Thoughts on a Super Red Sev Death

[TahoeFish]

I did the teaspoon of Safe because it was the first time I used Safe instead of Prime and the back indicated that you could use a teaspoon to 100 gallons (I'm at my office typing from memory my have measurements wrong) to neutralize nitrates, which I was suspecting might be a problem. I will start another thread on Safe as I'm not certain how to use it with water changes. So the 0 reading might be that the
Safe neutralized nitrates. I did shake bottles in the API test kit but I do understand that the 0 reading is unlikely.

Thanks everyone. I do appreciate the comments and will commit to more frequent and bigger water changes.

 

[RD.]

Ok, I was just wondering as I typically use 1/8 teaspoon of Safe to treat my 125's. (@ 2ppm chloramine)

I suspect that what some have stated about heavily inbred/line'bred strains of fish such as red sevs, ebjd, flowerhorn, and many of todays designer discus may possibly be the cause. I'm afraid that when breeders focus too much on certain traits that some of the unwanted negative traits get included in the genetic make up of the fish as well. Many of these designer fish are simply weak strains of fish. It was a great looking specimen, sorry that you lost it at such an early age.

 

[Mythic Figment]

I agree in twice weekly water changes of 35-50%. You could do your 30% but instead of every 5 days, make it every 3. Those are going to be big fish when they are full grown that produce a lot of waste that will increase the ammonia (and nitrites and nitrates progressively) significantly, so frequent water changes are a must.

I also agree on the poor genetics standpoint. As someone said above, super reds are line bred and that process allows for less than desirable genetics to be present in those types of fish.


Sent from my iPad using MonsterAquariaNetwork app

 

[sincebeen]

I tested the water and nitrites, ammonia and nitrates 0

Which means it's not these water parameters that killed your fish, provided your test kit is not defective. So disregard the water change advice IMO.

I respectfully disagree with a 50% water change twice a week - especially if that hobbyist is doing it to control nitrites or nitrates. You would not be doing your fish any favors by poisoning them a few days out of the week and giving them freshwater the other two days. If this amount of change is required, the user either has insufficient bio media, an insufficient amount of media, to high of a flow rate through the media, or d. all of the above.

By the way, that was a great looking fish, as is the geophagus.

 

[sincebeen]

Is it really overstocked?

No.

Sure wish that much filtration would limit water changes a bit.

Based on your ammo/nitrite/nitrate water parameters, which we just covered, it does. The only reason you're doing water changes is to remove hormones, maintain gh/ph, and replenish minerals.

You didn't say anything about your water change schedule before the HITH. It may be that the increased water change schedule effected the GH of your water to the point of stress for the others (although this should have adjusted the PH). To further explain, when water evaporates, only the water evaporates, and minerals are left in the tank. When the tank is topped off with tap water, more minerals are added. This increases the GH, and may eventually become the norm to a point. With an increased water change schedule, the GH would be lowered and PH should fluctuate, possibly to the point of stress in some fish. Also, epsom salt, I believe, will raise the GH, which would further knock around the fluctuation.

Just a guess based on the info given.

 

[TahoeFish]

Thank you so much for the feedback everyone. To be honest, I have never measured GH. BUT, I live in a very dry climate and am always amazed at the evaporation from the tank. I was doing 30% water changes every 5 days or so before the HITH. The epsom salt was only contained in the soaked food, so should not have been much, but I wonder about over time the the increase in GH given maintenance and evaporation. I do believe that we have hard water up here. While I'm confident my nitrites and ammonia were 0, I do wonder about the 0 reading on nitrates. That is not the norm for me. Usually it is between 10-20ppm. I'll test again tomorrow. Using Safe to neutralize nitrates... would that lead to a 0 reading? Honestly I have never had a zero reading before.

Okay so 50% once a week with testing for nitrates. I will read up on GH testing. And when I do a water change I won't use as much Safe... RD I did read a post by you and will read about how to dose Safe.

Thank you again everyone.

 

[sincebeen]

The epsom salt was only contained in the soaked food, so should not have been much

I've never used epsom salt, but it stands to reason that soaked food, versus adding it to the water, may not effect (raise) the GH.

I'll test again tomorrow. Using Safe to neutralize nitrates... would that lead to a 0 reading?

I think so. In fact, the only reason Seachem claims the ability to detoxify nitrates is because a number of hobbyists contacted them with results of zero nitrates. To my knowledge, Seachem themselves have not been able to explain exactly how nitrates are detoxified using they're products.

One thing is clear, the nitrogen cycle is not what killed your fish.

Okay so 50% once a week with testing for nitrates.

Based on the pictures of your fish, I would go back to whatever you were doing before as far as water changes go. Your GH research will shed some light on this. Also understand that your substrate, decorations, even bio media can adjust your PH, and maybe your GH. When I started using Seachem Matrix - which I love by the way - my PH dropped from a stable 8.0 to a consistent 7.6 (with no ill effects).

 

[Mythic Figment]

Thank you so much for the feedback everyone. To be honest, I have never measured GH. BUT, I live in a very dry climate and am always amazed at the evaporation from the tank. I was doing 30% water changes every 5 days or so before the HITH. The epsom salt was only contained in the soaked food, so should not have been much, but I wonder about over time the the increase in GH given maintenance and evaporation. I do believe that we have hard water up here. While I'm confident my nitrites and ammonia were 0, I do wonder about the 0 reading on nitrates. That is not the norm for me. Usually it is between 10-20ppm. I'll test again tomorrow. Using Safe to neutralize nitrates... would that lead to a 0 reading? Honestly I have never had a zero reading before.

Okay so 50% once a week with testing for nitrates. I will read up on GH testing. And when I do a water change I won't use as much Safe... RD I did read a post by you and will read about how to dose Safe.

Thank you again everyone.

I use 1/4 teaspoon of Safe to treat 50 gallons. Your full teaspoon was enough to treat 200 gallons. And if you didn't level the teaspoon off, you likely treated for 250-350 gallons. Too much Safe can be a bad thing. There are people who treat 2x the recommended dose, but it can cause stress beyond 2x the dosage. Stress brings on illness in fish, especially faster in fish with weak genetics. Now I doubt it would be enough to kill the super red, but it could have been a contributing factor.

Instead of 50% a week, I would focus on 30% twice a week. If you only do one big water change a week, you are exposing the fish to two local extremes of water quality. You have the more clean water of just after a change and then 7 more days of climbing to dirtier levels of quality until the next change. By doing multiple smaller changes a week, the fish are exposed to less poor quality water, which will lead to less stress and healthier looking and behaving fish.


Sent from my iPad using MonsterAquariaNetwork app

 

[Mythic Figment]

I've never used epsom salt, but it stands to reason that soaked food, versus adding it to the water, may not effect (raise) the GH.

I think so. In fact, the only reason Seachem claims the ability to detoxify nitrates is because a number of hobbyists contacted them with results of zero nitrates. To my knowledge, Seachem themselves have not been able to explain exactly how nitrates are detoxified using they're products.

One thing is clear, the nitrogen cycle is not what killed your fish.

Based on the pictures of your fish, I would go back to whatever you were doing before as far as water changes go. Your GH research will shed some light on this. Also understand that your substrate, decorations, even bio media can adjust your PH, and maybe your GH. When I started using Seachem Matrix - which I love by the way - my PH dropped from a stable 8.0 to a consistent 7.6 (with no ill effects).

In any tank, there are four types of important "good" bacteria. The first are the decomposes. They take the animal waste and transform it into ammonia. The second type are the Nitrosomonas, which convert ammonia to nitrite. The third are Nitrobacters, which convert nitrites to nitrates. And the fourth are the denitrifying bacteria that take nitrates that aren't taken up by plants and convert that to nitrogen gas, which is aired out during gas exchange with the surface of the water. All Safe and Prime do is chemically speed up the process of changing ammonia to nitrogen gas. Seachem understand this. The nitrogen cycle is not difficult to understand and with the amount of money the chemists working for the company are making, they had better understand how their produce helps to remove nitrates.

I do agree that the nitrogen cycle likely had nothing to do with the death of the OP's super red.

I do disagree with your comment earlier about water changes only being for removal of hormones, maintaining GH/pH and replenishing minerals. While you are correct on the hormones and GH/pH, mineral replenishment will depend entirely on the source of the water. For instance, my water has very little trance minerals in it. In my old house in SC, my water was chalk full of them. And water changes are not just for those things. Water changes are done to remove excess ammonia, nitrates and nitrites. Now again, that can vary with the water source, but for the most part, you will be removing more ammonia, nitrites and nitrates than you will be adding back from the tap 99% of the time. Water changes can also be used to remove chemicals used to treat illness and remove visible debris.

It is also unlikely that his GH or pH had anything to do with the death of his fish. Even with large water changes only done once a week, the change in pH or GH is likely insignificant. Not likely to cause pH shock let alone kill a species of fish that is known to be hardy and tolerant of a variety of water conditions (speaking of severums in general, not just super reds). It is likely a poor genetics issue with the line bred super reds. It could also be a natural death. People suffer from heart attacks daily by the thousands and I while I would say fish are healthier and less obese as a species compared to humans in the US, fish do still suffer from health issues just like humans do. It's common to see people forget that animals are biological organisms that suffer from some of the same or similar health risks we humans do. It could be just that simple. Or it could be very complex. Truth of the matter is that we will likely never know unless the OP wants to bag the fish and send it to a physiology biologist specializing in fish along with a water sample to a chemist specializing in some form of water source testing/chemistry. That will cost a lot of money and still has the chance of coming back with inconclusive results.


Sent from my iPad using MonsterAquariaNetwork app

 

[sincebeen]

Instead of 50% a week, I would focus on 30% twice a week.

Completely unnecessary unless the OP enjoys doing water changes. Based on the water perams originally posted, 30% weekly is good. By doing multiple water changes a week, you're actually causing more stress on the fish by constantly stirring up their environment - this is pretty basic.

All Safe and Prime do is chemically speed up the process of changing ammonia to nitrogen gas. Seachem understand this. The nitrogen cycle is not difficult
to understand and with the amount of money the chemists working for the company are making, they had better understand how their produce helps to remove nitrates.

Safe and Prime do not speed anything up - they detoxify through binding. See: Sodium thiosulfate. Understanding the nitrogen cycle has absolutely nothing to do with detoxifying nitrates (the nitrogen cycle is about converting nitrates). If you need to learn more about Seachem products, they have a website.

For instance, my water has very little trance minerals in it.

Which is irrelevant to the original post, since his water is clearly from a different source

I do disagree with your comment earlier about water changes only being for removal of hormones, maintaining GH/pH and replenishing minerals. While you are correct on the hormones and GH/pH, mineral replenishment will depend entirely on the source of the water. For instance, my water has very little trance minerals in it. In my old house in SC, my water was chalk full of them. And water changes are not just for those things. Water changes are done to remove excess ammonia, nitrates and nitrites. Now again, that can vary with the water source, but for the most part, you will be removing more ammonia, nitrites and nitrates than you will be adding back from the
tap 99% of the time. Water changes can also be used to remove chemicals used to treat illness and remove visible debris.

There's no such thing as access ammonia and nitrites in a system with sufficient bio media/ bio flow. That is NOT what water changes are for. and again, if you are changing water to remove these, you're wrong. And anyone who does water changes to "remove visible debris" is doing something else wrong, obviously.

It could be just that simple. Or it could be very complex. Truth of the matter is that we will likely never know...

Or we could get together on an MFK thread and talk about it