Copper Pipe

[Naughts]

There are occasions when we need to do an emergency large water change - removing medication, cleaners or insecticides sprayed near the tank, a fish food spillage, a toddler making their own contribution of toys/foods/drinks for the fish, forgetting to dechlorinate, the water company adding chemicals to the system, adverse weather or other natural disasters polluting the water or air...etc
In this moment it is much better to have a tank with parameters close to the tap water than one that has been allowed, or even encouraged, to slowly drift away from that norm rendering a large water change a hazard.

 

[Uberhoust]

@Byron Thanks for the documents. I reviewed them last night and ran some more simulations with my spreadsheet. It is clear after the review and tests that larger water changes are indeed better, especially if the system, tank, produces larger amounts of waste. The biggest difference is not with the maximum concentration, those are the same for the total amount of water removed, but instead with the average value which can be almost halved with bigger changes.

 

[ClownLurch]

Just a quick note to confirm that I do at least 3% per day. So approx. 21% per week not 3% per week.

Aaaaarrrrgggghhh but what if thursdays 3% was actually the 3% added on Tuesday? Eh? Eh? Eh?

 

[WhistlingBadger]

Please refrain from name-calling and ridiculing. Calling appeals to scientific research "nonsense" and accusing people of OCD is not called for. Many reasons for water changing have been cited besides people wanting their tanks unnaturally clean. Disagreeing is OK, but please keep the language civil. Thank you.

 

[StevenF]

Many have read on the web that copper is toxic to invertibrits and that the concentration should be no higher than 0.001ppm. I can tell you this is not correct.

There are 3 sources of copper in a tank fish food, Copper dissolved in your tap water from copper pipes, and copper in fertilizers.

In my tank I use RO water which basically has no copper in it. The tank is mainly a shrimp tank with Nerve Snails and pond snails. Algae naturally growing in my tank was the primary food for the shrimp and snails.. So I wasn't adding fish food at the time.. My plants would not grow witless than 0.001ppm of copper in the Flourish comprehensive fertilizer. I had to make my own fertilizer to to get around this and other issues I had. So In my tank I can now control the copper level.

My blue Dream shrimp and snails showed no adverse reaction to 0.020ppm (sustained) of copper in my tank In fact the pond snails and shrimp were successfully reproducing. All animals and plants need copper.to live. Also humans have iron based blood but shrimp have copper based blood. Based on my observation I strongly believe shrimp can handle fare more than 0.020 ppm of copper sulfate. But I never tried pushing the dose even higher.

 

[StevenF]

Note the actual amount of copper plants need in a than is between 2 to 10ppm depending on light levels and the levels of other nutrients plants need.

 

[kiko]

Please refrain from name-calling and ridiculing. Calling appeals to scientific research "nonsense" and accusing people of OCD is not called for. Many reasons for water changing have been cited besides people wanting their tanks unnaturally clean. Disagreeing is OK, but please keep the language civil. Thank you.

oi? ridiculing? naaa...this thread was mostly about a copper pipe until it was highjacked about people's ideas on how he should do water changes...
and people keep bringing papers to back up their claims...
something I've always liked is stability...and according to DR. White a researcher for brisbane university fish like acidic water https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/03/11/2841714.htm
according to blogger Eileen...tap water is no good for fish..we should ALL start using RO and distilled water and fix our water parameters accordingly http://blogs.thatpetplace.com/thatfishblog/2010/11/24/finding-the-right-water-for-your-aquarium/
and according to the "web MD" (I actually found a titled internet doctor! xD)
big water changes are bad for fish and you run the risk of resetting the nitrogen cycle
https://pets.webmd.com/how-to-change-fish-tank-water and should be 10-15% for small tanks and 20% for larger ones
I'm sure I can just go round and round finding stuff to back up anything right or wrong..

point being...OP does 21%/weekly which is accepted by most as a decent water change right?
so what's all this fuss about his water changes when he was literally asking about copper and it's effects on fish
people just got focused that he does 3%/daily and all the reasons why it's good or bad instead of the actual OPs question

-------> breeders do it with drip systems at around 20%/week just like the OP <-------

who do I trust? a joe schmoe like Dean(co-op) or vice which are literally 2 people that live with their fish and have probably tested a million ways of doing things
for better end results (more fry), without phds and that rely on the amount of fish produced to make money?

or a phd that couldn't even breed fish and had to pay breeders to come show him how to do it...but has a youtube channel? and so people use his name to "back up their stuff?"
when they don't even bother to know he breeds the very fish he claims to "save" for profit in Brazil to big aquariums...
PhD - Leandro Sousa - https://www.youtube.com/c/LeandroSousa_IctioXingu

or them internet PhD's to change my water at 90%?

 

[ClownLurch]

But it’s not a 21% weekly WC though.
3%x7=21 but 3% of every new 3% is changed out every WC.

 

[kiko]

let's say it's 10%...
does it really matter if it's worked for him?

 

[sparkypenguin]

But it’s not a 21% weekly WC though.
3%x7=21 but 3% of every new 3% is changed out every WC.

I believe after 7 days @ 3% it would work out that I would have removed 19.20% of the original water.
The other 1.8% would be from water that had been put in during the last 7 days.
So it's not that much of a difference really (I think! )

point being...OP does 21%/weekly which is accepted by most as a decent water change right?
so what's all this fuss about his water changes when he was literally asking about copper and it's effects on fish
people just got focused that he does 3%/daily and all the reasons why it's good or bad instead of the actual OPs question

I do agree that topics do get highjacked quite often and it's a little frustrating that sometimes you don't actually get an answer to the question but on the other hand if anybody has a concern about anything posted surely you would want them to highlight it?
Often the best discussions on here are from highjacked threads and the thread can always be brought back to the OP questions by a simple post, then once you have enough info you can simply let the other people on the thread continue with whatever discussion they wish.

I'm sure I can just go round and round finding stuff to back up anything right or wrong..

As a relatively inexperience tank keeper I do 100% agree that the amount of conflicting information from all sources is extremely confusing.
I had a similar lengthy conversation on this forum quite recently about this exact issue when it comes to the recommended water parameters for fish.
I just try to listen / read etc as much as I realistically can and then apply common sense, hopefully this leads to a happy and long life for my inhabitants.
However as a caveat I have come to the conclusion that common sense is purely based on your current knowledge / experience and if you lack specific knowledge often what appears to be common sense can often be the total opposite.

Thanks for the documents. I reviewed them last night and ran some more simulations with my spreadsheet. It is clear after the review and tests that larger water changes are indeed better, especially if the system, tank, produces larger amounts of waste. The biggest difference is not with the maximum concentration, those are the same for the total amount of water removed, but instead with the average value which can be almost halved with bigger changes.

Not to be too cheeky but any chance of a copy of that spreadsheet?

 

[ClownLurch]

I’m only messing about.

 

[ClownLurch]

I take it your not a fan of Newcastle?


Nothing has disappointed me more in the world of fish than how many more types of fish are black n white in comparison with Red n white. It’s a planet wide outrage.

 

[TwoTankAmin]

You want the answer to copper pipes? I have a house full of them. A few years back we needed to replace a short run of copper piping close to the water tanks. I asked the plumbers if they could use and alternative for that piece. However, when I was setting up my first tank in Jan, 2001, I did some research as I knew the house (built in 1961 and the second building in 1971) had copper pipes galore. Here is what I discovered.

Copper can get into your drinking water as it passes through your plumbing system. Over time, plumbing parts with copper in them usually build up a natural coating that prevents copper from being dissolved into the water. Plumbing systems with copper parts fewer than three years old usually have not had time to build up this protective coating. You can take the steps below to help keep your drinking water safe:

• Let the water run for at least 30-60 seconds before using it for drinking or cooking if the water has not been turned on in over six hours.
• Use cold water for drinking, making food, and making baby formula. Hot water releases more copper from pipes than cold water.

from https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/water/contaminants/copper.html

So, in our utility space there is about a 2 or 3 foot section of non-copper piping which was installed long after I had lots of tanks running. I have softish neutral water. However, acid water will tend to minimize the level of coating on the copper piping as well as accellerte leaching in new pipes. Today many new installations use plastic/PVC piping.

 

[TwoTankAmin]

@kiko

I checked the first link in your post:

and according to DR. White a researcher for brisbane university fish like acidic water https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/03/11/2841714.htm

And since I read and post research papers on this site, I immediately clicked through to your first link. Here is the opening paragraph:

Smaller fish are likely to fare best as the world's oceans become increasingly acidic, suggest Australian researchers.

Seawater is predicted to drop in pH from the current 8.1 to 7.8 by the end of this century as a consequence of ongoing CO2 absorption and fears are held for the ability of much marine life to adapt.

This thread deals with fresh water??

Then I read another one of your links and found this:

Completely replacing the water in the fish tank is a bad idea because it will remove beneficial bacteria that live in the tank and reset the nitrogen cycle, which could kill your fish. If you regularly clean your tank, doing a partial water change is the best option.

WOW! You cannot reset the cycle with a 100% water change (and by this I do not mean sucking the water out if the substrate and wiping down the glass etc. So lets call it a 90% water change to be more precise.

Finally, none of your posted information is actually scientific research. That usually makes it "stuff" but not science. Science is found in peer reviewed scientific journals. Do the research and we learn that it is nitrogen concentrations which determine bacterial behavior of the nitrifyers. When N is present in sufficient concentration the bacteria create and live in a biofilm. But some small % will also be motile. But if N levels drop to very low levels, more of the bacteria become motile. This is one of the survival strategies of a bacteria that do not form spores. Here is one paper which investigates this:

Schmidt, I., Steenbakkers, P.J., op den Camp, H.J., Schmidt, K. and Jetten, M.S., 2004. Physiologic and proteomic evidence for a role of nitric oxide in biofilm formation by Nitrosomonas europaea and other ammonia oxidizers. Journal of bacteriology, 186(9), pp.2781-2788.

ABSTRACT​

NO, a free radical gas, is the signal for Nitrosomonas europaea cells to switch between different growth modes. At an NO concentration of more than 30 ppm, biofilm formation by N. europaea was induced. NO concentrations below 5 ppm led to a reversal of the biofilm formation, and the numbers of motile and planktonic (motile-planktonic) cells increased. In a proteomics approach, the proteins expressed by N. europaea were identified. Comparison studies of the protein patterns of motile-planktonic and attached (biofilm) cells revealed several clear differences. Eleven proteins were found to be up or down regulated. Concentrations of other compounds such as ammonium, nitrite, and oxygen as well as different temperatures and pH values had no significant effect on the growth mode of and the proteins expressed by N. europaea.

from https/journals.asm.org/doi/full/10.1128/JB.186.9.2781-2788.2004

 

[anewbie]

I only skimmed this thread so what I have to say might be redundant. In the USA many if not most houses have copper pipe (FDA approved) for drinking water and leaching is not an issue for inteverts; having said that if you water is RO water or very close to RO water which is highly corrosive you do not want to use copper or pvc pipes; with polyp being optimal and some versions of plex being ok. This is likely not relevant to the op question. Having said this there are different types of copper pipe and they are not all equivalent. stainless steel 301,302 and 303 have options in usage. Btw polyp pipe has two huge disadvantages - first it is very very expensive and second because it is nearly 100% corrosive resistance you can't use glue; and must fuse pipes together which requires special equipment most plumbers lack. There seems to be a wide range of plex piping and you definitely want one that is fda certified for drinking water (plex is fequenlty use to house piping and outside irrigation).