On the topic of Oscar nitrates

[convict360]

If you can keep variables low, and be consistent with the measurement interval, I think it would be interesting to many people to see the change over time. It may be overkill to do it on a weekly basis, but measuring just before the weekly water change and showing the results each month would be interesting to me. I know what is going to happen, but it would still be interesting.

I agree, I think everyone has agreed what will happen; my original intention was to demonstrate this in practise, hopefully to anyone researching Oscars

Anyway I'll probably be switching my stock up soon anyway, so there won't be any more divisions lol; at least not until I start the GT nitrate thread

 

[BrookKeeper]

Perhaps I'm just thick upstairs, but what exactly IS the point of this thread?

It's all good, I didn't realize that there were actually people that didn't understand that big fish such as O's produce a LOT of waste as they mature.

Carry on .....

...I also didn't say that this topic is pointless...

RD, you didn't say this thread was pointless, but you did make some snide remarks that clearly indicated that you thought it was pointless... in which case I ask you, why are you here and reading it? Seems like one of those "if you don't have anything nice to say..." situations. Although, I am sort of entering one at the moment, myself...

Please do carry on, Convict. <-- indicates that I am not an a-hole...

 

[RD.]

In fact I keep detailed records of everything that takes place in my tanks, and have forever - so pointless, nope, never used the word. I am a data freak, even pointless data sometimes. But I honestly didn't understand the point of this topic towards people other than the OP. Having read more from others, I get it. A bit odd to me, but I get it now.

Having said that, I meant every word that I said, and IMO the real problem that I see in many of these discussions is that reading comprehension skills are sometimes lacking even more so than fishkeeping skills. How one reads what I type on a forum is up to them, I honestly couldn't give a rats arse one way or the other.

And seeing as the OP already stated .... "'ll probably be switching my stock up soon anyway", WTF does any of this really matter? LOL

 

[convict360]

I haven't switched stock just yet lol, so I'll still be measuring nitrates until that time (if it does happen).

 

[duanes]

I believe it is the information gained from the "long term" effects, of even low levels of nitrate over time that would make this thread relevant.
Many of the aquaculture experiments on elevated nitrate levels are somewhat irrelevant to aquarists, because they are concerned about the health and appearance of fish, only until they become, and how they look as meat.
Whereas I believe we aquarists think in aesthetic terms while the fish are alive.
Most large cichlids (oscars included) take a few years to mature, and show full potential.
On the flip side, my theory is that low levels of nitrate also take a few years to demonstrate their full damage potential.
So switching stock would take this thread down the road, and point (or lack thereof), RD predicted.

 

[convict360]

the regret in creating this thread is real lol. I created the thread with good intentions, I'm done defending why etc, I'm not a paid scientist, so if i want to change stock; I'm going to do it

 

[RD.]

This is what happens sometimes when one chooses to post on a public forum - you end up with differing opinions.

The topic of nitrates/dissolved organic compounds etc is an interesting subject, but unless charted with some type of detailed stats, and then done over long term, it really doesn't prove anything other than what most people already know. Big fish eat lots of food, and produce a lot of waste on a weekly basis. Obviously nitrate production is going to increase as your fish grow, this is common sense, no matter the species. If there are those who find this topic interesting then I am certainly not suggesting, or attempting to stop anyone from reading further posts. By all means keep the topic going forward.

And as a side note, I agree with Duane with regards to the accumulation and/or exposure to even low levels of various substances such as nitrates, including dissolved organic compounds, ammonia, chlorine, etc, over an extended period of time. Second hand smoke has been proven to be harmful to human health, but one typically won't see negative health issues immediatly.

 

[dan518]

Does any body know if there is a big difference in the average age of fish between the UK and USA as our tap water is 20 to 40 ppm nitrates.

 

[RD.]

I doubt that such stats exist, for any species of fish. Having said that there is a fair amount of science available that concludes that to at least the species of fish studied to date, in many cases nitrate can indeed be toxic. It also tends to go back to one of my original comments, that being that toxicity among fish can be species specific, age specific, and even within the same species and age group, based on the individual fish. This is common among most organisms.

For those that are interested in how toxic, or not, nitrates are to freshwater fish you might find this to be an interesting read.

http://www.oscarfish.com/article-home/water/79-is-nitrate-toxic-a-study-of-nitrate-toxicity.html

 

[dan518]

Cheers RD good read, i did note the opposing argument had no science to back it up.