I never finish anythi
Valuable Member
It was a 1/10 mix which give him 23.9 x 10 = 239
I think I am screwed - URGENT HELP PLEASE
IslandLifeReef
Valuable Member
Did you ever get the test from your LFS?
Your numbers are not making any sense based on what you have done so far. Your NO3 has gone down 65% in 4 days. For that to even be possible, you would have had to have done a 65% water change. The biobricks you added would not have had any effect yet.
I may have missed it, but I only saw one 30% water change. You would have had to do three 30% water changed to get your NO3 down as much as you did.
If your numbers are really moving that much, you are stressing your corals more than if you just left everything alone. PO4 going from 0.3 to 0.00 in a day or two could be very stressful.
It is time to sit on your hands, get an ICP test and send that off. Wait for the results. I don't think anyone can really give you good information unless we know what your numbers really are. Based on what you have posted, I wouldn't trust your numbers.
OP
OP
k2-
Well-Known Member
A huge 80% water change was done this morning. Waiting for system to stabilize. Will pick up from here.
@islandreeflife - Agreed numbers are not making sense but all tests (including the one from LFS) are reading high and confirming the measurement. LFS was not even sure what to do with this level of nitrates and gave me NoPOX which I didn't even use.
I am hoping with this large water change things have a new start from the scratch - I already moved most of my corals to a different system which was much more stable and now just going to observe.
I know its a risk but just keeping my fingers crossed.
@islandreeflife - Agreed numbers are not making sense but all tests (including the one from LFS) are reading high and confirming the measurement. LFS was not even sure what to do with this level of nitrates and gave me NoPOX which I didn't even use.
I am hoping with this large water change things have a new start from the scratch - I already moved most of my corals to a different system which was much more stable and now just going to observe.
I know its a risk but just keeping my fingers crossed.
OP
OP
k2-
Well-Known Member
Eienna - Yes damage is halted. As mentioned they are in medium flow, lower light and getting amino / iron dosing to assist recovery. Target tank doesn't have much going on so its quite stable with only 2 fish . 100Gallon and stable numbers.
IslandLifeReef
Valuable Member
It will be interesting to see what your readings are now.
Nothing that you did to the biological filtration would have much of an effect this quickly. The only thing that would be removing that much NO3 and PO4 that quickly would be mechanical (water changes, media to strip the PO4 and NO3). If your PO4 was truly at 0.3 ppm, and then went to 0.00 ppm, you should see it come back up as it unbinds from the rock and sand to come into equilibrium with the water column.
If the numbers are not making sense, making a lot of radical changes is like chasing your tail, you won't get anywhere and just become frustrated. There has to be a source for the large increase in both NO3 and PO4. I know you already did the 80% water change, but if I were doing that large of a change, I would have considered doing a complete rip clean of the system by rinsing all of the rock and sand with RO/DI water and then just refilling the tank. Since you moved your coral to another tank, this would still be a great option. Unless you are sure that you dumped PO4 and NO3 into the tank accidentally, there has to be another source for it.
Please post your numbers when you get them.
OP
OP
k2-
Well-Known Member
Haven’t checked with such large water change all is going to be fine so not too worried about exacts. Softies are fine except one acro - will move others back into this tank over weekend and observe.
Hi, I wrote that blog article you're talking about. Please don't scold other users if you haven't bothered to actually read the article they're citing.
First off, let's start with the fact that you straight up lied about the article not citing any sources. I'm literally linking to https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5441187/ and talking about the Redfield Ratio.
Also, don't call my article "regurgitated freshwater stuff" as you've no idea what you're talking about. No freshwater article will talk about the Redfield ratio in marine environments, will they?
I hate how most Reef2Reef users generalize like that and instantly throws throw any blog under the bus, and it's now becoming an echo chamber. Where, evidently, in this particular case, you're wrong.
In all of my articles, I cite at least one study, usually from the NIH.
Anyway, in my article about nitrate contents, I'm also discussing false positive readings with the Salifert kits. Have you heard of freshwater users measuring with a Salifert kit? I doubt it.
So moving on - the study you linked explicitly says that nitrate toxicity depends on concentrations AND exposure times, and they cite 9 sources on their own after mentioning that fact. Why do you ignore that part of the equation? I'm assuming it's just to support your flawed statement that it's ok to keep pet fish in high-nitrate water?
Please point me to a natural marine environment where nitrate levels stay at 500 ppm for a continuous period of time.
Hint: you can't, nitrate levels in the ocean reach about 2 ppm at most (here's a link; do the conversion of micromoles per liter to ppm for yourself: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ar...trations in surface waters,oceans (figure 1a).
Now, don't get me wrong - marine fish can withstand high levels of nitrate for a time - that's a fact and I don't argue with that. However, I'm looking at it in the context of fishkeeping at home.
Most saltwater aquarists push the boundaries with nitrate content constantly and wonder why they can't have a normally functioning fish for more than 6 years.
It's one thing how much marine fish can tolerate in short periods of time but it's completely different to try and mess up their natural osmoregulation by subjecting them to hundreds of ppm of Nitrate content in the water for extended periods. Maybe read some on osmoregulation?
And finally... cherry-picking studies is a thing. If you were as versed in researching scientific literature as you claim to be, you'd know that most studies contradict one another and can't be reproduced (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-reproducibility/).
Then, a narrative that suits "someone" is chosen (someone needs to fund studies, after all - scientists need to eat too) and is then prioritized over the opposite.
If you're wondering why there may be a narrative about marine fish tolerating high levels of nitrate - it's because of aquaculture businesses where they tend to stuff fish eye to eye in a small pool.
If you're not familiar with that - aquaculture is a very profitable business with a strongly established cartel. (hint: it's the same with climate change, but that's a long discussion for a different time and place).
So please stop the hate on blogs. Yeah some of them are crap, I agree, but not all.
...And if you value the longevity of your saltwater fish - please don't subject them to high nitrate for too long!
OP
OP
k2-
Well-Known Member
@aquaestions Here is my observation :
For my 90% + water change I decided to use NSW (as the availability of any other mix is not available and I do not have a 200 G + mixing tank to make ):
After water change this is how my parameters looked:
1) Salinity: it was higher than the usual 35PPM --> More like 39.2
2) Alk - closer to 7.7
3) Ca - closer to 400
4) Mg - closer to 1300
5) Ph - 8.2
6) Nitrate - 14.2 (after normalization with existing 10% water)
7) Phosphate -.03
I did test the Nitrates in the NSW itself (I took a sample for myself) Nitrates were nondetectable on a Hanna HR kit.
Many of my corals were in bad shape (obviously with such high nitrates) prior to the water change- However, after the water change,
I am beginning to deduce (just by pure observation - that I will be sticking to NSW from here on), I understand it may not be available everywhere but being in Socal would like to take advantage of it as the forced last-ditch experiment seems to have worked.
I am beginning to believe that in hobby we are pushing the boundaries almost for all parameters while in NSW they are slightly different.
For my 90% + water change I decided to use NSW (as the availability of any other mix is not available and I do not have a 200 G + mixing tank to make ):
After water change this is how my parameters looked:
1) Salinity: it was higher than the usual 35PPM --> More like 39.2
2) Alk - closer to 7.7
3) Ca - closer to 400
4) Mg - closer to 1300
5) Ph - 8.2
6) Nitrate - 14.2 (after normalization with existing 10% water)
7) Phosphate -.03
I did test the Nitrates in the NSW itself (I took a sample for myself) Nitrates were nondetectable on a Hanna HR kit.
Many of my corals were in bad shape (obviously with such high nitrates) prior to the water change- However, after the water change,
- My Acro has healed well and encrusting now
- Softies were wonderful from the get-go - I have never seen my Acan / other softies open so big
I am beginning to deduce (just by pure observation - that I will be sticking to NSW from here on), I understand it may not be available everywhere but being in Socal would like to take advantage of it as the forced last-ditch experiment seems to have worked.
I am beginning to believe that in hobby we are pushing the boundaries almost for all parameters while in NSW they are slightly different.
92Miata
Valuable Member
We call blogs nonsense because they almost always are, and yours is no different. Just wordy drivel repeating a whole bunch of unsourced jibberish.
It is absolutely regurgitated freshwater nonsense. And the redfield ratio is so far from relevant in reef aquaria that citing it is a heavy indicator that someone has no idea what they're talking about. Not only was Redfield's primary thesis (that plankton would uptake nutrients to match their environment) wrong - even the thing that has survived - 16:1 is wrong. The ratio is much closer to 20:1 in the open water deep ocean plankton he studied - and it varies from as much as 6:1 to 60:1 in the coastal reefs we're trying to mimic.
And not a single one of your sources support your claims about nitrite or nitrate. Hence - unsourced.
Again, evidence please.
The 12,000 gallon FOWLR tank I maintained for several years had nitrates of 200+ ppm. We had many fish that were 20+ years old.
"Definitely reduce their disease resistance,"
Do you have evidence for this claim? The numbers we're talking about are incredibly common in FOWLR and FO tanks.
I'm glad that you keep requesting "sources" while completely ignoring the part about study reproducibility. And also the part about osmoregulation. I mentioned the redfield ratio (modified or not) as proof that I'm not talking about freshwater, which was your (evidently) false claim.
Why would you give the ocean as an example? I mean, it's literally the place with almost undetectable Nitrate...
Also, home aquariums are still far away from mimicking anything natural.
Since you're so good at mimicking the wild environment of corals, I bet the lights on your personal reef tank are full-spectrum, correct? Not the blue ones right? Since, you know, most corals in reefs thrive and grow enormous under full-spectrum light, in relatively shallow waters. Since you're so much into the science I bet you have the healthy approach of looking after yours under full-spectrum light for growth and once you're happy with the coral mass, you've gradually switched to spectrums leaning to the blue to put an emphasis on coral coloration, correct? Yeah, I thought so.
Anyway, I understand that you like forum arguments, but when you write a blog you can't risk giving insane advice to your readers. In what world, would anyone in their right mind suggest to newbies to not worry about nitrates and risk killing their fish down the line? That's given how things in the scientific community are and cartels incentivizing biased "studies". Statistics is literally the right hand of manipulation. Numbers don't lie, but their interpretations - very often do.
Anyhow - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3167306/ - Here, a study suggests that increased nitrate content does lead to stress in marine fish (oh no, controversial data!?). I'm sure you never claimed that high nitrate does not stress fish, just that they can tolerate it... I guess that's irrelevant when arguing online. However, someone that cares how their pet fish feel may not find it as irrelevant. I think this forum is dedicated to fishkeeping?
Also, from the same study: "Increased levels of nitrate in the water and prolonged environmental hypoxia are two environmental conditions that are very often observed in intensive fish farming." *wink wink*
Btw, the study you linked in your previous post suggests no more than 20 NO3-N/l for marine animals. This is roughly 90 ppm. It's literally mentioned in the Abstract of the study.
Also, your favorite "LC 50" quote has only been tested for hours, except for one study that tested catfish for 160 days or so.
I dare you to show me a study that provides data about marine fishes living in super high nitrate content for years (as you claim is ok for home aquaria).
Hint: there's none, and I guess your claims are pretty "unsourced".
Just a side note, since I know you'll cling to this - I still argue that nitrate is toxic to marine fish with long exposure times. Not that they can't withstand it in the short run.
Btw2, do you know why no study has tested how fish would fare when exposed to high nitrate for years? Because this kind of data is of no use to fish farming cartels. They don't keep fish for too long. The ocean and nature in general, however, beg to differ.
Side note - why would you boast your bad aquarium husbandry as evidence for anything?
Why do you exclude the possibility of you just shortening the lifespan of fish that were in good hands for years prior to your take on that tank? Guilty until proven innocent, I guess.
Idk, you want more evidence? - check nature, perhaps? Literally, point me to a natural marine environment with these insane levels of Nitrate.
I'm now certain you praise yourself as a "science person" yet ask no questions when there are controversial data presented. You just choose a side and stick to it. The core nature of science is to ask questions.
So given the fact, that I proved you made several false claims about my articles (didn't bother reading, and straightforward lied) in your previous reply, I think it's safe to say you're the kind of person who'd just parrot opinions in echo chambers.
In other words - you shouldn't talk to me (or anyone else for that matter) about science... You've no clue what that word means, as it's anything else but parroting.
P.S. - People, if you value the longevity of your saltwater pet fish - please don't subject them to high nitrate for too long!
Similar threads
