Do You Struggle With Tapwater Nitrates ?

[hamfist]

Yes AC, we've all bred fish and had good success with many in appalling water. I think it's clear that some species are more sensitive than others to nitrate (and of course many other contaminants too). So success with one species does not necessarily equate to success with another.
I have only gone down this route as I am having a particular problem with two certain species failing to thrive. It could be two or three things, but the easiest to change and probably the most likely culprit is nitrate levels. If I had 100% healthy, happy fish then I, too, would not bother testing for, or altering, nitrate levels.

It does, however, seem rather short-sighted to completely ignore decent scientific evidence (as opposed to hearsay chat from other hobbyists) that relatively low levels of nitrate may well be affecting our fish. Even though they seem to thrive, maybe they could be living longer and growing bigger in a lower nitrate environment.

 

[Dave Spencer]

And that's just me spending half an hour on google. There are loads more research articles out there on the subject .. unfortunately you need to pay to access a lot of them.

I know what you mean. Research carried out using tax payers money, then we have to pay more for the results.

I am sorry, but I don`t see how testing carried out on cherry picked species to show the desired results means we should all be testing for nitrates and keeping our nitrates at rock bottom levels, using nitrate removing products from companies that also sell us plant ferts that contain nitrates.

My guess is that the vast majority of tanks on this forum have nitrates at > 20ppm, even out of the tap.

Dave.

 

[hamfist]

My guess is that the vast majority of tanks on this forum have nitrates at > 20ppm, even out of the tap.

Dave.

I expect you're right Dave. And for most, it will not be causing a problem, but for some it will be, or at least they will be suspicious that it could be, a problem.
The whole focus of this thread is clearly aimed at the latter group.

 

[OldMan47]

Please read through that referenced research paper Hamfist. The authors spent an inordinate amount of text justifying why their results were inconclusive and did not support their hypotheses. They refer to other research to explain why their own failed to show the correlation that they expected. Your first link is nothing more than a librarian's look up reference, it contains no research at all.
I will continue to believe what I have actually experienced. Nitrates in my tanks run much higher than the reported values of only 5 ppm, but all of my fish thrive and reproduce freely. The cited levels are really too low to expect them to have a statistically significant result so I am not surprised the authors of the paper had to say why their results really showed nothing significant.

 

[Mikaila31]

I have 20 ppm out of the tap and have never had an issue with it. I do however run planted tanks, but still 40ppm is what my biggest tank runs at in terms of nitrate. I have never had an issue. Practically all my fish breed, emperor tetras, boesemani rainbow, Angelfish, livebearers, and I even once had GBR spawn in that tank. My Rummy nosed tetras always have bright red noses. All my breeding fish are locally bred which IMO makes a difference. The rummies are the only fish from a LFS and they have always been happy and healthy. I honestly see no reason to change anything. If I go to zero nitrates then I will have to dose nitrates for the plants anyway. Sure they could be a little lower out of the tap, but they certainly don't harm anything.

That is your experience. Others have had very different experiences with nitrates.

It could well be that some parameter of your water is somehow protective, in that it enables the fish to tolerate slightly higher levels of nitrates. Out of interest, is your water hard/soft ? what pH ? etc

I have moderately hard water. KH is always around 8 degrees, and I don't have a test for GH. pH is 7.6 out of tap, then 7.0-7.2 after CO2 is injected. 20ppm of nitrates out of the well and around 40ppm in tank. I also use to dose nitrates on top of that, but stopped after a while. My angles spawned just yesterday actually and things like rainbows and emperor tetras spawn almost every morning.

 

[hamfist]

Please read through that referenced research paper Hamfist. The authors spent an inordinate amount of text justifying why their results were inconclusive and did not support their hypotheses. They refer to other research to explain why their own failed to show the correlation that they expected. Your first link is nothing more than a librarian's look up reference, it contains no research at all.
I will continue to believe what I have actually experienced. Nitrates in my tanks run much higher than the reported values of only 5 ppm, but all of my fish thrive and reproduce freely. The cited levels are really too low to expect them to have a statistically significant result so I am not surprised the authors of the paper had to say why their results really showed nothing significant.

I agree the second reference does have some questions about it's findings but still suggests some very interesting affects of nitrate levels, whcih cannot just be ignored out of hand , as you seem to have done.

The first reference I gave is no such thing as a "librarian's lookup reference". It is called an abstract and, as such, is an accurate summary of a piece of original research presented at an international scientific meeting, and has been cited in a number of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles since. You should be embarrassed for trying to rubbish it out of hand. Yes, to get the full paper I would need to have paid money, but that is par for the course these days for most full scripts available over the www.

Evidence is only as good as the person interpretting it. I have a Ph.D. obtained doing research into the immune responses of fish and, as such, have a reasonable level of skill in such matters.

To remind you, that was just a quick sample of what I could find over 30 minutes on google. It staggers me why there are so many folks who are determined to reject the eveidence that many species are sensitive to long-term low levels of nitrates in their water.

 

[ian]

i think what OM is getting at is that, when presenting research, it has to be credible, not just a Abstract (i have read many medical abstarct, which look great, but when critiqued is rubbish research). It needs to be peer reviewed, you have a PHD, you should know that. Just a quick search on Google for evidence regarding nitrates on a forum doesn't really wash. You have a PHD, you should critique your research before putting it on the table. I still believe from what i have read and critiqued personally that Nitrates of 20ppm-30ppm don't cause a problem in a fish tank. You should have a look at the Barr Report, it makes good reading (coming from a planted tank point of veiw)

 

[SuperColey1]

It staggers me why there are so many folks who are determined to reject the eveidence that many species are sensitive to long-term low levels of nitrates in their water.

BECause if it were right then the whole of the aquarium hobby in the UK would've been closed down unless they sold RO units to each owner!!!

There is more than 10ppm in most UK tap sources. I will admit the US (or at least they were under Bush) is targeting getting below 10ppm as standard for human consumption.

However that means every owner/tankkeeper would have to give up livestock or use RO!!!

I have a Ph.D. obtained doing research into the immune responses of fish

Then you are indeed cleverer than me and no doubt more experienced too but for every specialist that says X there is a specialist in the same field that will contradict. I'm afraid stating that you have a PhD in the subject matter doesn't mean you are right and the others are wrong although admittedly it does mean that you are more likely than they to be right.

In this case (as with many) I would still take the long term breeder's advice over the laboratory 'results'.

After all they get paid for keeping as many fish as possible alive. You get paid to get results and publish them. You get paid whether the results are positive or negative. They only get paid for positive!!!

I'm not saying that you are one of the media hungry 'experts' that we see on every news bulletin on a subject but your colleagues that know they can make money with 'sensationalism' tar you all with the same brush I'm afraid.

For example (2 in fact):

Mephedrone was banned in the UK against the advice of the 'drugs council'. Some say it kills so it should be banned. Then one of the 'experts' seizes the opportunity, goes public and even says it should be sold in clubs! Instant payday and was on every news program for weeks!!!

Bank of England decides to do one thing to ease the pressure of the recession/credit crunch. One who resigns is suddenly on every news bulletin saying that is the wrong process and ever since has been on every documentary on the subject!!!

You see what I mean? It's not you personally. Its more the way these days there are so many people in the same field who contradict each other. Some I suspect quite purposefully for their own gains

AC

 

[OldMan47]

I cannot deny that you have a better education, in a formal sense, than I do with my mere high school education Hamfist. I invite you to truly look into the actual evidence, as SuperColey has suggested. I went into those references hoping to learn something and found a reference that was little more than a librarian's reference and an article making excuses for why they could not get decent supportable results. I would have delighted in finding something new and useful to me in my hobby. My education level does not mean that I cannot read and interpret the English language. After many years of post secondary experience, not education, I am well aware of the things people will say to support unsupportable positions. There are reasons that I am doing very well in my chosen profession as a nuclear power professional. I do not accept mere peer review as equivalent to unbiased information. In my business a single wrong choice under pressure spells Three Mile Island or Chernoble.

 

[SuperColey1]

Can I ask something silly? I don't understand a couple of things:

Why would someone who has a PhD obtained doing research into the immune responses of fish suddenly start thinking about nitrates now? Has it just suddenly become a problem? Didn't they know anything on this subjkect when they took their PhD and wouldn't they have followed their 'chosen' subject's advances through the years post graduating?

Also why would someone with this knowledge and understanding of the subject matter use a standard cheap test kit? Surely they would get something a little more accurate. Did you calibrate it first to ensure that it read correctly?

Surely once someone with your background discovered the problem with a 'cheap' test kit they would then confirm their findings with something a little more advanced?

I too have an API master test kit. Used it once when I bought it but not since. I bought it when I started and thought I needed it. However mmy nitrate test was wrong too!!! Just like yours it was reading very low when in fact the area I live in has high N and P. these days I don't worry. I guess mine may have been in the region of 60ppm when I was dosing EI on top of the tap but still fish breeding and that in 30ppm CO2 too

AC

 

[hamfist]

I mentioned my Ph.D. to indicate that I had some experience at analysing evidence rather than any particular expert knowledge in fishkeeping.
During my PhD research I kept 100's and 100's of carp for the experiments. As you all know carp will live in pea soup so it was not difficult to keep them. THey were all kept in the same conditions to make the experiments fair. I was no expert on their care. Just like a scientist working with cells from rats and mice which are kept in their lab is almost certainly no expert in the care and breeding of small mammals.

As for the nitrate discussion, I have at no point even mentioned that lowish nitrate levels negatively affect all or most fish. It seesms pretty obvious to me that "Most" fish live and breed happily in nitrates of 20-40 ppm.

What I am suggesting is that SOME species, in some circumstances, are sensitive to these levels of nitrates in the long term.

So a hundred hobbyists telling me that their own fish are very happy in 40ppm nitrate thank you very much, will not affect my thoughts or opinions. That hearsay evidence does not affect the hypothesis that some fish are sensitive to the nitrates.

Lets just talk about evidence for a while ... there is a heirarchy of evidence in terms of it's credibility. Some should be given more weight than others, I'm sure you all agree. Somewhere near the top are double blind experiments, which are peer reviewed and published in prestigious scientific journals. Then there are less stringent forms of experiments, many of which can still provide excellent evidence. Many of these are still considered very provative, and are accepted by the scientific community under peer-review, and are also published in science journals.
THen there are also loads of other "levels" of evidence which one needs to sort out into some sort of heirarchy of credibility. At the bottom of the heap is the type of comment by the bloke next door who just has an opinion about something.

Concerning nitrates and fish, before about a week or so ago all I had heard was hobbyists hearsay opinions on their own experience. The vast majority having done absolutely no experiments or tests with different nitrate levels in their water. This does include many, many folks who swear that they need to keep nitrates really low for optimal fish health.
So that is evidence, but it is pretty low on the heirarchy of credibility.

Then I decide to do a quick search to see what decent scientific research has been done on the subject. I no longer work in science, so therefore do not have the free access to any journal article I want. I am limited by what is free and available on the www, unless I want to spend money buying articles.
From what I could find, it seems that more research has been done on short term high nitrate exposure in fish and much less on chronic low level exposure.
Of the things that I could quickly find on google, there is definately evidence (much higher up the evidence credibility heirarchy) indicating that lowish levels of nitrates certainly could be toxic in long term exposure. Nowhere did I find any similar type of evidence (on the evidence credibility heirarchy) indicating that long term exposure to nitrates of about 20-40ppm were just fine for any fish.

Personally, I will take a professional scientist's peer-reviewed study and look at the findings. I will take more weight from that, when comparing to a hobbyist's personal opinions, that he has gathered whilst doing no experiments or studies whatsoever. It's simple logic really.

I have searched the decent internet fishy forums heavily for information on this, and I am the ONLY person that I have found that has even found or cited ANY scientific evidence whatsoever.
If evidence to counter the "low level long term toxic nitrates" theory is out there, then I'd love to be directed to it.

BTW, sorry for any apparent rudeness. I can be rather opinionated and tactless at times.

 

[SuperColey1]

I mentioned my Ph.D. to indicate that I had some experience at analysing evidence rather than any particular expert knowledge in fishkeeping.

Big mistake though. When someone 'mentions' their qualification in the context of others challenging their statement it gives the impression of belittling those without the 'little piece of paper'

At the end of the day the majority of us aren't educated to that level. Indeed many of us will also believe that the 'piece of paper' means nothing as being able to say you can do something doesn't mean you can do it. Experience in a controlled environment versus the hands on experience of real life situations is a huge difference in any field. By 'mentioning' it in the context of a disagreement you rub the majority up the wrong way. It gives the impression that we have to listen to you because you are the clever one. Bad mistake especially on the forums.

What I am suggesting is that SOME species, in some circumstances, are sensitive to these levels of nitrates in the long term.

A fair statement. Very good. I would suggest that you can look at this both ways!!! Are there SOME SPECIES that do better in HIGHER nitrates?

So a hundred hobbyists telling me that their own fish are very happy in 40ppm nitrate thank you very much, will not affect my thoughts or opinions. That hearsay evidence does not affect the hypothesis that some fish are sensitive to the nitrates.

hypothesis - You trust a Hypothesis over people's experience? I can make any Hypothesis I want. I regularly do BUT I don't believe it as gospel. I research others findings. Listen to all (including hobbyists) and then make my own opinions. I DO NOT ever then say to others that this is right because hypothesis is what it is. Hypothesis however well thought out and researched is simply put an unproven belief!!!

So a hundred hobbyists

There were a few hobbyists telling you about their own fish. I and OldMan are not saying trust the hobbyists and ignore the scientists. I am talking about breeders. I think really your written word is pretty poor in relation to its tone. Maybe you should've taken a PhD in English Language so that you can write things without rubbing people up the wrong way and belittiling them. Firstly you are Mr PhD and therefore cleverer than those without. Now you are the scientist who is better than the hobbyist.

I know I rub people up the same way and am rubbish with my tone but then as you are well awware, I am not as clever as you nor am I as educated and therefore I am sure you would expect it from an idiot like myself. (I mean that in a jovial tone)

There is a hierarchy of evidence for everything. I am sure you can make anything you want look true if you research far enough. Science moves on and on. Myth doesn't. It lingers around and hinders. Then up comes the same old research that was done again because someone else heard the myth and the myth gains weight and relevance again. I am not saying this is myth at all but there are so many hobbyists and 'experts' alike that are afraid of nutrients in the water and barrel on along the path of righteousness without ever listening to anyone ney sayers.

Credibility is a huge problem. Someone who has produced lots of good work may seem credible and therefore you respect the next piece more than others? However that new work may be flawed. The old work may be proven wrong. Research does not mean give 10 points to the credible source and 1 point to the non credible. It is often the whisper from the unknown that makes the breakthrough not the multi million pound research contract that takes years and delivers little!!!

Research is very important but you have to give equal weight to all aspects and then rule out by equal measure the bad points. this is something that has to be done by all of us on the internet because with so many of us 'uneducated' now able to voice our opinions and thoughts there is a huge amount of myth available.

You guys love the word 'peer reviewed' but it means nothing. Its a pat on the back from the mates. I have my thoughts and understanding all over the web. My peers review it. They say this guy knows what he is saying. Does that make me 'peer reviewd'? Does it mean I am right? I would say yes it means I am peer reviewed but of course it doesn't mean I am right. I could say pigs do fly and put it on the net. Other people read it and guess what. yippee Its now 'peer reviewed' and therefore you can now all believe.

'prestigious journals. - lol Take everything on equal merit. Doesn't mean something is more credible because it is in a more 'prestigious' journal. The same news is in the Daily Star that is in the Times. Its just written in a different way. Both sotries are the same though. Do you trust the Times over the Sun? No you buy the times because you prefer the type of articles in there and the way they write the articles.

I personally think the Telegraph is better Although the pictures are better in the Sport

The 'hierarchy' of evidence' doesn't make some things more credible than others. Just means someone more qualified produces evidence so believe him and not the man on the street who has the practical experience.

At the bottom of the heap is the type of comment by the bloke next door who just has an opinion about something.

Oh deary me. You must love living in your Mansion looking out at the peasants going about their day. Maybe its time for your butler to do a water change for you?

You really do have a 'them and us' conflict going on here.

Yes I admit the man in the street (thats me ) may be opinionated. Maybe even biggoted. Many times doesn't know the full story or doesn't understand the full story but that doesn't mean that his language and grammer and opinions aren't a crude form of the actual reality. Yes he has an opinion about something. Do you not?

BTW, sorry for any apparent rudeness. I can be rather opinionated and tactless at times.

Lol I must get into the habit of reading posts before just quoting and answering. However as you have read above I was right

Hamfist - At the end of the day this isn't a war. If you have found a solution to your problems albeit from the actual change or via a by product or by a side effect I am happy for you. That sorts out your worries but please don't strat to throw 'peer review' and 'scientific journal' out as evidence or fact. At best they are 'the latest understanding' and as we all know from just watching the news this 'latest understanding' changes by the week and more often than not swings back and forth like a pantomime phrase 'Oh yes it si, Oh no it isn't'

Yes put the article on here for people to read. Tell them your opinion of it but leave it there. I am guilty sometimes of the same thing in that I can take something and put it up as proof of my beliefs but at the end of the day I don't know if it is fact or not. The scientists don't either. At best they can try and support the belief but if it were as easy as proof then we would start to run out of science? Another ticked of the list, no need to test it anymore becuase it isn't science now. It is fact.

At the end of the day I am unemployed. I live in a 2 bed council house on the supposed 'worst street' on the supposed 'worst estate' in the whole of my city. I left school at 16 and went straight into work. Does that make my opinion less credible than someone living in a nice street in a nice area with a good education? Of course not. Just means that I may not be able to understand some things as well nor articulate those that I do in as good a way.

Enjoy your fish and enjoy their health.

AC

 

[SuperColey1]

Just to satisfy your liking for 'peer reviews' and 'credible hierarchy' I would point you to this thread by Tom Barr. You will understand the terminolgy better than me. I guess I ignore what I don't understand. lol

So with Tom being such a respected credible source and peer reviews to the extreme I guess that this satisfies you more than the 'hobbyists'. Maybe you prefer the other credible sources? However this is the man I tend to respect the research of the most.

Does that mean that he is right and others are wrong? Not at all. It means that I trust the words as they relate to what I tend to notice within my tank. It may be totally off the mark but that is the beauty of science You test and get the result. You test and test and test. You may test 100 times and get the same result and then suddenly a test shows something different and renders the 100s of tests before as obsolete. Not useless as they were part of the process and part of progress.

That is the true beauty of science. It will never ever be proven fact as the more research and testing is done the more the understanding moves on and quite often long standing 'proof' or 'truth' is dimissed in the flash of an eye when something suddenly shows that we were all living a lie. lol


Hope you enjoy it and no I don't expect you to say OK I believe. I expect you to say. Very good it presents the other side of the argument. It is fine for you to choose the low side where I choose the 'higher side'. Thats the name of the game. Conflict supports research. By its very nature it leads to people trying to find which is right. That is where you come in as your PhD enables you to fulfill the void that I cannot fill. That is where researchers and scientists can then 'earn their money'

http/www.barrreport.com/showthread.php/3267-NO3-NH4-toxicity-test-on-plants-and-critters?highlight=nitrate+toxicity

AC

 

[hamfist]

Excellent link thankyou.

 

[plantbrain]

Do my fish appear sick and dying with 45ppm of NO3 added per week?

Both the fire shrimp and the CRS SS grades came from this tank which has typical EI dosing:

Yawn............

Let's look at Angelfish and discus:

All those angels are all F1's and have never seen any other aquarium their entire lives.
Discus have breed in this tank dozens of times.

Let's look at a review of NO3 toxicity where folks can read more than the mere abstract:

http/www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/homesubs/draft_reports/nitrate_draft.pdf
And Carmargo's oft cited paper:

http/www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/records/region_2/2008/ref2426.pdf

Guppies are in the 190+ ranges, this is N-NO3, so 4.4x that for NO3 ppm.

Inverts are in general, much more sensitive to toxins.
So I have CRS's, Fires, and more RCS than I can catch(1000's) all breeding AND berried and plenty of fry to full grown adult cohorts.

So..........

Those are my results and my evidence.
Falsify those results please.

You cannot.
They are what they are.

The folks who claim EI or NO3's etc.......are so bad.........might be killing fish/shrimp for 1001 reasons not related in the least bit to NO3.
I on the other hand am....much more certain that I have added a certain ppm of NO3, there might be more, but I know that NO3 within those range is independent of fish and invert health.

When the claim is falsified, it's done, over.
When several folks have also falsified it and confirm the same results, then it's really done, over.

You need to then accept the alternative hypothesis: it must be some other dependent factor besides NO3. NO3 in and of itself in the 5-40ppm range poses no known observable risk in aquariums.
Some have gone higher.

But as far as plants, basic management, there's no need for more than this range.

Regards,
Tom Barr