Are all nitrate bad for fishes ?

[anewbie]

How do you explain the information in the attached documents then?

Those pdf are useless since they are not measuring the health of the fish in any sort of scientific way. They simply state the condition of their water as measured. A study would have a control condition in which at the end of the some period the fishes organs, tissue, general health and similar between a control and experimental group was compared.

Also I'm not sure i understood their condition - 150mg of nitrate seems pretty high. They are also claiming the discus are perfectly happy in fairly hard-water - i can't actually comment here if tank raised discus adapt to hardwater or the longevity (or overall health) of a discus in hard water vs soft water; i do know there are quite a few species of fishes that don't do very well in hardwater with regards to longevity but i can't say with authority if that does or does not applies to discus.

Having said that i suppose if a fish longevity is 15 years in perfect condition and only 14 years in harsh condition with no other ill effect at the end of the day it probably doesn't matter much but ....

 

[Byron]

How do you explain the information in the attached documents then?

I don't. I've no idea whatsoever as to the facts behind anything in documents pulled out of nowhere. I've no idea of the circumstances, the individuals providing such "advice," or anything else. If it supposedly claims that nitrates are safe, it is definitely false data and not worth reading.

I do not argue scientific evidence, and it is clear with respect to two important facts. First, nitrate like ammonia and nitrite is toxic to fish, though these perform differently as I have previously stated. And second, none of the aquarium tropical fish we maintain have evolved or now occur in habitats with nitrates present in the water at levels that can be tested with our aquarium kits.

 

[StevenF]

Plants consume different nutrients at different rates. IF the water has potassium nitrate, calcium / magnesium sulfate and or calcium magnesium sulfate these compounds will not have any affect on PH. When plants grow they need vastly more nitrogen, potassium, and magnesium then sulfur and chloride. So nitrogen, potassium calcium and magneisum levels will drop a lot faster than sulfur and chlorine. Free sulfate and chloride are strongly acidic and will push the PH down. Free nitrate is also acidic and can push the pH down. Plants need more nitrogen then than any other nutrient I have listed here. So it is a very minor contributor of a PH drop

In most tanks there is more sulfur AND chloride than nitrate in the water. So nitrate will not dominate the PH of the water. The author of that paper blamed the nitraete levels (up to 200ppm) for causing the PH drop but didn't measure or consider sulfur and chlorine. Many people don't even know that plants need sulfur and chlorine to grow. The article is listing nitrate levels of 200ppm, 100mmp, and 50ppm for discuss I don't believe those nitrate numbers. 2.00 ppm, 1.00 ppm and 0.5 ppm makes a lot more sense . I have never kept discuss but they are known to be very sensitive to high nitrate level.

The EPA has set a limit of 10ppm of nitrate in drinking water. Levels above that have linked blue baby syndrome. This condition can kill infants. Nitrate damages the blood and significantly reduces its ability to cary oxygen.

 

[GaryE]

The problem with this statement is what is 'successful' fish keeping. If you keep a fish 5 years from birth to death is that successful? What if the fish normal life span is 4 years; what if the lifespan is normally 20 years. A good example are cory - many say that in good condition many species of cory can live 20+ years but most fish keeper don't have them anywhere close to that number of years. Then the question becomes why - was it poor genetic or poor conditions for the fish and if poor condition what was the poor condition; too much nitrate; too much calcium; too much this or too much that ? How do we really know if we are keeping our fishes 'successfully' ?

I am supposed to receive 100 cardinals early next week. I'll sell 50 and keep the others. If 80% of them are not alive in 5 years, then I am not maintaining my tanks well. I hope for a solid 7 to 9 years from them. I made 7 with a large healthy group before a natural disaster situation killed them, but since I know that's possible, I take it as a baseline. I had to give away 5 year olds when I moved last February.
I know I'm succeeding with a fish if it breeds, if it acts consistently with what it is expected to from observations in nature, and if it lives long in good shape. I can go on youtube and find underwater videos from their habitat. I can check their behaviour in comparison. That's the main point of success.

I know my current water reads the same as the water I had in a house 900 km west of here. I know different algaes grow here, and different plants seem to like this water than where I used to live. So the water isn't exact, even if what I can read with my testing (minimal) is dead on. . You're right that water is really not easy to understand.

I keep my great white sharks with neons in 200 nitrates. That's my answer to the things posted as sources. Stalin said that paper would put up with anything written on it, and the same holds true for the internet. There are no sources, no obvious peer editing, no approval process in those texts, so I put them aside til someone working seriously shares their work. The Internet is great and if I decide to believe something, I can find many sources to agree with me. I can even make them up and post them. It's especially fun if I can go against all established knowledge and approaches because then I look like a daring, independent thinker! I may be wrong, but I can be shocking.

 

[anewbie]

I
I know I'm succeeding with a fish if it breeds, if it acts consistently with what it is expected to from observations in nature, and if it lives long in good shape.

Well since to be successful your cardinals need to breed; and for them to breed they need blackwater like conditions (low ph pure water); so I presume you are keeping them in low ph and very pure water which is probably why they have long life....

 

[anewbie]

In most tanks there is more sulfur AND chloride than nitrate in the water. So nitrate will not dominate the PH of the water. The author of that paper blamed the nitraete levels (up to 200ppm) for causing the PH drop but didn't measure or consider sulfur and chlorine. Many people don't even know that plants need sulfur and chlorine to grow. The article is listing nitrate levels of 200ppm, 100mmp, and 50ppm for discuss I don't believe those nitrate numbers. 2.00 ppm, 1.00 ppm and 0.5 ppm makes a lot more sense .

Yea those numbers didn't make sense; i was almost thinking it was 200ppm TDS and 50ppm tds for breeding which would make more sense. I know most discus keeper i follow on the internet grumble about having to do 3 to 5 50% water changes a week....

 

[GaryE]

Well since to be successful your cardinals need to breed; and for them to breed they need blackwater like conditions (low ph pure water); so I presume you are keeping them in low ph and very pure water which is probably why they have long life....

I made a poor choice of words - I should have said 'spawn' over breed as I haven't raised any young. That's a project. But I've seen the behaviour in my current soft water, as well as in medium hard water. Nothing came of it, as no eggs would devlop in the water I had for them. But the behaviour indicated that they are doing well in the set up.

 

[anewbie]

I made a poor choice of words - I should have said 'spawn' over breed as I haven't raised any young. That's a project. But I've seen the behaviour in my current soft water, as well as in medium hard water. Nothing came of it, as no eggs would devlop in the water I had for them. But the behaviour indicated that they are doing well in the set up.

I partially baited you because i am setting up a few low ph aquariums after i move and in one of them i think i'll see if my cardinals will spawn. It remains to see how low the ph will be but the intention is pure ro water with a thick layer of leaves to stablize the ph.

 

[GaryE]

It's hard. The larvae need total darkness. My breeding attempts and future plans had dark, peaty rainwater tanks full of oak leaves. The tanks were treated as the old school tetra breeders used to do it - a towel over them. I saw fry once, but I haven't solved the timings of letting light in. I just got a 40 gallon rain bucket, just in time for winter. But in the Spring when water falls again (not snow), I'll have another few gos at these fish.
Got to get the eavestroughs up on the garage, and then see if living close to the sea affects the water, via salt.

Leaves will drop the pH, but it's the hardness that matters. I have bred Apistogramma njisseni, wild caughts from a pH in the 5 range, in pH 6.8 water, but with 20ppm hardness. Tannins have to be there, but I don't think the pH reading is more than a secondary indicator of minerals (not) being there.

 

[anewbie]

It's hard. The larvae need total darkness. My breeding attempts and future plans had dark, peaty rainwater tanks full of oak leaves. The tanks were treated as the old school tetra breeders used to do it - a towel over them. I saw fry once, but I haven't solved the timings of letting light in. I just got a 40 gallon rain bucket, just in time for winter. But in the Spring when water falls again (not snow), I'll have another few gos at these fish.
Got to get the eavestroughs up on the garage, and then see if living close to the sea affects the water, via salt.

Leaves will drop the pH, but it's the hardness that matters. I have bred Apistogramma njisseni, wild caughts from a pH in the 5 range, in pH 6.8 water, but with 20ppm hardness. Tannins have to be there, but I don't think the pH reading is more than a secondary indicator of minerals (not) being there.

Well my hope is the tds will be below 10; I've been over a year designing how my water system will work but there are some unknown how the equipment will actually preform until it is setup. I'm a bit surprise the cardinals wrigglers require absolutely no light. I wonder why that is the case.

 

[Byron]

Paracheirodon axelrodi (cardinal tetra) have what Baensch & Riehl [editors of Aquarium Atlas in five volumes] termed a "light phobia." This actually applies to most forest fish which occur in watercourses (blackwater certainly but some clearwater too) which either never receive direct sunlight (and direct moonlight, worth noting) or have very heavy shading from either or both floating plants and marginal/overhanging vegetation and forest canopy. It is not only the eggs that are sensitive to light, but obviously the fish themselves.

During an investigation reported by Geisler & Annibal (1987), repeated observations in the biotopes of Paracheirodon axelrodi (cardinal tetra) indicated that the fish avoided the more strongly lit parts of their favourite waters and that their habitat ends almost to the centimeter on the border between shade and sunshine. [Reference: Geisler, Rolf & Sergio R. Annibal (1987), "Ecology of the Cardinal Tetra, Paracheirodon axelrodi (Pisces, Characoidea), in the River Basin of the Rio Negro, Brazil, as well as Breeding-related Factors," Tropical Fish Hobbyist, Volume XXXV, No. 12 (August, 1987), pp. 66-87.]

In their natural habitat cardinals are found in small slow-moving streams and still waters having a pH from 3.4 to 4.5, some locations a bit higher but rarely above 6 (the Rio Negro basin), and less than 1 degree of hardness. The Orinoco waters are acidic but ranges are higher. Interestingly, the "cardinals" found in the Rio Negro basin are different from those in the Orinoco with respect to their colour/pattern. In the late 1990's, Dr. Jacques Gery suggested that they might differ morphologically, and be distinct species, sub-species or variants; more recent studies are suggesting the latter. They are outwardly recognizable in three ways. On the Columbian form, the neon line ends at the adipose fin, the red colouration does not extend as far under the belly so there is slightly more white, and the fish is chunkier in general build. By contrast, the neon line on the Brazilian form extends below the adipose fin and is straighter in appearance, the red extends slightly further down on the belly, and the fish is more slender and thus appears longer than the Columbian form.

 

[anewbie]

Paracheirodon axelrodi (cardinal tetra) have what Baensch & Riehl [editors of Aquarium Atlas in five volumes] termed a "light phobia." This actually applies to most forest fish which occur in watercourses (blackwater certainly but some clearwater too) which either never receive direct sunlight (and direct moonlight, worth noting) or have very heavy shading from either or both floating plants and marginal/overhanging vegetation and forest canopy. It is not only the eggs that are sensitive to light, but obviously the fish themselves.

During an investigation reported by Geisler & Annibal (1987), repeated observations in the biotopes of Paracheirodon axelrodi (cardinal tetra) indicated that the fish avoided the more strongly lit parts of their favourite waters and that their habitat ends almost to the centimeter on the border between shade and sunshine. [Reference: Geisler, Rolf & Sergio R. Annibal (1987), "Ecology of the Cardinal Tetra, Paracheirodon axelrodi (Pisces, Characoidea), in the River Basin of the Rio Negro, Brazil, as well as Breeding-related Factors," Tropical Fish Hobbyist, Volume XXXV, No. 12 (August, 1987), pp. 66-87.]

In their natural habitat cardinals are found in small slow-moving streams and still waters having a pH from 3.4 to 4.5, some locations a bit higher but rarely above 6 (the Rio Negro basin), and less than 1 degree of hardness. The Orinoco waters are acidic but ranges are higher. Interestingly, the "cardinals" found in the Rio Negro basin are different from those in the Orinoco with respect to their colour/pattern. In the late 1990's, Dr. Jacques Gery suggested that they might differ morphologically, and be distinct species, sub-species or variants; more recent studies are suggesting the latter. They are outwardly recognizable in three ways. On the Columbian form, the neon line ends at the adipose fin, the red colouration does not extend as far under the belly so there is slightly more white, and the fish is chunkier in general build. By contrast, the neon line on the Brazilian form extends below the adipose fin and is straighter in appearance, the red extends slightly further down on the belly, and the fish is more slender and thus appears longer than the Columbian form.

Well it makes sense that fish that spends its early year in very dim areas not liking light; but that doesn't really explain to myself why the larva will die if exposed to light. Also I wonder if younger frys are raised in a more lit area (tank bred) would they have less of a light phobia ? Most of my current tetra are wc but they do not hang out in the darkest area of the aquarium but more of the middle area (with regards to light); that is an area with some shading but not complete shading nor no shading.

 

[Byron]

The genetic makeup of each species holds this data. Provide what the fish "expects" and you are much more likely to have success be it health or spawning.

 

[anewbie]

The genetic makeup of each species holds this data. Provide what the fish "expects" and you are much more likely to have success be it health or spawning.

I'm not sure what you are saying - i am saying my current cardinals definitely prefer more light area of the tank to dimmer area of the tank... so there is that data point.

 

[Byron]

The fish species DNA holds the genetic blueprint of the species which includes its preferences or needs for specific parameters, light, water flow, numbers for a shoaling species, etc, etc. I've no data to go beyond this basic.