Ammonia Problem

The pH crash might be the cause of the deaths. 
Have you added anything to the tank that could have lowered the pH? Some wood maybe?
 
Blondielovesfish said:
The pH crash might be the cause of the deaths. 
Have you added anything to the tank that could have lowered the pH? Some wood maybe?
Nope, nothing at all. I'm actually quite hesitant to introduce anything else into the tank, living or not, in case it makes it worse...
As a result, my tank is a little bare;
IMG_9949_zps8fa9f9e4.png
 
Could anything have gotten into the tank?
 
Maybe you could take out something and put it in a bucket and test the pH regularly in the bucket, if the pH doesn't get lowered, put it back into the tank and get something else. Keep doing this until you find the culprit?
 
Blondielovesfish said:
Could anything have gotten into the tank?
 
Maybe you could take out something and put it in a bucket and test the pH regularly in the bucket, if the pH doesn't get lowered, put it back into the tank and get something else. Keep doing this until you find the culprit?
Well... The newest thing I put in there was the plants, I think. I ended up with a couple of snail-stowaways, but I got rid of them before they bred and became an infestation. The decorations, except the jellyfish, were all from my old aquarium. Hmn.
 
I could definitely give that a go, though. Should I treat the water in the bucket as if it were tank water for accurate results, or just use untreated tap water?
 
 
You could also try aging a sample of tap water and test the pH after 24hrs and again after 48 hours, sometimes there can be excess co2 or other gases that temporarily raise or lower the tap's pH, aging will allow these gases to escape and give you a more accurate reading on the true pH of the water coming out of your tap.
 
Oh true, I forgot about that LOL.
 
Yeah, it is common, for example, the pH at my tap is 7.8 but in my tank its 8.2. Its because of the CO2 the water company adds to the water to lower the pH. 
Totally forgot about mentioning that though. Thanks FA for bringing it up :)
 
 
FreshwaterAfishianado said:
You could also try aging a sample of tap water and test the pH after 24hrs and again after 48 hours, sometimes there can be excess co2 or other gases that temporarily raise or lower the tap's pH, aging will allow these gases to escape and give you a more accurate reading on the true pH of the water coming out of your tap.
 
Since there isn't any nitrite or nitrate in the tank I would say the tank is not cycled. To make sure you really don't have any nitrates (which you actually want to have in your tank, since it is a sign that you have beneficial bacteria in your filter) you will have to shake those liquid test kits like there's no tomorrow. Shake them, pound them on the table for about 3 minutes to mix the separate chemicals in the bottles, especially the #2 bottle, otherwise you will get a false reading.
 
A pH can crash, meaning the pH being a whole lot lower than the pH from your tap, if the water is soft! Soft water does not have enough dissolved minerals in it, causing the pH to become unstable. Another reason could be too much uneaten food and fish waste is allowed to remain on the substrate.
 
To get more minerals into your water you can add crushed corals in a bag to your filter. It will help keep the pH balanced. 
 
Has anyone yet mentioned about measuring if you have any ammonia coming from the tap? Sorry, I kind of skimmed over some of the posts and may have missed it!
 
ETA Reverse Osmosis water would not be a good idea if your tank already has low pH and/or is low in dissolved minerals!
 
I am sorry I am relying on the science and the facts reported. Freshwater, I am insulted by your statementsAnd I have made a great effort to refrain from going after folks for having things so wrong, but you fired the first shot, your information advice and conclusions are not supported by either the science nor the facts here and I will show you and Nimbose why again.
 
1st am not assuming it is false positives, I am saying it flat out. And I can pretty much prove it.
 
"My 120 litre tropical tank has had an ammonia spike and it refuses to go lower than 0.50ppm; granted, it's better than it was and it was actually off the charts and killed five of my fish, but... I'm still not comfortable. Any ammonia is bad, after all."
 
"The tank has been running for a couple of months now, as I upgraded from a smaller 64 litre one."
 
These two statements tell us a few things- the tank had higher ammonia and had ammonia from some time, this ammonia came down but now is stuck at .50. So there has been some level of ammonia in that tank for some time- why is there no nitrite now why was there no nitrite issue ever? Why does nimbose state
 
"The only problem is the ammonia."
 
"I tried using Interpet Ammonia Remover, and while it got rid of the huge spike I had that caused the fish deaths, it hasn't done anything to help my problem now."
 
I know these products do not remove ammonia, they convert it to a form that doesn't show on tests but can be used by the bacteria. So even as fish died and then the ammonia readings appeared to vanish, it was there for the cycle to keep using but not to harm fish. So I know the cycle progressed to some degree. For some reason you would have us believe that a product which made ammonia readings so high they killed fish drop to zero is unable to handle .50 ppm of ammonia now? Please explain how this would be possible. Or did you not read this information?
 
Now since you are sure that repeated and steady .50 ppm reported is real and accurately measured, how do you explain that the level never rises from day to day and never drops either. Tell us, given the circumstances, how it is even remotely possible under any real world conditions to produce those results? It is impossible to engineer them, yet you would have us beleive it is possible for them to occur naturally in a tank. Horse hockey. You could not get those results on a bet or a dare. Nobody can. To quote Sherlock Holmes "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" In this case, it is a false reading that remains.
 
If there is a daily reading of .5 ppm that is not getting turned into nitrite, are you saying the fish made this and then stopped making any more day in and day out? Why doesn't the ammonia ever rise if we know the fish keep making more every day and none is being converted. Where is it going? Why isn't it accumulating? And don't say to nitrite because that means you agree there are ammonia bacs at work. If there are ammonia bacs at work they always size up to the bio-load. How long does it take that many bacs to multiply to handle .5 ppm? FA so far you failed failed to address this or to refute it with any sort of facts.
 
What about the fact that Nimbose moved over some bacteria when she initially set up the new tank? Where does this information figure in your reaching your conclusions and giving your advice.
 
"The decorations, except the jellyfish, were all from my old aquarium. Hmn."
 
What about the fact that when one compares the remaining fish list to the fish that died list, the ammonia load in the tank was about cut in half. I cosidered this in what I said, did you FA?
 
With no nitrite readings you are again in a  bit of a corner. Either there are no ammonia bacs, which is impossible here, so maybe there must be nitrite converting bacs dealing with it as it is produced? But that would mean the cycle is closer to done in terms of the fish load since the deaths than to being an uncycled tank.
 
Now FA I want you to defend your adivce: "First thing you should do is change as much of the water as possible, drain as much as you can leaving just enough so that the fish are swimming upright, about 90%."
 
Given a reading of .5 ppm, 0 nitrite and zero nitrate in a tank that turned out yo have a fairly low pH. Provide some scientific support for what you suggested. Show us evidence that .5 ppm total ammonia will do serious or lasting harm to the fish in that tank if it were there for several days or even two weeks. Especially since it is most likely 100% ammonium (NH4).
 
Acid waters ameliorate, whereas alkaline waters exacerbate ammonia toxicity. The threshold concentration of total ammonia ([NH3] + [NH4+]) resulting in unacceptable biological effects in freshwater, promulgated by the EPA (1998), is 3.48 mg N/liter at pH 6.5 and 0.25 mg N/liter at pH 9.0.
from http://http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1546509801200053
 
3.48 mg N/liter = 3.48 ppm Ammonia-Nitrogen. Since the test kit scales we use are measuring total ions, one has to multiply that 3.48 by 1.28 to convert it to that scale. So they are saying 4.45 ppm of ammonium at pH 6.5 is where harm starts. Isn't that just a wee bit higher than the .5 ppm you would have Nimbose panic about and change water by 90 %.
 
Nimbose reported:
 
I" did the normal PH test and it came out as 6.0. I thought that couldn't be right, and the instructions said a higher PH wouldn't react with the test so I did the High Range PH test. It almost looks like it's going to be 7.4 but the colour isn't quite dark enough."
 
and I replied
 
"As for the pH, your test results indicate you may have a pH crash. When you test with the high range kit and the result is 7.4, the lowest level, the next step is test using the low range kit. Conversely, if you test with the low range kit and the result is 7.6, you then test using the high kit."
 
The junk about degassing to know one's tap is correct, the problem is here it is t0tally irrelevant. The test was on a going tank. Either the tap is higher because it is devoid of Co2 when it comes out and needs to in gas and this supports there being a low pH in the tank. Why will letting the water sit raise the pH in the tap but putting it in a going tank with surface aggitation would not?  Just the action of refilling the tank from a water change acts to balance the co2 in the water even as it goes in. Unless the tests are being done wrong or the kits are bad, this tank has a low pH. And even if th tap is hig pH and it is something in the tank that is lowering the pH, what difference does this make in what the tank pH is?
 
And then what about when Nimbose posted this:
 
"It's weird, though. I went downstairs to get a midnight snack and I thought I may as well check the tap PH (Normal and High Range) while I'm there and it definitely wasn't as soft as the tank. 7.0, minimum. So something in the tank has lowered the PH, as I tested that again too and it still read as 6.0."
 
I accept this fact, why can't you FA? Especially since Nimbose has not done the tap test after doing an outgassing.
 
FA, find us some scientific support or research that .50 or even 1.0 ppm of total ammonia will do irreversible harm or to  or kill the fish in this thread and at the parameters involved of they are in it for a week or two.
 
One last comment, Nitrate is 0. Likely because of the combination of two things, the water changes and the two big sword plants. Do not worry about nitrate. Most of the kits are flakey and you will get different results depending in how you shake the bottles. Test the same water water with 3 different kits shaking as desired and you wont get 3 close to identical readings. I will never rely on the presence or absence of nitrates in a tank (especially planted) to decide it it is cycled or not.
 
You totally ignored all of the explanations I provided and provide them with your inaccurate information without any rationale or explanation to support your advice.
 
So I will make things really simple. Nimbose, I have always advised people to pick one voice and listen to it. It minimizes the confusion. If you think what I have said is not logical, is not factually sound, is not supported by science; if you believe I have no idea what I am talking about, then by all means listen to AF or to somebody else. Trust me, I will not be offended nor will it influence me in any way should you want my help with something down the road.
 
If you wish my continued input I am more than happy to help you. I would prefer to do it in PM. In that case. When things either work out well or else fall apart as a result of your having followed my advice, post about  it here. You can post what I suggest to you and what happened as a result, I won't object. I will refrain from posting here any more to avoid a contrary voice.
 
OK so i thought shrimp didnt eat fish waste, makes sense that they dont but i find them very beneficial and i meant not to tell you to add them to fix the problem but they help i believe your water is alright you sound like you know what you are doing i get false readings sometimes and its always just slight, so if you do invest in ghost shrimp let me know because i personally love them. They really do help in over all tank health.
 
TwoTankAmin:
I apologize for any insult you have taken from anything I have said, I assure you that offending you was not my intent. I was simply trying to help with this problem with the limited knowledge I have gained while keeping my own fish.

You are much more experienced and knowledgeable in this matter than I am, and I would suggest that Nimbose follow your advice rather than my own.

I am sorry for having offended you.
 
I would add to everyone elses suggestions (don't think that it's been mentioned) that you get some decent ceramic media like Biohome Ultra and add this to the blue housing in your U3 filter so that it's full to capacity with no space for any more, obviously there will still be enough room for good water flow, and over the coming months replace all of the Fluval Biomax especially if the surface of the current content is is anyway smooth, plus with sponge cleaning do nothing more than squeezing the sponges a couple of times to get the thick of any organic waste out, biological surfaces are at a premium with these small internal filters, the more bacteria you have the more likely they will be able to deal with future "spikes"
 
Oh man, quite a few responses while I was gone!
 
You do seem to have quite a lot of scientific knowledge about this, Amin. Following your advice definitely seems to be the right way to go; you explain the science behind everything in a way that's easy to understand which is very important to me!
 
I'll give you a little update as to what happened today, however.
 
I went to my LFS which is Maidenhead Aquatics, and talked to the people who have been helping me with various products. I explained the PH crash and how ammonia isn't as toxic when the PH is low, which then lead them to explaining how the beneficial bacteria is possibly being killed off due to the acidic conditions and halting the cycle. They supplied me with Tropic Marin Re-Mineral Tropic to supply the water with the necessary minerals to raise the PH and help the bacteria grow.
 
When I got home, I tested everything again so I could record what happened with accuracy;
 
PH - 6.0
Ammonia - 1.0ppm
Nitrites - 0ppm
Nitrates - 0ppm
 
I struggled to follow the instructions as it mentioned a term I hadn't come across before; °dH. However, with help from my father and boyfriend, we worked out that a full dosage would be eight spoonfuls of the powder. Not wanting to do that so suddenly as suddenly raising the PH can harm the fish, I added a quarter dose; two spoonfuls.
 
I had some lunch and tested everything again. All the same apart from the PH which has gone up to 7.0; the reccomended PH for a community, according to the testing kit. I'm going to keep an eye out to see if it rises any further. Was this the right step to take?
 
If you'd rather take this to PMs, I'd be more than happy to! Whatever you're comfortable with!
 
I'm very grateful for any advice; just offering your help is such a sweet thing to do. <3

KirkyArcher said:
I would add to everyone elses suggestions (don't think that it's been mentioned) that you get some decent ceramic media like Biohome Ultra and add this to the blue housing in your U3 filter so that it's full to capacity with no space for any more, obviously there will still be enough room for good water flow, and over the coming months replace all of the Fluval Biomax especially if the surface of the current content is is anyway smooth, plus with sponge cleaning do nothing more than squeezing the sponges a couple of times to get the thick of any organic waste out, biological surfaces are at a premium with these small internal filters, the more bacteria you have the more likely they will be able to deal with future "spikes"
I'll see if I can get my hands on some of that; thanks! 
All of the Fluval Biomax is very rough; not smooth at all, so that's okay for now. I'll purchase some more soon so I have a supply when I need it.
 
I'll do that with the sponges, too. I tend to be a bit rough so I can get everything out, heheh...
 
OK FA, not a problem then. I just get a bit miffed when somebody says I am being irresponsible when I know how much research went into a statement. I would never say false readings if they were not a possibility. I would not suggest them if i did not see a good reason they are likely the cause. One can Google 'False ammonia readings" and find lots of references. This should give most folks enough information to know they likely can and do happen and maybe even why. But one can go further and investigate how the test kits work. I know because I have done this as well. And having read about false readings, I also wanted more in depth info on then.
 
I tend to approach diagnosing cycling issues from the "its a process" point of view. One can not look at almost any single set of readings and conclude anything. We need a series of readings, we need to know parameters, tank contents, ammonia additions etc. To know where a cycle may stand we need to have a movie not a photograph.
 
For example, if I say: My cycle has stalled, what is wrong? How can anyone answer that? So what I, and others should do is ask for more information. I can not begin to form a picture of things in this regard unless I have enough hard facts to do so. I do not feel others can either. That is why you so often see me and others asking posters for a whole lot more information and details. Sometimes the explanation is tucked into a corner and can be easily missed. Sometimes the explanation is that the numbers simply do not make sense. When they don't, say so.
 
Most fish keepers are decent folks and they are usually eager to try and help others with problems. I share that same motivation. And for years I was always willing to offer an answer, a suggestion etc. for that reason. But over time I started to learn that just giving an answer was not a enough if it was not a good answer. I had my butt put in a sling a few times because somebody who actually knew more than I did would make it clear where what I said was not right. It is how we all learn at times.
 
I probably make the longest and most detailed posts of all the members here for a reason. When I answer a question or try to diagnose a problem and offer a solution, I want to show the underlying reasons and science involved. I want readers to be able to make sense of the information and to see why it applies and not just blindly accept a short answer. I want them to be able to learn something they can use down the road because they can understand what is happening and not because I, or anyone else, simply posts: do this. Folks have the choice of reading the in depth explanation or not. At least I feel that I did my part.
 
I am not always right by a long shot. I can misread, misunderstand or outright make mistakes. However, I feel by laying things out in detail, the accuracy of what I say and the reasons for it are out there.  When I get it wrong, the reasons for that are also out there for all to see. Please, do not ever blindly accept what I state if I failed to justify and explain it. And don't it for others either.
 
Here is an example of what I mean. You will see posts that state if there is no ammonia in a tank that the bacteria will die off at the rate of 10% a day, This would imply that it takes less than 2 weeks of no ammonia and there will be no bacteria left. I have looked into this and I know this is flat out not true. So the next time you see this stated as a fact, suck it up and reply. Can you prove it? Ask for some sort of research that shows this to be true. Don't worry, the poster wont be able to find it :) Or have even more fun and point them to this http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2006.00170.x/full Even if one cannot understand some of the scientific terminology, it is very easy to see that the 10% statement is fiction.
 
I could be wrong in my assessment of what is going on in Nimbose's tank. But given the collective information presented, I thing I have come up with a decent understanding and explanation. If I am right the tank should smooth out in terms of the cycle. Ammonia should not move up, nitrite levels should not rise and nitrate may or may not show up. If I am wrong ammonia will rise and nitrite will appear and rise. I think the way too big fish load to start created way too much ammonia too fast. But behind all this, the cycle was still progressing. With the fish deaths the ammonia levels being created were suddenly cut in half which provided breathing room for the cycle to get into balance with the bio-load. I mean if a tank only has half of the needed bacteria and then one reduces the ammonia level being put in by half, that puts the tank pretty close to being cycled. Plus we know there is some bacteria that went in on the old decor and the new plants, which will also eat ammonia and nitrate.
 
All I did was connect all the dots I saw to conclude what I have. Nimbose keep updating the thread so we know things are on the right track or if they are not. The one thing I would suggest is adding a small bag of crushed coral to the filter. This will raise the KH some which should also pull the pH up a bit. Since that low range kit stops at 6, there is no way to know if the pH is even lower. So it is still possible that this is what harmed the fish and not ammonia or nitrite. I would be a lot happier seeing a reading a bit above 6.0 to be sure.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top