Nitrates are good lmao

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
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?
This is exactly my point.
When we see a study based on data for aquaculture, that suggests a 20ppm or 40 ppm nitrate concentration is OK for fish, I believe it has to be taken with a grain of salt.
(I do not dignify 500ppm as anything but folly)
Because we are not talking apples and apples, but apples and watermelons.
Aquaculture is all about human food, and the economy of getting it to the our table fast.
When we are talking about aquariums, this is an aethsetic, almost artistic pursuit (with a smattering of science).
When I see an oscar peppered with HITH because (along with other stress producers) it has been held in a thick nitrate soup, in too small a tank, this does not speak aesthetics, much less the art of keeping an aquarium to me, its more about the misunderstanding of science and of the water our fish come from, and have evolved to live in (not just what we can get away with) or it maybe its just plane laziness, or ideological pseudoscience.
 
I'm not a chemist (and supposedly, he is) so I can't argue his conversion 4.4 figure for lab nitrate tests vs the API test-- maybe someone else can confirm or refute this. But after reading with an open mind, my analysis is the article is subjective and has omissions and holes in logic.

1. He picks the studies he likes, dismisses those he doesn't, while claiming he's done an "exhaustive" review of the studies out there (he may think he has, but I rather doubt it).

2. The studies he references did not involve the fish in his photos, whether intentional or not, this is misleading.

3. He admits to "extrapolating" data and uses his own simple math in an attempt to project what the short term studies he references mean for the lifespan of a fish, dubious in the first place and then expects you to accept it as authoritative-- because, you know, he calls his blog "aquarium science." By the way, he (claims to) have a chemistry background, this does not qualify him as a fish biologist-- which leads me to the next point:

4 Lab tests of (whichever) chemical nitrate in otherwise clean water does not account for the other associated pollutants in your tank when your nitrates test high (whatever you think high is).

5. He seems unaware (never mentions) that low pH and nitrates is more dangerous to fish than higher pH and nitrates, likely a contributing factor when someone who keeps black water species in low pH finds they see health issues if they don't keep nitrates low.

One more comment about this guy. As knowledgeable as he might be (or thinks he is) or as much research as he might do, I've seen him get facts wrong. For example, in his article on driftwood in tanks where he argues it's pointless to clean or sterilize any wood before simply tossing it in your tank, he says something to the effect that 'wood is only good old cellulose (and nothing else).' Except it isn't-- hemicellulose, lignin, tannins, environmental chemicals absorbed during it's lifetime, etc.

Conclusion: Neither he nor 'father fish' have changed my mind on what constitutes a healthy tank.
 
Conclusion: Neither he nor 'father fish' have changed my mind on what constitutes a healthy tank.

This is the conclusion that, hopefully, we all arrive at.

The thing that gets me is that "father fish" is an extremely experienced hobbyist who, let's face it, people are going to listen too. Now that's not so bad if you are experienced yourself, you can take what he says with a pinch of salt. But newcomers to the hobby are going to start believing his preachings to be gospel.

And the same with the guy on "aquarium science". By and large i've found it to be a decent site, it covers all sorts of stuff. He comes across as pretty clued up, almost science boffin like, especially when they start quoting studies and such which, understandably, is going to throw mere mortals. I mean science studies are like gospel, right, they must be correct? Hmmm.

I think I'm done with the whole nitrate thing now. Whether it's harmless, mildly toxic or completely radioactive, I don't care. I'm just going to carry on with my water changes and do what's right for me, and my fish.

I think that's all we can do.
 
One more comment about this guy. As knowledgeable as he might be (or thinks he is) or as much research as he might do, I've seen him get facts wrong.


Ditto. In at least some areas, it's more like aquarium pseudo-science.



But newcomers to the hobby are going to start believing his preachings to be gospel.

No different than anything else posted on the web. Tik-Tok anyone?
 
  • Like
Reactions: neutrino
The guys fish store failed & went out of business. He runs a site that "ahem" you have to pay to belong to. Also runs a YouTube channel that you have to "ahem" pay to be a member which allows you to message during his ad nauseum broadcasts. Listened to one once just to see what all the hype was about. Was without a doubt the most boring bunch of BS you can imagine. The guy is a charlatan and sucks in a bunch of fools who pay him to listen to nonsense. YouTube, Facebook, etc. is full of these clowns that will preach anything to make a buck.
 
The guy is a charlatan and sucks in a bunch of fools who pay him to listen to nonsense. YouTube, Facebook, etc. is full of these clowns that will preach anything to make a buck.

Yup, which is why I have never bothered with the vast majority of social media platforms. No facebook, no instagram, no twitter, no tik tok, etc.
I'm a simple man, MFK gives me all the drama that I need in my life. lol

I will admit to watching youtube vids every AM, along with keeping up with Chinese weather balloons etc, but I almost never watch anything on youtube related to fishkeeping. Of course I make certain exceptions, such as Viktor's channel thebiggerthebetter thebiggerthebetter :thumbsup:
 

Never fails, RD. RD.

I come on here to browse around, take a peek through the New Posts section, kill some time, maybe post here or there if I feel like it.

And then, I happen to find a thread with an interesting title like this one. I open it...read through it...post a bit...and prepare to leave to get on with other things...

...and then you post a link to another thread pertaining to the same topic...and that thread contains yet more links to yet more threads and papers and studies and...and...and...

...and the next thing I know, 2 hours have passed, the dog is whining for his supper, my wife is announcing that our dinner is ready, it's pitch dark outside, I need to build a fire, and there's a stinky bowl of thawed krill on the counter that has been at room temperature now for most of those two hours...:(


This is the conclusion that, hopefully, we all arrive at.

The thing that gets me is that "father fish" is an extremely experienced hobbyist who, let's face it, people are going to listen too. Now that's not so bad if you are experienced yourself, you can take what he says with a pinch of salt. But newcomers to the hobby are going to start believing his preachings to be gospel.

And the same with the guy on "aquarium science". By and large I've found it to be a decent site, it covers all sorts of stuff. He comes across as pretty clued up, almost science boffin like, especially when they start quoting studies and such which, understandably, is going to throw mere mortals. I mean science studies are like gospel, right, they must be correct? Hmmm.

I think I'm done with the whole nitrate thing now. Whether it's harmless, mildly toxic or completely radioactive, I don't care. I'm just going to carry on with my water changes and do what's right for me, and my fish.

I think that's all we can do.

The Fishy Father isn't the first of his ilk... certainly won't be the last. At least he isn't selling kitty litter.

I have been more or less done with the whole nitrate thing for a long time. I consider them what they are, i.e. an easily measured indicator of how much my fish are pooping and pissing and farting and generally polluting their water. And once nitrate readings give me an indication of just how fast all those bodily excretions are collecting, I pretty much ignore them. The only testing I have done is on my stock tanks when I first set them up outside in the spring...and that's mostly for pH and hardness. I doubt I will do even that this year, as the results were pretty consistent the past couple of springs.

Here's the thing: I don't care if somebody actually points me to a study that proves conclusively that I don't need to change water. I think I have a decent handle on the accepted theory of biofiltration, and I'm happy with my generally good success.

I give my fish food and I see it go in the front end of each one. I also see the solid waste coming out the back end of each one, and I know that there's a whole bunch of other invisible stuff coming out at both ends. I want to change that water...I don't understand how anyone could not want to...and I don't really give a rat's a** how many scientists tell me I don't need to. I don't need to keep aquariums at all; I do it because it makes me happy.

If water becomes too expensive or otherwise prohibitive to replace, I will stop keeping fish.


...I have never bothered with the vast majority of social media platforms. No facebook, no instagram, no twitter, no tik tok, etc.
I'm a simple man, MFK gives me all the drama that I need in my life. lol...

Hear! Hear! Lol...
 
Hey John, just goes to prove that if one waits long enough around here, everything eventually repeats itself. lol
 
  • Haha
Reactions: jjohnwm
He runs a site that "ahem" you have to pay to belong to. Also runs a YouTube channel that you have to "ahem" pay to be a member < snip >

Anyone see a correlation here? This old boot spouts any form of controversial nonsense and on this site a couple dozen or more that likely have never otherwise heard of him are now jabbering about whatever came out of that old fart's pie hole last. He makes money on clicks and it doesn't matter that his comments are accurate; it only matters that his statements attract more clicks. In the case of several here he just got a click off of you.

MFK is about objective and quantifiable aspects of the hobby and that guy is all about subjective nonsense articulated in a way that could only be defended under a narrow set of circumstances. Expect to disagree with him as he's looking for money and you're looking to improve your fish keeping skill.
 
Just for the record, I never clicked. No need to, I've been reading that kind of BS since Al Gore invented the internet. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: aussieman57
MonsterFishKeepers.com