Help (nitrate Levels)

[a1emma]

firstly thanks for all the help! more about my tank: the temperature is 26c, two standard jewel aquarium lights, my ph is 8.3, and the specific gravity level is between1.019 and1.021, my nitrate level is 5, the fish are fed on both sea veggies and brine shrimps,on average twice a day.
i use coral sand and have two imatation rock arches,and a few artificial plastic plants, and also a hi tech aquarium pump with an air stone!

[openbrain]

Emma, the first thing I would do is bring your SG up slowly to about 1.025. I also would get rid of the fake rock and plastic plants ( no offense ) and do what BoomerD suggests, I would probably stay away from a DSB and go with a bb, we have a DSB but are slowly going to get rid of it.

[cheeks69]

I would suggest you feed maximum once a day. Some people feed their fish only 3-4 times a week, don't worry they won't starve. I would also look into getting some Live Rock. It provides shelter, food and is an excellent form of biological filtation so it's very beneficial to have JMHO

Originally posted by a1emma
my nitrate level is 5

5? LOL, it sounds like you're doing a great job already! For a fish-only tank that is REALLY low. Maybe you need to take a bit of time to see where the tank goes from here. All of the advice is good but you might end up trying to solve a problem that isn't really there. It's always the constant fiddling that screws things up. Take some time to research everything everyone has told you. Even ask for clarifications on people's suggestions if you don't know why they are suggesting it. With a tank as new as yours you are bound to have everything out of whack for the first few months or even years. For some reference, after tearing down my tank it has taken me approximately 7 months to add my first new fish (I only had one after the tear-down) and another 2 months to add the next ones. Time is important for understanding the stability of your tank. If you can understand why your nitrates are high (which they're not) it is easier to correct the problem rather than doing a whole bunch of things at one time to reduce them.

[salemreefer]

agree with boomers annalysis....SLOW DOWN ditch the fluvals and for the short term do a medium water change 25% perhaps

[JennM]

Sounds like some here are trying to turn you Fish-Only (FO) tank, to a Reef Tank, or at least a Fish-Only with Live Rock (FOWLR).

Nitrate of 5 tells me that there is biological activity going on - don't sweat it. If it climbs higher than 10, examine your husbandry practices. Rule of thumb for a FO is nitrate below 50. Rule of thumb for a reef is nitrate under 20. You're just fine as it is, IMO.

Do slow down with livestock additions, I think. In my experience, tanks without live rock take longer to mature and don't handle speed very well.

Cut back your feedings to once a day, or every other day. As mentioned, they won't starve Less food equals less waste, and less bio load for your filter to handle.

IMO a skimmer would be a wise investment.

And don't ditch your artificial decorations or plants, UNLESS you are converting to FOWLR or REEF - and even at that, you can use those until you replace them with the real thing...

Some reefkeepers think there is only one way to do things... I've seen some AWESOME FO tanks -- I've set up and maintained some too. They are a different entity than reefs or FOWLR and need different considerations.

Jenn

[ReefLady]

Rule of thumb for a FO is nitrate below 50. Rule of thumb for a reef is nitrate under 20.

I've never read this, or heard it suggested anywhere. There are several marine fish that are extremely sensitive to nitrate levels. And as far as a reef goes, the only "rule of thumb" that I am aware of for nitrate levels is 0.00.
Yes, LPS & softy tanks can be done (and done well) with nitrate levels that aren't zero. However, why raise the bar so high? You're only risking the long-term health of your inhabitants, and it is not difficult to maintain nitrate levels at or around 0.00.

And don't ditch your artificial decorations or plants, UNLESS you are converting to FOWLR or REEF - and even at that, you can use those until you replace them with the real thing...

I see no reason to keep the artificial decorations and plants, but I guess it is a matter of personal preference. IMO, it just looks very *fake*.

Sounds like some here are trying to turn you Fish-Only (FO) tank, to a Reef Tank, or at least a Fish-Only with Live Rock (FOWLR).

I think what everyone here has tried to do is steer her toward the most successful way to maintain her tank. As far as a FOWLR is concerned, not only is LR far more attractive and natural looking than are artifical decorations, but it also provides biological filtration, and biodiversity. Why not advocate LR? It is a filter, a decoration, and a natural environment all in one, and will also maintain far lower nitrate levels than will most mechanical filtration.

[wooddood]

thank you teri.took the words right out of my mouth.

[JennM]

Whoa folks wait a minute.... Let's discern "opinions" from "facts"...

It's all very well and good that in your OPINION, the artificial decorations etc. look fake. I share that opinion... however not everybody wants a FOWLR or a reef, and I've seen some AWESOME FO tanks that are truly FO - no inverts, no live rock. This is what the person has - if this is what they want, why are you trying to force them to change this?

It is a FACT that live rock is a more natural means of filtration. It is OPINION that it looks better than coral replicas.

Why don't you stop trying to force your OPINIONS on the individual, and try to help them within the system that they have? Letting them know that live rock is a healthful option is one thing, but telling them to get rid of this or that is rather arrogant.

From Martin Moe's "Marine Aquarium Reference". I have the 1989 printing. On page 177 it says, "A tank devoted to invertebrates should be maintained at low, less than 10 to 15 ppm , levels of nitrate for best results" Note that it does not say ZERO... and I'd argue that very few tanks actually have zero nitrate - just that most hobby grade test kits don't register tiny amounts of nitrate -so that "zero" reading isn't a true zero... but I digress.

I've seen reefs and FO run at nitrates well over 100 ppm. I wouldn't recommend it for a second, but I've seen it happen. YES you ultimately want nitrates as low as possible in any system but IMO hitting the panic button over 5 ppm is really unnecessary. Sure, make sure the maintenance regime is a good one, tweak the filtration/skimmer to make sure it's at peak performance, but 5 ppm nitrate is highly unlikely to harm anything. Again from Martin Moe's "Marine Aquarium Reference", 1989, page 176:
"Nitrate is not subject to further bacterial oxidation and tends to accumulate in marine aquarium systems. It is perhaps 1000 times less toxic to fish than nitrite and can be allowed to accumulate to some extent in marine systems, especially systems devoted to fish keeping."

Edit: On page 128 of same book, there is a chart called, "Table 5: Water Quality Trends and Values" and it lists all the various parameters. For Nitrate, the trend is to increase, optimum value is 0-5 ppm but acceptable value or range is 5-50 ppm.

That's where I pulled my numbers from... and that's what I've subscribed to as a hobbyist and in the industry.

So if you don't believe me, that's fine. I'll defer to Dr. Moe.



Jenn

[ReefLady]

JennM,

I'm not sure what has prompted you to be so angry/defensive re: the advice that has been offered here -- however, I know that everyone here has only been trying to help a1emma, and share the knowledge/experience that they have. Everyone here knows that there is no "one" way to do things, but there are, however, certain methods and products that have been proven to be more beneficial than others.

It's all very well and good that in your OPINION, the artificial decorations etc. look fake. I share that opinion... however not everybody wants a FOWLR or a reef, and I've seen some AWESOME FO tanks that are truly FO - no inverts, no live rock. This is what the person has - if this is what they want, why are you trying to force them to change this?

Well, if you read my last post, you'll see that I clearly stated that it was a matter of personal preference. The original poster never stated that she was absolutely certain that she did not want LR. Again, we were pointing out the benefits and advantages of LR, we were not trying to *force* anyone to do anything.

It is a FACT that live rock is a more natural means of filtration. It is OPINION that it looks better than coral replicas.

Why don't you stop trying to force your OPINIONS on the individual, and try to help them within the system that they have? Letting them know that live rock is a healthful option is one thing, but telling them to get rid of this or that is rather arrogant.

Again, I'm not really clear on what has prompted the antagonistic tone of your post(s), but okay, let's talk fact. Fact - the original poster never stated that she was dead set against LR. Fact - nobody is trying to force any opinions on anything, people are trying to *help*, and suggest methods that might work better for her. Again,

not only is LR far more attractive and natural looking than are artifical decorations, but it also provides biological filtration, and biodiversity. Why not advocate LR? It is a filter, a decoration, and a natural environment all in one, and will also maintain far lower nitrate levels than will most mechanical filtration.

That is what was stated, and that is a fact.

From Martin Moe's "Marine Aquarium Reference". I have the 1989 printing. On page 177 it says, "A tank devoted to invertebrates should be maintained at low, less than 10 to 15 ppm , levels of nitrate for best results" Note that it does not say ZERO...

I guess I really don't want to argue quotes of material dated 25 years ago. I think most everyone would agree that many things have changed in the hobby since 1989.

and I'd argue that very few tanks actually have zero nitrate - just that most hobby grade test kits don't register tiny amounts of nitrate -so that "zero" reading isn't a true zero... but I digress.

Well then, going by your own example, if zero is not zero, than what is the 5 - or 20 - or 50 that you are saying is okay?

but IMO hitting the panic button over 5 ppm is really unnecessary

Agreed. I never argued that point -- I agree with Jupiter's post 100%.

I'm not going to turn this thread into an argument. The original post was from an obvious newcomer to the hobby.

People replied to the post offering a lot of good advice and suggestions. Stocking less quickly, feeding less often, not using fish to cycle, using RO/DI, raising salinity, and yes, one suggestion offered was the use of live rock. IMO, this is a very good suggestion, and an option that the original poster may not have been aware of.

As the keepers of SW fish and invertebrates, we are completely responsible for their health and well being. Since available products and methods of keeping aquaria have changed greatly over the last couple decades, it has become far easier - and attainable - to allow our tanks to have a more "natural" environment, and for our water parameters to be closer to that of NSW.
To have both the means and ability to do so available to us, and to not make the attempt, is irresponsible. We should be striving to give our fish and invertebrates the absolute best care possible. If we are able to do so, and neglect to try, then we should not be keeping SW creatures in captivity.

[Travis]

I don't want to turn this into an argument either, but I have to take issue with using 1989 water-quality standards in 2003.

How many creatures can we now keep, grow and propagate that we couldn't back then? How many fishes are now being successfully bred in our tanks, such as clownfish and banggai cardinals?

Fact of the matter is, great strides have been made in the last several years that allow us to keep our critters in a healthier, happier environment. Along the way, our standards have been raised.

I agree that nitrate of 5ppm is nothing to panic about, however, it could be a sign of a flaw in the system that could cause trouble down the road. And aiming for zero nitrates is certainly a worthwhile goal I will recommend to any hobbyist.

[a1emma]

thankyou all so much for your help,this is my first tank!and every bit of advice is valued! i have artificial plants ect because i was told that live rock is also impossible to keep. i think my tank looks quite nice but like you say it does look quite unreal....... if my ph level drops what is the best way to increase this.........

[Pro_builder]

When you change some thing, change it slowly and log everything that you do to your tank. This way you can go back later and look at the change and what effect it has made on your tank.
This will also help in the long run, in case you run into the same problem later on, you can look back on your reference journal and see what you did last time. Wheather it worked or not....
Trying to get to 0 Nitrate is definately a good *goal*, therefore *try to get it there* but don't kill yourself over it. The lower the reading the better.
JMHO

[JennM]

I'm not defensive, nor am I trying to be argumentative and I'm sorry if you saw it that way, I am simply trying to disseminate misinformation, and demonstrate that there is a difference between opinion and fact. If the person WANTS to get live rock they can, but not opting for live rock doesn't doom them to an unstable system. I was simply trying to point out that there are different methods of achieving a healthy sytem, and there's nothing wrong with artificial decorations.

Now that I'm at work, I checked the current version of Moe's Marine Aquarium Reference, Fifth Printing. I pulled it off the shelf, and the same passage is in there... so the information is still current, and still valid, at least as far as Martin Moe is concerned.

Tullock's Natural Reef Aquariums, copyright, 2001 states on page 70, "Check the nitrate level each week and start doing partial water changes if it rises above 20 ppm. This may be more or less often than every month depending on the indvidual circumstances of your tank"

Again, not trying to be a smartypants, but since my information was challenged, I just thought I'd back it up.

Jenn

[BoomerD]

Since we're gonna quote from authors on the nitrate ssue, Here's whgat Bob Fenner says onthe subject in CMA:
pg.81
"Nitrate ions (NO3) There is no clear dividing line over which nitrate is absolutely harmful; conditioned fishes and invertabrates have been cultured in water of several hundred-even thousand-ppm. All that can be said without frar of contradiction is that lower numbers are better."
pg 130
"Nitrate Accumulation
By itself, this is not a concern for most livestock and systems. What a measure of nitrate can and should do is serve as a guide to the total water-quality picture. There are many othe chemical and physical changes that occur in a small captive system that arecharacteristic of overcrowding in an artificial environment. A high nitrate reading almost assurely means a build-up of other dissolved organic wastes and degraded water quality. Be aware of and resist those changesby having amole filtration and circulation capacity, by removing and diluting convertedwastes via regular water changes, and by using live rock and calcareous substrates."

While I'm sure no one is disagreeing with the good Dr. Moe, we all seem to agree that lower levels of nitrates are something to strive for. It's just better for the health of all the creatures, fish, invertabrates, and along with lower levels of phosphates, will help to reduce nuisance algaes.
As has been posted here several times, there is no ONE only way to do this, but there are ways that are better for the health of the inhabitants of the tank.