The nitrate ion (NO3−) does not form an unionized species in the aquatic environment (i.e., HNO3 is completely dissociated to H+ and (NO3-), and consequently nitrate toxicity to aquatic animals is due to nitrate ions. As in the case of nitrite, the main toxic action of nitrate on aquatic animals, particularly on fish and crayfish, seems to be the conversion of oxygen-carrying pigments (hemoglobin, hemocyanin) to forms that are incapable of carrying oxygen (methemoglobin, methemocyanin). In fact, before it becomes toxic, nitrate must be converted into nitrite under internal body conditions. Nevertheless, owing to the low branchial permeability to nitrate ions, the NO3 - uptake in aquatic animals is more limited than the NO2 - uptake, which contributes to the relatively low toxicity of nitrate. The toxicity of nitrate ions in aquatic ecosystems has been traditionally considered to be irrelevant, despite the fact that elevated nitrate concentrations can actually exceed values as high as 25 mg NO3-N/L in surface waters and 100 mg NO3-N/L in ground waters. Furthermore, several laboratory studies have shown
that a nitrate concentration of 10 mg NO3–N/L (USA federal maximum level for drinking water) can adversely affect, at least during long-term exposures, sensitive aquatic animals. Freshwater animals appear to be more sensitive to nitrate toxicity than seawater animals, owing to the likely ameliorating effect of water salinity. However, early developmental stages of some marine invertebrates, naturally well adapted to low nitrate concentrations, may be so sensitive to nitrate ions as freshwater animals despite the ameliorating effect of water salinity. Among the different taxonomic groups of freshwater invertebrates and fish that have been exposed to nitrate toxicity, certain caddisflies, amphipods, and salmonid fishes seem to be the most sensitive, exhibiting short-term safe levels (120-hour LC0.01) and no observed effect concentrations (30-day NOEC) lower than 5 mg NO3–N/L.
On the basis of toxicity data, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (2003) has recommended water quality criteria, ranging 2.9–3.6 mg NO3–N/L, to protect freshwater and marine life, and Camargo et al. (2005a) have recently
proposed a maximum level of 2 mg NO3–N/L for the protection of sensitive aquatic animals.
So here we see that nitrate itself isn't even toxic. Only when internal functions of the fish reduce it to Nitrite is the toxicity caused. Even so, we see that the fishes uptake of NO3 is nowhere near the uptake of NO2.

A lot of this data come from the Canadian Fisheries branch, and it was determined that certain caddisflies, amphipods, and salmonid fishes were the most sensitive, therefore, the suggest concentration maxima are to protect these species. But does this apply to the species we keep. It's difficult to find data specific to our hobby but I was able to find this report: Studies on the toxicity of ammonia, nitrate and their mixtures to guppy fry. This is an old study, 1977, but the data is still valid. If you just read the abstract, you can see that the difference in toxicity between ammonia and nitrate was several orders of magnitude - and that was for the fry, not the adults. Well, wild type guppies are bulletproof anyway so it not fair to say that your species have the same resistance to nitrate as these. It's likely that yours fall somewhere between the two extremes.

Also, when you read the parameters such as 72-h lc50 199 and 1.26 mg L-1 -N, you've got to interpret them properly. The fish were placed in a properly controlled and aerated tank. The chemical were added and fish kill was counted after a certain amount of time. the 72-h means 72 hours, or 3 days. LC50 refers to the Lethal Concentration that caused 50% of the fish to die. The -N only refers to the Nitrogen component of the compound, so the concentration of the compound has be calculated based on the ratio of Nitrogen in that compound. So 199ppm NO3-N has to be multiplied by 4.4 in order to determine the concentration of NO3 in the water. That means at a concentration of 875ppm NO3, 50% of the fish died after 3 days. Compare this number to the 15-20ppm NO3 per week suggestion and you'll see that we are nowhere close to the toxicity levels for this species anyway.

Of course these are short term data, so one could easily argue; my dosing may not kill the fish outright, but may lower their life expectancy. This is a valid argument, but the only way to know for sure is to do it. Fish die for lots of reasons. Somewhere in the data of causal factors will be the effects of long term exposure to nitrogenous salts. My own data indicates a negligible effect long term at dosing levels up to 3 times these values. Comfort levels are unaffected as the fish breed quite regularly and the fry grow to adulthood if they are not eaten. Apart from traumatic causes such as jumping, predation, CO2 overdose and so forth I see no decline in longevity for species that I keep.
8395165784_b0282135c1_b.jpg


The dosing numbers that you propose are fine, but you need to get more plants. Much more.
Bubble rates are easy. Just turn the knurled knob of the needle valve and count. I assume you have a bubble counter or that the diffuser you are using is transparent enough to see the bubbles enter the chamber?
As far as the brightness of your tank, try not to compare the wattage numbers. They are not relevant in this size tank because your bulbs are probably 5 feet long and that's a lot of light. The only true measure of lighting is measurement of the incident energy using a PAR meter.

Cheers,
 
ceg4048 said:
Hi Gavin...
... and then went on to provide a truly superb treatise on Nitrogen toxicity. This remarkable post should be required reading. May I suggest that it is extracted to an article or a sticky somewhere? It would be criminal for it to get lost into the depths of the archive.

Peter
 
Clive and all,

Feels like an attempt to totally baffle me with science!
It worked lol
I will try reading it again. And again. And maybe again. But if knowledge of all this was what fishkeeping was all about, then most folk really wouldn't bother.
Its important that FACTs are documented, and as you say Clive, folk do automatically believe what they read (when it's easy to understand) but, most folks lives are all too often busy, chaotic, stressful, etc etc. that I can't help feeling a hobby like this should be less stressful than our everyday lives. That said there will always be those who wish to take their hobbies to the next level and excel in their results. This forum is excellent in helping those folk. I'm kind of in the middle, being a relative beginner, and also still more into the fish than the plants, but yet, feeling i need to learn more to keep my tank looking good as well as keeping the fish I really want to keep.
I smiled throughout reading this knowing it will take me a long tome to get near to understanding it. All I kept thinking was, " yeah but can he put a Rowntrees fruit pastel in his mouth without chewing it?" :D

Cheers for now, and as I said, I'll be reading that again very soon.

Gavin

P.s. What do you do Clive? Whats your profession?
 
Gfish said:
I'm kind of in the middle, being a relative beginner, and also still more into the fish than the plants, but yet, feeling i need to learn more to keep my tank looking good as well as keeping the fish I really want to keep.
You and me both!

Peter
 
Hey, Jeremy Clarkson is my favorite car reviewer! :lol:

But seriously, it was not the intent at all to baffle. I tried to summarize the data taken from the journals so we could focus on, and discuss the key points. There is a ton of data and although some of the phrases are very technical, they are certainly not beyond our comprehension. We can google the phrase to learn more about it. So for example ammonia "causes damage to the gill epithelium causing asphyxiation". Just look up "epithelium" and you find that this is the tissue that line the cavities and surfaces of structures throughout the body. So if gill tissues are damaged the fish cannot breathe right? So this causes asphyxiation.

In trying to understand the information you'll learn more than you bargained for. This is an investment in time and energy and in the end you'll know more which will enhance your decision making. So in fact, the hobby will be less stressful in the long run. That way, no one will be able to sell you a load of rubbish, because you'll understand the truth. It just takes more energy in the beginning.

Gfish said:
" yeah but can he put a Rowntrees fruit pastel in his mouth without chewing it?" :D
YES, I did it on a dare. Lots of salivating though. It wasn't a pretty sight by all accounts. :lol:

Gfish said:
P.s. What do you do Clive? Whats your profession?
Well I'm not a biologist. That's just a hobby. I started out as a test engineer involved in validating/certifying aerospace systems and military products. Now I'm involved with troubleshooting these products/systems while deployed in the field.

Cheers,
 
You crack me up Clive, and as I said, I will refer back to this last very informative post and many others as time goes by.
For the moment I'm setting this CO2 system up,probably this evening. The Long rear spraybar went in yesterday. Works a treat but does change everything in my tank, from the way food is moved around to the way fish face when feeding and when just milling around. I have a feeling it will help more debris to be sucked up by the intakes too.

Must go to work now, but thanks again. And cheers for the tips on how to use google, I'll take a look at that one day ;) hehe
 
I know it is an old thread and the info is what I've read myself but the interpretation of nitrate toxicity above is rather vague and doesn't disapprove that fresh water fish we keep aren't sensitive to nitrates. In fact, it says fresh water fish are more sensitive to them but it's salt water fish keepers who keep these levels low for the benefit of the fish And the discussion here accents on mortality rate for which the accute toxicity levels must be rather high I agree. However when it comes to fish health, growth rates,etc, the levels of NO3-N at which some fish and inverts don't suffer chronic damage and side effects that indirectly can lead to death, are rather low in comparisson.
Here is one scientific article I was reading in relation to this
http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Reports/report-review-nitrate-toxicity-freshwater-aquatic-species-000609-web.pdf

And in relation to the "lunatics who dump ammonia into their tanks" I've cycled 2 tanks with dumping ammonia to raise the levels to 3-4ppm in lightly planted tanks without using mulm and mature media and it took around 4 weeks both times and the tanks have developed as well as any other method used.

And the info about unionized ammonia and high nitrites being toxic to not only fish, but bacteria as well, is rather interesting. What are these levels because it is NH3 that the bacteria you are refering to prefers to use. High levels maybe toxic, especially in a fishless cycle when one dumps 3-4ppm daily which can lead to accumulation of hundreds of ppm in nitrites if the nitrite oxidizing bacteria isn't multiplying that fast, and an unsuspecting fish keeper won't even realize that. But as long as that is dealt with via a full water change, then the cycle will finish as fast as any other method and is more humane than dumping fish and hope those plants are growing, rather than melting on you.
I would love to know how long high tech planted enthusiasts manage to keep their fish alive because from vague reading some journals here and there it isn't only the flora that changes, but the fauna as well. Its all been blamed on CO2 mainly, but who has done a test to say it isn't something else related to the non-organic minerals we add. Plants may love them but there's certainly some info to suggest that they can be toxic to animals and humans. Isn't it why plants are so important to living organisms via the nitrogen cycle, to remove/convert these toxins to something less harmful. But a fish tank is far from nature and we instead add those toxins without having any idea how much should be the limit if you aren't keeping just an aqua garden but keep animals too. And the amount and concentration of these toxins depends mainly on the schedule,common sense,opinion,education,interest, etc...in most cases of just one individual. And the living beings in it are barely protected by any laws or any satisfactory research is done to say the least its not harmful.
This reminds me about terrestial and the affect of chemical fertilizers on the enviroment, humans,animals,etc..
Why does one prefer organically grown food?
 
Just extract Clive's entire post history and publish it :p It would be a bit more like Jeremy Clarkson's books compiled of chronological newspaper columns, only it would make sense and have some use...
Well I wouldn't take the liberty of publishing it, but matter of factly in combination with valuable contributions from other members, I do now have quite a collection of copied and pasted documents which I often refer to and together they add up to an invaluable resource for which I am enormously grateful, as are my plants and fish.
 
"Plants may love them but there's certainly some info to suggest that they can be toxic to animals and humans."

From what I understand the World Health Organisation has recommenced 50ppm as a limit for drinking water although this is often breached. From what I can make out its only for the benefit of babies that don't have a mature bacterial stomach content and acids where nitrogen can steal oxygen in the blood causing "blue baby syndrome" AFAIK there is nothing to worry adults and I would suspect there's lots of other things in the tapwater that are worth worrying about.

Sent from my STH100-2 using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top