Are canisters nitrate factories?

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
those studies are referring to the biological process of direct ammonia excretion by fish.
however, it does not mean that food & poo does not also create ammonia in the water. that is why completely fish-less cycling can be done using pieces of shrimp, because they create ammonia when breaking down in tank.
same for using any fish food. poo and any waste absolutely does feed the cycle.
 
petspoiler said:
those studies are referring to the biological process of direct ammonia excretion by fish.
however, it does not mean that food & poo does not also create ammonia in the water. that is why completely fish-less cycling can be done using pieces of shrimp, because they create ammonia when breaking down in tank.
same for using any fish food. poo and any waste absolutely does feed the cycle.
Click to expand...

Here are the quotes.


Viejafish: There is a misunderstanding of what fish poop is made up of. Fish poop is not a huge source of nitrogen. Unlike birds and mammals, fish excrete nitrogeneous waste primarily through gill and secondarily through urination as ammonia. So even if you remove fish poop as fast as it is produced, the nitrate level will still go up. The only way to lower nitrate is WC and photosynthesis.

Soul_Assassin: I have looked for scientific studies with regard to your statement to no avail. Maybe you can provide the source of your information to us. (Not that you are wrong, just that I did not find any research on the ratios you are stating).


I believe the question used the word "ratios" was referring to the statement that most ammonia came from the gils and not from fish feces. I simply was offering support that indeed most ammonia comes across the gils. I have underlined and bolded the words I posted in reference to as this is what the question is being boiled down to, imo.

We agree that there are other sources and no one I think disagrees that leftover food will create ammonia. No one disagrees that fish feces could provide ammonia. The only issue that was being challenged was whether or not fish feces provided any significant amount of ammonia to nitrate source. I'd suggest that the articles imply that fish feces offers a tiny fraction of the ammonia in the tank.

Of course, there may be people who toss in more food (or much more food) than the fish eat. But I don't think that is what either of the quotes was addressing. The quotes are only related to what happens to food once eaten...where does the ammonia go: gils, urine, feces?

If I misunderstood, please correct me, as it's late and I may not have paid close attention.
 
Those are valid points supporting the necessity of water changes.
but probably the highest percentage of fish keepers do greatly over feed & that does create "nitrate factories" inside canisters, which was the original question.
 
viejafish said:
There is a misunderstanding of what fish poop is made up of. Fish poop is not a huge source of nitrogen. Unlike birds and mammals, fish excrete nitrogeneous waste primarily through gill and secondarily through urination as ammonia. So even if you remove fish poop as fast as it is produced, the nitrate level will still go up. The only way to lower nitrate is WC and photosynthesis.

That said, it is still benefiticial to clean the substrate and canister filter media frequently. The gunk built up is not just fish poop, but also uneaten food, and a lot of dead micros. Even if you don't over feed, fish are messy eater that pulverize food waste that feed the micro food chain. You can tell how bad the gunk is by shutting off the canister and see how quick it turns anoxic generating sulfide and ammonia gases. In a power outage and subsequent return, those anoxic gases are dangerous as they can wipe out the fish. Many mysterious wipe out can be explained by dirty canister filters or undergravel filters as in the old day.

Personally, I don't use canister so there is no place to hide waste and no excuse to delay cleaning. My primary filtration is HOBs for mechanical and water movement. I do frequent WC including vacuuming thin substrate in all my tanks to reduce nitrate.

The most common and healthy filtration systems in commercial and private fish rooms are sponge filters without any fancy parts, bio media, bio wheel, blah, blah, blah!
Click to expand...

soul_assassin said:
I have looked for scientific studies with regard to your statement to no avail. Maybe you can provide the source of your information to us. (Not that you are wrong, just that I did not find any research on the ratios you are stating).

Thanks for all the replies
Click to expand...

This thread has been a very interesting read. I cannot say too much about the ratios unfortunately, but I hope this table below will be a little bit interesting if we extrapolate a little without derailing from the intended subject matter.

Manure Content.jpg

( http://www.ecochem.com/t_manure_fert.html )
This is a table of N P K Ca Mg content of different manures. I was very very surprised to see how low the N percentage content is in dried manure. It seems like other than water, the majority component in manure is actually organic matter. Consider also how dry N content may be 25% or more in feeds.

Perhaps therefore – canister poop really isn't as nitrogenously hazardous as we may think if the same rules here apply to fish waste. N content may be even less in fish poop than farm manure because fish excrete so much N waste from their gills.

Manure Content.jpg
 
js302 said:
Perhaps therefore – canister poop really isn't as nitrogenously hazardous as we may think if the same rules here apply to fish waste. N content may be even less in fish poop than farm manure because fish excrete so much N waste from their gills.
Click to expand...

Aquatic animals with gils do not operate the same way as terrestrial animals with lungs as far as the excretory system. That was really the gist of the third link I posted. (Anyone that wants to elaborate or edit my reply should feel free as I don't claim in any way to be a biologist.)

I would have no way of saying whether fish poop is safer than any other, but I'd try not to draw parallels to far with terrestrial mammals.

Removing nitrogen from the body is costly from energy standpoint and yet vital due to the dangers that ammonia represents. Most aquatic animals use water (via gils) because that is efficient and safer than retaining the ammonia. Terrestrial animals don't have that option. Urea, uric acid, feces are the solution terrestrial animals use, and as a result there is a higher concentration of nitrogen in terrestrial excretions because while there is more nitrogen, it's in a safer form than ammonia. (That's why bat guano, cow poop, etc. are great fertilizers, while no one seeks out aquatic animals for their excretions as fertilizer. Even fish urine contains a lot of water.) Nitrogen is of course one of the 3 key elements used by many plants for growth along with potassium and phosphorous.

Below is a relevant quote from the third link I posted.


Nitrogen Excretion
We will consider the elimination of nitrogen first, a process technically known as excretion. Excretion is a necessary consequence of protein breakdown; when proteins are converted to carbohydrates to provide energy, the amino group is removed and must be dealt with. In the body, the amino group is quickly oxidized to form ammonia (or, at high body pH the ammonium ion). Ammonia is highly toxic and highly soluble in water. If the organism has a sufficient source of water, ammonia can simply excreted in the water. This is the course taken by many (if not most) aquatic organisms, particularly those in freshwater. In any event, ammonia must be dealt with quickly because of its toxicity. Ammonia will diffuse passively out of respiratory structures such as gills. It takes a lot of water to dissolve and flush ammonia, however, and each ammonia molecule carries only one nitrogen.
Organisms with less fresh water available, such as some marine organisms and all terrestrial organisms, are not as likely to waste water excreting nitrogen one atom at a time. They will often invest some energy to convert the ammonia into urea, which is less toxic, has two nitrogen atoms, and therefore takes less water to excrete. Because it is less toxic, it can be allowed to accumulate in the blood to some extent, and many organisms have specialized organs to remove urea and other wastes from the blood and excrete them. Urea is commonly used as an excretory product in vertebrates, and is rarely used in invertebrates. Some organisms, such as sharks and snails, allow urea to accumulate in their blood to help with overall osmotic balance. Sharks, for instance, use urea in the blood to make them hyperosmotic in relation to seawater, thus they tend to gain water from the ocean and do not have to worry about dehydration.
Some organisms go to greater lengths still to deal with nitrogen. Where water is at a real premium, even the low toxicity and reduced water loss possible with urea excretion is not enough. Uric acid is a purine even less toxic than urea, and it precipitates from solution, allowing the 4 nitrogen atoms per uric acid molecule to be excreted with just enough water so that the crystals don't scratch on the way out. It has evolved in two groups with major water loss problems - terrestrial invertebrates and egg-laying vertebrates (obviously an embryo can't just step out for a drink, and whatever it excretes is going to be very close by until hatching). Figure 1 shows the three common nitrogenous wastes.

 
@petspoiler, drstrangelove and js302, thanks for the input, learned a lot from your discourse.

@drstrangelove, you are absolutely correct in regards to what I was trying to get at with the ratios. Hard to believe that so much ammonia is excreted via gills. So, the next question that comes to mind is when the ratio of the gunk in a canister starts outweighing that which is excreted via the gills? Understanding the fact that we are now speaking about nitrates (gunk, which also consist of direct ammonia producing feces and foods) and ammonia (directly via the gills, in which I would assume is a liquid state), (apples to oranges). This is just something I would like to through out for discussion. No scientific research needed to back anything up, lol. Just subjective opinions...
 
I dont think they are any worse a "nitrate factory" than any other type of filtration. That being said, they are a pita to clean so, it's easy to put it off. Out of sight out of mind.

I just sold my last canister filter in exchange for sumps and sponges. Way more efficient and much easier to pull a sock or squeeze a sponge.

Personal choice really, but with a lot of tanks to keep up with, canisters take up too much of my time.


Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
 
Jc1119 said:
I dont think they are any worse a "nitrate factory" than any other type of filtration. That being said, they are a pita to clean so, it's easy to put it off. Out of sight out of mind.

I just sold my last canister filter in exchange for sumps and sponges. Way more efficient and much easier to pull a sock or squeeze a sponge.

Personal choice really, but with a lot of tanks to keep up with, canisters take up too much of my time.


Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
Click to expand...

The fish in your avatar is wonderful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom