I think I am screwed - URGENT HELP PLEASE

Lavey29

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Apr 29, 2021
Messages
11,302
Reaction score
11,967
Location
United States
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
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!
Thank you for sharing your knowledge in this area and helping fellow reefers learn something new.
 

Eienna

5000 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Messages
5,758
Reaction score
549
Location
Eddyville, KY, USA
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
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.
Might I point out that something being common doesn't make it okay?
I do not have specific sources for this. I can only state that I have seen similar excesses stunt and weaken freshwater fish. How much more these sensitive animals? I was continually taught that nitrate starts to have a negative effect around 40ppm, so you'd think a problem with a jump to 200+ would be reasonable (though adaptation to higher numbers is a thing.) I suppose that only counts as conjecture.
 

92Miata

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
1,523
Reaction score
2,485
Location
Richmond, VA
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Might I point out that something being common doesn't make it okay?
I do not have specific sources for this. I can only state that I have seen similar excesses stunt and weaken freshwater fish. How much more these sensitive animals? I was continually taught that nitrate starts to have a negative effect around 40ppm, so you'd think a problem with a jump to 200+ would be reasonable (though adaptation to higher numbers is a thing.) I suppose that only counts as conjecture.
Something being common means we have significant evidence of its effects.

Again, the way nitrogen affects fish in salt water is VERY DIFFERENT than it is in freshwater, because of ridiculously high level of chlorine ions in salt water. You know how people recommend epsom salts/aquarium salts to help a bunch of things in freshwater? Marine tanks are the equivalent of pouring pounds and pounds of the stuff in the water.

Basically any nitrite in freshwater is highly toxic. In saltwater, it doesn't affect things at all until we get up into hundreds of ppm. The effect of nitrate is similar. You can keep highly sensitive marine organisms (like shrimp larvae) at nitrate levels that would kill freshwater fish. 50ppm isn't even uncommon in sps dominated tanks. I'm at about 35ppm at the moment.

So much of the early "rules" of marine fishkeeping were basically just copied over from freshwater community tanks in the 70s, and newbies just keep repeating them to each other and keeping them alive despite the fact that they are mostly not applicable to salt water. Chemistry in salt water is VERY VERY different than freshwater.

Everything from the nitrogen cycle, to acclimation, to algae management are all very different in reefs than in freshwater community tanks, but people just keep trying to keep this stuff alive. Nothing drives more new reefkeepers out of the hobby more than bad freshwater-based advice.
 

Argentum

Community Member
View Badges
Joined
Jun 12, 2022
Messages
30
Reaction score
25
Location
Virginia
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I just came across this thread and I'm curious to know how things turned out.

I have noticed since I returned to this hobby after several years without any reef tanks, there seems to be a much stronger emphasis on maintaining very strict chemical values for many, many more parameters than we used to test for back in the day. I can only assume this has a lot to do with the prevalence of real-time reef monitors and people's obsession with data logging. I don't doubt that some people find tremendous success keeping everything dialed in super tight and having it constantly monitored, I've just seen quite a few of these "xyz parameters are off, everything's going to die!" threads when we used to pay more attention to coral/fish/invert behavior as indicators and valued stability over instant corrections one way or the other.

One of the first and best pieces of advice I received when I started reefing a long time ago was that nothing happens fast except disaster. Don't try to do too much too quickly. I hope this tank turned out alright!
 

Eienna

5000 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Messages
5,758
Reaction score
549
Location
Eddyville, KY, USA
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Something being common means we have significant evidence of its effects.

Again, the way nitrogen affects fish in salt water is VERY DIFFERENT than it is in freshwater, because of ridiculously high level of chlorine ions in salt water. You know how people recommend epsom salts/aquarium salts to help a bunch of things in freshwater? Marine tanks are the equivalent of pouring pounds and pounds of the stuff in the water.

Basically any nitrite in freshwater is highly toxic. In saltwater, it doesn't affect things at all until we get up into hundreds of ppm. The effect of nitrate is similar. You can keep highly sensitive marine organisms (like shrimp larvae) at nitrate levels that would kill freshwater fish. 50ppm isn't even uncommon in sps dominated tanks. I'm at about 35ppm at the moment.

So much of the early "rules" of marine fishkeeping were basically just copied over from freshwater community tanks in the 70s, and newbies just keep repeating them to each other and keeping them alive despite the fact that they are mostly not applicable to salt water. Chemistry in salt water is VERY VERY different than freshwater.

Everything from the nitrogen cycle, to acclimation, to algae management are all very different in reefs than in freshwater community tanks, but people just keep trying to keep this stuff alive. Nothing drives more new reefkeepers out of the hobby more than bad freshwater-based advice.
Do you have sources for that last part?
Kidding, I'm being facetious. XD
I need to read up more, clearly.
 

92Miata

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
1,523
Reaction score
2,485
Location
Richmond, VA
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I just came across this thread and I'm curious to know how things turned out.

I have noticed since I returned to this hobby after several years without any reef tanks, there seems to be a much stronger emphasis on maintaining very strict chemical values for many, many more parameters than we used to test for back in the day. I can only assume this has a lot to do with the prevalence of real-time reef monitors and people's obsession with data logging. I don't doubt that some people find tremendous success keeping everything dialed in super tight and having it constantly monitored, I've just seen quite a few of these "xyz parameters are off, everything's going to die!" threads when we used to pay more attention to coral/fish/invert behavior as indicators and valued stability over instant corrections one way or the other.

One of the first and best pieces of advice I received when I started reefing a long time ago was that nothing happens fast except disaster. Don't try to do too much too quickly. I hope this tank turned out alright!
 

IslandLifeReef

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
2,417
Reaction score
6,053
Location
Florida
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
@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,
  1. My Acro has healed well and encrusting now
  2. 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.


Ok, some of this doesn't make sense. First, NSW in southern CA shouldn't have a salinity of 39.2 ppt. What are you using to measure salinity and do you calibrate it?
 
Last edited:

TangerineSpeedo

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Jun 8, 2022
Messages
2,189
Reaction score
3,021
Location
SoCal
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
The OP could be using two sources of NSW here. One is you just go down to the water and fill your jug. The other is to get NSW from your LFS.
It is interesting that it reads so high because NSW here in South Bay is pretty much 32.5-33 ppt. I use it as a reference on my Hanna checker. Although when I used my refractometer it read 35ppt.
 
OP
OP
k2-

k2-

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 7, 2020
Messages
513
Reaction score
283
Location
Los Angeles
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
The OP could be using two sources of NSW here. One is you just go down to the water and fill your jug. The other is to get NSW from your LFS.
It is interesting that it reads so high because NSW here in South Bay is pretty much 32.5-33 ppt. I use it as a reference on my Hanna checker. Although when I used my refractometer it read 35ppt.
Pronto - looks like I need to double check my instrument - for now I have a reference point.
 

Reefing threads: Do you wear gear from reef brands?

  • I wear reef gear everywhere.

    Votes: 39 16.3%
  • I wear reef gear primarily at fish events and my LFS.

    Votes: 14 5.8%
  • I wear reef gear primarily for water changes and tank maintenance.

    Votes: 1 0.4%
  • I wear reef gear primarily to relax where I live.

    Votes: 30 12.5%
  • I don’t wear gear from reef brands.

    Votes: 139 57.9%
  • Other.

    Votes: 17 7.1%
Back
Top