That's not strictly true. If nitrate gets above 40ppm, it's just as toxic as ammonia and nitrite. Try keeping a sensitive fish like a blue ram in high nitrate - you'll see what I'm talking about.
Rubish. Sorry is that is blunt, but jump into the scientific section and you will eventuallly find a thead on nitrate toxidity, were three of four scientific papers are quoted, giving "safe" levels of nitrate for fish between 400 and 1000ppm, so 50 isn't a problem for most species. Mebers such as Davo keep rams in water with a nitrate level of 50-60ppm, so 40 won't harm them. Nitrate does however indicate levels of other toxins in the water, that we cannont test for. These, TetraLinz, may be affecting your rams, but it won't be the nitrate unless they are wild caught (
very unlikely) and even then, they can be aclimated to a higher nitrate reading over time
fergiesek, Nitrate below 50 is fine, so don't worry about it. Just keep up with water changes and it will eventually level out. If it is more than 40ppm above tap water readings though, I'd increase the %age of waterchanges you do each week
All the best
Rabbut
Actually, YOU'RE the one in the wrong, Rabbut. And I didn't mention MY ram. Nitrate level here is 10ppm. My Ram, FYI, is fine. I'm going on the information posted by a MUCH better fishkeeper than you
or myself will EVER be. 400-1000ppm nitrate?! ####?! I was hoping that was a typing error. In the UK, the legal limit for tapwater nitrate is 50ppm. Many fish have provably suffered in less nitrate levels than that.
You're going on the information of Scientists?! Meh . . . My information is coming from an ex-animal rescue worker and probably the best fishkeeper in the country.
I appear to have got myself wedged firmly up someones backside, and I'm sorry TetraLins, but I'm gonna hold my ground here, as I know I'm right.....
Lets look at your responce i more detail;
And I didn't mention MY ram. Nitrate level here is 10ppm. My Ram, FYI, is fine.
Sorry, I mis-read, so this point holds true
posted[/b] by a MUCH better fishkeeper than you or myself will EVER be.
OK, so you are going on the advise you have read on a forum, where you have not even met the person, not seen any of the sources of their information, is this correct, or am I missing something here???
If this is the case, how do you know they are a better keeper than you, let alone me, whom you have never met.....
Even if you can answer that, I'd love to see you explain how you know your source isn't lying... I could claim to be a world leading expert on Nitrate toxidity to fish, but the long and short is that I am not. It would be easy for me to claim this, and as you don't know whom I am, you can't disprove a claim like this....
400-1000ppm nitrate?! ####?! I was hoping that was a typing error. In the UK, the legal limit for tapwater nitrate is 50ppm.
Yes the legal limit in UK tap water is 50ppm, I know that, my dad tests water to regulate the water companies, and to also catch anyone poluting the countries natural water caurses. There is no real need to bring points about source water to my attentions, as I will have head most before already
HOWEVER; we aren't talking about the legal limit of Nitrate in tap water here, we are talking about the maximum "safe" concerntration of nitrate in an aquarium scenario...
Many fish have provably suffered in less nitrate levels than that.
To prove something, IE to have something be proable, there needs to be exidence there to back a claim up. I have not seen this evidence, so please humor me by bringing it to my attention
You're going on the information of Scientists?!
Well yes, for the reasons below;
Meh . . . My information is coming from an ex-animal rescue worker and probably the best fishkeeper in the country.
I, and anyone whom is likely to access your claims, coulden't realy care what your sources are, if you don't
give a full name and the identity of the institution at which they work as otherwise they could be anyone, from your none-fish-keeping next door neibour to the next wrighter for PFK..... You must reference your sources so that they can be cross examined in a debate like this... None-published sources have nothing to loose by giving false advise, thus they can say whatever they like with minimal repercussions.
I have said that I have read papers that quote safe nitrate to be safe to fish between 400-1000ppm, so I will endevor to post links to them (or the ISPN number of the book/jorunal/study in which they were published along side author name) so that you may review and cross examin them with your information.
Without this information, your souce is invallid, untill their work is published in a peer-reviewed item of litriture and then published in a quotable and referenceable media
As for them "probibly being the best fish keeper in the country" as you have said, that is a matter of opinion. Untill you tell me whom they are, they are still to me a none-fish keeper whom is making up bull, even if this person was a large scale and well respected fishkeeper working on the world stage. I don't know wham they are, I don' know their source of information and thus I cannot access the validity of their point.
Bring me quotes
Bring me references
And then I can dicus the facts with you.
Percsonal experience cannot easily be counted as evidence. This is because unless there is a study being conducted, and the fish are kept in controlled conditions, such that nitrate is the only forseeable variable, there are too many other variables that could have lead to the demise of the fish. As said in a previous post, us fish keepers use nitrate to monitor levels of general toxidity in the water; not because it is the most toxic by-product, but because it is the only one of numberous other by-products that we can measure cost effectively with a reasonable amount of accuracy.
OK, so fish have been seen to suffer past a nitrate reading of 50ppm, HOWEVER, what other polutants had build up in that water? If it was a tank, one or all of the following could also be a contributing factor towards the demise of the fish; Phosphates, disolved organics, mineral depletion, and the concerntration of toxins from airosols, air freshoners, fly spray ECT ETC ECT.... The list is end-less.
Just because fish in an aquarium have died when nitrate passed 50ppm, doesn't mean to say it was the only thing that built up in great levels, or laced sufficient levels for that matter. In an aquarium there are too many variables, that is why we turn to science, where nitrate can be made the only variable, with everything else being kept constant, such that the tocidity of nitrate alone can be monitored
In the controlled scientific environement, we can also keep nitrate constant over a prolonged period of time, such that we can monitor the effects of the nitrate on the test organisum over a prolonged period of time
All the best, and eagerly awaiting your responce
Rabbut
