Stocking Clarity

[Mikaila31]

OK

@Mikaila31

Stocking is part art part science. Everyone stock differently and may methods work. Experience is very important, what one person can do may not work for another. I personally put little emphasis on the filters bio-capacity. However I also run densely planted tanks. Around half of my tanks are unfiltered yet do perfectly fine with a "good" stock. Simply using plants as filtration nitrates generally don't build up as ammonia is taken up by the plants, however I add nitrate to a lot of my tanks to make sure some form of nitrogen is always available. I stock heavy when I can, 15 neons in a 60 liter I would say is light. Even filterless you could manage 30 neons in a 60 liter tank and nitrates would stay stable despite that load. Yet water changes are still done, because there is more to water changes then removing nitrates. I did water changes today in all my tanks and I know nitrates now are higher then before I changed the water.

I think you've missed the point of this topic.This is about giving someone who's asking the question of stocking a logical procedure in ascertaining their own stocking limits.

To clarify I should have refered to the bio load as the systems as opposed to the filters exclusively.Apologies or the confusion.Technically I would argue that even your 'filterless tanks' are not filterless at all.If you look at the role of a standard filters bio function water is merely passed over media harbouring colonies of bacteria which process ammonia and nitrite.This is no different to water passing over substrate in your tanks or any other surface in which the bacteria can gain a foot hold.The plants can only utilise a finite amount of ammonia at any one time.The rest is processed by the bacteria in the system.This can be exceeded at which point the system would,of course, be overstocked.Even in the 'filterless' system you describe above a logical procedure as setout previously can be utilised to ascertain a stocking limit.

So a "successfully overstocked tank" is possible weather you want it to be or not.

It's simply not a case of whether I want it to be or not.It's a contradiction.There is a stock limit to any system.If this is exceeded then it is overstocked.If a system is unable to cope with the demands placed upon it then clearly it cannot be described as successful.
What I think you actually mean is," it's possible to successfully heavily stock a tank." Yeah fine.

Its clear you do not have much experience with planted tanks. Plants consume a great deal more then you realize. I can assure you that plants ARE my primary role of filtration in most of my tanks. Most my tanks do have regular water movement however some sit stagnant half the day with no water movement at all, a few always sit stagnant and have no pump at all. On top of that its often recommended that you do not cycle planted tanks. I can tell you none of mine have been "cycled". I typically set them up with plants, give them a week or so to just establish then I will stock anywhere from 1/2 way to completely full in one go. Ammonia will not be detectable, not how I run my tanks. Plants are also recommended to combat a minicycle as they can easily be ammonia sponges if you do things correctly. No lake out there depends upon bacteria to remove fish waste, it is done by plants. Its very easy to get a fish tank to control wastes naturally with plants. Its quite possible to setup a planted tank with a heavy bioload then have it still read 0ppm or close for nitrate a week later.

Again plants have a much larger effect then you realize. Before I moved off well water my first soil tank would consume 20ppm of nitrate in my tap water a week and that was with a robust bioload and no filter. Nitrate is pretty harmless to fish. The LD dosage is crazy high. I dose nitrates every week and aim to keep them around 20ppm for the plants. I've had fish like german blue rams spawn in 40+ppm of nitrate, I'm sure if they were bothered by it they wouldn't of done that. Even when I kept it lower then that they never felt like spawning lol. I agree with the 'general' saying that in an unplanted tank nitrate should be around 20ppm higher then tap with a good stock at the end of the week. There are many ways to control nitrates and nitrates can be used somewhat to determine bioload in a tank but you can not tell this will just a single reading at one point. I test nitrates on all my tanks one or 2 times a year but it takes multiple tests to determine anything. I test to see how the tank is moving nutrients and if I need to adjust or not. For any of the readings to mean anything I have to test the tap, then the tank right after a water change and fertilizer dose, then at the end of the week before a water change. Only then does it really say anything about what is going on in the tank.

 

[prankster705]

@Prankster705

Sum up for everybody who cannot be bothered to read: the easiest way to avoid overstocking is to employ common sense.

I think if you told someone to use their common sense when asking about stocking you would probably come across a an arrogant t*&t.Of course ,that would be their opinion not mine.I think your great.Honest.

For the OP: right, because we all know, that nitrate concentrations below 500ppm have been proven to have adverse effects on fish </sarcasm>.

There is enough literature out there to suggest even low levels of nitrate can have adverse effects on fish.And i'm quite sure you can counter this with links to research that suggest otherwise.
Who can be sure?
What I can be sure of is high levels of nitrate are unlikely to be beneficial to fish.Therefore if they are not likely to be found out as being beneficial in high concentrations the right advice would be to err on the side of caution and aim at removing them.That's common sense.

Tell me, how 90% of successfully stocking a tank does not come down to common sense? It's hard to stock a theoretical tank with theoretical fish - what most of these threads are about. But, when you have a tank; and it's your own tank, it really does come down to common sense. You find a fish you most definitely want and works in your tank. You get the fish. You than see another fish you like. You google the other fish, you look at your tank and you think if it can house another fish. If you do this without too much bias, you usually decide correctly. Give common sense some credit.

High levels of nitrate are detrimental to fish. It's just that the average hobbyist interprets high as something completely different than science. Yes, we all agree we should keep them below 50ish ppm, but that's simply because that's easily feasible for most of us. And at these concentrations, they are far from being the limiting factor. Yes, we like to stay on the side of caution, because it's simple and it calms our nerves. However, when a fish dies, it's very very very rarely due to nitrate. If you can find me research that suggests any (commonly kept) species of fish has an LD50 (or LD1) value for nitrate in the 10s and not 100s, please do.

In fact an ex mod here, used to keep fish (I say used not because (as far as I know), he quit fish, he only quit tff) at 60-80 ppm without problems. Freshwater stingrays even, which are commonly regarded as extremely sensitive.

P.s. Since we're being t..ts... http/www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/difficulties/youryoure.html , also
err/ər/
Verb:
Be mistaken or incorrect; make a mistake: "the judge erred in so ruling".
Sin; do wrong.

 

[tomtomtom1230]

I do have to agree with you there Prankster, when the theory bit is over and done with then it's down to one's own initiative and one's own common sense to judge a regime that will work for the tank.

 

[Dieses Madchen]

Most of my tanks are overstocked with happy fish that spawn all the time. I hve pristine water conditions 99% of the time (had some issues ones)and fish that are thriving. Like minnnt said, if you are willing to put in the time and consider the needs of your fish, apply adequate filtrations (most of my tanks turn 8 times an hour)then overstocking is generally not an issue.

 

[Ruskull]

All my tanks are heavily stocked as you can see in my signature, but they're all planted as well. The fish all thrive. My nitrates vary between 40-80ppm at the end of a week and the fish look healthy. Granted I do larger water changes than most folks, but what's an extra bucket or two? They only get to 80 when I stretch a tank for 2 weeks.

As someone else already said, API nitrate tests are notoriously inaccurate even if you bang the pee out of them. Many fish live wild in far worse water conditions than they enjoy in an aquarium. Gouramis, Mollys and many catfish to name a few.

Interesting thread though & the threadstarter does raise some fair points. I've always over filtered my tanks by at least twice the rating. Two of my tanks are turning over 10 times an hour and the other is turning 7.5.

 

[Dieses Madchen]

All my tanks are heavily stocked as you can see in my signature, but they're all planted as well. The fish all thrive. My nitrates vary between 40-80ppm at the end of a week and the fish look healthy. Granted I do larger water changes than most folks, but what's an extra bucket or two? They only get to 80 when I stretch a tank for 2 weeks.

As someone else already said, API nitrate tests are notoriously inaccurate even if you bang the pee out of them. Many fish live wild in far worse water conditions than they enjoy in an aquarium. Gouramis, Mollys and many catfish to name a few.

Interesting thread though & the threadstarter does raise some fair points. I've always over filtered my tanks by at least twice the rating. Two of my tanks are turning over 10 times an hour and the other is turning 7.5.

+1, like I said, all of mine are turning 8 times.

 

[fenny666]

The whole point of this thread was to give a fresh approach in advising people, asking questions of stock limits, a way in which they can more accurately establish an answer for themselves without having to refer to current guidelines based on fish length /litre etc. which are, in my opinion, useless.

Tell me, how 90% of successfully stocking a tank does not come down to common sense? It's hard to stock a theoretical tank with theoretical fish - what most of these threads are about. But, when you have a tank; and it's your own tank, it really does come down to common sense. You find a fish you most definitely want and works in your tank. You get the fish. You than see another fish you like. You google the other fish, you look at your tank and you think if it can house another fish. If you do this without too much bias, you usually decide correctly. Give common sense some credit.

I think you're refering to fish suitability(which of course comes down to common sense) as opposed to the topic in question.

High levels of nitrate are detrimental to fish. It's just that the average hobbyist interprets high as something completely different than science. Yes, we all agree we should keep them below 50ish ppm, but that's simply because that's easily feasible for most of us. And at these concentrations, they are far from being the limiting factor. Yes, we like to stay on the side of caution, because it's simple and it calms our nerves. However, when a fish dies, it's very very very rarely due to nitrate. If you can find me research that suggests any (commonly kept) species of fish has an LD50 (or LD1) value for nitrate in the 10s and not 100s, please do.

In fact an ex mod here, used to keep fish (I say used not because (as far as I know), he quit fish, he only quit tff) at 60-80 ppm without problems. Freshwater stingrays even, which are commonly regarded as extremely sensitive.

I've read a number of articles which advocate both sides of the arguement.What I haven't found yet, is a long term study that can conclusively say whether or not, long term exposure to high levels of nitrate is detrimental to fish health.Although, if a such a study does exsist ,please provide a link so that we can settle this once and for all.
If nothing else,maintaining a lower level of nitrate promotes good system maintenance.Also ,although I don't know how much of an impact this has.Water has a maximum solubility.If nitrates are high then clearly they are not being utilised at such a rate as the system is producing them.If they are not being utilised then what are they there for?.Do you not think it would be better to replace them with something that is?For example increased oxygen levels.

P.s. Since we're being t..ts... http/www.elearneng.../youryoure.html

Fair one. 1-0.

also
err/ər/
Verb:
Be mistaken or incorrect; make a mistake: "the judge erred in so ruling".
Sin; do wrong.

Not in the context given.
err [ɜː]
vb (intr)
1. to make a mistake; be incorrect
2. to stray from the right course or accepted standards; sin
3. to act with bias, esp favourable bias to err on the side of justice
1-1
@Mikaila31
My understanding of a 'filterless' setup such as yours.Most aquatic plants can't utilise nitrate.It must first denitrify nitrate into ammonium which it can utilise.However the plant must expend energy in order to do this. Where ammonia is being produced by fish etc. a proportion of this will be ammonium.The lower the ph and temperature of the system, the higher the proportion of ammonium.Plants will utilise this source of ammonium first as it is more efficient.Only when this source is depleted will they denitrify nitrate.
Although nitrifying bacteria will almost certainly exsist in such a setup they are competing directly with the plants therefore less ammonia enters the nitrogen cycle.What nitrates are produced in a heavily planted system (where there is insufficient ammonium being produced)will be denitrifyed.Which is why the nitrates in your systems remain so low and it's necssary for you to top them up.Whilst there will always be a stocking limit to any system, I have to concede in systems such as this ,it could be very high and difficult to exceed.
Please correct me on any of this as I have been looking to go down this route with one of my tanks.Out of curiosity, what are the ph and temps of your tanks?

 

[Mikaila31]

@Mikaila31
My understanding of a 'filterless' setup such as yours.Most aquatic plants can't utilise nitrate.It must first denitrify nitrate into ammonium which it can utilise.However the plant must expend energy in order to do this. Where ammonia is being produced by fish etc. a proportion of this will be ammonium.The lower the ph and temperature of the system, the higher the proportion of ammonium.Plants will utilise this source of ammonium first as it is more efficient.Only when this source is depleted will they denitrify nitrate.
Although nitrifying bacteria will almost certainly exsist in such a setup they are competing directly with the plants therefore less ammonia enters the nitrogen cycle.What nitrates are produced in a heavily planted system (where there is insufficient ammonium being produced)will be denitrifyed.Which is why the nitrates in your systems remain so low and it's necssary for you to top them up.Whilst there will always be a stocking limit to any system, I have to concede in systems such as this ,it could be very high and difficult to exceed.
Please correct me on any of this as I have been looking to go down this route with one of my tanks.Out of curiosity, what are the ph and temps of your tanks?

Ummm pH is probably somewhere between 6.8-7.4, been forever since I tested that. Temp anywhere from 76-82 normally and up to 86 in summer when things get really hot. Ammonia/ammonium exist in equilibrium if one is depleted it will favor movement of ammonia to be ammonium. You are correct that plants use ammonia/ammonium before nitrate for the most part. They do not wait for it to be completely depleted though. Nitrogen is a macro nutrient and the need quite a bit of it if ammonia is present but insufficient they will also use nitrate. While there are of course stocking limits they are not difficult to exceed. You simply can not judge them via nitrate levels. As what is being said above you need to use common sense when stocking. You could overstock and still have perfectly fine nitrate levels, its as simple as that. This is especially true for a lot of high-tech tanks where the plants are essentially in overdrive and have a fast growth rate along with a filter or powerhead with high turnover.

 

[prankster705]

I think you're refering to fish suitability(which of course comes down to common sense) as opposed to the topic in question.

I've read a number of articles which advocate both sides of the arguement.What I haven't found yet, is a long term study that can conclusively say whether or not, long term exposure to high levels of nitrate is detrimental to fish health.Although, if a such a study does exsist ,please provide a link so that we can settle this once and for all.
If nothing else,maintaining a lower level of nitrate promotes good system maintenance.Also ,although I don't know how much of an impact this has.Water has a maximum solubility.If nitrates are high then clearly they are not being utilised at such a rate as the system is producing them.If they are not being utilised then what are they there for?.Do you not think it would be better to replace them with something that is?For example increased oxygen levels.

Well, the same principle applies to water conditions, really. If your fish are looking at their best, have vibrant colors and generally exhibit natural behavior, there is usually nothing wrong with water chemistry (at least not to the point that it would effect fish). Usually, if you have 10 fish and add another similar fish, it's not going to push it overboard. Common sense still applies - ramp it up slowly and watch your fish. Sure, you might want to ascertain the quality of living conditions of your fish with a test kit. But interpreting the results is still just common sense, even more so than determining compatibility.

Maximum solubility does not come into play here. Yes, water has a maximum solubility for all things. However, while not completely independent, they are largely independent (at least as far as small non-polar and small polar molecules go). With a small non-polar molecule, such as oxygen is saturation is reached at less than 10ppm at tank conditions (25c, atmospheric pressure). For a small highly polar molecule, such as a nitrate ion, the maximum solubility is unlikely to ever be reached in an aquarium. Nitrate does not compete with oxygen in solubility in any significant way. The problem with oxygen is, that it's simply not very soluble at all; and given enough surface area and flow, in a constant equilibrium with atmospheric oxygen. This is might in some cases be a problem actually requiring a high amount of common sense, since it does have the potential to get very low during the night in highly planted tanks with poor water flow. However, with a well designed sump with a wet/dry filter, it will never be a problem. Common sense again. Also, oxygen concentration is easily observable - if your fish are gasping at the surface for air, it's not high. If you have to do water changes to increase oxygen levels, you're doing it wrong .

On the topic of solubility - what might perhaps be used for water quality indications is TDS; total dissolved solids. But the problem here is, that you need more than just common sense, as there is no clear cut value that is ok.
Furthermore, one might use ORP (oxydation-reduction potential) to some extent. This; however, has the same problem as TDS.
Neither is exactly cheap to measure and neither is needed by the average hobbyist. Although, both measurements might be a fun toy to have .

There is a reason why fish that love oxygen are usually not recommended for tropical tanks - oxygen is better soluble in cold water. Regardless of nitrate concentration.

As for the plants, nitrate and ammonia/ammonium thingy. Le Chatelier's principle . If you exhaust one ion in the equilibrium, the other will act to restore the balance. In turn, by depleting ammonium, you're converting ammonia into ammonium, which gets metabolized as well. If plants consume ammonia before it tuns into nitrate, the end effect is lower nitrate, just as if they were using it up.

disclaimer: I am in no way advocating less water changes or stocking fish to the point of stupidity. I'm merely saying, that stocking usually comes down to common sense. I do; however, understand that common sense in any new experience takes time to develop. That is why I see value in all the stocking threads - people are unsure and wish to be corrected if they are wrong. One thing I have however, noticed about them is that they can be split into two groups of threads. People who employ common sense and get it right by themselves and people who don't. The ones who don't employ common sense don't listen either, making their threads pointless.

P.s. 1 dictionary out of 3, it's obscure, but I'll give you that one .

 

[fenny666]

You simply can not judge them via nitrate levels. As what is being said above you need to use common sense when stocking. You could overstock and still have perfectly fine nitrate levels, its as simple as that.

Assuming good ammonia and nitrite levels,rising nitrate levels that exceed the keepers ability to maintain at favourable levels would class this system ,in my opinion, as overstocked.Do not confuse overstocked with heavily stocked.To be defined as overstocked something has to exceed the system limits.If a system operates beyond it's limits then it is simply not sustainable.If a system stays within these limits, then it is.

Please don't allow Prankster705 over used term in his posts that is 'common sense' to rub on to you.

Common sense - "sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts."

The judgements that we make are based on our knowledge of a perceived situation.Basically, in a given situation where you have knowledge the correct course of action may be obvious.To someone else,given the same situation,without the necessary knowledge to draw from,the correct course of action may not be so obvious.
The common sense approach would be to increase their knowledge so that they may make better judgements.
Hence why people come on forums seeking advice from more knowledgable people.

Take for example this quote from Prankster705

The problem with oxygen is, that it's simply not very soluble at all; and given enough surface area and flow, in a constant equilibrium with atmospheric oxygen. This is might in some cases be a problem actually requiring a high amount of common sense, since it does have the potential to get very low during the night in highly planted tanks with poor water flow.

Setting aside his comment as regards the varying amount of common sense he is able to apply to given situations(???), he assumes that the way in which plants behave outside their photoperiod is common knowledge therefore everyone should know this.
Fair enough if discussions take place among peers with equal knowledge or experience of a given topic,but on forums such as this where experience and knowledge vary widely don't just assume what is obvious to you is obvious to everybody else.

@Prankster705
You clearly know more about solubility than I do.Based on what you know, is there not a benefit in removing nitrate to allow,in the very least, the possibility of replacing it with something else.Oxygen was only given as an example.
Hey ,on nitrates, you didn't mention anything regards the long term study.

I have come to realise that this thread has evolved into discussions on topics that are,although relevant, better served in their own threads.I don't think I can justify my opinions any better than I already have done as regards the original post.

In starting this thread, I hoped to take steps towards offering people seeking advice on stocking levels, a more informative approach.

The subject clearly divides opinion.The general feeling of most, is that experience is the overriding factor.However,for people with little experience seeking clarification this view point isn't very helpful.This is why I have outlined a straight forward procedure in which people with limited experience can establish for themselves their own stock limits.As their experience grows they will be in a better position to adjust their system as they see fit.

Thanks to everyone who has contributed.

 

[prankster705]

I said 90% of all tanks can be stocked with common sense. You don't see your average beginner running a highly planted filter-less setup. People who are very much into plants usually (Or rather always) know the basic principles of photosynthesis.

Overstocking is much more often the result of the wrong choice of fish species and/or number. It is only seldom caused by actual over-stocking in terms of nitrate. Modern filters; which your average beginner is sure to have at least one of, are more than capable of processing ammonia into nitrite and later nitrate; which is really not as bad as we make it out to be. High concentrations of nitrate are usually associated with unsightly algae growth, which will usually spur the beginner into reading up on how to get rid of them much sooner than it's going to kill their fish.

For most people, wishing to keep an ordinary tank, common sense is enough; as evidenced by the hundreds of stocking threads where people get it right and just seek a little bit of confirmation. The ones that don't, usually never do and don't listen to advice even when given. Part of common sense is to research your new hobby; else you're just dumping money into something you don't know anything about. This to me, is not sensible.

Average reader can stop reading here.

On the topic of long term effects of nitrate. You have extremely divided results;
Camargo JA, Alonso A, Salamanca A. Nitrate toxicity to aquatic animals: a review with new data for freshwater invertebrates. <- states that anything over 2mg/l (unobtainable to most) can result in adverse effects for wild populations (Most likely indirectly)
Roberts HE. Fundamentals of Ornamental Fish Health <- states that anything over 50 mg/l might potentially have some adverse effects; however, mostly non direct effect, affecting fish through eutrophication and such.
Westin DT. Nitrate and Nitrite Toxicity to Salmonoid Fishes <- observes concentrations in the hundreds of mg/l being fine on many different species of fish.
Russo RC. Ammonia, nitrite and nitrate <- states that the toxicity of nitrate ions in aquatic ecosystems to be irrelevant

Now, it's up to you to decide how crazy you want to go. Keeping an aquarium at ~0ppm nitrate is not difficult, usually it's just expensive. The benefit is debatable at best. If something increases your risk of cancer by 100%, that does not mean you're 100% certain to get that type of cancer; your chance of getting it simply went up from 1 in 5000 to 1 in 2500. For the average hobbyist, a nitrate concentration of 50 mg/l is unlikely to have any detrimental effects. This is a far greater concentration than that of 20 mg/l we so often scream at beginners .

For some biochemistry on why nitrate is bad (or not so bad). Nitrite is very bad - it oxidizes the Fe2+ ions in haemoglobin into Fe3+ ions, making them unable to carry oxygen. Nitrate is in theory bad for the same reason. However, nitrate first has to enter the body and than change into nitrite for it to do the same thing. Here's why this usually does not happen - a nitrate ion is bigger than a nitrite ion. For this reason, it simply cannot enter the bloodstream, making it logical that its toxicity does not change for a long time and than jumps up exponentially after a certain threshold concentration is passed.

Edit: on the point of solubility; unless it's snowing in your tank (or bubbling), all chemicals in your tank are beyond their solubility thresholds .

 

[fenny666]

Prankster.It would have been much easier for you to edit out this witless post -

Sum up for everybody who cannot be bothered to read: the easiest way to avoid overstocking is to employ common sense.

For the OP: right, because we all know, that nitrate concentrations below 500ppm have been proven to have adverse effects on fish </sarcasm>.

than to tediously try and justify your position.On common sense you assume too much.The irony of common sense is that it's not that common.

People who are very much into plants usually (Or rather always) know the basic principles of photosynthesis.

Knowing the basic principles of photsynthesis wouldn't help anyone in applying common sense to this -

The problem with oxygen is, that it's simply not very soluble at all; and given enough surface area and flow, in a constant equilibrium with atmospheric oxygen. This is might in some cases be a problem actually requiring a high amount of common sense, since it does have the potential to get very low during the night in highly planted tanks with poor water flow.

Knowing the basic principles of respiration would.

For most people, wishing to keep an ordinary tank, common sense is enough; as evidenced by the hundreds of stocking threads where people get it right and just seek a little bit of confirmation.

Yeah ,let's just ignore the hundreds of stocking threads where people get it wrong.

The ones that don't, usually never do and don't listen to advice even when given.

Tad judgemental.

Part of common sense is to .....

Astonishing really how you can apply common sense in a variety of concentrations.

On the topic of long term effects of nitrate. You have extremely divided results;

Correct.I advocate nitrate levels of less than 25ppm.Why? Because this is a level I feel can fairly easily be attained. It may turnout even this level is too high.Equally it may transpire that I have been overly cautious.I don't really understand the arguement for higher levels.It's certainly of no benefit.It's simple enough to remove.What's the problem?Unless you like to argue for the sake of arguing.Prankster705 in a nutshell.

Now, it's up to you to decide how crazy you want to go. Keeping an aquarium at ~0ppm nitrate is not difficult, usually it's just expensive. The benefit is debatable at best.

While it's possible that 0ppm may be the optimum level for nitrate,as a previous poster has stated ,she doses nitrate in order to fulfill her plants needs.This in turn has a positive effect on the system as a whole.So while levels above 0ppm may be detrimental it could be argued that this effect would be negated by the benefit of plant health.

all chemicals in your tank are beyond their solubility thresholds

solubility threshold - the point at which a given chemical is unable to further dissolve in a given solvent.You imply that any chemical in my tank exsits in some quantity undissolved.Correct?

 

[prankster705]

all chemicals in your tank are beyond their solubility thresholds

solubility threshold - the point at which a given chemical is unable to further dissolve in a given solvent.You imply that any chemical in my tank exsits in some quantity undissolved.Correct?

Sorry, typo there, it was late. What was supposed to say is way bellow their solubility thresholds; unless it's snowing in your tank.

I'm sorry for still having some faith in humanity and common sense.

Well, the changing factor between day and night is not cellular respiration but rather photosynthesis. Knowing that it does not occur at night is the key part. And if you want to argue that they should know respiration, they should know the basics of cellular respiration; since we're being t..ts.

Judgemental or not, if we're being honest and not extremely politically correct (as you're being when you're saying most people lack common sense), it's simply the truth.

And yes, common sense is a versatile thing to have.

 

[Mikaila31]

If you both wanna keep being t..ts photosynthesis and respiration have little to nil to do with nitrate. As far as oxygen then yes it does but I have left planted tanks with soil substrates sit completely stagnant till whatever problem first developed. Said tank had pressurized CO2 injection during the day and it took roughly a week for there to be an issue and that issue was eventually low O2. That issue probably would not of been an issue if the substrate had not been soil lol.

Plant health and fish health do not correlate to each other. Plants would love if you dosed ammonia and not nitrate, fish certainly wouldn't. You can have healthy plants and sick fish pretty easily. Injecting CO2 has probably killed more fish and shrimp then nitrates have, yet we still do it anyway. Nitrate is also just one of 5 fertilizers I use. Some of the fish I keep try to eat the fertilizers before they dissolve completely(as I dry dose directly to the tank) and so far they haven't managed to harm themselves yet buy ingesting it or swimming through the 'snow'.

 

[fenny666]

If you both wanna keep being t..ts photosynthesis and respiration have little to nil to do with nitrate.

Pretty sure nobody said it did. I don't think there's cause to be rude either.You call us for carrying on like t..ts but you couldn't help jumping in yourself.
Anyway,i've had enough,it is time to put this thread to bed.