Having an issue with my salt and pepper Corys .

[jaylach]

Nitrates at 20ppm is too high? Any supporting evidence for that? If there is, I would be interested. If you have time, or the source.

Hard to give definitive answers as to nitrates as it can be species specific. Different species can tolerate higher nitrate levels and some cannot. For instance my two favorite fish are rope fish and Panda Garra. A rope can handle 20 PPM nitrates without batting an eye. This MAY be due to a rope being a lung fish so is also breathing actual air. That same 20 PPM of nitrates is borderline fatal for panda garra.

Here is an article on nitrates as you asked for resources. Please note that while the article states that some fish can survive at higher nitrate levels it recommends a level of 5-10 PPM.

https://www.tfhmagazine.com/articles/freshwater/keeping-up-with-nitrate

 

[AJ356]

Hard to give definitive answers as to nitrates as it can be species specific. Different species can tolerate higher nitrate levels and some cannot. For instance my two favorite fish are rope fish and Panda Garra. A rope can handle 20 PPM nitrates without batting an eye. This MAY be due to a rope being a lung fish so is also breathing actual air. That same 20 PPM of nitrates is borderline fatal for panda garra.

Here is an article on nitrates as you asked for resources. Please note that while the article states that some fish can survive at higher nitrate levels it recommends a level of 5-10 PPM.

https://www.tfhmagazine.com/articles/freshwater/keeping-up-with-nitrate

Thank you for taking the time. You stated that 20 ppm Nitrate is usually the high end limit for "most" fish. Some fish are probably more susceptible than others. I don't have sources or evidence to return to you or Byron to be fair. I just remained far from convinced that telling someone that 20ppm nitrate is "too high" for an (at the time identified corydoras and either Trigonostigma heteromorpha or Trigonostigma espei as not sure which one Richee has), is factually correct. Well it was more Byron that was saying that. Obviously, 0 nitrates is best, but I disagree with the two seemingly blanket statements you have both made on here that is probably more personal opinion, but I love your reply and thanks for that. At the end of the day @Byron is telling us 20ppm nitrate is "too high" for Corydoras and the common rasbora's I have listed above. It's for each person reading to make a judgment on that. When you state something as "fact", that's the issue. Best practice perhaps.

 

[AJ356]

Ammonia, nitrite and nitrate are all toxic to fish. The first two act much quicker than the third, but it is still something to keep as low as possible. There is increasing evidence that 20ppm is the upper limit. Cichlids are now believed to be more harmed by nitrates, responsible for hole in the head for example. The effect of nitrate is slowly weakening the fish. The fish usually dies of other issues, but nitrates contribute to these so they are the underlying problem.

This should not be surprising when one realizes that nitrates in tropical watercourses are so low as to basically be zero.

Okay, thanks for additional information.

 

[Byron]

For the record, my earlier comments were from Neale Monks. I think the point is that nitrate is not good for fish, whatever the species, and the weakening effect can be stronger or weaker, but it is still there. I had tanks that ran in the zero to 5ppm range for years, and that should be the aim. Only if one has high nitrates in the source water does this become impossible. But the idea that nitrates don't matter is false thinking.

 

[Richee]

Thank you for taking the time. You stated that 20 ppm Nitrate is usually the high end limit for "most" fish. Some fish are probably more susceptible than others. I don't have sources or evidence to return to you or Byron to be fair. I just remained far from convinced that telling someone that 20ppm nitrate is "too high" for an (at the time identified corydoras and either Trigonostigma heteromorpha or Trigonostigma espei as not sure which one Richee has), is factually correct. Well it was more Byron that was saying that. Obviously, 0 nitrates is best, but I disagree with the two seemingly blanket statements you have both made on here that is probably more personal opinion, but I love your reply and thanks for that. At the end of the day @Byron is telling us 20ppm nitrate is "too high" for Corydoras and the common rasbora's I have listed above. It's for each person reading to make a judgment on that. When you state something as "fact", that's the issue. Best practice perhaps.

Trigonostigma espei , Corydoras habrosus, Boraras merah are in the tank

 

[jaylach]

Thank you for taking the time. You stated that 20 ppm Nitrate is usually the high end limit for "most" fish. Some fish are probably more susceptible than others. I don't have sources or evidence to return to you or Byron to be fair. I just remained far from convinced that telling someone that 20ppm nitrate is "too high" for an (at the time identified corydoras and either Trigonostigma heteromorpha or Trigonostigma espei as not sure which one Richee has), is factually correct. Well it was more Byron that was saying that. Obviously, 0 nitrates is best, but I disagree with the two seemingly blanket statements you have both made on here that is probably more personal opinion, but I love your reply and thanks for that. At the end of the day @Byron is telling us 20ppm nitrate is "too high" for Corydoras and the common rasbora's I have listed above. It's for each person reading to make a judgment on that. When you state something as "fact", that's the issue. Best practice perhaps.

Sure there are a LOT of arguments about nitrate levels but it pretty much accepted that 20 PPM is the high limit even though there exceptions. Shoot, there are fish out there that can live in a tank with a nitrate level or 80-100 PPM. That does not mean that it is good for the fish, just that they can survive.

This is not meant to be directly directed to you but many just care about if the fish can live, not what is best for the fish. These people tend to think of fish as a decoration and just replace when some die. Then there are those that look at keeping fish as a responsibility and strive to give the best conditions possible. Keeping fish is no less a responsibility than having a dog or cat. Sure, a dog or cat can survive in close to freezing temperatures but would they be in the best possible condition?

While it may be totally true that your temperature (I know that you are lowering) and nitrates are within survival levels for the beasties that does not mean that it is what is best for the critters. Let's try an analogy... Say that you have a car that the engine has a red line of 6500 RPM. Are you going to always run it that 6500 RPM? Of course not as, while it can run at that level, doing all the time is going to drastically lessen the life span of the engine. It is the same with fish. Putting the beasties in water that is at the top levels of survival is going to dramatically lessen their life span as they will be under constant stress.

I mean zero insult or anything but think about it... Do you want to be one that sees fish as just a decoration or one that takes responsibility for a life form you have brought in?

 

[Richee]

Sure there are a LOT of arguments about nitrate levels but it pretty much accepted that 20 PPM is the high limit even though there exceptions. Shoot, there are fish out there that can live in a tank with a nitrate level or 80-100 PPM. That does not mean that it is good for the fish, just that they can survive.

This is not meant to be directly directed to you but many just care about if the fish can live, not what is best for the fish. These people tend to think of fish as a decoration and just replace when some die. Then there are those that look at keeping fish as a responsibility and strive to give the best conditions possible. Keeping fish is no less a responsibility than having a dog or cat. Sure, a dog or cat can survive in close to freezing temperatures but would they be in the best possible condition?

While it may be totally true that your temperature (I know that you are lowering) and nitrates are within survival levels for the beasties that does not mean that it is what is best for the critters. Let's try an analogy... Say that you have a car that the engine has a red line of 6500 RPM. Are you going to always run it that 6500 RPM? Of course not as, while it can run at that level, doing all the time is going to drastically lessen the life span of the engine. It is the same with fish. Putting the beasties in water that is at the top levels of survival is going to dramatically lessen their life span as they will be under constant stress.

I mean zero insult or anything but think about it... Do you want to be one that sees fish as just a decoration or one that takes responsibility for a life form you have brought in?

Temp and parameters also vary from wild fish vs captive bred. A lot of hobby fish are kept ain conditions different than their natural habitat and they have adapted, I would go as far to say it’s impossible to completely replicate their natural habitat when they are across the world . You can do you’re best to get them as close , but the vast majority of hobby fish are capable of adapting to your water parameters as most likely they are being raised in that same water you have in the fish store . Now having them completely off , and for certain fish it is detrimental , but a lot of fish are adaptable and can thrive not just survive, also I’ve got to get a better test. The API strips aren’t very accurate so it’s hard to read the right number.

 

[Byron]

Like all animals, fish have evolved over thousands of years to function in very specific water parameters. Fish are more closely tied to their aquatic environment than any terrestrial animal. If anyone thinks these fish can "adapt" to vastly differing parameters, they should do some research on fish biology. They cannot and they do not, most of the time. There are always exceptions. But this "need" is programmed into the species DNA over thousands of years. Do you really think this can be ignored or changed at will?

"Adapted" is a misleading term. They cannot change their genetic code just to suit aquarists. As I said above, some species are different, but considering the two in this thread, Corydoras habrosus and Trigonostigma hengeli (or eques), this is not the case. As with the nitrates, this slowly weakens the fish.

 

[Richee]

Like all animals, fish have evolved over thousands of years to function in very specific water parameters. Fish are more closely tied to their aquatic environment than any terrestrial animal. If anyone thinks these fish can "adapt" to vastly differing parameters, they should do some research on fish biology. They cannot and they do not, most of the time. There are always exceptions. But this "need" is programmed into the species DNA over thousands of years. Do you really think this can be ignored or changed at will?

"Adapted" is a misleading term. They cannot change their genetic code just to suit aquarists. As I said above, some species are different, but considering the two in this thread, Corydoras habrosus and Trigonostigma hengeli (or eques), this is not the case. As with the nitrates, this slowly weakens the fish.

My temp is at 74 now

 

[Byron]

My temp is at 74 now

That is fine, you can move up to 75 so if it hovers around 74-75 OK.

 

[Richee]

Sure there are a LOT of arguments about nitrate levels but it pretty much accepted that 20 PPM is the high limit even though there exceptions. Shoot, there are fish out there that can live in a tank with a nitrate level or 80-100 PPM. That does not mean that it is good for the fish, just that they can survive.

This is not meant to be directly directed to you but many just care about if the fish can live, not what is best for the fish. These people tend to think of fish as a decoration and just replace when some die. Then there are those that look at keeping fish as a responsibility and strive to give the best conditions possible. Keeping fish is no less a responsibility than having a dog or cat. Sure, a dog or cat can survive in close to freezing temperatures but would they be in the best possible condition?

While it may be totally true that your temperature (I know that you are lowering) and nitrates are within survival levels for the beasties that does not mean that it is what is best for the critters. Let's try an analogy... Say that you have a car that the engine has a red line of 6500 RPM. Are you going to always run it that 6500 RPM? Of course not as, while it can run at that level, doing all the time is going to drastically lessen the life span of the engine. It is the same with fish. Putting the beasties in water that is at the top levels of survival is going to dramatically lessen their life span as they will be under constant stress.

I mean zero insult or anything but think about it... Do you want to be one that sees fish as just a decoration or one that takes responsibility for a life form you have brought in?

That is fine, you can move up to 75 so if it hovers around 74-75 OK.

Just found this look at its eyes