No3 Dosing Toxicity For Fish/shrimp

[plantbrain]

Several years ago many folks claimed excess nutrients caused algae such as "excess" PO4 and NO3. I wanted to know how much excess it would take for this to occur, so I added it to see(testing). Some simple test can easily prove these assetions are patently false.

More recently, another group decided to claim that higher PO4 and NO3 are bad for fish. There are no PO4 toxic levels published in many cases because it's virtually non toxic over the ranges ever encountered by aquarists(say 10ppm or less).

Much like the algae testing of past, the claims are similar in their arguement and approach for fish health. They make the hypothesis, but they offer no back up support, no test, no primary research support, no methods, nothing other than nice fuzzy words. A certain writer also express similar doubts yet still never addressed the issue on any of the merits.

What has been published that are good studies that test the items we are interested in:

Pierce et al 1993 suggested for marine fish:
"Previous studies have indicated that long term exposure to nitrate-N levels above 100 mg/L may be detrimental to fish(440ppm). This study was undertaken to assess the acute toxicity of nitrate to five species of marine fish, while efforts were taken to reduce the nitrate concentration in the recirculating systems."

Marco 1999, suggests that warm water species have a suggested range of "recommended levels of nitrate for warm-water fishes (90 mg N-NO3-/L)"

That's N as NO3, so 4.4X 90 = ~400ppm NO3.

Quite high.

here's a link to the common fathead minnow:

SETAC Journals Online - ACUTE AND CHRONIC TOXICITY OF NITRATE TO FATHEAD MINNOWS (PIMEPHALES PROMELAS), CERIODAPHNIA DUBIA, AND DAPHNIA MAGNA

http/www.setacjournals.org/perlserv/?req...ON%3E2.0.CO%3B2

Do the math for the conversion of N-NO3 to NO3 for ppms.
Quite high huh? Note the sensitivity differences for inverts, they are much better test subjects than fish.

Still not convinced?

Well take a long look at the Fish and NO3 toxicity section in this good review paper at table 3:

http/www.s2.chalmers.se/~tw/DOWNLO...ate_limits.pdf

It's fully accessible.

Remember to multipy by 4.4 to get NO3ppms rather than N-NO3!

As you can see from Table 3, the ranges are extremely high and that warmer water fish tend to have a greater ability to withstand NO3 levels as well. When fish breed, this representst the behavior(positive good) and the most sensntive life stanges(eggs and fry). I routinely have breeding occur in such higher NO3 tanks(30-40ppm etc).

Now some have made claims that my advice concerning NO3 dosing is bad for fish and they have not supported with test, with primary research, nor applied plant tank experience neither over short term nor over long term test.
I've done test with Ghost and amano shrimp and gone to over 160ppm with ghost shrimp and Amano's before death occured. No fish where adversely affected. The ranges I tested are further supported via the research presented here.

Now I ask them to stand before others to show their evidence rather than preceptions to show and prove otherwise.

What I hear from:

1. Calims about less is better(but they rarely say how much less or over what acceptable range, where the risk cut off is/do we gain for maintaining a tighter control)
2. No supporting primary research(still waiting for one review)
3. Anecdotal advice and heresay from other web sites
4. Toxicity citations about humans, not fish
5. No toxcity test of their own to deny/confirm(they make claims/critiques and then do not test their own questions to see if they are correct)
6. Claims that behaviors change(how do we measure this?They offer no solutions, reproductive is a good one I suggest)
7. Ability to set up a control tank and do a repeatable test.
8. Ability to breed and raise fry of several species of a fish in their tanks.
9. Lack long term usage of the higher NO3 levels as they assume they are bad and do not attempt them out of fear.

The burden of proof is upon the critic here.

I've done my job supporting my advice, spent the time testing, have years of fish health to draw upon, the real question folks should ask: have the critics done their job supporting their advice?

I just don't see it.

This is not personal, this is about the topic and getting an answer.
Not assuming less is better or that high levels are really bad or not without first trying it out and seeing if that is the case, not by circumstantial evidence(do you convict a poor innocent nutrient based on circumstantial evidence alone?) or correlation alone, rather, beyond a reasonable doubt.
They get irritated when I go after them about supporting their position, take it personally etc, but the bottom line is not a personal issue, it's about the fish, the hobby and the methods we use the advice that is given.

I do not roll over and accept criticism when it's plainly wrong. I'll still come back and pound the issue till they offer up evidence, not personal remarks.
We look at the observations and facts, set up a test to see if our hypothesis is correct or not, then make a conclusion.

I've done this.
I've provided strong background support.
I've supported my own hypothesis that higher levels are not detrimental to fish or reproduction through testing.
I've repeated such test for years on many species that are supposedly sensitive softer water species.
I've bred, as have many others, fish in such tanks.

Now mine you, I'm not going around suggesting that other methods and advice are detrimental to fish or cause algae. These critics are bringing this up all on their own. I have little issue with folks supporting their usage of a method whatever it may be, but when they malign the methods and advice I suggest in the process, I will defend it.

When I defend the advice, some have suggested I am a bad guy, make lots of personal asumptions about me(some are downright funny however, they are really clueless about others and very assumptive) and am not a nice person. Again using a personalization argument rather than one that supports their position.
My personal life and aspects have no bearing here .........nor should it.

This is about NO3 and fish/shrimp.


Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[George Farmer]

Bookmarked.

Nice one, Tom.

 

[garuf]

thanks for clarifying that tom, i just read about no3 being toxic to both shrimp and fish this cleared it up for me

 

[chr15_8]

wow,

great read and great write up

chris

 

[plantbrain]

The review was particularly damning for the folks that claim NO3 is toxic at the ranges I suggest. Shrimp and inverts are much more suspectible than fish, that is a strong general tread here.

Even with some error factors added in, it is extremely far from the toxic levels.

While I simply do not have enough time to measure every tropical fish and shrimp that folks keep, I can certainly generalize having tried many species and exposed them for well over a decade now with my own personal tanks as well as those of clients.

Give the review a good read though.
They discuss a wider range of issues. It's dense reading, I do understand, not a Harry Potter type book here.

One thing that emboldens me to no end is that I have done these dosing test just to see if what they claim is true.
I've done their hypohtesis and have not been able to verify that they are true.

I did this first.

Then I come back and make my claim.

Many seem to think they can make the claim and conclusion first, then go see what they can do to support it.
Science does not work that nor does critical thinking nor does law.

Glad it doesn't too.

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[plantbrain]

I find it interesting, no takers on the controverisal statements? Many enjoyed claims that my advice was bad and that is was "old, outdated, good only for beginners, new method are available today".

Same deal on 4 other boards. Why don't they offer some real support?
Why are they silent?

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[George Farmer]

Why are they silent?

did someone say something?

 

[andywg]

To be honest, most of the top post needs to be pinned in the n00b area to stop people claiming anything above 20ppm nitrates is bad for fish.

I was already aware of the Pierce quote and seem to recall finding evidence that adult fish of some researched species can survive fine in nitrate concentrations of over 1,000ppm but that some very young fry were somewhat more susceptible to the effects of nitrate (but still around the 70-80ppm area).

 

[plantbrain]

Why are they silent?

did someone say something?

Not here.

Edward and their cohort seems to enjoy making such claims without a shred of support of any sort regarding PPS.
They cry about it when I trounce them with evidence and blame the method rather than their own failings.
It's not the method, it's you that fails a method.

Just because you cannot figure it out and happen upon something else that does, does not imply the method is bad.
I can do both PPS and EI, as well as PMMD+PO4, which is PPS something I suggested along with Paul Sears, Steve Dixon and others about 1996-1997. I even wrote about it:
Myself suggesting test kits, Calibration(we tested the Lamott, they where accurate in each case), leaner levels, check the advice about NO3.

I wrote this over a decade ago.
http/www.sfbaaps.com/articles/barr_02.html

Water changes:

http/fins.actwin.com/aquatic-plants/mont...1/msg00054.html

PMDD:
http/www.thekrib.com/Plants/Fertilizer/pmdd-tim.html

I make no claims this is my personal method, I use no less than 5 methods personally and have mastered each.
I do not need to lay blame to any method for my failings because I've overcome those failings and assumptions.
Others have not.

PPS as James has stated, is PMDD with some PO4 added(which is what I and Steve suggested back in 1996) and is roughly the same thing as EI. More traces, but who cares about waste and pollution if it's heavy metals?
Anyone can add ferts to water and get more accuracy, but it's never been shown to make or break a tank yet.
That's not PPS, that's clearly PMDD in method.
If you add calibrated test kits, PO4, PMDD, leaner nutrient levels, you get my article.
Which is what PPS suggest ioronically, the very folks that enjoy slandering EI are doing preciselt what I suggested well over a decade ago.

I guess they assumed I am one dimensional and only use one method.
Pretty big assumption.
That article was published in TFH years ago also FYI.

But all these clowns hear is "EI this", "EI that".

If you have a clear set of goals and understanding, then state that. Each method has trade offs.

But one of which is NOT poor fish health, nor poor plant health.
Just because you fail to master a method and someone else does master it, does not mean the method fails. It means you have more challenges.

Blaming the method is a cop out.
Claiming I did not test for every variable is another argument.

Who can?
I measure the critical ones, light, CO2, and nutrients.

Ask any of them if they measure light and what units.
Same with CO2.

Folks that note issues with higher CO2 and fish etc, generally have poor surface moevment and flow. They can, most all of us can for that matter, improve circulation and water flow routines and simply add a tad more CO2.

CO2 and fish health also includes O2, another parameters none of the folks appear to measure either.
I use two different O2 meters and also have set up several tanks with O2 controllers.

Imagine that. Mister EI testing stuff they have not even considered nor have ever measured.

Correlation does not imply cause.

It gets "old hat" telling neophytes this.Many still do not get it even if you point it out in clear plain English.
Yet when I mention it, they scurry to another topic and avoid those questions.
It's like they have not even bothered to think more about it than circumstantial evidence.
I hope I never see folks like this on a jury!


Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[plantbrain]

To be honest, most of the top post needs to be pinned in the n00b area to stop people claiming anything above 20ppm nitrates is bad for fish.

I was already aware of the Pierce quote and seem to recall finding evidence that adult fish of some researched species can survive fine in nitrate concentrations of over 1,000ppm but that some very young fry were somewhat more susceptible to the effects of nitrate (but still around the 70-80ppm area).

Well, NH4 based NO3 sources vs inorganic KNO3 sources of NO3 are two different critters.
In the proper context, I think yes.

But we should be careful to make sure that 20-30ppm is a maxmimal level that we may ever need, as well as a good size target to hit either with or without a test kit + water changes and this is specific for KNO3 and planted systems.

Marine fish are more tolerant but 5-10ppm is a max level for most growth issues with the 45 species I've raised thus far for macrophytes/seaweeds.

So this is a nice amount for coral tanks in some cases.
But others might not fair so well, I'm not sure.
I have not tested corals + these parameters + macro algae etc.

I will, but have not yet.

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[Dave Spencer]

It would be great to have a discussion covering these issues, like the one some of us had on the AE forum earlier this year with Jeff Walmsley.

Dave.

 

[plantbrain]

It would be great to have a discussion covering these issues, like the one some of us had on the AE forum earlier this year with Jeff Walmsley.

Dave.

I doubt he'll debate anything with me again but the offer shall always stand to do so. But......this time in a forum where no one can threaten the owner with a lawsuit

Meanwhile, I'll keep citing and proving the observations, keep posting nice tank examples(see the low light ADA tank) etc.
I do not expect anyone to believe a shred of what I say based on me being any sort of authority, nor belief.
Science does not work nor operate that way.

If you claim authority and science, then why avoid it and not use it to make the points?
Why use slander, hyperbole, political buzz words and lawsuits?

I have a baloney detector and it works well.

Here's a list of things about science that will help open a few minds:

http/www.bluffton.edu/%7Ebergerd/NSC_111/TenMyths.html

Regards,
Tom Barr