Do You Struggle With Tapwater Nitrates ?

[plantbrain]

Does that mean that he is right and others are wrong? Not at all. It means that I trust the words as they relate to what I tend to notice within my tank. It may be totally off the mark but that is the beauty of science You test and get the result. You test and test and test. You may test 100 times and get the same result and then suddenly a test shows something different and renders the 100s of tests before as obsolete. Not useless as they were part of the process and part of progress.
AC

I think we should be careful in the assumptions, can we generalize to all fish and all shrimps?
Maybe, maybe not, this is an unknown, so far it appears that way, but maybe some fish we cannot confirm it.
It does not imply that is the reasons, maybe we are just bad aquarist for some other reasons, but there's correlation involved with NO3??

I do not know.

It is only when I know I added something, and there's no ill effects compared to a reference, that I can say something and make a conclusion.
If I no do and I no test, I cannot say
Some folks want to say and likely should not, just leave it be till you or someone can test it and gets some results.

Not everyone can grow certain plants.
Not everyone can breed high grade CRS's.

Does this imply that it is impossible to do?
Clearly not, so we should this same common sense when looking at other aquarium issues.
It is only when you can master a method or breeding etc can you start to test and branch out into other areas.

Till then, you simply lack the skill set to actual do a good test without being sure there's not other issues occurring.
Think about doing a test without any control, what can you conclude and compare it to then?

Not much.

Aquarist are often stuck with being in this situation. They can get desperate. Tough spot for many.

Oh yea, my shrimps:

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[ChilliPepper]

I mentioned my Ph.D. to indicate that I had some experience at analysing evidence rather than any particular expert knowledge in fishkeeping.

Big mistake though. When someone 'mentions' their qualification in the context of others challenging their statement it gives the impression of belittling those without the 'little piece of paper'

At the end of the day the majority of us aren't educated to that level. Indeed many of us will also believe that the 'piece of paper' means nothing as being able to say you can do something doesn't mean you can do it. Experience in a controlled environment versus the hands on experience of real life situations is a huge difference in any field. By 'mentioning' it in the context of a disagreement you rub the majority up the wrong way. It gives the impression that we have to listen to you because you are the clever one. Bad mistake especially on the forums.

What I am suggesting is that SOME species, in some circumstances, are sensitive to these levels of nitrates in the long term.

A fair statement. Very good. I would suggest that you can look at this both ways!!! Are there SOME SPECIES that do better in HIGHER nitrates?

So a hundred hobbyists telling me that their own fish are very happy in 40ppm nitrate thank you very much, will not affect my thoughts or opinions. That hearsay evidence does not affect the hypothesis that some fish are sensitive to the nitrates.

hypothesis - You trust a Hypothesis over people's experience? I can make any Hypothesis I want. I regularly do BUT I don't believe it as gospel. I research others findings. Listen to all (including hobbyists) and then make my own opinions. I DO NOT ever then say to others that this is right because hypothesis is what it is. Hypothesis however well thought out and researched is simply put an unproven belief!!!

So a hundred hobbyists

There were a few hobbyists telling you about their own fish. I and OldMan are not saying trust the hobbyists and ignore the scientists. I am talking about breeders. I think really your written word is pretty poor in relation to its tone. Maybe you should've taken a PhD in English Language so that you can write things without rubbing people up the wrong way and belittiling them. Firstly you are Mr PhD and therefore cleverer than those without. Now you are the scientist who is better than the hobbyist.

I know I rub people up the same way and am rubbish with my tone but then as you are well awware, I am not as clever as you nor am I as educated and therefore I am sure you would expect it from an idiot like myself. (I mean that in a jovial tone)

There is a hierarchy of evidence for everything. I am sure you can make anything you want look true if you research far enough. Science moves on and on. Myth doesn't. It lingers around and hinders. Then up comes the same old research that was done again because someone else heard the myth and the myth gains weight and relevance again. I am not saying this is myth at all but there are so many hobbyists and 'experts' alike that are afraid of nutrients in the water and barrel on along the path of righteousness without ever listening to anyone ney sayers.

Credibility is a huge problem. Someone who has produced lots of good work may seem credible and therefore you respect the next piece more than others? However that new work may be flawed. The old work may be proven wrong. Research does not mean give 10 points to the credible source and 1 point to the non credible. It is often the whisper from the unknown that makes the breakthrough not the multi million pound research contract that takes years and delivers little!!!

Research is very important but you have to give equal weight to all aspects and then rule out by equal measure the bad points. this is something that has to be done by all of us on the internet because with so many of us 'uneducated' now able to voice our opinions and thoughts there is a huge amount of myth available.

You guys love the word 'peer reviewed' but it means nothing. Its a pat on the back from the mates. I have my thoughts and understanding all over the web. My peers review it. They say this guy knows what he is saying. Does that make me 'peer reviewd'? Does it mean I am right? I would say yes it means I am peer reviewed but of course it doesn't mean I am right. I could say pigs do fly and put it on the net. Other people read it and guess what. yippee Its now 'peer reviewed' and therefore you can now all believe.

'prestigious journals. - lol Take everything on equal merit. Doesn't mean something is more credible because it is in a more 'prestigious' journal. The same news is in the Daily Star that is in the Times. Its just written in a different way. Both sotries are the same though. Do you trust the Times over the Sun? No you buy the times because you prefer the type of articles in there and the way they write the articles.

I personally think the Telegraph is better Although the pictures are better in the Sport

The 'hierarchy' of evidence' doesn't make some things more credible than others. Just means someone more qualified produces evidence so believe him and not the man on the street who has the practical experience.

At the bottom of the heap is the type of comment by the bloke next door who just has an opinion about something.

Oh deary me. You must love living in your Mansion looking out at the peasants going about their day. Maybe its time for your butler to do a water change for you?

You really do have a 'them and us' conflict going on here.

Yes I admit the man in the street (thats me ) may be opinionated. Maybe even biggoted. Many times doesn't know the full story or doesn't understand the full story but that doesn't mean that his language and grammer and opinions aren't a crude form of the actual reality. Yes he has an opinion about something. Do you not?

BTW, sorry for any apparent rudeness. I can be rather opinionated and tactless at times.

Lol I must get into the habit of reading posts before just quoting and answering. However as you have read above I was right

Hamfist - At the end of the day this isn't a war. If you have found a solution to your problems albeit from the actual change or via a by product or by a side effect I am happy for you. That sorts out your worries but please don't strat to throw 'peer review' and 'scientific journal' out as evidence or fact. At best they are 'the latest understanding' and as we all know from just watching the news this 'latest understanding' changes by the week and more often than not swings back and forth like a pantomime phrase 'Oh yes it si, Oh no it isn't'

Yes put the article on here for people to read. Tell them your opinion of it but leave it there. I am guilty sometimes of the same thing in that I can take something and put it up as proof of my beliefs but at the end of the day I don't know if it is fact or not. The scientists don't either. At best they can try and support the belief but if it were as easy as proof then we would start to run out of science? Another ticked of the list, no need to test it anymore becuase it isn't science now. It is fact.

At the end of the day I am unemployed. I live in a 2 bed council house on the supposed 'worst street' on the supposed 'worst estate' in the whole of my city. I left school at 16 and went straight into work. Does that make my opinion less credible than someone living in a nice street in a nice area with a good education? Of course not. Just means that I may not be able to understand some things as well nor articulate those that I do in as good a way.

Enjoy your fish and enjoy their health.

AC

Wow, you definitely have got yourself in a twist about people who have studied for higher education haven't you. What is it that really gets to you?
FYI a ph.D, MA/MSc, BA/BSc etc are NOT just a piece of paper, and anyone who has actually invested their time and money studying for these qualifications will know that.
I don't feel hamfist was mentioning his qualification to belittle anyone, merely to back up the fact that he has proved himself to be good at researching subjects and consequently writing an extensive thesis/dissertation, in order to gain his qualification.
There are plenty of people out there who could get a ph.D if they so wished to, it isn't an exclusive club per say.

Regarding this issue of nitrates. Obviously a lot of people have had success with high nitrates in their tanks. I find it particularly interesting that the so-called sensitive Discus can thrive in high nitrates. It would seem that hamfist, as a responsible fish owner, is trying to get to the bottom of why certain types of fish he has kept have not thrived, and thinks this may be the solution.

It's an interesting discussion, but not one that is going to reach any conclusion other than to say that fish keepers have had success with high nitrate levels, as well as low nitrate levels.

 

[SuperColey1]

Wow, you definitely have got yourself in a twist about people who have studied for higher education haven't you. What is it that really gets to you?
FYI a ph.D, MA/MSc, BA/BSc etc are NOT just a piece of paper, and anyone who has actually invested their time and money studying for these qualifications will know that.
I don't feel hamfist was mentioning his qualification to belittle anyone, merely to back up the fact that he has proved himself to be good at researching subjects and consequently writing an extensive thesis/dissertation, in order to gain his qualification.
There are plenty of people out there who could get a ph.D if they so wished to, it isn't an exclusive club per say.

You misread me badly I have no problem with educated people. all my friends have high qualifications. Unfortunate for me that I went from prospective straight As to the class rebel i nsecondary school but that is my fault and another story altogether.

What I was referring to is that when challenged the tone shouldn't be to suddenly thrust a qualification into an argument as it sounds like the person is trying to say 'look who is cleverer' It may not be the case but referring to the 'bloke on the street having an opinion' etc gives the impression of looking down on those who do not have the qualification. It doesn't mean they don't know, just that they don't have the qualification.

A little like life is nowadays. You can't 'prove' yourself anymore to get a job. Employers would rather have graduates with no work experience over the chap with 20 years experience with no paper.

Anyways. I was just referring to the tone. My friends know I have no problem at all with people who are qualified but then if I discuss with them a subject I am treated as an equal and not an unqualified. After all face to face I can prove things to them where on a text only basis like the internet it isn't a practical medium and therefore theory wins

And you are right. Like I said earlier there may well be some species that do better in low nitrates. However there may be some that do better in high nitrates also. For each side of the argument there will be plenty of people saying that their fish don't do as well in higher nitrates but if 1 person can prove that theirs are just as good in high nitrates as the user with low/no nitrates then the theory is blown. It shows that the ones with the problem in 'high nitrates' probably have a problem with something else and not the nitrates.

However in this area it becomes very grey because what one person sees as 'happy, healthy' fish' may be quite different to others. In some cases the user with the 'healthy fish' may never have actually seen a healthy fish. Just seen that the fish is as healthy as when it arrived in the tank.

Its quite funny really with the timing as earlier this evening I was sat in front of the tank when I noticed my Espei's were having a bit of nookie. Very very active. Never been there to see it before. Al about the timing etc. Their tank however has not had a water change for 10 months!!! It is basically an El natural tank with some KNo3 and KH2PO4 added for good measure preiodically. Not regular dosing, just when I see green spots on the anubias I know PO4 is short and give a little boost. I don't worry about N being a problem and therefore don't see any reason not to add any N.

My Tap nitrates are apparently 12ppm average over this year so far (Anglian water report mean average) but I don't add any tap water. No water changes. It just gets a little top up due to evaporation when needed (or noticed )so add to that the waste etc minus the plants consumptione. who knows how much nitrate is in there Maybe I should test to see

Will i be able to monitor survival of the fry to help prove the theory? Nope the school were as active digesting as they were spawning and the shrimp+Corys were all having a free for all below the dance

Anyways please don't assume I have a chip on my shoulder about qualifications and qualified people. I just have a problem when it is used in the context and tone as it was (or at least seemed.)

AC

 

[OldMan47]

Please everyone remember that a hypothesis is merely a starting point to begin investigating things. Hamfist is absolutely correct that a stack of heresay evidence is not at all like a scientifically researched experimental situation. Everything we know today started out as a hypothesis and was testing for veracity. Some seemed to be promising and further experiments either supported or refuted the original evidence. Once a hypothesis is well enough tested from several different angles, we often begin to call it a theory. I deal with the theories surrounding fission and fusion and similar theories every day. There is absolutely no proof that they are correct but they have great predictive power because they have been so thoroughly tested. If I take an engineering approach and base a design on those theories, it seems to work most of the time and the few times it doesn't work give us a chance to investigate why and refine the theory a bit. It may be that I have overlooked a key element of the theory, a personal error, or it may be that some assumption is flawed and the theory needs refining. For a long time, Newtonian physics was accepted as a practical theory and many machines were built very successfully. It is good enough that it is still taught in the schools even though we know full well that the details are not going to work out on a molecular level or when the velocities involved get great.
On the other hand, many of the hypotheses around were first made because someone noticed something in their environment or decided to test a hobbyists statements. When I say that I always see a particular result from some change, a scientist might decide to test a hypothesis that I was right or that I was wrong. Either way the test itself will add to the total knowledge about the area. I am well aware that research on nitrates is woefully lacking except for a farmer level of verifying a concentration where commercially viable fish will survive long enough to be sold. For that reason we see a few experiments with trout or salmon or similarly profitable commercial fish to determine just how little they can get away with doing while still raising the fish large enough to sell. There is no crime in such research, it keeps the food supply plentiful, but it does not really tell us what are good levels for hobby fish. That is where Hamfist's questions become important.
I only object to the quality of the particular sources cited, not the desire to investigate what levels of nitrate are truly healthy levels for a particular fish. A literature review before starting the investigation into the hypothesis may well cause a change in the hypothesis. It certainly does that for many researchers. I really wish there were good research on the subject. Fish keeping as a scientific endeavor is in its infancy and is a stage that is much like the early farmers who knew that burying a dead fish or some animal waste in the ground before planting a seed made the plant grow well. They knew it worked and could prove it but did not understand much about how that natural fertilizer was helping them grow food. We use a thumb rule on this forum of 20 ppm nitrates above tap water as a simple judgment that has most of our fish stay in good condition. In a practical sense, like the farmer who buried a bit of manure before planting a seed, our method works well for us. On a scientifc level, we are almost the equals of that farmer. We do things out of faith because we have practical evidence that it works and most of us have our own unproven hypotheses about why that is.

 

[SuperColey1]

For those who do want to 'trust' their hobby kit this link gives details of how to 'calibrate' their test kit.

Basically instead of using a colour match card which can very hard to truly compare you make reference solutions where you know the concentration and then you can compare like for like Useful tool for those who want to be sure

I am going to test my tank just for this thread as long as I can find my DI water. However just notice my scales are not working properly so will have to wait a while

http/www.barrreport.com/showthread.php/3263-How-to-make-NO3-and-PO4-reference-solutions(repost-from-Left-C)?highlight=calibrate+test

AC

 

[SuperColey1]

As I couldn't calibrate at this point with no scales I decided to test anyway.

With no reference?

Anglian water's tests this year for my water source have been done 3 times showing 10.2, 12.2 and 13.9 giving an average of 12.1. So if I test the tap water I am expecting it to be a similar colour to the 10 on the colour indicator card.

I did 2 tests 1 on tap and 1 on tank. This is also with the nitrate kit from the API master test kit. Same as Hamfist used. However they are 4 years old.

The tap shows 0 and the tank 5 so I guess these kits are out as well They haven't been used since 2006 so no surprise really. However they do show a clear difference in colour between the tank and the tap. Therefore we can assume that the tank is higher than the tap.

Going by the 12.1 average and then assuming (probably very wrongly) that the 5ppm increment in colour between the 2 is correct then we assume that my tank has at least 18ppm of nitrate present. That is unless the nitrates have gone from average 12.1 down to 0 in the same year making the tests correct. That would then imply that the tank is 5ppm

However I think the former is going to be much more likely in that there must be 18ppm+ of nitrate within the tank.

Not bad for no water changes in 10 months with a heavy fishload

I am intrigued though at the minute. Curious mind and all that jazz so I will get a test kit and some new scales in the next week or so (I need the scales anyway) and will report back with calibrated references pictures etc.

The only support I can give as to my interpretation of my fish being top draw in terms of health and behaviour etc is:
The Espei Rasbora have been spawning today. they are fully coloured up to the opint of glowing. (no colour enhancement light on my tank, just daylight 5500K white)

The Corys have been breeding regularly. Not had much luck with the fry as I am not overly careful and by no means a breeder but the last time I was succesful I managed to get 10 to a month old before transferring them into the tank we are testing. All 10 are now in their 4th month and growing very well. by 6 months they should be adult size.

The Cherry shrimp colony is uncountable. Not as sensitive as CRS etc but breed like mad and still being shrimp are supposed to be sensitive.

The adult corys were a similar size as these babies are now when I bought them at 4 months or so old. They are now pretty big Females 4" nose to tail, the males 3" or so. The females soak me when they go up for a gulp and splash. lol

So in a week or so I will add my 2p of 'evidence' to the positive results side whether the result is 18ppm or even more.

One thing I just thought of r.e. the shrimp. When I open up my filter to clean each month there are countless Cherry shrimp alive and well within the cannister. Subjected to all that dirge for anything up to a month (since last clean) would they not be subjected to much higher levels in there?

AC

 

[pondmanuk]

I use a reverse osmosis water system and find the quality of filtered water to be superb for my fish environment.

 

[RadaR]

I use a reverse osmosis water system and find the quality of filtered water to be superb for my fish environment.

Lol.

 

[OldMan47]

I just read that you are using an RO for your water PondManUK. What are you using to avoid having the fish swimming in mineral-free water? Is it RO right or some other approach?

 

[hamfist]

As I couldn't calibrate at this point with no scales I decided to test anyway.

With no reference?

Anglian water's tests this year for my water source have been done 3 times showing 10.2, 12.2 and 13.9 giving an average of 12.1. So if I test the tap water I am expecting it to be a similar colour to the 10 on the colour indicator card.

I did 2 tests 1 on tap and 1 on tank. This is also with the nitrate kit from the API master test kit. Same as Hamfist used. However they are 4 years old.

The tap shows 0 and the tank 5 so I guess these kits are out as well They haven't been used since 2006 so no surprise really. However they do show a clear difference in colour between the tank and the tap. Therefore we can assume that the tank is higher than the tap.

Going by the 12.1 average and then assuming (probably very wrongly) that the 5ppm increment in colour between the 2 is correct then we assume that my tank has at least 18ppm of nitrate present. That is unless the nitrates have gone from average 12.1 down to 0 in the same year making the tests correct. That would then imply that the tank is 5ppm

However I think the former is going to be much more likely in that there must be 18ppm+ of nitrate within the tank.

Not bad for no water changes in 10 months with a heavy fishload

I am intrigued though at the minute. Curious mind and all that jazz so I will get a test kit and some new scales in the next week or so (I need the scales anyway) and will report back with calibrated references pictures etc.

The only support I can give as to my interpretation of my fish being top draw in terms of health and behaviour etc is:
The Espei Rasbora have been spawning today. they are fully coloured up to the opint of glowing. (no colour enhancement light on my tank, just daylight 5500K white)

The Corys have been breeding regularly. Not had much luck with the fry as I am not overly careful and by no means a breeder but the last time I was succesful I managed to get 10 to a month old before transferring them into the tank we are testing. All 10 are now in their 4th month and growing very well. by 6 months they should be adult size.

The Cherry shrimp colony is uncountable. Not as sensitive as CRS etc but breed like mad and still being shrimp are supposed to be sensitive.

The adult corys were a similar size as these babies are now when I bought them at 4 months or so old. They are now pretty big Females 4" nose to tail, the males 3" or so. The females soak me when they go up for a gulp and splash. lol

So in a week or so I will add my 2p of 'evidence' to the positive results side whether the result is 18ppm or even more.

One thing I just thought of r.e. the shrimp. When I open up my filter to clean each month there are countless Cherry shrimp alive and well within the cannister. Subjected to all that dirge for anything up to a month (since last clean) would they not be subjected to much higher levels in there?

AC

Interesting AC. The nitrates part of my kit is brand new, and shows my tapwater to be usually about 15-20ppm. Whereas, Southern water results show that the more likely "true" nitrate reading is about 30ppm. So I am exremely suspicious that the API kit reading is low. What it is still useful for is comparing different samples to see if one is higher or lower than the other.

On another note, to update folks about my experiences with the Pozzani nitrat filter. Although working very well initially, after two weeks of use, is was only removing a very small amount of nitrates. So to make it worthwhile I would have to put a new filter element refill in at least every 2 weeks.

At about £15 a shot, this is not going to be feasible. Having said that, I do use about 400-500 litres of water a week in waterchanges. For someone who uses a lot less it might yet prove to be a financially do-able thing.

So I am back to using plain old tapwater again, with dechlor of course.
My strategy is going to be to very much base my fish stock on species that thrive in my hard, alkaline water, and are known to be sturdy and hardy.
Despite my love of S.American fish I am just fed up with the struggles of trying to keep them in my water, without an RO system.

 

[N0body Of The Goat]

My strategy is going to be to very much base my fish stock on species that thrive in my hard, alkaline water, and are known to be sturdy and hardy.

I'm very much a "young grasshopper" on the scale of fish keeping experience, but that quote extract is precisely why I chose riverine fish from Africa, Indian and Myanmar... Matching fish to the tap water provided

 

[SuperColey1]

I thought I would just state that I didn't buy another test kit in the end nor the scales. Not much money and I decided to redo the bathroom instead. lol

However I think by using the calibration method linked to earlier you can then get a more accurate reading as you will be matching a known reference in colour to your tank sample without having to use the card where it is very hit and miss whether you make the correct match or not

AC