Nitrates are good lmao
- Thread starter Joshuakahan
- Start date
...Sheesh. Like I said, I initially ignored the nitrate claim for being too absurd, but (now that I think about it) I ignored the glaring oxymoron. On what planet do you live to think a tank reading 200-500 nitrates makes a "natural" tank or crazy high nitrates is "natural" for the fish?
Maybe father fish scouts the internet for info such as this, and then regurgitates it on his channel.....
Maybe father fish scouts the internet for info such as this, and then regurgitates it on his channel.....
Interesting comparison here, and from a site that often has a lot of interesting and useful info...but not necessarily contradictory to the "common knowledge" used by many aquarists.
That study considers nitrate toxicity based upon the levels required to literally kill fish in 72 hours. Now, admittedly, there are posts seen regularly here on MFK and elsewhere that might make one think that some people are indeed lucky if they can keep their fish alive for longer than that...but it's safe to say that most aquarists are hoping for a bit more longevity.
When long-established aquarists like
duanes
refer to the toxicity of nitrate, they are typically considering the toxic effect over a period of years. The commonly quoted effect of nitrates, especially on soft-water fish that are being kept in hard-water that is also nitrate-rich, is HITH...and that is indeed a problem that crops up only after an extended period of exposure. Plenty of smaller aquarium fish won't even have a natural lifespan long enough to develop those symptoms.Evidence? There may not be any, if you define "evidence" to mean quantifiable results of rigorous scientific testing under controlled conditions in a lab. Science costs money; if you want to maintain multiple tanks of Oscars in a lab over a period of years, you might very well be able to provide this type of evidence...but for sure you would require extensive long-term funding that would be provided by...whom, exactly?
But when numerous aquarists make observations on private aquaria over such a period and come to similar conclusions...this used to be referred to as "citizen science"...I think it's still evidence, albeit not published in journals or adding to someone's credentials in the scientific community. The "real scientists" like to denigrate this by referring to it as "anecdotal" evidence.
I don't think Father Fish is much of a real scientist or a citizen scientist. He's just another guy with a YouTube channel out to make a buck, who has found a niche that works for him.
The very first paragraph in that info I posted is the stand out clippet for me, if there's any truth in it. But why wouldn't there be any truth in it? Like you said, that "aquarium science" site is pretty reliable, or is it?
If I'm reading that first paragraph correctly, then all the nitrate readings quoted by science labs need to be multiplied by 4.4 to be on a par with the readings us mere mortals would get, because the boffins test nitrate differently to us??????
I've never heard of that before.
Can someone clear that up?
If I'm reading that first paragraph correctly, then all the nitrate readings quoted by science labs need to be multiplied by 4.4 to be on a par with the readings us mere mortals would get, because the boffins test nitrate differently to us??????
I've never heard of that before.
Can someone clear that up?
Its interesting that many of the actual studies I've seen done on nitrate have been conducted at the behest of aquaculture, trying to determine how many fish could be kept alive until brought to the dinner table as fillets, in the shortest amount of time, and under the most economic and crowded conditions.
So their relevance may be quite the opposite of what an ornamental fish keeper expects to get out of the fish kept, long term in the hobby.
So their relevance may be quite the opposite of what an ornamental fish keeper expects to get out of the fish kept, long term in the hobby.
Holy crap Duanes, you could be a stunt double for my cousin, I thought that was him in the picture you posted
I'm struggling to understand this. The last thing that would worry me regarding fish that are destined for the dinner table is how much nitrate is dangerous for them! They just get crammed into crates with ice and off they go to the fish merchants, fish mongers, shops, restaurants, whatever.
But if you are right, then whether it's short term keeping of fish ready for the table, or long term keeping of fish in aquariums, then there should be TWO scientifically approved set of papers indicating TWO very separate, and probably very different, set of figures addressing each scenario.
How will we ever know whether a fish in 500ppm water, but only for two weeks, until it is moved on for the food industry, is in less, or more danger from nitrate poisoning than an Oscar in say 30ppm water, but for the 10 or so years of it's life?
Last edited:
Water Changes...Unnecessary?
So we know the purpose of water changes are to reduce nitrate levels in a tank or pond...but I always thought it was to also dilute the organic matters in the water(oil from food, fish urine, etc.) My tap water has 40ppm of nitrates to begin with, so am I wasting water & money if I perform a...
www.monsterfishkeepers.com
