Long Term Use Of Aquarium Salt

ap4lmtree

Well Known
Member
Messages
878
Reaction score
130
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Experience
3 years
According to this article that cites a 1995 Auburn University study, channel catfish (not aquarium corydoras) with columaris outbreak had a greater survivability rate with at least short term use of 3000 mg /l or 2.54 teaspoon per gallon of sodium chloride. In addition, short term use of about a 1000 mg/l or .84 teaspoon per gallon substantially increased survivability compared to 0 mg/l of sodium chloride.

Based just on that website article, I am going to start using recommended 1 tablespoon per 5 gallon of sodium chlorine long term in my betta tanks in order to prevent and mitigate columnaris from ever affecting my betta fish. [I will use only 1 teaspoon per 5 gallon in my corydoras and kuhlI leaches main tank.]

In addition, I wonder how well long term use, before outbreak, and rather than short term use of sodium chloride prevents or mitigates areomonas or ich outbreaks or issues. From a quick search, I think sodium chloride delays aeromonas hydrophila exponential growth before it adapts to sodium chloride to do such exponential growth, according to a study involving sodium chloride preservative in food. ( ). Aeromonas hydrophilia is resistant to water chlorine and ph above 3.0. It isn't resistant to high temperature water. Combating aeromonas is important to preventing dopsy and I think many fin rot.
 

Nobody

New Member
Member
Messages
21
Reaction score
4
When I first set my tank up I used salt for months with corydoras in it and they were fine. I can't use it now though as amano shrimp definitely don't like it.

I doubt such small amounts will harm fish. It's a bit like breathing salty air near the coast
 
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #3
OP
ap4lmtree

ap4lmtree

Well Known
Member
Messages
878
Reaction score
130
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Experience
3 years
Nobody said:
When I first set my tank up I used salt for months with corydoras in it and they were fine. I can't use it now though as amano shrimp definitely don't like it.
Yes, I think I will use salt in my tank with corydoras and kuhlI loaches. The first url I posted, says they recommend one teaspoon per 5 gallon, which is lower than the usual one tablespoon per 5 gallon.
 

david1978

Fishlore Legend
Member
Messages
15,457
Reaction score
16,988
Location
pa usa
Experience
More than 10 years
I never liked the idea of long term salt use for freshwater fish. Besides having to watch your salinity like you would in a marine tank to keep it stable and in safe levels so you don't kill your fish or plants. The other issue osmosis of the fish which over time can have trouble eliminating liquids from their cells. The last issue is your running a lower salinity then typically short term treatments so it will not have the same effect and if anything does rear its ugly head that could of been treated with salt can no longer be treated with salt since its built up an immunity to it.
 

oldsalt777

Well Known
Member
Messages
2,427
Reaction score
950
Location
Colorado
Experience
More than 10 years
ap4lmtree said:
According to this article that cites a 1995 Auburn University study, channel catfish (not aquarium corydoras) with columaris outbreak had a greater survivability rate with at least short term use of 3000 mg /l or 2.54 teaspoon per gallon of sodium chloride. In addition, short term use of about a 1000 mg/l or .84 teaspoon per gallon substantially increased survivability compared to 0 mg/l of sodium chloride.

I am going to start using recommended 1 tablespoon per 5 gallon of sodium chlorine long term in my betta tanks in order to prevent and mitigate columnaris from ever affecting my betta fish. However, I don't think I will use aquarium salt in my main tank with scaleless loaches and catfish.

In addition, I wonder how well long term use, before outbreak, and rather than short term use of sodium chloride prevents or mitigates areomonas or ich outbreaks or issues. From a quick search, I think sodium chloride delays aeromonas hydrophila exponential growth before it adapts to sodium chloride to do such exponential growth, according to a study involving sodium chloride preservative in food. ( ). Aeromonas hydrophilia is resistant to water chlorine and ph above 3.0. It isn't resistant to high temperature water. Combating aeromonas is important to preventing dopsy and I think many fin rot.
Hello ap..

All I can tell you is what I do with standard aquarium salt: I've used a little in my tanks for around 15 years and never had a problem with a virus or pathogen infecting my fish or problems with my aquarium plants. I dose a little, one to two teaspoons in every 5 gallons of treated, tap water. I keep all kinds of fish from Corydoras, to Tetras to Livebearers to many Goldfish and the tanks are heavily planted. Traces of salt in the water will retard the growth of a parasite or most anything else that can infect fish and in general seems to maintain their immune system and breathing. When I use salt, the fish seem very calm in the tank. I'd definitely recommend using a little.

Old
 

mattgirl

Fishlore Legend
Member
Messages
12,815
Reaction score
12,688
Location
Closer to Heaven every day but for now-Arkansas
Experience
More than 10 years
I know the use of salt in a fresh water tank is frowned upon here on the forum but I have always used a little bit of it in my tanks. I only add it the week I do my bigger than normal weekly water change so the salt level isn't constant. For 3 weeks I do my normal water change without adding salt and the 4th week I do the big one and add salt. I don't add the amount recommended on the box though. I add 3 tablespoons to my 55 gallon tank so it is a very weak dose.

I have to think I am doing something right since I've never had to deal with any of the diseases I read about here on the forum. It could have something to do with the salt but more than likely it is because of the constant water changes. Fresh clean water is the best preventive I have found. Salt is just extra insurance.
 

AvalancheDave

Well Known
Member
Messages
2,373
Reaction score
1,525
Experience
More than 10 years
david1978 said:
The other issue osmosis of the fish which over time can have trouble eliminating liquids from their cells.
Salt would make it easier since water follows sodium.

The dosage for Columnaris is quite high to be using regularly. The best strategy is to prevent build up of organic waste which feeds the Columnaris population.

This is why I don't like canister filters. People clean them every few months and they become huge Columnaris, Aeromonas, Saprolegnia, Mycobacterium, etc. farms.
 

AvalancheDave

Well Known
Member
Messages
2,373
Reaction score
1,525
Experience
More than 10 years
Nobody said:
I have a UV steriliser after my canister filter which should take care of that
UV has been shown not to affect bacteria populations.
 

AvalancheDave

Well Known
Member
Messages
2,373
Reaction score
1,525
Experience
More than 10 years
Nobody said:
They use UV to kill bacteria at water treatment plants.
Ultraviolet light control of Ichthyophthirius multifiliis Fouquet in a closed fish culture recirculation system
In an effective closed system pathogens must be removed from recirculated water. Ultraviolet (UV) light at or near 2537 A has long been used as a bactericide and has been recognized as useful for destroying certain fish pathogens (Hoffman 1974, 1975; Bullock & Stuckey 1977; Herald, Dempster, Wolters & Hunt 1962). Spotte & Adams 0981) have proposed a mathematical model to illustrate the effectiveness of UV sterilization in a closed aquaculture system. Their model demonstrates that UV radiation may substantially decrease the number of pathogens at the sterilizer effiuent, but the number of pathogens in the immediate vicinity of cultured animals in the system is always greater than the number at the sterilizer effluent. Some fish culturists erroneously believe that treatment of recycled water with UV radiation will reduce the number of bacteria in an aquarium.
Pathogen Reduction in Closed Aquaculture Systems by UV Radiation: Fact or Artifact?*
As noted by Herald et al. (1970), the effectiveness of UV radiation is limited to in vitro situations; in other words, to the destruction of pathogens that are freefloating in the water. Organisms that are systemic, or attached to exterior surfaces of their hosts, are unaffected and can only be controlled chemotherapeutically. Organisms shed into the water, or which detach from their hosts, thus represent a reservoir of contamination that cannot be eliminated from closed systems, if sterilization occurs at a single contact site (Scheme C).
Spotte (1979) reviewed the use of UV radiation in aquatic animal culture. Some pathogens always survive, despite kill rates that sometimes approach 100 % at the contact site. Animals maintained in closed systems thus are subject to possible reinfection from water returning from the sterilizer, the degree of reinfection depending on the virulence and concentration of the pathogen and the immune status of the host. Bullock and Stuckey (1977) studied the effect of UV radiation on bacterial counts of salmonid hatchery water. In some instances, bacteria at the contact site were reduced 99.99 %, but the authors cautioned against placing undue emphasis on the results, because the number of bacteria necessary to transmit disease is difficult to predict. They pointed out that, in their experiments, a 99.99 % kill of a pathogen at a cell density of 104 ml-' would leave only 1.0 ml-'. They concluded that even this low concentration might be adequate to transmit disease during intensive culture if the pathogen is virulent, considering the growth potential of bacteria. B
Disease-causing organisms can also be transmitted among cultured animals directly, short-circuiting the sterilizer completely (Scheme C). The result may be a high percent kill at the contact site that is not accompanied by a concomitant decrease in the incidence of disease or mortality. For example, Herald et al. (1970) reported that mortality rates among exhibit fishes at a public aquarium were unchanged by installation of a UV sterilizer that lowered the total bacteria at the contact site by 98 %. Spanier (1978) noted that mortality rates of bream (Sparus aurata) larvae were unaffected by UV sterilization of the recycled water, despite a substantial decrease in bacterial counts at the sterilizer effluent.
The application of UV radiation in the treatment of raw influent water is effective in lowering the numbers of pathogens and thus reducing the chances of disease organisms entering from external sources (Stickney and White, 1974; Hoffmann, 1975; Kimura et al., 1976; BlogoslawskI et al., 1978; Brown and Russo, 1979). Results derived from this application can be considered fact. If the water is recycled, however, any apparent efficacy of a UV sterilizer, based on kill rate, is an artifact, because the mass of pathogens in the immediate vicinity of the cultured animals is always greater than the mass in the sterilizer effluent. Equilibrium is never attained, and the entire system cannot be rendered disease-free, even when the sterilization process is 100 % effective.
 

Wraithen

Fishlore VIP
Member
Messages
4,365
Reaction score
1,716
Location
Colorado
Experience
3 years
AvalancheDave said:
Ultraviolet light control of Ichthyophthirius multifiliis Fouquet in a closed fish culture recirculation system


Pathogen Reduction in Closed Aquaculture Systems by UV Radiation: Fact or Artifact?*
That only says that what's on the fish doesn't get taken out. Kind of a duh moment in my opinion as nobody is hitting their fish with uv light in any appreciable amount. Free floating organisms though are toast. The biggest issue most people are going to have is an inappropriate setup. These built ins aren't the best way to go about it due to lower wattage and faster rates from the pump.
 

AvalancheDave

Well Known
Member
Messages
2,373
Reaction score
1,525
Experience
More than 10 years
Wraithen said:
That only says that what's on the fish doesn't get taken out. Kind of a duh moment in my opinion as nobody is hitting their fish with uv light in any appreciable amount. Free floating organisms though are toast. The biggest issue most people are going to have is an inappropriate setup. These built ins aren't the best way to go about it due to lower wattage and faster rates from the pump.
UV only reduces the bacteria in the effluent. It doesn't reduce numbers in the tanks and doesn't reduce disease.

Meanwhile, the mass of decaying organic matter in the filter is increasing levels of dissolved organics and lower dissolved oxygen both of which increase susceptibility to disease.
 

Nobody

New Member
Member
Messages
21
Reaction score
4
It will kill pretty much anything coming out of the filter as it has to pass though it. It just needs to have enough exposure time and most of the external ones will as the water spirals around the bulb. Of course it's not going to kill anything free floating in the tank itself.

Like I said, UK water treatment plants are now using UV to treat tap water and it's some of the best quality in the world as they need a lot less chemicals.
 

Kjeldsen

Well Known
Member
Messages
629
Reaction score
454
Location
California
Experience
More than 10 years
Though I've only used it on as needed basis, I'd probably make it a regular addition to a betta tank after reading so many posts about dropsy and fin rot for no discernable reason. Very interested to hear your long term results.

It is important to realize that most fish infections are probably acquired from inanimate sources (i.e., water molds sporulating on dead organic matter).[...] Most fish-pathogenic water molds are inhibited by even low prolonged immersion salt concentrations (>3 ppt), which is probably why they do not affect marine fish in high salinities (see PROBLEM 35). Prolonged immersion salt also helps to counteract osmotic stress caused by skin damage and subsequent ion loss. Unfortunately, prolonged immersion salt is impractical in most commercial production situations. Noga, Edward J.. Fish Disease: Diagnosis and Treatment (Kindle Locations 5788-5791). Wiley. Kindle Edition.


 

AvalancheDave

Well Known
Member
Messages
2,373
Reaction score
1,525
Experience
More than 10 years
Nobody said:
It will kill pretty much anything coming out of the filter as it has to pass though it. It just needs to have enough exposure time and most of the external ones will as the water spirals around the bulb. Of course it's not going to kill anything free floating in the tank itself.

Like I said, UK water treatment plants are now using UV to treat tap water and it's some of the best quality in the world as they need a lot less chemicals.
Ultraviolet light control of Ichthyophthirius multifiliis Fouquet in a closed fish culture recirculation system
In an effective closed system pathogens must be removed from recirculated water. Ultraviolet (UV) light at or near 2537 A has long been used as a bactericide and has been recognized as useful for destroying certain fish pathogens (Hoffman 1974, 1975; Bullock & Stuckey 1977; Herald, Dempster, Wolters & Hunt 1962). Spotte & Adams 0981) have proposed a mathematical model to illustrate the effectiveness of UV sterilization in a closed aquaculture system. Their model demonstrates that UV radiation may substantially decrease the number of pathogens at the sterilizer effiuent, but the number of pathogens in the immediate vicinity of cultured animals in the system is always greater than the number at the sterilizer effluent. Some fish culturists erroneously believe that treatment of recycled water with UV radiation will reduce the number of bacteria in an aquarium.
Pathogen Reduction in Closed Aquaculture Systems by UV Radiation: Fact or Artifact?*
As noted by Herald et al. (1970), the effectiveness of UV radiation is limited to in vitro situations; in other words, to the destruction of pathogens that are freefloating in the water. Organisms that are systemic, or attached to exterior surfaces of their hosts, are unaffected and can only be controlled chemotherapeutically. Organisms shed into the water, or which detach from their hosts, thus represent a reservoir of contamination that cannot be eliminated from closed systems, if sterilization occurs at a single contact site (Scheme C).
Spotte (1979) reviewed the use of UV radiation in aquatic animal culture. Some pathogens always survive, despite kill rates that sometimes approach 100 % at the contact site. Animals maintained in closed systems thus are subject to possible reinfection from water returning from the sterilizer, the degree of reinfection depending on the virulence and concentration of the pathogen and the immune status of the host. Bullock and Stuckey (1977) studied the effect of UV radiation on bacterial counts of salmonid hatchery water. In some instances, bacteria at the contact site were reduced 99.99 %, but the authors cautioned against placing undue emphasis on the results, because the number of bacteria necessary to transmit disease is difficult to predict. They pointed out that, in their experiments, a 99.99 % kill of a pathogen at a cell density of 104 ml-' would leave only 1.0 ml-'. They concluded that even this low concentration might be adequate to transmit disease during intensive culture if the pathogen is virulent, considering the growth potential of bacteria.
Disease-causing organisms can also be transmitted among cultured animals directly, short-circuiting the sterilizer completely (Scheme C). The result may be a high percent kill at the contact site that is not accompanied by a concomitant decrease in the incidence of disease or mortality. For example, Herald et al. (1970) reported that mortality rates among exhibit fishes at a public aquarium were unchanged by installation of a UV sterilizer that lowered the total bacteria at the contact site by 98 %. Spanier (1978) noted that mortality rates of bream (Sparus aurata) larvae were unaffected by UV sterilization of the recycled water, despite a substantial decrease in bacterial counts at the sterilizer effluent.
The application of UV radiation in the treatment of raw influent water is effective in lowering the numbers of pathogens and thus reducing the chances of disease organisms entering from external sources (Stickney and White, 1974; Hoffmann, 1975; Kimura et al., 1976; BlogoslawskI et al., 1978; Brown and Russo, 1979). Results derived from this application can be considered fact. If the water is recycled, however, any apparent efficacy of a UV sterilizer, based on kill rate, is an artifact, because the mass of pathogens in the immediate vicinity of the cultured animals is always greater than the mass in the sterilizer effluent. Equilibrium is never attained, and the entire system cannot be rendered disease-free, even when the sterilization process is 100% effective.
 

New Threads

Similar Threads

Follow FishLore!

FishLore on Social Media

Online statistics

Members online
88
Guests online
2,119
Total visitors
2,207

Aquarium Photo Contests

Aquarium Calculator

Top Bottom