Ugh! Nitrates!

[emilygupps]

Our water as of last night (the night after water change day) we did %30 mind you, this is a 180g.

Ph. 8.2
Ammonia. 0
Nitrite. 0
Nitrate. 5-10 (yay?!)

Non chelated iron 0
Chelated iron 0
Phosphate 0


An other loach died yesterday. He had been acting crazy for two nights swimming in cork screws in the middle of the day, kind of like he was crazy. Every time we prepared to euthanize him he would disappear. I'm not sure how many are left now. They're hard to keep track of. We are certainly done with khulis at least in this tank. I doubt I'll be able to catch the healthy ones with out breaking the tank down.

We have been doing water changes up to 40% depending on the test results some times 3 times a week for the last three weeks. Our nitrates have been hovering around 40 the last week or so. And we do use prime every water change, 1 cap:50g ski usually put 4 caps full (a little bit over the dose) after we are done sucking water out bug before we push water back in.

As for the algae we have decreased the light intensity and started dosing the tank with the minerals. Oddly in this tank after he pours the frets in the water gets cloudy for six hours. None of the other tanks do that. And two other other planted tanks are younger than this one.


Sent from my iPhone

 

[emilygupps]

For over feeding, we agreed and cut back a lot on frozen foods and the amount of flake food we feed. We try fast them at least once a week but those angels get ravenous. We have switched to a spirolina based flake food and use mosquito larvae for our live food. Only in the last week or so. Angels not a fan of the green flakes. The danios are pigs and eat anything that floats. Even duck weed.

Out side amonia: I didn't forget what you said, Andy, about my cat peeing in the tank. So, we have been keeping him in his room at night and when we aren't home.

I've searched and searched for dead fish even poking loaches that are tangled up in the plant roots and scaring the bejesus out of them. So far the ottos seem to be holding strong.

Disease: we didn't have any loaches dying or sick until we brought home a batch from petco that was special ordered for us (a friend was supposed to order them for me weeks ago and finally remembered after we ready had about 12) so we picked up 3 more to be polite we didn't qt and I know that was wrong but our qt is bare bottom and I thought they would have been more likely to die of stress in there. It might be worth noting that we have a mix of the black and the banded one and only he banded ones seem to be affected. The black ones are fat and healthy when we see them.

Thanks for all of your help! And for reading these long replies.


Sent from my iPhone

 

[emilygupps]

And today my final gbr has died. He looked totally fine last night.


Sent from my iPhone

 

[Brookster123]

Can't beat yourself up over fish dying.. I've lost a string of fish in a perfectly healthy tank.. sometimes the stock is doomed from the get go. Especially ramms

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Aquarium Advice mobile app

 

[Andy Sager]

I just believe there are more likely culprits. I don't believe large water changes that are practiced religiously are damaging to fish. Once they adapt with no problems then the water shouldn't change enough to harm them. It's more likely sporadic water change periods and/or volumes.

There are a lot of potential factors on this case internal and external.


Sent from my iPhone using Aquarium Advice

While I agree there seems to be more culprits that need to be excluded, massive water changes can only be eliminated by not doing them. To that, I have too many experiences ( both personal and in my professional experiences) where large scale water changes killed all the fish in a tank where as in similar situations with similar fish, repeated smaller water changes yielded few to no deaths. One factor, not mentioned in this part of the discussion, is the water being used to refill the tank. It would be much easier for fish to get used to water with, say, small amounts of chlorine, chloramine or higher levels of nitrates when introduced in smaller quantity than in massive quantity. This leads me to: " You can't expect a fish to get used to massive water changes over time when/if they don;t survive the first one."
This does, however, bring up the point that it really does all depend on the species of fish we are talking about. I would agree that larger water changes would have less effect on a tank of, say, Cichlids than Tetras but then again, it's heartbreaking to see an entire tank of either Discus or Angelfish laying dead on the bottom after a water change when these are both Cichlids..... and sadly, I've seen it happen.
So is it better to error on the side of caution or go "guns-a- blazing"? Since I know that smaller changes will eventually have the same effect as massive ones do immediately, I say go slow. It has a better track record

 

[Caliban07]

While I agree there seems to be more culprits that need to be excluded, massive water changes can only be eliminated by not doing them. To that, I have too many experiences ( both personal and in my professional experiences) where large scale water changes killed all the fish in a tank where as in similar situations with similar fish, repeated smaller water changes yielded few to no deaths. One factor, not mentioned in this part of the discussion, is the water being used to refill the tank. It would be much easier for fish to get used to water with, say, small amounts of chlorine, chloramine or higher levels of nitrates when introduced in smaller quantity than in massive quantity. This leads me to: " You can't expect a fish to get used to massive water changes over time when/if they don;t survive the first one."
This does, however, bring up the point that it really does all depend on the species of fish we are talking about. I would agree that larger water changes would have less effect on a tank of, say, Cichlids than Tetras but then again, it's heartbreaking to see an entire tank of either Discus or Angelfish laying dead on the bottom after a water change when these are both Cichlids..... and sadly, I've seen it happen.
So is it better to error on the side of caution or go "guns-a- blazing"? Since I know that smaller changes will eventually have the same effect as massive ones do immediately, I say go slow. It has a better track record

I absolutely agree that larger water changes can cause more harm however, there are many people on here who practice 50% water changes twice a week. I used to do it on my tank of firemouths with no repercussions. Only researching and learning about the osmoregulatory system has led me to believe fish should be allowed to adapt slowly. Of course source water chemistry differs severely from one part of the globe to another, even next door but I believe that once fish have adapted to your change routine (just like fish in the wild have learned to adapt to heavy rainfall or large droughts) they are less likely to have problems as time goes on. Leaving the water for two week then doing a 50% water change it constantly doing 20% water changes followed by a random 60% change could be much more detrimental. I appreciate your experiences but there are always those who successfully practice high volume changes on a regular basis with no noticeable effect. Too many variables.

This is why I worry about inevitably rising dissolved solids over time. The base point will always creep no matter how much you change them one day you do a cleaning haul and bam dead fishes.


Sent from my iPhone using Aquarium Advice

 

[Delapool]

Just a working theory on water changes but I've found fish can be fine with large water changes (like 90%) if there isn't too many changes with the water chemistry. For example, the temperature change might be 20%. No worries. Temperature change and say ph/kh change - no more fish. Like I say it's just a theory since I don't really set out to test it and mainly prefer water changes of around 30 to 40%.

 

[Delapool]

Our water as of last night (the night after water change day) we did %30 mind you, this is a 180g.

Ph. 8.2
Ammonia. 0
Nitrite. 0
Nitrate. 5-10 (yay?!)

Non chelated iron 0
Chelated iron 0
Phosphate 0


An other loach died yesterday. He had been acting crazy for two nights swimming in cork screws in the middle of the day, kind of like he was crazy. Every time we prepared to euthanize him he would disappear. I'm not sure how many are left now. They're hard to keep track of. We are certainly done with khulis at least in this tank. I doubt I'll be able to catch the healthy ones with out breaking the tank down.

We have been doing water changes up to 40% depending on the test results some times 3 times a week for the last three weeks. Our nitrates have been hovering around 40 the last week or so. And we do use prime every water change, 1 cap:50g ski usually put 4 caps full (a little bit over the dose) after we are done sucking water out bug before we push water back in.

As for the algae we have decreased the light intensity and started dosing the tank with the minerals. Oddly in this tank after he pours the frets in the water gets cloudy for six hours. None of the other tanks do that. And two other other planted tanks are younger than this one.


Sent from my iPhone

Are you dosing iron or kh buffers? Would you have kh? I've seen something on this where minerals precipitate out but have to go and find it.


Edit - found it. Copied some of it below. Just guessing here.

http://www.skepticalaquarist.com/ferrous-ferric

Ferric precipitates. Ionic iron that isn't chelated will precipitate in various ways. For instance, in alkaline waters, where calcium is plentiful, unchelated iron would rapidly complex with the calcium or the carbonate instead, and co-precipitate out.

 

[PB_Smith]

Sorry to hear about your ram, Emily.
Hope this gets sorted out for you soon.

Just a working theory on water changes but I've found fish can be fine with large water changes (like 90%) if there isn't too many changes with the water chemistry. For example, the temperature change might be 20%. No worries. Temperature change and say ph/kh change - no more fish. Like I say it's just a theory since I don't really set out to test it and mainly prefer water changes of around 30 to 40%.

Yes, it is safe to do large changes if the water is conditioned/aged to match the tank in question, but even then caution should be exercised and really only done in an emergency.

I, like Andy, have seen catastrophic die offs from too drastic of a water change.

IMHO, and without wanting offend anyone, if you need to change 50% of your water weekly or more to maintain water quality, something is wrong with your set-up, plain and simple.
10%-20% weekly should suffice in all types of set-ups, fresh and marine, planted and reefs.

The real catch-22 in this is that a huge water change is advisable in an emergency, yet an emergency situation means the fish are already stressed and therefore will be even less able to handle the added stress of a large water change.
I guarantee that has been the cause of tank die-offs for some folks.

The answer to that, if possible, is to keep a supply of water available that is already conditioned/treated/aged to match the tank parameters as close as possible.

 

[Caliban07]

Sorry to hear about your ram, Emily.
Hope this gets sorted out for you soon.



Yes, it is safe to do large changes if the water is conditioned/aged to match the tank in question, but even then caution should be exercised and really only done in an emergency.

I, like Andy, have seen catastrophic die offs from too drastic of a water change.

IMHO, and without wanting offend anyone, if you need to change 50% of your water weekly or more to maintain water quality, something is wrong with your set-up, plain and simple.
10%-20% weekly should suffice in all types of set-ups, fresh and marine, planted and reefs.

The real catch-22 in this is that a huge water change is advisable in an emergency, yet an emergency situation means the fish are already stressed and therefore will be even less able to handle the added stress of a large water change.
I guarantee that has been the cause of tank die-offs for some folks.

The answer to that, if possible, is to keep a supply of water available that is already conditioned/treated/aged to match the tank parameters as close as possible.

I agree. I feel that in systems where 50% of the tank volume is being changed religiously every week or twice every week, the water shouldn't be changing all that drastically though. The same could be said for religious changes of a smaller volume. The drastic changes happen when you do something out of the norm ie go on holiday and leave the water that you usually change 20% weekly sit for two weeks then come home and do a 50% change to try and compensate. I agree that changing that much water is a pointless waste of time, energy, money and water in normal situations. Water quality doesn't just depend on the source water (I'm not preaching to anyone specifically here) it depends on the collective elements bioload, filtration, feeding habits, use of products, planting. Everyone's tank is different but the fundamentals will always remain the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Aquarium Advice

 

[Andy Sager]

All in all, I think we have reached the point in the hobby where too much info is being given out that does not apply to all situations, coupled with an unreliable local source of info for a hobbyist to turn to for their tank(s) specifically. Where does one turn? Who does one trust? As stated, water is not the same everywhere. I had my own situations when I moved from the nice soft acidic waters of New Jersey to the hard alkaline waters of S. Florida. What a drastic difference for the fish. I had moved breeder fish with me and they never adapted to the new water to breed. They lived, but did not breed again, yet, I eventually obtained the same types of fish that were raised in the local water and they did breed. So there really is no one cut & dry answer for everybody. I did larger water changes on my Oscars and they did fine. I did a larger than normal ( 10%-15%) water change once on my Angelfish and lost them all in one shot. ( You can bet I never did that again. )
What we need to approach, I believe, is the methodology of fish keeping. The proper mixing of fish species and the proper "set ups" to keep them in. (Not all fish species can mix together or go in the same sized tanks.) The reasons for changing water and filtering, etc. From there, local info is needed to a person's specific problem. It could be that the fish were bad from the start, the fish were not acclimated properly to a new water, it could be the wrong fish was put in the wrong tank size or set up. Any and all of these are possible when dealing with interstate and intercountry deliveries. There's always a learning curve. I've imported fish from around the world and couldn't treat all the fish the same way when they arrived. You don't always find this out on the first try. While internet buying is a great way to have access to a larger variety of fish, the hobbyist has to understand that it's not the same as going to your local shop and buying the same fish that has already been acclimated to the local water. It could have been that the wrong fish was put in the wrong tank shape and so nothing we suggest ( without knowing ALL the facts) will really help.
So if you ( the general you not the specific you) want to chance larger water changes, it's no skin off my nose. If you have a disaster from doing it, I will try my best not to say " I told you so" and offer a possible better solution for the next time. If it works out fine, then great for you. Technically, if you have aged water that's the same chemistry as your tank when you change water, by changing 50% of your water with this new water is not really changing anything. The idea of water changes is to dilute and "fix" problems that develop over time in an aquarium. The water going in should not be the same chemistry as the water already there. It should be of better quality, No? This is why the need for care during water changes is necessary. The water should be changing, changing for the better. What you do want to match, as closely as possible, is the temps of the 2 waters so that temperature stress doesn't cause the fish to get sick. Yet another reason for smaller water changes, less temperature fluctuation.
As for the OP's situation, I stand by my previous suggestions.

Hope this helps

 

[PB_Smith]

I agree completely and is why I stress the need for a good grasp of the underlying principles/science involved, that way a person can adjust to specifics of local, etc.

Let me clarify, when I say "aged water" I mean water that has been allowed to dissipate any unwanted gasses, for ph to balance or be adjusted accordingly and for temp to be matched, not aged in the sense of being laden with organic waste.
Even more important when keeping "finicky" fish such as discus.
Aged water could be 24 hours old, as opposed to the "fill the bucket, de-chlor, dump in tank" un-aged water.

 

[emilygupps]

While I agree there seems to be more culprits that need to be excluded, massive water changes can only be eliminated by not doing them. To that, I have too many experiences ( both personal and in my professional experiences) where large scale water changes killed all the fish in a tank where as in similar situations with similar fish, repeated smaller water changes yielded few to no deaths. One factor, not mentioned in this part of the discussion, is the water being used to refill the tank. It would be much easier for fish to get used to water with, say, small amounts of chlorine, chloramine or higher levels of nitrates when introduced in smaller quantity than in massive quantity. This leads me to: " You can't expect a fish to get used to massive water changes over time when/if they don;t survive the first one."
This does, however, bring up the point that it really does all depend on the species of fish we are talking about. I would agree that larger water changes would have less effect on a tank of, say, Cichlids than Tetras but then again, it's heartbreaking to see an entire tank of either Discus or Angelfish laying dead on the bottom after a water change when these are both Cichlids..... and sadly, I've seen it happen.
So is it better to error on the side of caution or go "guns-a- blazing"? Since I know that smaller changes will eventually have the same effect as massive ones do immediately, I say go slow. It has a better track record

Okay. No more big water changes. I was thinking a water change was pointless unless it was at least %30. So, from now on we will do %15. Should I do twice a week or just once? And is %15 still too much?

Substrate is sand and we have 2 hob marine land emperor 400 and an Eheim canister. Idk what kind specifically I can ask the bf if I have to.

The water here is very hard.

Stock:
15 assorted danios at various sizes
7 angels the two largest are half dollar
6 khuli loaches (maybe? It's hard to say)
12 Amano shrimp
18 nerite snails (at the most)
15 ottos (no deaths in two weeks)
1 farlawala

And the final gbr died yesterday suddenly.


Sent from my iPhone

 

[Caliban07]

I agree completely and is why I stress the need for a good grasp of the underlying principles/science involved, that way a person can adjust to specifics of local, etc.

Let me clarify, when I say "aged water" I mean water that has been allowed to dissipate any unwanted gasses, for ph to balance or be adjusted accordingly and for temp to be matched, not aged in the sense of being laden with organic waste.
Even more important when keeping "finicky" fish such as discus.
Aged water could be 24 hours old, as opposed to the "fill the bucket, de-chlor, dump in tank" un-aged water.

Although I wholeheartedly agree with both of you I still don't think RELIGIOUS large water changes are going to harm fish and is probably why those that do change large volumes weekly or biweekly have had no repercussions. Once the fish have adapted to these changes and the keepers routine remains identical week after week I.e type of food and how much you feed, use of chemicals their systems should become accustomed to the water change given the fact that the water should not have changed dramatically since the last change. I keep saying it but I think it's an unstable maintenance/water change routine where you will see more problems.

Even with religious water changes You can't keep TDS at zero or make it go backwards (without doing a 100% water change). You can slow it down but it will rise. The fish shouldn't mind this too much as it is rising slowly. Eventually the TDS will become concentrated enough to make water changes unstable. I think as the tank ages, even more care has to be taken. The majority of fish probably won't bat an eyelid but others will belly up easily. Another reason for random deaths IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Aquarium Advice

 

[Caliban07]

Okay. No more big water changes. I was thinking a water change was pointless unless it was at least %30. So, from now on we will do %15. Should I do twice a week or just once? And is %15 still too much?

Substrate is sand and we have 2 hob marine land emperor 400 and an Eheim canister. Idk what kind specifically I can ask the bf if I have to.

The water here is very hard.

Stock:
15 assorted danios at various sizes
7 angels the two largest are half dollar
6 khuli loaches (maybe? It's hard to say)
12 Amano shrimp
18 nerite snails (at the most)
15 ottos (no deaths in two weeks)
1 farlawala

And the final gbr died yesterday suddenly.


Sent from my iPhone

You will always get conflicting opinions with regards to water change volumes, I feel the tank is more stable with smaller more frequent water changes. Especially with plants.


Sent from my iPhone using Aquarium Advice

 

[emilygupps]

Thank you all for responding. I'm testing again tonight.


Sent from my iPhone

 

[Andy Sager]

Okay. No more big water changes. I was thinking a water change was pointless unless it was at least %30. So, from now on we will do %15. Should I do twice a week or just once? And is %15 still too much?

Substrate is sand and we have 2 hob marine land emperor 400 and an Eheim canister. Idk what kind specifically I can ask the bf if I have to.

The water here is very hard.

Stock:
15 assorted danios at various sizes
7 angels the two largest are half dollar
6 khuli loaches (maybe? It's hard to say)
12 Amano shrimp
18 nerite snails (at the most)
15 ottos (no deaths in two weeks)
1 farlawala

And the final gbr died yesterday suddenly.


Sent from my iPhone

Assuming that the 180 is gallons not liters, I tend to think that if you have a nitrate problem with all those plants and doing just a 10%-15% water change once a week, there is a filtering situation going on not a stocking situation. They may not be strong enough to remove the larger "material" from the fish that is the most likely cause of the eventual nitrates( assuming that the products you are adding to the water aren't doing major changes to the water.) Given what you posted you have in the tank ATM, I would not add more fish and see what results you get after a few weeks of doing just the smaller water changes. Again, a nitrate level that's creeping upwards is an indication of a problem.

Sand substrate can sometimes be a problem as it can pack down trapping detritus underneath the surface of it causing an anaerobic situation (oxygen poor) which can also deteriorate the water quality. I'd make sure you do some sand agitation prior to your water changes to get out any detritus that may be caught under the sand. I would separate the tank into different zones and just do one zone per water change. You don;t want to disturb too much of the bacteria bed at one time.

Keep track of your parameters and keep us posted

 

[emilygupps]

Sent from my iPhone

 

[emilygupps]

We are fixing the intake now with some mesh. We found three total in the canister.


Sent from my iPhone

 

[emilygupps]

We are fixing the intake now with some mesh. We found three total in the canister.


Sent from my iPhone

Loach proof


Sent from my iPhone