Freshwater Fish, Ammonia, And Nitrite

[Lynden]

Many users seem to despise the fact that I tell other people to calm down about their ammonia and nitrite levels. This post seemed especially aggressive (amoung the numerous negative replies I got) :

I hope I misunderstood what you said, otherwise, that's simply ridiculous. Ammonia doesn't generally effect freshwater fish? Ammonia is toxic to most freshwater fish, even in low pH. Which is why we advocate fishless cycling as opposed to cycling with live fish, as it will either kill them or can cause health issues over time. ANY nitrite is high for ANY fish. Read the above re fishless cycling. Nitrites are also poisonous to freshwater fish.

In low pH, ammonia (NH3) exists in the ammonium form, (NH4) which is non-toxic. As long as the pH remains fairly low (less than around 7.5) the ammonium will not revert. In softwater aquariums, where carbonate and general hardness are too low to fuel nitrifying bacteria, the strain Nitrosamonas will cease working, and thus ammonia, instead of nitrates, will build up. It is also common to see a high amount of both nitrate and ammonia in very neglected aquariums, where the pH was allowed to lower over time, gradually exhuasting it's carbonate fuels. However, organisms will not be in danger unless pH rises drastically, such as if a large water change, where hard water is introduced, is done.

-Info taken from "Aquarium Fish Breeding", by Ines Schuemermann (greatest apologies if misspelled)

Ammonia is toxic to most freshwater fish, even in low pH

Boxermom, ammonia doesn't exist in water with low pH. How could it harm them if it isn't there? Converting ammonia permanently to ammonium is the basis in which "Ammo-Lock" and similiar products work. They allow the pH to be even higher before the ammonium will revert, around 8.0 this time. But ammonuim will in fact produce the same reading on a test kit as ammonia will, for a reason of which... I do not know at this point.

Now on to the Nitrites issue. Nitrites are toxic in soft- and hard-water. However, I have found that, over the years, that it does not effect most freshwater fish unless at extreme levels (above 4.0 ppm). As with ammonia; until a year ago, when I joined this forum, I did not know what a "fishless cycle" was. I cycled with many more fish than I should have, and I noticed no adverse effects from this (well, maybe a few effects when the tank was cycling ). But the few fish that were temporarily discomforted soon recovered. Some I have had for over 3 years now. Just ask my Blood Parrot , as well as many others in the 37 and 77 gallon tanks. Oh, and no one dare flame me about my high stocking levels; the fish will not die, explaining why I am overstocked The fishes listed in my profile have existed, in those levels, for almost 3 years now (execpt the three on the bottom; they will be moved quickly), so I figure I must be doing something right

But anyways, through my 4 years of experiences, 99% of my freshwater losses have been from disease, aggression, old age (livebearers), chemicals, or asphixiation (the filter in my fry tank gave out one night. Bless their souls! ) The last 1% covers those that have died from unknown causes.

Well, I figure this post should explain the reason I tell people what I do
-Lynden

 

[TwoTankAmin]

Despite this forums aversion to using other site's infor here:

How much ammonia is too much? The quick answer is: if a test kit is able to measure it, you've got too much (i.e., it's in a high enough concentrations to stress fish). Consider emergency action (water changes and zeolite clay) to reduce the danger. (A more detailed discussion of ammonia toxicity can be found later in this section.)

How Much Ammonia Is Too Much?

In an established tank, ammonia should be undetectable using standard test kits available at stores. The presence of detectable levels indicates that your bio filter is not working adequately, either because your tank has not yet cycled, or the filter is not functioning adequately (e.g., too small for fish load, clogged, etc.) It is imperative that you address the problem (filter) in addition to the symptoms (high ammonia levels).

The exact concentration at which ammonia becomes toxic to fish varies among species; some are more tolerant than others. In addition, other factors like water temperature and chemistry play a significant role. For example, ammonia (NH3) continually changes to ammonium (NH4+) and vice versa, with the relative concentrations of each depending on the water's temperature and pH. Ammonia is extremely toxic; ammonium is relatively harmless. At higher temperatures and pH, more of the nitrogen is in the toxic ammonia form than at lower pH.

Standard test kits measure total ammonia (ammonia plus ammonium) without distinguishing between the two forms. The following chart gives the maximum long-term level of ammonia-N in mg/L (ppm) that can be considered safe at a given temperature and pH. Again, note that a tank with an established biological filter will have no detectable ammonia; this chart is provided only for emergency purposes. If your levels approach or exceed the levels shown, take emergency action IMMEDIATELY.


Water Temperature
pH 20C (68F) 25C (77F)
_________________________________
6.5 15.4 11.1
7.0 5.0 3.6
7.5 1.6 1.2
8.0 0.5 0.4
8.5 0.2 0.1

From: FINS
(This is a mirror site for thekrib.com)

I am also curious as to how you know that subjecting your fish to ammonia as you describe has done nothing to effect their general health and more importantly thier life span? Can you provide evidence that their gills have attained there maximal size and efficiency i.e. are undamaged in any way by ammonia and nitries? And how about the effects of stress caused by ammonia- how are you measuring these?

 

[Tolak]

“Many users seem to despise the fact that I tell other people to calm down about their ammonia and nitrite levels.â€

AAARG!! I HATE being calm!!!

Actually it is true in regards to ammonia & low pH. I always thought it referred to a pH of 6.0 or lower, which does explain why fish can apparently thrive in a neglected tank. There is one problem with that though; from what I’ve seen & heard, most people aren’t blessed with soft water with a low pH from their taps. So it probably is better to err on the side of caution, and add some ammo lock, and do water changes.

There is a wide range of situations that work for some people, but don’t work for others. As far as your stocking, nitrites & such are concerned, if it works for you, great. There are plenty of things I do that would cause concern among other members, stocking would be a big one, massive water changes would be the next on the list. I could add in high tank temps & overfeeding off the top of my head, I’m sure there are quite a few others. But I make myself remember, that is what works for me, in my setup, with what I am doing. I wouldn’t recommend ¾ of what I do to a newbie, they need to work their way up to bending, and outright breaking of the rules. This also includes dealing with small crash & burn situations, so you know how to prevent them before you have a major, serious problem.

I also make myself remember that it’s mostly younger people who are computer literate. Some of the best aquarists I know are old timers that don’t even own a computer. They bend & break the rules and have been for years, while raising thousands of fish, plenty of them show winners. Younger people generally don’t have decades of experience in aquatics, haven’t been on this planet long enough. You have to assume they are at square one, or close to it. Experience takes time, and teaching takes patience.

 

[Bignose]

In low pH, ammonia (NH3) exists in the ammonium form, (NH4) which is non-toxic. As long as the pH remains fairly low (less than around 7.5) the ammonium will not revert. In softwater aquariums, where carbonate and general hardness are too low to fuel nitrifying bacteria, the strain Nitrosamonas will cease working, and thus ammonia, instead of nitrates, will build up. It is also common to see a high amount of both nitrate and ammonia in very neglected aquariums, where the pH was allowed to lower over time, gradually exhuasting it's carbonate fuels. However, organisms will not be in danger unless pH rises drastically, such as if a large water change, where hard water is introduced, is done.

You've only got part of this complex story correct.

1) Ammonia and ammonium are in equilibrium, but that does not mean an entire shift from one species to another. That is to say, there is always both ammonia and ammonium present. Let's look a little closer, the reaction can be written like this:

NH3 + H+ <--> NH4+

where <--> indicates that this reaction can go either way depending upon the conditions. Now, Le Chatelier's Principle says that when there is an abundance of one species in a equilibrium reaction, the reaction will be shifted or pushed away from that overabundance. And, indeed, when the pH is lower, there is a higher H+ concentration, which means that the right hand side of the above equation is more favorable. But, it is equilibrium; if there were all ammonium (NH4+), some of that would change into toxic ammonia.

I can even calculate how much. The equilibrium constant of the similar reaction NH4+ + OH- <--> NH3 can be written as [NH4+][OH-]/[NH3] = Kb = 1.8*10^-5 at 25 deg C. [] is shorthand for concentration of the species in the []'s.

With this info, we can see what the split is between the two species:

pH ... (toxic ammonia)/(total ammonia) %
=== ========================
9.0 ... 35.7%
8.8 ... 25.9%
8.6 ... 18.1%
8.4 ... 12.2%
8.2 ... 8.1%
8.0 ... 5.2%
7.8 ... 3.3%
7.6 ... 2.2%
7.4 ... 1.4%
7.2 ... 0.87%
7.0 ... 0.55%
6.8 ... 0.35%
6.6 ... 0.22%
6.4 ... 0.14%
6.2 ... 0.08%
6.0 ... 0.06%
~~~~
5.0 ... 5.5*10^-3 %
4.0 ... 5.5*10^-4 %

If we take that chart from the post above, it indicates that any ammonia over 0.02 ppm is immediately toxic. 0.02 ppm would be 2% of 1 ppm of total ammonia.

So, basically, no matter what, there will always be some toxic ammonia. Now, it can be small. If your pH is 6.0, and your test reads 1 ppm of ammonia, there is only 0.006 ppm of toxic ammonia. But, as has been posted, the amount of toxicity is highly dependent upon species and other conditions, and 0.006 is awfully close to the lethal 0.02 number. 3.5 ppm of total ammonia at the same pH would be lethal.

I don't know why you thought a pH of 7.5 is a 'magic number', as you can see in the chart, the % doesn't change a whole lot right there.

2) As far as I know, the bacteria do not use carbonates as fuels. I may be wrong (if you would cite your source, I'd much appreciate it), but the carbonates are there to stabilize, that is, buffer the water. The end product of the cycling is acidic, NO3+, and that combines with the MgOH- and Ca(OH-)2 's. The acids from the cycle and the bases from the minerals in the water neutralize each other. After these are consumed, then your pH starts dropping. My understanding is that all the bacteria need to live are an energy source (ammonia or nitrite), oxygen, and carbon (most likely from CO2).

3) You have the names of the bacteria wrong. Recent research has indicated that the species named in the older literature are actually not the species most likely found in home aquaria. Nitrosomonas marina are the main ammonia oxidizing bacteria according to Burrell et al., Applied and Environmental Biology, 2001. And Nitrospira species seem to be the main nitrite oxidizers according to Hovanec and DeLong, Applied and Environmental Biology, 1996.

Finally, I'd like to reinforce some of the questions brought up. How do you know the long term health effects? How do you know the gill developed normally, or is working at 100% efficacy now that the tank is cycled? Unlike you suggest, we cannot 'ask your blood parrot,' we can only go from guidelines and expectations and study. And the studies do suggest toxicity of ammonia and nitrite. Nitrite in particular I think is particularly nasty since it replaces some of the oxygen in the fish's blood with this poison.

Just a very quick look over some of the latest research brings up "Effects of chronic nitrite exposure on growth in juvenile Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua " by Siikavuopio and Saether, Aquaculture, May 2006. They grow their fish for 96 days in concentrations of 0.0 (control), 1.0 (low), 2.5 (medium), and 5.0 (high) ppm of nitrite. No mortality occurred, but growth was significantly reduced in fish exposed to all pollution levels, even the low concentration of 1.0 ppm. I know that this is only one species, but the literature has several other examples of how prolonged exposure is detrimental to the fish's long-term health.

Does not seem like a good idea to me.

 

[andywg]

I obviously don't need to comment on the main thrux of your post, as I think Bignose has covered it pretty well, I will talk about your stock though.

This is not a flame, but I do dare to question your stocking, especially since you brought the subject up. I repeat it is not a flame as I am pointing out problems in your stocking based on information you have provided:

One quick question, which fish are you moving quickly?

I can see 3 problems with the fish you have:

1) The cheshtnut moray, which species exactly is that? As far as I am aware, the Chestnut moray is a reef dwelling fish (and is described as such in Reef Fishes Volume 1, by Scott W. Michael) and as such would do far better in a marine tank than FW.

To clarify, there are no morays (Family Muraenidae) that live their entire life in freshwater. Some appear in FW as juveniles, and others head back into fresh or brackish water when breeding, but none live there permanently in the wild.

2) The Asian Red Tail catfish (according to Planet Catfish page for Hemibagrus wyckioides)grows to 37.4", so will demand a far larger tank than you currently list. It may be that common names have provided a crossed reference for this though.

3) The Pangasius sutchi (now described as Pangasius hypopthalmus) is listed as growing to 51.2", so the advice for the Asian Red Tail above would apply.

Just because a fish survives, does not mean we should house it thus. In theory we could all go and put bettas in muddy puddles outside, but it would not be viewed as ideal conditions.

 

[Lynden]

1) The cheshtnut moray, which species exactly is that? As far as I am aware, the Chestnut moray is a reef dwelling fish (and is described as such in Reef Fishes Volume 1, by Scott W. Michael) and as such would do far better in a marine tank than FW.

To clarify, there are no morays (Family Muraenidae) that live their entire life in freshwater. Some appear in FW as juveniles, and others head back into fresh or brackish water when breeding, but none live there permanently in the wild.

2) The Asian Red Tail catfish (according to Planet Catfish page for Hemibagrus wyckioides)grows to 37.4", so will demand a far larger tank than you currently list. It may be that common names have provided a crossed reference for this though.

3) The Pangasius sutchi (now described as Pangasius hypopthalmus) is listed as growing to 51.2", so the advice for the Asian Red Tail above would apply.

Just because a fish survives, does not mean we should house it thus. In theory we could all go and put bettas in muddy puddles outside, but it would not be viewed as ideal conditions.

Correct, those are three of the four that will be moved soon. The Asian Red Tailed will be gone in a week. The Moray will be gone the moment I find him a better home, and the Pangasias will be moved when they exceed 3.5''. The fourth was the Ropefish, simply because he is difficult to feed in a deep tank like my 37. Also, I am planning to rehome all common plecs, but greater strain will be placed on this when they outgrow the tanks they are in.

I remember when a few members of this forum gave me a lot of trouble (rightfully, I might add) about me putting the morays in freshwater. But the fact that I overcame the "hunger strike" that everybody assured me was fatal proves that rules were meant to be broken. To an extent, that is. Fish are not delicate animals. The fact that they can survive any variation at all after evolving for 600 million years should tell one something.

I am not sure if there are any stunting effects from nitrite on my fish. They have appeared to grow normally.
I am sure that they do not have gill problems, as they breathe normally compared to control fish (such as those found in a river, lake, or pond), and can easily survive a power outage, when filters shut down and expose them to low levels of oxygen.

Even though I have had success with the old methods I used in the past, does not mean that I tell people to do it the way I do. After around 8 months ago, I did not tell anyone to do a fish cycle, and advocated "seeding" filter media and fishless cycling. I do not think that telling people "A 0.25 ppm of ammonia/nitrite will not hurt your mollies/platies/guppies/whatever" warrants others to flame me

I hope I misunderstood what you said, otherwise, that's simply ridiculous

about how foolish it is to say something as such. I have seen fish survive levels far beyond a "lethal" point
with few lasting effects (excepting a molly in the saltwater tank while it was cycling - it appears to breathe a little faster now - however it was exposed to ammonia and nitrite levels exceeding 7.0 ppm).

Therefore, concluding the post, I will continue to tell people to relax about ammonia levels, unless they are dealing with a more delicate fish (such as Discus). It is far better to be worry-free about a small problem than to be having a nervous breakdown about it. "Don't sweat the small stuff", is the title of a book my Mom owns; though I have never read the book, I do believe in it's title statement. B)

-Lynden

 

[Bignose]

Even though I have had success with the old methods I used in the past, does not mean that I tell people to do it the way I do. After around 8 months ago, I did not tell anyone to do a fish cycle, and advocated "seeding" filter media and fishless cycling. I do not think that telling people "A 0.25 ppm of ammonia/nitrite will not hurt your mollies/platies/guppies/whatever" warrants others to flame me

I hope I misunderstood what you said, otherwise, that's simply ridiculous

about how foolish it is to say something as such. I have seen fish survive levels far beyond a "lethal" point
with few lasting effects (excepting a molly in the saltwater tank while it was cycling - it appears to breathe a little faster now - however it was exposed to ammonia and nitrite levels exceeding 7.0 ppm).

...

Therefore, concluding the post, I will continue to tell people to relax about ammonia levels, unless they are dealing with a more delicate fish (such as Discus). It is far better to be worry-free about a small problem than to be having a nervous breakdown about it. "Don't sweat the small stuff", is the title of a book my Mom owns; though I have never read the book, I do believe in it's title statement. B)

-Lynden

Did you even read the posts? I and others showed you that there is always toxic ammonia no matter what the pH. And, you say that 0.25 ppm total ammonia is nothing to worry about... and I agree, unless your water has a pH of 8.3 or higher! At that pH or higher, the concentration of toxic ammonia is greater than 0.02 ppm, which is a lethal exposure for the average fish.

To me, this is almost like telling a person that, "oh, never mind that tiny concentration of chlorine gas in your house, its 25% less than a lethal dose." The goal here is to provide the fish with the best possible living conditions, not just decent enough to survive. I want my fish to thrive, not just exist.

This is why I think that the best advice is "Any level of ammonia is dangerous" and has been taught bascially since the beginning of fishkeeping.

Look, ammonia is an easily cured problem, frequent water changes and patience it probably still the best solution. And I agree getting all worked up and insane about it will not help. But, the presence of ammonia in the tank is a serious problem, one that will not just go away, either. If you think, oh 0.25 ppm of ammonia is not big deal, it might turn into a big deal overnight, becoming 0.5, or 1.0, or more (at these higher concentrations, a much lower pH is all that is needed to cross the immediately lethal threshold). The causes of these problems have to be looked into, if you care about the well-being of the fish.

 

[Boxermom]

Just to clarify, I did not get worked up or insane or flame him or get aggressive, etc. I merely pointed out that his statement, if I was reading it correctly, was ridiculous. Which it is. However, I refuse to get drawn into this futile argument with him, as he isn't going to change his mind regardless of how much scientific data is shown to him. Therefore, I will go about my own business and continue to tell people that ammonia in any amount is bad for their fish and with some fish, even the smallest amount, regardless of pH, can be fatal.

 

[Underwurlde]

Facinating stuff.

I always wondered...
a.) Why my ammonia test kit read NH3 / NH4 - why I was testing for 2 seemingly different things!
b.) Why I'd want to test for pH in the first place! (Obviously I thought that extreme alkalinity / acidity would not be wanted, but hell, I'm using de-chlorinated tap water so why bloody bother!)

@Bignose, could you do tables for different temperatures as well please (in say 1°C steps)?
That would complete the puzzle of pH for me (and everyone else reading this thread) I think.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Lynden]

Facinating stuff.

It is, isn't it?

Just to clarify, I did not get worked up or insane or flame him or get aggressive

Just to clarify, you did flame me.

However, I refuse to get drawn into this futile argument with him, as he isn't going to change his mind regardless of how much scientific data is shown to him

Flamers aren't any better than stubborn people. And, I'm afraid that I will believe my own personal expeience faster than I will believe scientific evidence. Though, not that the evidence provided here wasn't true; it was, completely. The only thing off was the "lethal level", which is pure crap. sama:

-Lynden

 

[Bignose]

Call me a dope, but I'm going to take one more swing.

Firstly, I almost cannot believe we are arguing over this. Like I said in my prior post, it has been known since the beginning of fishkeeping that any level of ammonia is bad. Sure, fish can survive for a very short time, but it is a problem that has to be remedied. Like I said before, this is about fish thriving not just surviving.

What evidence (not just anecdote about how your fish survived) can you cite otherwise?

I can find one, and only one, article where exposure to ammonia was condsidered a good thing:

Title: Dogmas and controversies in the handling of nitrogenous wastes: Is exogenous ammonia a growth stimulant in fish?
Author(s): Wood CA
Source: JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY 207 (12): 2043-2054 MAY 2004

Wood found that exposure to 70 micromols per liter of ammonia (which is a tiny amount), that juvenile rainbow trout grow a little bit faster. He also found that when that concentration was 225, no benefit at all. This is an interesting result, but probably does not help the home aquarist as it is difficult to control that fine of a concentration in the home aquarium.

However, I can find several hundred that talk about the toxic affects of ammonia. In web of science "fish AND ammonia AND tox*" finds over 1,300 articles. For example, here is the very first one that came up tonight:

Title: Low levels of environmental ammonia increase susceptibility to disease in Chinook salmon smolts
Author(s): Ackerman PA, Wicks BJ, Iwama GK, Randall DJ
Source: PHYSIOLOGICAL AND BIOCHEMICAL ZOOLOGY 79 (4): 695-707 JUL-AUG 2006

The authors in this one exposed their fish to low levels of ammonia for some time, 2.5 ppm for 10 days. Here is what happened: "White blood cell counts changed significantly, as did respiratory burst activity, plasma lysozyme activity, and plasma glucose concentration in both treatments compared to controls. ... fish previously exposed to subacute levels of ammonia were more susceptible to pathogenic challenge. (emphasis mine)"

Look what I bolded, fish exposed to ammonia levels were more susceptible to disease! Who would have guessed? Everybody who has been trying to tell you that any level of ammonia is dangerous. Maybe not immediately, but there are always repercussions.

Look at the first sentence of Eshcar et al., AQUACULTURE 2006. "Fish excrete two principal toxic metabolites to the water: NH3 and CO2, the former being typically toxic to fish at low (< 0.1 mg N l(-1)) concentrations. "

Ammonia typically being toxic at less than 0.1 ppm!

What more proof do you need?!?

 

[Lynden]

Call me a dope, but I'm going to take one more swing.

Firstly, I almost cannot believe we are arguing over this. Like I said in my prior post, it has been known since the beginning of fishkeeping that any level of ammonia is bad. Sure, fish can survive for a very short time, but it is a problem that has to be remedied. Like I said before, this is about fish thriving not just surviving.

What evidence (not just anecdote about how your fish survived) can you cite otherwise?

I can find one, and only one, article where exposure to ammonia was condsidered a good thing:

Title: Dogmas and controversies in the handling of nitrogenous wastes: Is exogenous ammonia a growth stimulant in fish?
Author(s): Wood CA
Source: JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY 207 (12): 2043-2054 MAY 2004

Wood found that exposure to 70 micromols per liter of ammonia (which is a tiny amount), that juvenile rainbow trout grow a little bit faster. He also found that when that concentration was 225, no benefit at all. This is an interesting result, but probably does not help the home aquarist as it is difficult to control that fine of a concentration in the home aquarium.

However, I can find several hundred that talk about the toxic affects of ammonia. In web of science "fish AND ammonia AND tox*" finds over 1,300 articles. For example, here is the very first one that came up tonight:

Title: Low levels of environmental ammonia increase susceptibility to disease in Chinook salmon smolts
Author(s): Ackerman PA, Wicks BJ, Iwama GK, Randall DJ
Source: PHYSIOLOGICAL AND BIOCHEMICAL ZOOLOGY 79 (4): 695-707 JUL-AUG 2006

The authors in this one exposed their fish to low levels of ammonia for some time, 2.5 ppm for 10 days. Here is what happened: "White blood cell counts changed significantly, as did respiratory burst activity, plasma lysozyme activity, and plasma glucose concentration in both treatments compared to controls. ... fish previously exposed to subacute levels of ammonia were more susceptible to pathogenic challenge. (emphasis mine)"

Look what I bolded, fish exposed to ammonia levels were more susceptible to disease! Who would have guessed? Everybody who has been trying to tell you that any level of ammonia is dangerous. Maybe not immediately, but there are always repercussions.

Look at the first sentence of Eshcar et al., AQUACULTURE 2006. "Fish excrete two principal toxic metabolites to the water: NH3 and CO2, the former being typically toxic to fish at low (< 0.1 mg N l(-1)) concentrations. "

Ammonia typically being toxic at less than 0.1 ppm!

What more proof do you need?!?

Interesting post.

However, you also need to realize something; I did not say that ammonia and nitrite could not have long lasting effects, nor did I say they they do better with it.

What I did say was that ammonia will not kill fish. Therefore, the post above was not proof at all, nor were any above it. They simply said that it will have some long-lasting effects. I said that it will not kill them, also that they did not experience long-lasting effects. Not that they cannot have them.

Therefore, you have proven nothing but which I had known before.

-Lynden

 

[andywg]

Ahh Lynden, here we go again. Once more you post something based on what you want to believe as it seems contrary to popular belief and is from your mis-understanding of science. You are then shot down in flames by scientific research, but refuse to accpet it.

You actually mentioned nothing about killing the fish in your first post, you just said people shouldn't worry. Indeed this quote sums up your position:

However, I have found that, over the years, that it does not effect most freshwater fish unless at extreme levels (above 4.0 ppm).

I would say that "effect" would include long term issues such as increased succeptibility to disease. Also you state 4.0ppm, whereas Bignose has shown that ammonia readings of 3.5ppm are lethal at a pH of 6.

Maybe you should check what you wrote previously before suddenly changing claims and claiming no-one has discounted what you said.

And to think you have the audacity to moan at someone else for flaming...

Maybe you should stick to causing long term osmo-regulatory problems by keeping a coral reef fish in freshwater.

 

[Jules H-T]

<edit> snip <edit>

 

[Boxermom]

I think this pretty much says it all: "I am only 13 after all." While youth is no excuse (my 11 year old son would NEVER think to treat living creatures the way this guy does), I think it explains a lot about his attitude and reasoning skills.