Questions about an Ammonia Remover

[xxBarneyxx]

There is sufficient evidence that over-dosing plant additives is risky to fish. And with the EI you pretty much need diffused CO2, and this is without any question harmful to fish. I have discussed this with Tom a while back, and he is entitled to his view and without question when it comes to botany he does know. But he is not an ichthyologist, and he admitted to me that he promotes mainly plant tanks without fish or with few fish. He may or may not understand the issue with fish in these high-tech tanks, that really doesn't matter. I care more for the fish, and I am not prepared to make their existence more difficult just to achieve better plant growth. Especially when my tanks look like those below, I see no problem here, and the fish are better for this approach.

You may be interested in some article on the CO2 issue. Regardless of the specifics, the evidence is clear that CO2 does cause issues for fish.

Fish lose common sense as CO2 levels rise

Fish lose common sense as CO2 levels rise

www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk

Does CO2 injection cause disease?

Does CO2 injection cause disease?

www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk

Increased CO2 confuses adult fish too

www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk

If you look at the actual papers pfk is reporting on for 2 of them links you will find the co2 levels they are using are 500, 750 and 900ppm, and its marine fish which are way more sensitive to water parameters. Compared to the max of 30ppm that is used in a planted tank.

The 3rd article is pure speculation and even says as much, including the fact that the issues he described could just as easily be put down to poor diet.

Again its just personal experience but in my tanks running co2 and ferts I have had even quite sensitive fish thriving for 4+ years. In that time I only had 2 losses. One was a Cory that got caught in a hair net I was using to hold down a plant (my own stupidity there I admit) and one was a flame tetra that had a deformity when I got it. Even that one lived a long time first.

 

[Byron]

The fact that fish "live" through all this does not mean they are not being impacted. I have very soft water species, most wild caught, and they do not occur in waters high in minerals. And since they have evolved to function best in such water, providing such water is the only way we can have some certainty that the fish are thriving and not just surviving. Fish have a strong will to survive and reproduce (all animals do) and they will make the best of the situation whatever we force upon them. The fact that they continue to swim, eat and spawn is no guarantee whatever than they are thriving.

I realize the points you raise about the articles. There was one by Nathan Hill on freshwater and diffused CO2 levels in planted tanks, but I couldn't find it. I am satisfied from my research and discussions with others who know more about this than I do that my fish are better off without excess fertilizers and CO2.

 

[xxBarneyxx]

The fact that fish "live" through all this does not mean they are not being impacted.

But surely a fish living at least as long as its normal captive lifespan is, with no health problems in that time and being able to reproduce with the offspring both growing, developing and living for their full lifespan is pretty good proof that it's not effecting their health.

I get your point and understand what you are saying but if it was having a detrimental effect on fish health then surly you would see a lot more issues like whitespot, development issues in fry, shortened life spans and other health complications. In my experience my heavily planted tanks have a much higher quality of life and less issues then normal tanks. Even with sensitive species.

Yes fish can live in awful conditions but that also comes with shorter lifespans, regular issues with things like whitespot, poor looking fish from stress issues, etc. I never saw that in any of my tanks, in fact I had more issues with non-planted or low maintenance planted tanks then I did with ones with ferts and CO2 in. You have to also consider that in a planted aquarium running CO2 at 30ppm they are also going to have a lot of oxygen being put into the water as well from the plants.

I have been trying to find some research or info on how much dissolved CO2 you would find in the wild as I suspect it probably isn't as low as you might think. Not been able to find anything useful yet, most things come back to aquariums and the standard advice of less than 30ppm.

Guess we will have to agree to disagree and that is fine

 

[Byron]

I'm debating solely to get the ideas of both sides out there, not at all to be argumentative. Just want to make that clear.

But surely a fish living at least as long as its normal captive lifespan is, with no health problems in that time and being able to reproduce with the offspring both growing, developing and living for their full lifespan is pretty good proof that it's not effecting their health.

Not necessarily. None of us can talk to a fish, and that is the only way we could ever know the answer to this. Yes, we can make assumptions that the fish must be healthy if it survives and even reaches beyond its lifespan, but survival is only one part of the issue. My close friend has a dog that was diagnosed with some inoperable problem, and the dog has bad days and better days, and to me seems as happy as ever. Most of us can relate a bit more to a dog's condition than we can to fish; and there is no doubt in my mind that the dog is not in the best shape because of the issue, yet to see it no one would know this. Getting back to fish...sometimes it is certainly possible to see that something is not right, but it is a scientific certainty that fish can be under low levels of stress without showing any external symptoms. This condition may or may not worsen, but there is no doubt that understanding the inherent requirements for the fish's health and providing them is still the only way we can assume things may be OK.

I get your point and understand what you are saying but if it was having a detrimental effect on fish health then surly you would see a lot more issues like whitespot, development issues in fry, shortened life spans and other health complications. In my experience my heavily planted tanks have a much higher quality of life and less issues then normal tanks. Even with sensitive species.

I think I responded to the first part of this above. As for the "higher quality of life" in highly planted tanks, not necessarily. If I can have healthy floating plants in a tank, there is little doubt the fish will benefit. But this has limits. Having more plants if it means adding substances to the water is not improving, it is making things worse.

I agree the data on habitat conditions is still less than we would like. I would however suggest that the CO2 level is likely to be close to the air, given the water surface exchange. And the fact that few fish habitats--very few--have any plants at all.

 

[Bruce Leyland-Jones]

I'm debating solely to get the ideas of both sides out there, not at all to be argumentative. Just want to make that clear.

Likewise...and with that in mind;

Not necessarily. None of us can talk to a fish, and that is the only way we could ever know the answer to this. Yes, we can make assumptions that the fish must be healthy if it survives and even reaches beyond its lifespan, but survival is only one part of the issue. My close friend has a dog that was diagnosed with some inoperable problem, and the dog has bad days and better days, and to me seems as happy as ever. Most of us can relate a bit more to a dog's condition than we can to fish; and there is no doubt in my mind that the dog is not in the best shape because of the issue, yet to see it no one would know this. Getting back to fish...sometimes it is certainly possible to see that something is not right, but it is a scientific certainty that fish can be under low levels of stress without showing any external symptoms. This condition may or may not worsen, but there is no doubt that understanding the inherent requirements for the fish's health and providing them is still the only way we can assume things may be OK.

Valid points all, but just as you apply those points to support your argument that we don't know that fish are actually thriving, we could also use those points to argue that, in all actuality, the fish are having the time of their lives and deliriously content.

I have an idea for a fresh thread...