Got the numbers (Was: no water changes for 1 year)

[Bob Wennerstrom]

Drum roll....

NO3 140ppm+
Ph 7.8
KH 54
GH 300+
Assuming NH4 and NO2 to be zero in a tank this old.

Dang those platys are hardy little buggers aint they?

Maybe I'll start changing a little water (<1 gal) out every week or two
and see if I can't get the Nitrates to come down at all. I bet I start
losing fish though. Maybe get a few plants as well.

Well now we know what happens to nitrates when you don't change the water!

[Nikki Casali]

Bob Wennerstrom wrote:
> Drum roll....
>
> NO3 140ppm+
> Ph 7.8
> KH 54
> GH 300+
> Assuming NH4 and NO2 to be zero in a tank this old.
>
> Dang those platys are hardy little buggers aint they?
>
> Maybe I'll start changing a little water (<1 gal) out every week or two
> and see if I can't get the Nitrates to come down at all. I bet I start
> losing fish though. Maybe get a few plants as well.
>
> Well now we know what happens to nitrates when you don't change the water!

Great stuff! Any algae in that tank, perchance? What lighting does the
tank get? What colour is the water?

Have you ever done a gravel vac? Now that I would pay to see that!

Nikki

[anemone]

Nitrates can be nasty at a high level too!
"Bob Wennerstrom" <nospam> wrote in message
...
> Drum roll....
>
> NO3 140ppm+
> Ph 7.8
> KH 54
> GH 300+
> Assuming NH4 and NO2 to be zero in a tank this old.
>
> Dang those platys are hardy little buggers aint they?
>
> Maybe I'll start changing a little water (<1 gal) out every week or two
> and see if I can't get the Nitrates to come down at all. I bet I start
> losing fish though. Maybe get a few plants as well.
>
> Well now we know what happens to nitrates when you don't change the water!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Elaine T]

Bob Wennerstrom wrote:
> Drum roll....
>
> NO3 140ppm+
> Ph 7.8
> KH 54
> GH 300+
> Assuming NH4 and NO2 to be zero in a tank this old.
>
> Dang those platys are hardy little buggers aint they?
>
> Maybe I'll start changing a little water (<1 gal) out every week or two
> and see if I can't get the Nitrates to come down at all. I bet I start
> losing fish though. Maybe get a few plants as well.
>
> Well now we know what happens to nitrates when you don't change the water!
>
Thanks for testing! Since your tap water has been so troublesome and
you want to do small water changes (good plan, that), what if you use
grocery store RO or distilled water? At those GH and KH vaules, you
won't even need to add any sort of buffer for quite a while.

Plants are always good if you've got the light for them. Crypts and
java moss are good nitrate sponges even in low light.

--
__ Elaine T __
><__'> http://eethomp.com/fish.html <'__><

[Fishy Fish]

buy water filter. Like pur or somthing. then fill the tank. Get great
water that way

[Gfishery]

"Bob Wennerstrom" <nospam> wrote in message ...
> NO3 140ppm+
> Ph 7.8
> KH 54
> GH 300+
> Assuming NH4 and NO2 to be zero in a tank this old.
>
> Dang those platys are hardy little buggers aint they?

The Chinese raised goldfish as pets a couple of thousand years ago.
Anyone want to try to guess what their numbers were back then?

[Elaine T]

spiral_72 wrote:
> So does this mean, not changing water for one year is a bad thing?
>
It's a bad thing if your tapwater doesn't kill fish like Bob's does.
Nitrates are toxic to most fish when they build up - I'm not sure of the
toxic range offhand but I think 140 is getting there. I've never
allowed a FW tank to go above 40 ppm.

--
__ Elaine T __
><__'> http://eethomp.com/fish.html <'__><

[NetMax]

"spiral_72" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> So does this mean, not changing water for one year is a bad thing?


Basically yes, it creates a soup of nitrated hard alkaline water. You
would have a hard time acclimating a fish in or out of that mixture.
There are instances where water changes can also cause problems, so you
have to apply some knowledge and common sense. If the water change
causes stress (gH, NO3, or temperature differences are too high) then you
need to reduce the size of the change. Each change also has the
potential to introduce poisons into the tank, so know your water supply.

Thanks for giving us those numbers Bob. I know I let my water changes
slip when I was a kid, but I never checked my NO3 levels back then, so
I've always been curious. Explains why the plants did so well under what
is by today's standards, very weak lighting.

Incidentally, for the fish stores I worked for, nitrate shock was
suspected to be a bigger killer during acclimation than pH shock. Any
change over 40ppm was a problem.
--
www.NetMax.tk

[Victor Martinez]

Gfishery wrote:
> The Chinese raised goldfish as pets a couple of thousand years ago.
> Anyone want to try to guess what their numbers were back then?

In ponds with natural plants or in home aquaria? In any case, just
because fish *can* survive in bad water, does not mean they *should*.
When we buy fish for our home aquaria, we have the responsibility of
giving them the best possible living conditions. That includes good
quality water.

--
Victor M. Martinez
Owned and operated by the Fantastic Seven (TM)
Send your spam here:
Email me here:

[Richard Sexton]

In article >,
Elaine T > wrote:
>spiral_72 wrote:
>> So does this mean, not changing water for one year is a bad thing?
>>
>It's a bad thing if your tapwater doesn't kill fish like Bob's does.
>Nitrates are toxic to most fish when they build up - I'm not sure of the
>toxic range offhand but I think 140 is getting there. I've never
>allowed a FW tank to go above 40 ppm.

Nah, I've pumped nitrates up to 200 ppm for a month. Nothing bad happens. Tom
Barr has doe the same.


--
Need Mercedes parts ? - http://parts.mbz.org
http://www.mbz.org | Mercedes Mailing lists: http://lists.mbz.org
633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | Killies, killi.net, Crypts, aquaria.net
1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Old wris****ches http://watches.list.mbz.org

[Elaine T]

Richard Sexton wrote:
> In article >,
> Elaine T > wrote:
>
>>spiral_72 wrote:
>>
>>>So does this mean, not changing water for one year is a bad thing?
>>>
>>
>>It's a bad thing if your tapwater doesn't kill fish like Bob's does.
>>Nitrates are toxic to most fish when they build up - I'm not sure of the
>>toxic range offhand but I think 140 is getting there. I've never
>>allowed a FW tank to go above 40 ppm.
>
>
> Nah, I've pumped nitrates up to 200 ppm for a month. Nothing bad happens. Tom
> Barr has doe the same.
>
>
Kewl. Nothin' like hard data. Out of curiosity, were there any
invertebrates like shrimp or snails in the tanks?

--
__ Elaine T __
><__'> http://eethomp.com/fish.html <'__><

[Tedd Jacobs]

"NetMax" wrote...

[...]

> Incidentally, for the fish stores I worked for, nitrate shock was
> suspected to be a bigger killer during acclimation than pH shock. Any
> change over 40ppm was a problem.


now _there_ is a hard number to pay attention to when adding new fish or
making large water changes. ;-)

t.

[Richard Sexton]

>>>It's a bad thing if your tapwater doesn't kill fish like Bob's does.
>>>Nitrates are toxic to most fish when they build up - I'm not sure of the
>>>toxic range offhand but I think 140 is getting there. I've never
>>>allowed a FW tank to go above 40 ppm.
>>
>>
>> Nah, I've pumped nitrates up to 200 ppm for a month. Nothing bad happens. Tom
>> Barr has doe the same.
>>
>>
>Kewl. Nothin' like hard data. Out of curiosity, were there any
>invertebrates like shrimp or snails in the tanks?

Sure. 1 pr Diapteron georgae, 12 normani lampeyes, 18 ammano
and a few ramshorns. Atter about a month of *no water changes*
the tips of the crypts began to start to melt and I
chickened out and chnaged the water and brought it back down to
30ppm. I have pics of them on another computer somepace,
they look the same as these:

http://images.aquaria.net/invertebrates/crustaceans/shrimp/Amano/

In actual fact I know for sure some of these pics are from my local
"200ppm" folder. So I do laugh when I hear poeple say you have
to have low nitrates to keep shrimp.

Low ammonia maybe, they absolutely are sensitive to ammonia; utterly
intolerant of it, but nitrates don't seem to bother tham at all

Now, in an old tank that hasn't had a water change in a months,
a hefty nitrate dosage can trigger a small melt. I think it's
nitrate+something-else that triggers crypt rot. I've only tried
it once and it did this.

So It think high nitrates is a component to crypt melting but
in and of itself does not IME cause it.

BTW I did this by mistake. I slipped a zero in a calculation. The
amount of chemical just didn't seem right but I went ahead and
just did. I bout a nitrate test kit and had to dilte the tankwater
with distilled to get a meaningfull reading on the test kit and
when I did this enough times (4) with enough dilutions I finally
found where the color changed and by now knew it was 10X over;
and found my error in calculations.

So I just waited it out for a month. Nothing absormal happened
till about a month later when things slowed down then the crypts
began getting a little less happy every day. It may well have ebe
they ran out of something else besides K+N I suppose.

--
Need Mercedes parts ? - http://parts.mbz.org
http://www.mbz.org | Mercedes Mailing lists: http://lists.mbz.org
633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | Killies, killi.net, Crypts, aquaria.net
1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Old wris****ches http://watches.list.mbz.org

[Richard Sexton]

>> Incidentally, for the fish stores I worked for, nitrate shock was
>> suspected to be a bigger killer during acclimation than pH shock. Any
>> change over 40ppm was a problem.
>

test it on some fich you don't like then with some kno3 and
tapwater. But dollars todonuts you won't find any problem.

sure some waters are just freaking toxic if you put them
in other water and I do think there might be something besides
hard to soft, but i don't think there's anything as
specific as "nitrate shock" really.

--
Need Mercedes parts ? - http://parts.mbz.org
http://www.mbz.org | Mercedes Mailing lists: http://lists.mbz.org
633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | Killies, killi.net, Crypts, aquaria.net
1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Old wris****ches http://watches.list.mbz.org

[Elaine T]

Richard Sexton wrote:
>>>>It's a bad thing if your tapwater doesn't kill fish like Bob's does.
>>>>Nitrates are toxic to most fish when they build up - I'm not sure of the
>>>>toxic range offhand but I think 140 is getting there. I've never
>>>>allowed a FW tank to go above 40 ppm.
>>>
>>>
>>>Nah, I've pumped nitrates up to 200 ppm for a month. Nothing bad happens. Tom
>>>Barr has doe the same.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Kewl. Nothin' like hard data. Out of curiosity, were there any
>>invertebrates like shrimp or snails in the tanks?
>
>
> Sure. 1 pr Diapteron georgae, 12 normani lampeyes, 18 ammano
> and a few ramshorns. Atter about a month of *no water changes*
> the tips of the crypts began to start to melt and I
> chickened out and chnaged the water and brought it back down to
> 30ppm. I have pics of them on another computer somepace,
> they look the same as these:
>
> http://images.aquaria.net/invertebrates/crustaceans/shrimp/Amano/
>
> In actual fact I know for sure some of these pics are from my local
> "200ppm" folder. So I do laugh when I hear poeple say you have
> to have low nitrates to keep shrimp.
>
> Low ammonia maybe, they absolutely are sensitive to ammonia; utterly
> intolerant of it, but nitrates don't seem to bother tham at all

Interesting. I know that in a reef tank, the main problem with nitrates
is that algae may grow over corals. Corals will tolerate some nitrate
but not fouling.
>
> Now, in an old tank that hasn't had a water change in a months,
> a hefty nitrate dosage can trigger a small melt. I think it's
> nitrate+something-else that triggers crypt rot. I've only tried
> it once and it did this.
>
FWIW, I melted a C. wendtii with ich treatment - 86 degrees plus 1
tsp/gallon salt. Nitrates were low. These were new LFS plants and the
leaves have grown in with shorter petioles and more lanceolate so maybe
what melted was emersed growth and doomed anyway.

--
__ Elaine T __
><__'> http://eethomp.com/fish.html <'__><

[Gfishery]

"Victor Martinez" > wrote in message ...
> Gfishery wrote:
> > The Chinese raised goldfish as pets a couple of thousand years ago.
> > Anyone want to try to guess what their numbers were back then?
>
> In ponds with natural plants or in home aquaria? In any case, just
> because fish *can* survive in bad water, does not mean they *should*.
> When we buy fish for our home aquaria, we have the responsibility of
> giving them the best possible living conditions. That includes good
> quality water.

I have no idea how the Chinese kept them. Maybe in ponds or some other containers, because I don't think they had glass tanks back
then.
And they didn't have water test kits too.
So what indicated the need for a water change back then?
No goldfish flakes back then, so what did they feed them?

Animals adapt.
How do people in third world countries drink the well/river water and survive?
That water will do nasty things to us.
I'd like them to have the clean water that comes out of my tap.
But unfortunately, even the water that comes out of my tap that I drink is not good enough for my fish.

[Victor Martinez]

Richard Sexton wrote:
> Low ammonia maybe, they absolutely are sensitive to ammonia; utterly
> intolerant of it, but nitrates don't seem to bother tham at all

I should measure mine, but in my shrimp tank (20g long, heavily planted)
I never do water changes. My shrimp are all very happy, as the dozens of
baby red cherry and taiwan blue shrimp prove. :)

--
Victor M. Martinez
Owned and operated by the Fantastic Seven (TM)
Send your spam here:
Email me here:

[Tony Volk]

Bah, that's nothing. The OTS-tank I recently inherited had an NO3 of around
250ppm (I forget the other measures, but they weren't off the scale), and I
was able to successfully add new fish at levels of well over 150ppm. With
about six months of gradual water changes, and plenty of plants, I've now
brought it down to about 10ppm. As far as algae, this tank has had it all
except for blue-green algae. But you can read all about that fun in my
older threads ;).

Tony

"Bob Wennerstrom" <nospam> wrote in message
...
> Drum roll....
>
> NO3 140ppm+
> Ph 7.8
> KH 54
> GH 300+
> Assuming NH4 and NO2 to be zero in a tank this old.
>
> Dang those platys are hardy little buggers aint they?
>
> Maybe I'll start changing a little water (<1 gal) out every week or two
> and see if I can't get the Nitrates to come down at all. I bet I start
> losing fish though. Maybe get a few plants as well.
>
> Well now we know what happens to nitrates when you don't change the water!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Tedd Jacobs]

"Richard Sexton" wrote...
>>> Incidentally, for the fish stores I worked for, nitrate shock was
>>> suspected to be a bigger killer during acclimation than pH shock. Any
>>> change over 40ppm was a problem.
>>
>
> test it on some fich you don't like then with some kno3 and
> tapwater. But dollars todonuts you won't find any problem.
>
> sure some waters are just freaking toxic if you put them
> in other water and I do think there might be something besides
> hard to soft, but i don't think there's anything as
> specific as "nitrate shock" really.



http://groups.msn.com/FishHealth/nitrate.msnw
http://puffernet.tripod.com/nitrate-p.html

and i'm sure max may have more.

[Richard Sexton]

In article >,
Tedd Jacobs > wrote:
>
>"Richard Sexton" wrote...
>>>> Incidentally, for the fish stores I worked for, nitrate shock was
>>>> suspected to be a bigger killer during acclimation than pH shock. Any
>>>> change over 40ppm was a problem.
>>>
>>
>> test it on some fich you don't like then with some kno3 and
>> tapwater. But dollars todonuts you won't find any problem.
>>
>> sure some waters are just freaking toxic if you put them
>> in other water and I do think there might be something besides
>> hard to soft, but i don't think there's anything as
>> specific as "nitrate shock" really.
>
>
>
>http://groups.msn.com/FishHealth/nitrate.msnw
>http://puffernet.tripod.com/nitrate-p.html
>
>and i'm sure max may have more.
>

It's not very convincing. It's easily proved or disprived with
some kno3 though. I went form 0 to 200ppm NO3 in 5 seconds
and nothig blinked let alone died. I susepct they're having
a problem with ammonia or nitrite.


--
Need Mercedes parts ? - http://parts.mbz.org
http://www.mbz.org | Mercedes Mailing lists: http://lists.mbz.org
633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | Killies, killi.net, Crypts, aquaria.net
1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Old wris****ches http://watches.list.mbz.org

[Victor Martinez]

Gfishery wrote:
> I have no idea how the Chinese kept them. Maybe in ponds or some other containers, because I don't think they had glass tanks back

In ponds with plants in them, the plants provide all the filtration fish
need. There is no such thing as "water changes" in ponds.

--
Victor M. Martinez
Owned and operated by the Fantastic Seven (TM)
Send your spam here:
Email me here:

[NetMax]

"Richard Sexton" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Tedd Jacobs > wrote:
>>
>>"Richard Sexton" wrote...
>>>>> Incidentally, for the fish stores I worked for, nitrate shock was
>>>>> suspected to be a bigger killer during acclimation than pH shock.
>>>>> Any
>>>>> change over 40ppm was a problem.
>>>>
>>>
>>> test it on some fich you don't like then with some kno3 and
>>> tapwater. But dollars todonuts you won't find any problem.
>>>
>>> sure some waters are just freaking toxic if you put them
>>> in other water and I do think there might be something besides
>>> hard to soft, but i don't think there's anything as
>>> specific as "nitrate shock" really.
>>
>>
>>
>>http://groups.msn.com/FishHealth/nitrate.msnw
>>http://puffernet.tripod.com/nitrate-p.html
>>
>>and i'm sure max may have more.
>>
>
> It's not very convincing. It's easily proved or disprived with
> some kno3 though. I went form 0 to 200ppm NO3 in 5 seconds
> and nothig blinked let alone died. I susepct they're having
> a problem with ammonia or nitrite.


While I'm not convinced that NO3 shock tests have been done to any
rigorous criteria either ;~), I will add that the 40ppm margin is
primarily used when acclimating fish from transport, so they are
potentially in a weakened state, and the presence of ammonia is for
certain, though pH is typically within 6.8 to 7.5).
--
www.NetMax.tk

[Ozdude]

"Victor Martinez" > wrote in message
...
> Gfishery wrote:
>> I have no idea how the Chinese kept them. Maybe in ponds or some other
>> containers, because I don't think they had glass tanks back
>
> In ponds with plants in them, the plants provide all the filtration fish
> need. There is no such thing as "water changes" in ponds.

The first Mollies and Paradise Fish went to the US in clay pots and lived in
them there for years according to some history I was reading the other day.

Oz

--
My Aquatic web Blog is at http://members.optusnet.com.au/ivan.smith

[Angrie.Woman]

"Ozdude" > wrote in message
u...
>
> "Victor Martinez" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Gfishery wrote:
>>> I have no idea how the Chinese kept them. Maybe in ponds or some other
>>> containers, because I don't think they had glass tanks back
>>
>> In ponds with plants in them, the plants provide all the filtration fish
>> need. There is no such thing as "water changes" in ponds.
>
> The first Mollies and Paradise Fish went to the US in clay pots and lived
> in them there for years according to some history I was reading the other
> day.
>

Chinese women used to have their babies right on the job in the rice
paddies, but you gotta wonder what the mortality rate was.

A

[Ozdude]

"Angrie.Woman" > wrote in message
. com...
> Chinese women used to have their babies right on the job in the rice
> paddies, but you gotta wonder what the mortality rate was.

This history I was reading was pertaining to the Paradise Fish mainly, but
the ancient Chinese used to keep most of their captive fish in clay vessels
of some description. It even lead to some of the more bizarre species so
they could be seen from above.

When glass came along with side viewing, the species were changed again ;)

I can't find the link where I was reading this, but I did read it somewhere
recently - very interesting - especially the Mollie part where not only were
they transportedkept in clay jars whilst in America - they were in salt
water too - they lived for many years this way apparently, even to the point
of starting a domestic breeding program for others.

Oz

--
My Aquatic web Blog is at http://members.optusnet.com.au/ivan.smith

[NetMax]

"Ozdude" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Angrie.Woman" > wrote in message
> . com...
>> Chinese women used to have their babies right on the job in the rice
>> paddies, but you gotta wonder what the mortality rate was.
>
> This history I was reading was pertaining to the Paradise Fish mainly,
> but the ancient Chinese used to keep most of their captive fish in clay
> vessels of some description. It even lead to some of the more bizarre
> species so they could be seen from above.
>
> When glass came along with side viewing, the species were changed again
> ;)
>
> I can't find the link where I was reading this, but I did read it
> somewhere recently - very interesting - especially the Mollie part
> where not only were they transportedkept in clay jars whilst in
> America - they were in salt water too - they lived for many years this
> way apparently, even to the point of starting a domestic breeding
> program for others.
>
> Oz


Mollies from China? Poecilidae is strictly an American fish family
(North and South American continents). I guess the Chinese took a liking
to them after they arrived, or some author might be taking a little
artistic licence ;~).
--
www.NetMax.tk

[Gfishery]

"Ozdude" > wrote in message ...
> This history I was reading was pertaining to the Paradise Fish mainly, but
> the ancient Chinese used to keep most of their captive fish in clay vessels
> of some description.

That makes sense.
I find it difficult to believe that everyone who had goldfish back then had a pond in their home (maybe the ruling elite did).

[Gfishery]

"Angrie.Woman" > wrote in message . com...
> Chinese women used to have their babies right on the job in the rice
> paddies, but you gotta wonder what the mortality rate was.

1 out of every 5 (maybe 4) people of the world's population today is Chinese.
If they had stopped to ponder over the mortality rate back then, things would be very different today.

We also need to consider the fact that traditional Chinese families (primarily in the agricultural business)
tended to have very large families (sometimes 10 or more kids).
More kids = more farm labor = more income for the family.
And the wealthy had concubines, with multiple kids per concubine.
These things offset the mortality rates. It was just a whole different philosophy back then.

[Angrie.Woman]

"Gfishery" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Angrie.Woman" > wrote in message
> . com...
>> Chinese women used to have their babies right on the job in the rice
>> paddies, but you gotta wonder what the mortality rate was.
>
> 1 out of every 5 (maybe 4) people of the world's population today is
> Chinese.
> If they had stopped to ponder over the mortality rate back then, things
> would be very different today.
>
> We also need to consider the fact that traditional Chinese families
> (primarily in the agricultural business)
> tended to have very large families (sometimes 10 or more kids).
> More kids = more farm labor = more income for the family.
> And the wealthy had concubines, with multiple kids per concubine.
> These things offset the mortality rates. It was just a whole different
> philosophy back then.

Yes, but I'd be willing to bet that a higher percentage of their kids
survive now that they give birth in hospitals. Likewaise, I'll bet more of
their fish survive now that they're not kept in clay pots.

A
>
>

[Gfishery]

"Angrie.Woman" > wrote in message m...
> Yes, but I'd be willing to bet that a higher percentage of their kids
> survive now that they give birth in hospitals.

Yes, and I think they are only allowed to have 1 (maybe 2) kids by law now.
There are severe penaties for violating this law (established to control the popluation boom).

> Likewaise, I'll bet more of
> their fish survive now that they're not kept in clay pots.

There was someone in the goldfish newsgroup whose 130 gallon tank started foaming for some mysterious reason, and he lost almost all
his fish. I bet that doesn't happen in a clay pot.

I can see some advantages with the clay pot: the rough interior surface (compared to glass) could have served as a
medium for the nitrosomonas/nitrobacter to grow on.
And I really doubt they had a 10 gallon clay pot per goldfish.

With the absence of water test kits back then, I surmise that the only indicators they had were visual (i.e. the water looked dirty
and needed to be changed, or the fish started acting strange), or via smell (the distinct smell of ammonia; not sure if one can
smell nitrites/nitrates).
These conditions would have registered extremely high on our test kits today.
And the fish probably adapted and became a hardy species, since they survived.