Too High Tech

[elmo666]

Right, lets cut to the chase. I've had several posts on here over the last few weeks, water quality (high nitrates), nitrate reactors, plants and nitrates. I've been reading and researching until my brain hurts. I have a 250 Ltr corner tank with discus, rams, dwarf corys, clown loach, ottos, shrimp and black phantom tetra, 30 fish in total. I run pressurized co2, now have a nitrate reactor, use r/o and a hma three stage filter for my water changes, dose regular ferts. Well now I'm thinking to myself I've become almost obsessed with water parameters, ph, co2 levels almost to the point that I'm missing out on the true reason we keep fish, their beauty and tranquillity.
I was chatting about this to my good mate of many years who's knowledge is immense, setting up and managing a 20,000 ltr marine system/tropical section in my lfs. It was almost an epiphany when he said "switch off mate, your plants and fish will tell you when they're not happy." What wise words. That took my mind back to when I kept perfectly happy with bubble up box filters, then undergravel filters. Next, power heads, and then so high tech lol, I bought a fluval 3 internal with a spray bar......I thought it was the dogs do dars. So my point is, have we gone too high tech when it may not be truly needed?
look forward to your thoughts.

 

[BerryAttack]

the only high tech that i have is with the pressurized co2, dirt substrate and low to high lighting (different settings) with all live plants. other then that my 40 and 20 have the same light input with dirt substrate and a 36 gallon with no plants, gravel and fake plants.
 
i absolutely believe that there are things that a tank does not need, but tons of people believe that the tank needs it when in truth they can survive without. i find that with my 65 that is to my considered a high tech tank, because of the co2 lol 
in the end as long as you are enjoying the tank and aren't troubled with the maintenance then you are doing everything right. if you are worrying about the maintenance then you need to change things around so that everything will thrive without popping a vain xD 

 

[Gruntle]

I think the same, I'm a bit psycho about water parameters etc. Or at least, I used to be. Now I just do a 20-30% water change once a week or so (some weeks it's a bit bigger, depending on whether I give the canister filter a good going-over), and watch the pretty fishies. If anything looks a bit iffy, I check the parameters.
 
Now if I could teach my fish to not uproot my elodeas, everyone would be happier. I'm thinking I might put them in my breeder tank once it's empty and get a decent root system on them, then put them back in the community tank.

 

[elmo666]

Exactly my point, too much worry, not enough enjoyment. Don't get me wrong, I kinda like tank maintenance, guess its a bit like walking the dog, comes hand in hand with keeping them. What's wrong is the point I've reached where I'm looking at the tank thinking is this right, is that right, should I change my lights, should I get a bigger filter. What makes it worse is although there's a wealth of fantastic info on the forum, there's also alot of conflicting ideas that, if you looking for solid advice, has me disappearing up your own bottom lol.

 

[TwoTankAmin]

elmo- what should set of that big light bulb is the realization that fish keeping is no different than anything else one seeks to master. And the way to master it is the same way we learn to get on top of anything in life. It takes time and effort, it takes experience and it takes some degree of failure to teach us what not to do.
 
I will tell you what i tell everybody else. You have to work your way up the learning curve, you can not just jump into things with both feet and no knowledge or experience and expect to succeed. I would no more tell a new hobbyist to attempt a fancy planted tank for their first or second try any more than I would suggest the fist place a new driver should learn to drive is at the Indianapolis 500. Start off with the easier and more simple things and then over time gain the experience to be able to try ever increasingly more complex things.
 
Learn how to keep easy undemanding plants first and learn your way up the curve. It takes longer but usually leads to greater success.
 
As for conflicting ideas and misinformation on any forum, there is a ton of it. The key is not to try and sort most of it out, the key is to figure out who actually knows what they might be talking about. People on sites want to help, but too often they are giving advice on things they have never had any real experience doing. They merely repeat things they have heard/read elsewhere but which may be nothing more than urban aquarium myths. For example, chloramine will not wipe out nitrifying bacteria in tanks (or drinking water treatment and delivery systems). Both chloramine and chlorine will harm and kill fish long before they will do so to the bacteria.
 
Your friend gave you some excellent advice. Your fish and plants will show/tell you when something is wrong, all you have to do is to learn how to 'listen." Let me put this into terms that directly reflect you current situation. You are worried about high nitrate, you are willing to accept the readings from one of the least accurate hobby kits (nitrate) as being correct. Why? If you have too much nitrate you should be able to see the effects. For one they are very similar to nitrite poisoning. So if your fish are not gasping at the surface, they are likely not fatally high. Your fish should show behavioral changes at sub-lethal or prolonged low level exposure. They will be less active, the will eat less, fry will grow slower or struggle etc. And if you have excess nitrates, that should also encourage algae which will also use it. So if your fish seem happy and normal and you are not seeing algae, maybe your test results are not so accurate? Plus, your possible nitrate problem was likely caused by your adding nitrate to the tank without even realizing it.
 
It works in reverse as well. Some ammonia exposure for fish for short periods of time should not be all that bad for them, they can handle it. We can measure the levels for ammonia pretty accurately. But even when they are in the temporarily safe range according to the test, one must still look to the fish to be sure.When the kit says its OK but the fish behave in a way that says it isn't, discard the test results and listen to the fish.
 
Keeping fish is like everything else in life. Most things work best when one can follow the KISS theory:
 

 
KISS is an acronym for "Keep it simple, stupid" as a design principle noted by the U.S. navy in 1960. The KISS principle states that most systems work best if they are kept simple rather than made complicated; therefore simplicity should be a key goal in design and unnecessary complexity should be avoided.

from http/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle

 

[elmo666]

A good and valid viewpoint. On the subject of the test kits, you've made several references to their inaccurate readings. I wouldn't dispute this as I haven't ever had the benefit of a lab test and test kit result done on the same tank water sample. However, I would suggest that they give a far better indication than guess work alone. I use the word indication because that is all they do, but bare in mind this. If you take a baseline reading, lets call it week 1, and record weekly tests over a three month period they are accurate enough in their own right to show fluctuations, wether or not increased water changes may be needed, or even if there may be some other issue, maybe a sudden spike from an unseen fish loss for example. I understand fully the points you make, however I was simply questioning the need for an array of expensive and often complicated equipment that isn't always needed, especially if you only want a basic community set up. I would imagine a new comer would be baffled by the array of high priced pieces of kit, without realising that the most important thing to have is a good book and a basic understanding of the nitrogen cycle. I would suggest from there the rest is relatively straight forward.

 

[TwoTankAmin]

How accurate the tests are depends upon which one and what the levels one is attemtping to measure really are. Anf your assumption re there being accurate enough simply is not the case. Depending on which test one may be performing, there are different things that can be in the water that will throw off results. I could provide a lot of information re this but I will try to make it simple.
 
A decently accurate qualityHach ammonia test kit will run one about $84 plus shipping and will perform 100 tests. It will work for both sw and fw. If i want to buy an API ammonia kit that will perform 75 tests it will run me about $6.40 plus shipping. both kits use the salicylate test reagents.
 
The difference between these two products is the information your get with them. Nowhere on an API instruction sheet will you read anything about what can throw off test results. For the Hach kit you can find this information included.

 
• This test is very sensitive to contamination. If results are unusually high or inconsistent, run the test twice. Rinse the tubes thoroughly with fresh sample before the second test. The reagents will clean the
tubes during the first test. A lower result on the second test indicates contamination during the first test.
• This test kit is designed for seawater. If used for brackish or fresh water, this kit will give a reading that is slightly higher than the actual value. The error in brackish water will in most cases be less than 10%.
The error in low salinity or fresh water can be as high as 16%.

from http/www.hach.com/asset-get.download.jsa?id=7639982686
 
(Please note this kit is for both fresh and sw, the note in the quote refers to the fact that sw is not the same as brackish or frsh which contains some salt.)
 
But this only tells part of the story. if one investigates the even more expensive and more accurate ammonia tests you will see a lot more things can mess up test results. Any amount of iron will alter results. High quality test kits come with directions telling one to test for iron and then how to deal with the result in order to get accurate ammonia test results. Turbidity (i.e. what makes water cloudy) also throws off results. Other things that can influence results would be highish nitrate levels for example and there are more.
 
Next, when levels are pretty high some kits will give a 0 reading when in fact something is actually off the scale. here is a good video on this by the microbiologist who identified the specific bacteria in aquariums (Dr. Timothy Hovanec). You may be surprised:
 
[media]https/www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPiDRid_Km8[/media]
 
The Hach kit he uses in this vid is priced at about $79 and does 100 tests vs an API nitrite kit which is $5.00 for 180 tests and the Salifert kit is runs about $22 and does 50 tests. The other thing to learn from this vid is the level of nitrites being measured will gravely harm or kill fish. If you had the API or Salifert kit how would you know that it was nitrite doing the damage?
 
Knowing how to use a hobby test kit and understanding what is being measured and what can make results inaccurate are two different things. Most hobbyists can tell you how to work the test kit, almost none can discuss reagents and how they work or what can make test results give incorrect readings are things they have no knowledge about.
 
I will leave you with this little piece of information from SeaChem about Prime one or the most popular dechlorinators/ammonia detoxifiers in the hobby.

 
A Nessler based kit will not read ammonia properly if you are using Prime®... it will look "off scale", sort of a muddy brown (incidentally a Nessler kit will not work with any other products similar to Prime®). A salicylate based kit can be used, but with caution. Under the conditions of a salicylate kit the ammonia-Prime complex will be broken down eventually giving a false reading of ammonia (same as with other products like Prime®), so the key with a salicylate kit is to take the reading right away. However, the best solution ;-) is to use our MultiTest: Ammonia™ kit... it uses a gas exchange sensor system which is not affected by the presence of Prime® or other similar products. It also has the added advantage that it can detect the more dangerous free ammonia and distinguish it from total ammonia (which is both the free and ionized forms of ammonia (the ionized form is not toxic)).

from http/www.seachem.com/support/FAQs/Prime.html

 

[elmo666]

Were going off topic again, yet at the same time it's backing up what I said. If you were to take into account all the possible elements that could sway a test result or make it inaccurate you would never test in the first place. Furthermore, how in earth do we know if this counter indicators are present in the first place? (water treatments aside) I stand by what I said that the basic test kits do what they set out to do, give a general indication of what's going on. This is why the lfs do water testing services with the very same kits. This discussion didn't set out to argue the pros and cons of different test kits. My point was simple and intended to invite opinion and discussion on fish keeping in days gone by, bubble up box filters and very basic equipment, successfully breeding and keeping most of what we do today, and comparing it to just how complex the hobby can be if you keep up with latest trends. I even saw a marine lighting unit with usb connections to programme lighting intensity and different lighting hours retailing at £1,250.......it was no more than 400mm square.

 

[TwoTankAmin]

There is a big difference between the knowledge provided by science and the gadgetry provided by companies playing within the fish keeping hobby. In bygone days they did not know about cycling a tank, today we do. That knowledge has had a profound impact on the hobby. But also look at the product side.
 
How many products are there out there that are directly related to getting a tank cycled? Bottled bacterias, many of which don't work, detoxifiers for ammonia, etc. that are not usually needed. Or how about all the kinds of bio-media and the varying filter designs. Then what about the test kits? Everybody makes their own is one better than another and why? Do you know? I certainly don't.
 
And I do take into account what might sway test results when I test. But I have also spent enough time reading research and caring for multiple tanks for a number of years to recognize when a test result is likely wrong and why. I have well water and so I have never used a dechlor/ammonia detoxifier for my tanks. However, I know they can affect test results. I do planted tanks and dose iron for them, and I know this will sway test results. I know if my water is cloudy or its stained with tannins, this can effect test results.
 
But, I do understand enough about the chemistry/biology involved that I can make a reasonably accurate assessment of what is going on in the cycling tanks of newbies on this site to be able to help them know when the numbers they report cannot be accurate and why. I am not a genius nor an expert on the science behind all this stuff. What I am is somebody who has spent a lot of time learning about how things work. It is amazing how learning and experience can turn something complex into something not so complex.
 
And I am going to have to disagree with you on one of your observations where you wrote "breeding and keeping most of what we do today". Many of the fish being bred in the most recent decade or so are ones not commonly kept or bred several decades ago. A lot of the fish common in the hobby did not even exist as they are man made morphs. Think angels, discus, guppy, betta splendens, bn plecos etc.
 
A lot of the changes in the available fish and equipment that we now have available are the direct result of the increase in the popularity of the hobby. Nowhere is the most important improvement to be found than right here on this site and all of the others dedicated to the hobby. The internet has changed the face of many things and especially this hobby. Would most folks be doing fishless cycling without the internet? And the same applies for the availability of fish. Years ago hobbyists kept what they could find in local stores or obtain from a breeder. Today most of the stores are gone, breeders proliferate and you can buy fish from all over the globe online.
 
But there is also a downside to all of this. There is an awful lot of misinformation out there today. It has grown and expanded with all the other parts of the hobby. Part of this, imo, applies to test kits. The ones in the hobby are certainly better than the lack of any at all in days of yore. But they are far from accurate or reliable.
 
As for how complex the hobby can be, that is true. But how much of the more elaborate setups and equipment are really needed by the average fish keeper. 13 years ago I made a change from artificial to live plants in tanks. At that time most fish keepers were not keeping live plants and very very few added co2 to a tank. This was the province of the true plant nut who was dedicate enough to take it the the extreme. They wanted and could handle the latest lighting, the newest plants to arrive etc. and these were all important issues. The problem is that as folks posted about this stuff online more and more folks found it, including newbies. But the plant beginner and the experienced plant nut are two different animals.
 
The newbie can easily keep simple plants in a simple setup with not much difficulty. But reading all the posts about fancy fertilizers, substrates, co2 etc. has an influence. Suddenly they want to dive into the deep end of the pool without having learned to swim. And this is how things all of a sudden become too complex. Not because they need to be but because they might be. It is not the hobby itself that has become too complex or high tech, it is the fish keepers who attempt to embrace more expert level methodologies and equipment before they are capable of understanding how and why to use such things. The principles of lighting have not changes as far as science is concerned, all that has changed is how we make lights.  65k is the same for an standard fluor., a T5 or an LED. How they work and what different things they can do may be, but 65k doesn't change. The nitrifying bacteria have not changed even though bio-wheels, sintered glass and ceramic media have been introduced.
 
Let me ask you this. That fancy expensive lighting unit you saw, what % of the the people who keep fish all over the world actually need this, could use it or could afford it? Yet it is out there being offered to fish keepers and obviously enough buy it that it is there. I can show you a nice accurate ammonia test kit, one that explains what throws off results and what to do about it for about $90 delivered. Yet how many fish keepers out there do you think would buy the $90 test kit (assuming they knew about it) vs how many would buy the £1,250 lighting system and do know about such things being out there?
 
For some reason the KISS theory doesn't seem to be applied in this hobby as often as it should be. This is not due to the complexity of what can be done in the moss extreme cases but rather with people thinking they need to have all sorts of things they really do not.