What's The Difference Between Seacham (sp) Prime And Water Conditioner?

Joyceheatherington

Member
What's the difference between
Seacham prime vs water conditioner?
We put in water conditioner. Not sure if should get some of the prime to put in during the cycling?
 

Skavatar

Member
Prime has the added ability to temporarily detox ammonia, nitrites, and nitrates between 24-48 hrs.

That's why its a lifesaver when doing fish in cycling.
 
  • Moderator

smee82

Moderator
Member
As far as I know most water conditioners detox ammonia, nitrites and nitrates for 24hrs too. The only thing I think is different is price with prime being cheaper.
 

aussieJJDude

Member
smee82 said:
As far as I know most water conditioners detox ammonia, nitrites and nitrates for 24hrs too. The only thing I think is different is price with prime being cheaper.
Or often a lot more concentrated - and more commonly reccomended on forums/web sites.
 

Skavatar

Member
smee82 said:
As far as I know most water conditioners detox ammonia, nitrites and nitrates for 24hrs too. The only thing I think is different is price with prime being cheaper.
Of the most commonly sold tap water conditioners,Prime is one of the few that does it. The others are Kordon AmQuel+ and HikarI Ultimate.

Looking at API Tap Water Conditioner, no where does it say it detoxes ammonia, nitrites or nitrates.

Neither does TopFin.

Neither does Fluval. or

Neither does Aqueon.

The first conditioner I used when I began this hobby was Tetra AquaSafe Plus, and it does not detox ammonia, nitrites, or nitrates either.


found this list of conditioners that detox ammonia,nitrites,and nitrates. But looking at Kordon's own website and the label on its bottles, the NovAqua Plus does not detox ammonia, nitrites or nitrates.
and neither does API Stress Coat+
 
  • Moderator

smee82

Moderator
Member
Skavatar said:
Of the most commonly sold tap water conditioners,Prime is one of the few that does it. The others are Kordon AmQuel+ and HikarI Ultimate.

Looking at API Tap Water Conditioner, no where does it say it detoxes ammonia, nitrites or nitrates.

Neither does TopFin.

Neither does Fluval. or

Neither does Aqueon.

The first conditioner I used when I began this hobby was Tetra AquaSafe Plus, and it does not detox ammonia, nitrites, or nitrates either.


found this list of conditioners that detox ammonia,nitrites,and nitrates. But looking at Kordon's own website and the label on its bottles, the NovAqua Plus does not detox ammonia, nitrites or nitrates.
and neither does API Stress Coat+
Interesting, they all claI'm to detox heavy metals. I wonder if that includes amonia, nitrites and nitrates as well but they just claI'm it as directly as prime. Most I can buy in china claI'm to detox it all.
 

Skavatar

Member
China makes so many knock off products. They violate all sorts of copyrights, patents, etc.


Scientifically Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and Oxygen aka ammonia(NH3), nitrite(NO2), and nitrate(NO3) are not classified as "heavy metals."
 

AvalancheDave

Member
No dechlorinator binds or reduces nitrite or nitrate. Printing it on the back of a bottle doesn't make it true.
 

Pescado_Verde

Member
If your water supply contains chloramines you want to use a product that neutralizes ammonia, like Prime. API and others as was mentioned already, do not do this. Chloramine is broken down into its components - chlorine and ammonia - and the chlorine is eliminated but the ammonia remains. Read labels carefully and know what is coming out of your tap.
 

Skavatar

Member
Seachem admits that they don't know the exact science that makes ammonia, nitrites, nitrates temporarily non-toxic to fish. The way they found out was that many of their customers reported it. Science looks for repeatability and reproducibility. Just b/c we don't know exactly how it works, doesn't mean that it doesn't work.

If you ever done fish in cycles, you'll know that there's a difference before and after using Prime. I've done 2 fish in cycles.

If you ever had a mini-cycle, or a nitrite spike that lasted 3 weeks, your fish would be lethargic and sitting at the bottom of the tank. Then a short while after using Prime, they're back to their normal selves. for 3 weeks! nitrites tested dark purple! I've had this happened before.

Repeatability and Reproducibility from hundreds, if not thousands of other fish keepers.

You can say that it doesn't bind or remove these chemicals, and maybe it doesn't, its probably a whole different process.
 

AvalancheDave

Member
Skavatar said:
Seachem admits that they don't know the exact science that makes ammonia, nitrites, nitrates temporarily non-toxic to fish. The way they found out was that many of their customers reported it. Science looks for repeatability and reproducibility. Just b/c we don't know exactly how it works, doesn't mean that it doesn't work.

If you ever done fish in cycles, you'll know that there's a difference before and after using Prime. I've done 2 fish in cycles.

If you ever had a mini-cycle, or a nitrite spike that lasted 3 weeks, your fish would be lethargic and sitting at the bottom of the tank. Then a short while after using Prime, they're back to their normal selves. for 3 weeks! nitrites tested dark purple! I've had this happened before.

Repeatability and Reproducibility from hundreds, if not thousands of other fish keepers.
That's not how science works. Religion, maybe. A few hundred years ago the vast majority of people would swear the Earth was flat.

I doubt there are thousands of fish keepers reporting this. On all the aquarium forums out there I've only seen you make that claim.

Remember the thread from the Seachem support forums where someone used Prime for nitrite and it failed. I used it for ammonia and it also failed.

Most aquarists have no idea what levels of nitrite and nitrate are toxic. They think any amount of nitrite is toxic while studies have found it can be anywhere from 1-100 ppm for tropical fish. And they think nitrate is toxic above 40 ppm when the actual value is more than a hundred times that amount. It's very likely false reports were made based on a lack of knowledge of nitrite and nitrate toxicity.

Is it possible a product is simply so great that it borders on magic? Every few years they discover miraculous new properties. How long before Seachem starts claiming Prime will resurrect the dead?

Why hasn't Seachem done so and released the results?

Why don't you devise a scientific test that doesn't involve anecdotes? I'm willing to split the cost of the experiment with you.
 

Skavatar

Member
avalanchedave said:
That's not how science works. Religion, maybe. A few hundred years ago the vast majority of people would swear the Earth was flat.
since we're talking about chemicals, chemistry, science, lets stick to that. The Native Americans would be like those of us who believe Prime does temporarily detox or makes the toxins non toxic to fish for 24-48hrs. They smoked tobacco, chewed willow bark, and (Inca's) chewed coca leaves. They knew it did something but didn't know the exact science of the chemicals in the plant and how they specifically affected their nerve sensors. But like science, there was repeatability and reproducibility. Today, with much better technology we know how these chemicals affect our bodies, our nerves, our brains.

Perhaps Prime doesn't affect these toxins directly, instead it affects the fish and prevents the toxins from either entering into the fish's body/blood stream/etc, or it attaches to the fish's nerve receptors and stops the toxins from attaching.

avalanchedave said:
Why don't you devise a scientific test that doesn't involve anecdotes? I'm willing to split the cost of the experiment with you.
I don't have that kind of money, that's why Universities and Pharmacutecals have grants and research funds. Such as the University of Adelaide and the University of Colorado, where they discovered that "the drug (+)-naloxone can selectively block" **** and Morphine addiction. "This finding, published in the Journal of Neuroscience, is a huge breakthrough which could potentially even lead to new treatment drugs that could reduce the severe pain of users while kicking their habit."

avalanchedave said:
I doubt there are thousands of fish keepers reporting this. On all the aquarium forums out there I've only seen you make that claim.
I started fish keeping last year July 2018. I'm not the first nor the only one here to make this claim. I'm also not a member of any other fish keeping forum, only this one.

from this forum 2010, 8 years before I started fish keeping: https://www.fishlore.com/aquariumfi...ime-necessary-to-detox-nitrite-nitrate.74992/

from a different forum 2010:

same forum 2011, 7 years before me:

from a different forum 2012, 6 years before me, :

from another forum 2014, 4 years before me:

from another forum 2019, i'm freshwater only so...
 

AvalancheDave

Member
Skavatar said:
since we're talking about chemicals, chemistry, science, lets stick to that. The Native Americans would be like those of us who believe Prime does temporarily detox or makes the toxins non toxic to fish for 24-48hrs. They smoked tobacco, chewed willow bark, and (Inca's) chewed coca leaves. They knew it did something but didn't know the exact science of the chemicals in the plant and how they specifically affected their nerve sensors. But like science, there was repeatability and reproducibility. Today, with much better technology we know how these chemicals affect our bodies, our nerves, our brains.

Perhaps Prime doesn't affect these toxins directly, instead it affects the fish and prevents the toxins from either entering into the fish's body/blood stream/etc, or it attaches to the fish's nerve receptors and stops the toxins from attaching.

I started fish keeping last year July 2018. I'm not the first nor the only one here to make this claim. I'm also not a member of any other fish keeping forum, only this one.
How about you tell me the volume of one of your tanks and I'll send you a lethal amount of sodium nitrite. You can use all the Prime you want.

Some reading on anecdotal evidence:







I've been keeping fish and active on forums for about two decades and I never heard about Prime and nitrite until it appeared on their website. If people felt it was saving their fish from nitrite they were only telling Seachem about it. Even after the good news was made public, I still didn't see more than a handful of reports.

You still haven't addressed the argument that most hobbyists have no idea what levels of nitrite and nitrate were truly toxic and credited Prime with saving their fish from levels that weren't toxic to begin with.
 

Skavatar

Member
AvalancheDave said:
You still haven't addressed the argument that most hobbyists have no idea what levels of nitrite and nitrate were truly toxic and credited Prime with saving their fish from levels that weren't toxic to begin with.
0ppm nitrites is the only acceptable level, therefore, we don't need to know what levels of nitrites are lethal to fish. some species will show stress even as low as .25ppm. why do you think when someone posts a help thread, we always ask about the water parameters? I had fish dying, tested the water, had a nitrite spike, dark purple, over 5ppm, added 5X Prime, and no more deaths for the next few weeks while nitrites still tested dark purple over 5ppm. A few months later in a different tank, I noticed my fish were lethargic and bottom sitting. tested the water, had a nitrite spike, dark purple over 5ppm, added 5X Prime, and shortly after the fish were back to normal.

anecdotal evidence is usually disregarded, but its estimated that 30-50% of all scientific discoveries were by accident. Prime wasn't created to detox ammonia, or nitrites. The blue pill (forum won't allow me to post the name) wasn't created to fix ed, etc.

why or how is nitrite toxic to fish?

"Nitrite, an intermediate in the oxidation of ammonium to nitrate, changes hemoglobin to methemoglobin, which does not carry oxygen; nitrite may thus cause anoxia in fish and other aquatic organisms. The published literature on nitrite toxicity to fish, which consists of about 40 papers, shows that the ratio of the 24-h LC50 (concentration lethal to half of the test organisms in 24 h) to the 96-h LC50 has a median value of 2.0 and is fairly uniform across species; toxicity tests of differing duration can therefore be standardized to a common duration. In general, chronic effects are difficult to detect at concentrations below one-fifth of the 96-h LC50."

so it is possible that Prime doesn't do anything to nitrite, but it somehow prevents it from affecting hemogloblin in fish.

i'm not sure if that median value of 2.0 is measured in ppm like in the API test, but if it is. how do all of us who have experience nitrite spikes of over 2ppm in our tanks for any length of time, while using Prime not have dead or stressed out fish?

The toxicity levels of nitrates have been discussed before and scientific papers referenced. High levels of nitrates, 40ppm and above have long term negative effects on fish. Most can survive in the 40-80ppm for a long time. Some can even survive in much higher concentrations of 200-300ppm. at about 400ppm most species will show short term stress and negative effects. but to most fish keepers we try to keep nitrates below 40ppm. so again, needing to know the lethal levels is a non-issue, b/c we don't allow nitrate to get anywhere near those levels.
 

AvalancheDave

Member
Skavatar said:
0ppm nitrites is the only acceptable level, therefore, we don't need to know what levels of nitrites are lethal to fish. some species will show stress even as low as .25ppm. why do you think when someone posts a help thread, we always ask about the water parameters? I had fish dying, tested the water, had a nitrite spike, dark purple, over 5ppm, added 5X Prime, and no more deaths for the next few weeks while nitrites still tested dark purple over 5ppm. A few months later in a different tank, I noticed my fish were lethargic and bottom sitting. tested the water, had a nitrite spike, dark purple over 5ppm, added 5X Prime, and shortly after the fish were back to normal.

anecdotal evidence is usually disregarded, but its estimated that 30-50% of all scientific discoveries were by accident. Prime wasn't created to detox ammonia, or nitrites. The blue pill (forum won't allow me to post the name) wasn't created to fix ed, etc.

why or how is nitrite toxic to fish?

"Nitrite, an intermediate in the oxidation of ammonium to nitrate, changes hemoglobin to methemoglobin, which does not carry oxygen; nitrite may thus cause anoxia in fish and other aquatic organisms. The published literature on nitrite toxicity to fish, which consists of about 40 papers, shows that the ratio of the 24-h LC50 (concentration lethal to half of the test organisms in 24 h) to the 96-h LC50 has a median value of 2.0 and is fairly uniform across species; toxicity tests of differing duration can therefore be standardized to a common duration. In general, chronic effects are difficult to detect at concentrations below one-fifth of the 96-h LC50."

so it is possible that Prime doesn't do anything to nitrite, but it somehow prevents it from affecting hemogloblin in fish.

i'm not sure if that median value of 2.0 is measured in ppm like in the API test, but if it is. how do all of us who have experience nitrite spikes of over 2ppm in our tanks for any length of time, while using Prime not have dead or stressed out fish?

The toxicity levels of nitrates have been discussed before and scientific papers referenced. High levels of nitrates, 40ppm and above have long term negative effects on fish. Most can survive in the 40-80ppm for a long time. Some can even survive in much higher concentrations of 200-300ppm. at about 400ppm most species will show short term stress and negative effects. but to most fish keepers we try to keep nitrates below 40ppm. so again, needing to know the lethal levels is a non-issue, b/c we don't allow nitrate to get anywhere near those levels.
You're conflating accidental discoveries and anecdotal evidence. I believe the blue pill was originally used to treat hair loss but people reported that it helped downstairs. Pfizer or whoever certainly did not begin marketing it for "downstairs help" based on those claims alone.

You misread the article you cited. It states that the ratio of 24-hr LC50 to 96-hr LC50 is 2.0. Not that 2 mg/L nitrite is toxic. That data is in this table:

nitrite toxicity table.png

The 96-hr LC50 values span 7.1 to 140 mg/L nitrite-N. That converts to 23.3 to 460 mg/L nitrite. A hobbyist who thinks anything >0 ppm is toxic and 5 ppm is deadly toxic might believe Prime saved their fish.

As for nitrate, most aquarium test kits use nitrate units while scientists and everyone else switched to nitrate-nitrogen a few decades ago. It's very common to take articles out of context and use suggested limits for something like invertebrate larvae for adult fish. Developmental stages (larvae, eggs, fry, etc.) of animals lack methemoglobin reductase. Most tanks don't have a food chain dependent on invertebrate reproduction so low nitrate limits aren't needed. If you look at the tables in the Camargo 2005 review you'll see massive increases in nitrate tolerance in fingerlings over eggs. One salmonid species listed has a 96-hr LC50 of 5,800 mg/L nitrate. All non-fake nitrate studies have similar values in the thousands for adult fish. It's easy to see how someone who thinks >40 mg/L nitrate is toxic could mistakenly credit Prime for detoxifying something that isn't even close to toxic levels.

The Davidson 2017 article is probably one of the best nitrate studies. It used a salmonid species and took place over 8 months. One group of fish was kept at 44.3 mg/L nitrate and the other at 443 mg/L nitrate. There were no differences in mortality, growth rate, fin score, etc. How much higher could they have gone? Probably a bit higher before differences would begin to emerge. And since salmonids are more sensitive to water quality, you could probably go even higher for tropical fish.
 

Skavatar

Member
In this article it cites a study by John Davidson, saying "Modest levels of nitrate nitrogen – in the 75 to 100 mg/L range – may be more harmful to aquaculture-raised rainbow trout than producers realize. A team of scientists at the Conservation Fund’s Freshwater Institute led by John Davidson documented deformities and significant behavioral changes in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) raised in recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) with nitrate nitrogen concentrations at levels less than one-tenth the recommended maximum nitrate nitrogen level of 1,000 mg/L. They believe the changes were spurred by chronic exposure to nitrate nitrogen."

the nitrate nitrogen levels would convert to about 331ppm - 442ppm, the approximate range that I stated in my previous reply.

and this was the discussion thread we had on toxic nitrate levels, seem you missed it. multiple sources cited that contradict your >1000ppm nitrate levels are safe. natural unpolluted waters have 0ppm ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate compared to fish contained in an aquarium.
https://www.fishlore.com/aquariumfishforum/threads/nitrates-how-much-too-much.391210/page-2

and why are fish keepers against fish in cycling if a little nitrite is totally harmless?

avalancedave said:
he Davidson 2017 article is probably one of the best nitrate studies. It used a salmonid species and took place over 8 months. One group of fish was kept at 44.3 mg/L nitrate and the other at 443 mg/L nitrate. There were no differences in mortality, growth rate, fin score, etc. How much higher could they have gone? Probably a bit higher before differences would begin to emerge. And since salmonids are more sensitive to water quality, you could probably go even higher for tropical fish.
I highly doubt any of your fish could survive 8 months of >400ppm nitrates.
 

toosie

Member
Joyceheatherington said:
What's the difference between
Seacham prime vs water conditioner?
We put in water conditioner. Not sure if should get some of the prime to put in during the cycling?
If you are doing a fishless cycle, there is nothing wrong with a standard dechlorinator. If you are doing a fish-in cycle, I prefer to do water changes to keep ammonia and nitrites around the .25 or below mark, no matter what dechlorinator is used, including Prime.
 

AvalancheDave

Member
Skavatar said:
In this article it cites a study by John Davidson, saying "Modest levels of nitrate nitrogen – in the 75 to 100 mg/L range – may be more harmful to aquaculture-raised rainbow trout than producers realize. A team of scientists at the Conservation Fund’s Freshwater Institute led by John Davidson documented deformities and significant behavioral changes in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) raised in recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) with nitrate nitrogen concentrations at levels less than one-tenth the recommended maximum nitrate nitrogen level of 1,000 mg/L. They believe the changes were spurred by chronic exposure to nitrate nitrogen."

the nitrate nitrogen levels would convert to about 331ppm - 442ppm, the approximate range that I stated in my previous reply..
The YSI webpage is referencing the various experiments by Davidson over the years. He and his coauthors have performed at least 3 (one or two in 2011, one in 2014, and one in 2017).

In the earlier studies, the authors of that article state that they could not definitively conclude that nitrate was responsible due to their inability to control several other water parameters. Each study is presumably an improvement over prior studies.

So let's see what the most recent study has to say:
Further, unusual swimming behaviors, such as “side-swimming” and rapid swimming velocity were not observed during this study. Davidson et al. (2011) reported increased rainbow trout swimming speeds and a significantly greater prevalence of “side-swimming” in trout exposed to NO3-N levels of approximately 80–100 mg/L, but these effects were not noted during this trial with Atlantic salmon.
Most or all of the earlier studies were 3 months long. You need to find evidence that short-term exposure to >40 mg/L nitrate will kill warm water fish. Salmonids at 330-440 mg/L for three months isn't particularly relevant. Still, those numbers are way higher than 40 mg/L nitrate. Since many aquarists believe that short-term exposure >40 mg/L nitrate can be lethal, and salmonids that are much more sensitive to water quality can survive or even thrive in levels 10 or more times higher for 3-8 months, it's highly likely they misattributed their fishes' survival to the use of Prime.
Skavatar said:
Iand this was the discussion thread we had on toxic nitrate levels, seem you missed it. multiple sources cited that contradict your >1000ppm nitrate levels are safe.
What are these sources? I want links and exact quotations. I hope you don't take them out of context or misinterpret them again.
Skavatar said:
Inatural unpolluted waters have 0ppm ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate compared to fish contained in an aquarium.
https://www.fishlore.com/aquariumfishforum/threads/nitrates-how-much-too-much.391210/page-2
https://www.fishlore.com/aquariumfishforum/threads/nitrates-how-much-too-much.391210/page-2
Ammonia and nitrite levels in nature are also much lower than in aquariums. If we must duplicate natural nitrate levels then we should do the same for ammonia and nitrite. Testing ammonia and nitrite at such low levels would probably cost $2-300 per test. Sample preservation for ammonia and nitrite is very difficult and the test equipment would cost more than most cars. That means we would have to personally transport each sample to the nearest lab.

Maybe we can mimic natural stocking levels as well? Each fish gets hundreds of thousands of gallons then.

Artificial lighting? That's out, too. And combinations fish species that would never meet in nature are out as well.

Or we could just accept that aquariums will always be unnatural to some degree and not engage in naturalistic fallacies.
Skavatar said:
and why are fish keepers against fish in cycling if a little nitrite is totally harmless?
Because they believe that those low levels of nitrite are lethal?
Skavatar said:
I highly doubt any of your fish could survive 8 months of >400ppm nitrates.
Again, this is irrelevant. I only have to show that aquarists overestimate the effects of short-term nitrate exposure and mistakenly credit Prime for their fishes' miraculous survival.
 

Skavatar

Member
AvalancheDave said:
You need to find evidence that short-term exposure to >40 mg/L nitrate will kill warm water fish. Salmonids at 330-440 mg/L for three months isn't particularly relevant. Still, those numbers are way higher than 40 mg/L nitrate. Since many aquarists believe that short-term exposure >40 mg/L nitrate can be lethal, and salmonids that are much more sensitive to water quality can survive or even thrive in levels 10 or more times higher for 3-8 months, it's highly likely they misattributed their fishes' survival to the use of Prime.
I don't know what people on other forums say, but I know on here, we recommend frequent water changes to keep nitrates below 40ppm(usually 20ppm or less), so I have not seen much on this forum about using Prime to detox nitrates, nor have I recommended such. We mainly recommend Prime for ammonia and nitrites.

[QUOTE="AvalancheDave] are these sources? I want links and exact quotations. [/quote]
like I stated in my last reply, they are all cited on the thread I linked.

[QUOTE="AvalancheDave]
Ammonia and nitrite levels in nature are also much lower than in aquariums. If we must duplicate natural nitrate levels then we should do the same for ammonia and nitrite. Testing ammonia and nitrite at such low levels would probably cost $2-300 per test. Sample preservation for ammonia and nitrite is very difficult and the test equipment would cost more than most cars. That means we would have to personally transport each sample to the nearest lab.[/quote]

again, if you looked at the thread I posted in my previous reply, you would have seen that I took a water sample from a local pond that I go fishing and tested the waters with the same API master test kit that I test my tanks with. 0ppm ammonia, just like my tanks. 0ppm nitrites, just like my tanks. 0ppm nitrates. my tanks never get to 40ppm b/c I do weekly water changes to keep them as low as possible due to, as you said, the "unnatural" nature of aquariums.

[QUOTE="AvalancheDave]
Because they believe that those low levels of nitrite are lethal?
Again, this is irrelevant. I only have to show that aquarists overestimate the effects of short-term nitrate exposure and mistakenly credit Prime for their fishes' miraculous survival.[/QUOTE]
b/c even low levels of nitrites and nitrates are unnatural. and our aquarium fish show signs of stress such as lethargy, gasping at the surface, and bottom sitting. this is observable, and have been reported other fish keepers.
 

AvalancheDave

Member
Skavatar said:
I don't know what people on other forums say, but I know on here, we recommend frequent water changes to keep nitrates below 40ppm(usually 20ppm or less), so I have not seen much on this forum about using Prime to detox nitrates, nor have I recommended such. We mainly recommend Prime for ammonia and nitrites.
If <40 ppm is the recommendation but 40 ppm nitrate isn't even close to toxic then that would lead to false reports that Prime "saved" the fish.
Skavatar said:
like I stated in my last reply, they are all cited on the thread I linked.
I don't see any scientific articles about nitrate toxicity in that thread. Please link them or I will conclude the evidence doesn't exist.
Skavatar said:
again, if you looked at the thread I posted in my previous reply, you would have seen that I took a water sample from a local pond that I go fishing and tested the waters with the same API master test kit that I test my tanks with. 0ppm ammonia, just like my tanks. 0ppm nitrites, just like my tanks. 0ppm nitrates. my tanks never get to 40ppm b/c I do weekly water changes to keep them as low as possible due to, as you said, the "unnatural" nature of aquariums.
The API ammonia test can only detect ammonia over 0.05 mg/L. Some might say it can't even distinguish between 0 and 0.25. Natural levels are probably in the ppb range and impossible for aquarists to test or achieve. If we have to mimic natural nitrate levels then we must do so for ammonia and nitrite as well.

And end the use of artificial light.

And end the mixing of geographically separate species.

And give fish thousands or millions of gallons each.
Skavatar said:
b/c even low levels of nitrites and nitrates are unnatural. and our aquarium fish show signs of stress such as lethargy, gasping at the surface, and bottom sitting. this is observable, and have been reported other fish keepers.
Again with the naturalistic fallacy. Seachem says they received reports that Prime prevented high death rates aquarists expected from nitrite and nitrate levels. Not lethargy but death. This is all anecdotal anyway and confirmation bias.

Let's look at some real data (from the Davidson 2017 paper):
Davidson nitrate fig 2.png

Wow, no difference in salmonids over 8 months at 443 ppm. Yet people think much hardier warm water fish will die or be stunted at 1/10th that.

Davidson nitrate table 1.png

Looks at all those water parameters measured!

Davidson nitrate table 2.png

And look at all those growth metrics!

Davidson nitrate table 3.png

Who needs all this stuff? An aquarist insists that nitrates ten times less in hardier fish for a much shorter time are hurting his or her fish! Who are you going to believe?

Davidson nitrate table 4.png

What's this? Forget all this careful scientific measurement. I'm going to believe some random person on the Internet who says nitrate levels ten times less will stunt hardier warm water fish.

Davidson nitrate table 5.png
 

Attachments

Cichlidude

Member
Just to let everyone know, I'm on my 4th bag of popcorn.
 

AvalancheDave

Member
And from Monsees 2017:

Monsees nitrate fig 1.png

No significant differences under 4,430 mg/L nitrate.

Monsees nitrate fig 2.png

No significant differences under 4,430 mg/L nitrate.

Monsees nitrate fig 3.png


No significant differences under 4,430 mg/L nitrate.


Monsees nitrate fig 4.png


No significant effects under 4,430 mg/L nitrate.


Monsees nitrate fig 5.png

No significant differences at any level of nitrate.


Monsees nitrate table 1.png

No significant differences at any level of nitrate.
 

AvalancheDave

Member
And from the often cited Camargo 2005 article:

Camargo nitrate table 3 annotated.png

All values in nitrate-N so they have to be multiplied by 4.43. These numbers are huge. The Kincheloe study was discredited. A follow-up study determined the values to be magnitudes higher than what Kincheloe reported.
 

toosie

Member
Let us not forget that ammonia and nitrite toxicity is dependent on pH and temperature. I will avoid getting caught up in the Prime debate, in part because I have my own suspicions on its effectiveness and its affect on cycling. However, as much as I have enjoyed this debate...and I have... you guys are now kind of going around and around with this. Maybe it's time to just agree to disagree? It's becoming obvious you aren't going to convince each other of anything. But...if the OP doesn't mind their thread being used for this debate...I guess you can let Cichlidude get fat on popcorn. Me...I haven't had the foresight enough to go pop any.
 

AvalancheDave

Member
What does Tom Barr have to say on the subject?

As you can see, the ranges are extremely high and that warmer water fish tend to have a greater ability to withstand NO3 levels as well. When fish breed and fry ar eproduces, this representst the behavior(positive good) and the most sensntive life stanges. I routinely have this occur in such higher NO3 tanks.

Now some have made claims that my advice concerning EI dosing is bad for fish and they have not supported with test, with primary research, nor applied plant tank experience neither over short term nor over long term test.

Now I ask them to stand before others to show their evidence rather than preceptions to show and prove otherwise.

What I hear from:

1. Banther about less is better(but they rarely say how much less)
2. No supporting primary research(still waiting for one review)
3. Advice and heresay from other web sites
4. Toxicity citations about humans, not fish
5. No toxcity test of their own to deny/confirm(kind of sad, they make claims and then do not test them)
6. Claims that behaviors change(how do we measure this?)

And what does Diana Walstad have to say?

There have been many recommendations to keep nitrates low (below 25 ppm) in our aquariums. I'm not sure why, because the scientific literature and experts repeatedly imply that nitrates aren't very toxic. At the end of this letter, I have listed documented values from the scientific literature.

What concerns me is that hobbyists are testing and worrying about something not very significant in terms of fish health. One of my tanks runs for long periods with 40-100 ppm nitrates. Meanwhile, hobbyists may be ignoring major toxins like nitrite and ammonia or incorrectly attributing disease problems to fish weakened (?) by nitrates.
After I finished compiling this data, I wonder why I even bothered testing for nitrates.
And they wrote this before the Monsees and Davidson 2017 articles!

toosie said:
Let us not forget that ammonia and nitrite toxicity is dependent on pH and temperature. I will avoid getting caught up in the Prime debate, in part because I have my own suspicions on its effectiveness and its affect on cycling. However, as much as I have enjoyed this debate...and I have... you guys are now kind of going around and around with this. Maybe it's time to just agree to disagree? It's becoming obvious you aren't going to convince each other of anything. But...if the OP doesn't mind their thread being used for this debate...I guess you can let Cichlidude get fat on popcorn. Me...I haven't had the foresight enough to go pop any.
Well, I'm sure that, like many nitrate truthers, he'll never be convinced. He's entitled to his opinion just like the anti-vaccination and flat earth crowds. He's free to believe whatever he wants but he can't say science backs him up.
 
  • Thread Starter

Joyceheatherington

Member
Uhhh Wow this is all above my knowledge and over my head as a beginner. Not even sure if it answered my question with so much info.
 

toeknee

Member
A fine job derailing OP's thread. This has been like watching a Republican trying to convince a Democrat they are right and the other side is wrong and vice versa. It just doesn't happen.
 

AvalancheDave

Member
Well, I can't sit by while people post misinformation in every thread. It's a disservice to the hobby to perpetuate myths whether their origins are marketing or the illusory truth effect.
 

toeknee

Member
AvalancheDave said:
Well, I can't sit by while people post misinformation in every thread. It's a disservice to the hobby to perpetuate myths whether their origins are marketing or the illusory truth effect.
ha. Fair enough. I'm sure someone will take away some valuable information from that debate.
 

david1978

Member
Joyceheatherington said:
Uhhh Wow this is all above my knowledge and over my head as a beginner. Not even sure if it answered my question with so much info.
The simple answer is prime is a water conditioner. Its pretty concentrated. Safe is another that's even more concentrated. The other stuff I have no idea since I have a well so I don't use any.
 

toosie

Member
AvalancheDave said:
Well, I'm sure that, like many nitrate truthers, he'll never be convinced. He's entitled to his opinion just like the anti-vaccination and flat earth crowds. He's free to believe whatever he wants but he can't say science backs him up.
I think the forum has a way of instilling these beliefs. Many years ago, I myself got caught up in the "Prime detoxifies ammonia, nitrites and nitrates" talk. But a couple of the things that shut my mouth about it was when I discovered that info about Seachem saying they had no proof in regard to the nitrite and nitrate claims, and were going by anecdotal customer info...to me that was their get out of jail free card, without having to prove it did anything. Plus...their statement to use 5X the dose for nitrites. They don't say at what level of nitrites that becomes necessary. Nor how they determined 5X the dose did the trick. Years ago, I tried to dispute the ammonia portion of the claI'm in a thread, and kinda caused a member to decide to test the success of Prime to protect guppies during a cycle, and she dosed Prime instead of doing water changes...and although the guppies didn't die, the cycle seemed to stall, and I suspected this daily dose of Prime that was being given, as part of the cause. What initially planted the idea (that Prime might affect cycling) was something Dr. TI'm (the inventor of TSS) said while he was on the forum, about being able to get a buildup of Prime...I can't remember exactly how that conversation went, but I'm sure I could find the thread if anyone is interested.

But yeah...all this was just to say that, due to popular belief, and due to the fact that it hasn't been reported on the forum often as "Prime has failed me!", these beliefs in Prime have prevailed. I'm all game for good disproving conversations though, but I guess there also hasn't been enough evidence to say that Prime doesn't do as people say it does...even if the logic of other factors, such as the level of toxicity debate, (which is part of your debate) comes into play. So, yeah...I think it's good to keep an open mind, and while Prime may not be as effective as claimed, in most cases it doesn't seem to cause problems...however I do say that last bit through clenched teeth, because I've lost plenty of fish due to ammonia/nitrite levels in my early fishkeeping years, and this idea that it's ok to subject fish to higher levels of these toxins because "Prime will protect the fish" goes against my better judgement. I prefer to keep levels low period. And having said that, I too haven't noticed problems as far as nitrate levels go, unless they get extremely high, and by that I mean higher than our test kits go. But due to my own stupidity (lack of knowlege) years ago, I did have goldfish develop septicemia to what I attributed to these levels of nitrates. Could it have been another toxin? Why not! Anything is possible, and I didn't have means of testing the water or the fish's body for other causes. But nitrates is still what I am most leaning towards to this day.

So...for someone who was going to stay away from the Prime debate...I didn't do too well I guess.

But to Joyceheatherington, to try to better answer your question, in more than what I said in my original post...Standard conditioners claI'm to eliminate chlorine and the chlorine from the chloramine molecule, which are both disinfectants used by water treatment plants. They also claI'm to detoxify heavy metals. Prime claims to do all of that, plus detoxify ammonia, nitrites and nitrates. And if the ammonia claims are true, it would be very nice, since ammonia is the other part of the chloramine molecule, and so it could also help low levels of ammonia in the tank from fish waste. Which, does seem to work. So, although I am not a total gung ho Prime advocate, I do think if it can protect fish from low levels of ammonia, it is worth using...and it does seem to do that.
 

Skavatar

Member
AvalancheDave said:
If <40 ppm is the recommendation but 40 ppm nitrate isn't even close to toxic then that would lead to false reports that Prime "saved" the fish.
I'll give you that on the nitrates. Since we only recommend frequent water changes to lower nitrate levels. And I've never recommended Prime for nitrates. I will concede on the Nitrate aspect of Prime.

I still believe that Prime has some sort of unintended effect in either preventing nitrites from entering into the fish's gills/blood stream, or preventing nitrites from turning hemoglobin into methemoglobin. I witnessed the negative effects (including a few deaths) of nitrites over 5ppm on 2 of my tanks at 2 different times, and both times shortly after overdosing all the fish were back to normal. Repeatibility. Others have reported the same results. Reproducibility.

Edit:
I did some more searching, and found that there is some chemical and biological interaction between nitrite and sulfide.

Then I remembered a few threads about the odor of Prime being like rotten eggs(sulfur), https://www.fishlore.com/aquariumfishforum/threads/why-does-seachem-prime-smell-so-bad.204104/

Then I remembered that Prime does contain some kind of sulfur compound.

"Prime does not contain any formaldehyde. It is a proprietary aqueous solution of complexed hydrosulfite salts."

Found a research study about hemoglobin, nitrite, and hydrosulfite (Sodium dithionite). Page 12 on pdf reader or page 198 printed on the actual page. Action on Blood "When nitrite is added first and methemoglobin is formed, there is primarily reduction to hemoglobin and then the change to NO hemoglobin as before."

I will do more searching throughout the week, I have to go to bed and get up at 4am for work.
 

Geoff

Member
343e2b17def20b3456402dbf76adebe8.gif
 

Skavatar

Member
AvalancheDave said:
Well, I'm sure that, like many nitrate truthers, he'll never be convinced. He's entitled to his opinion just like the anti-vaccination and flat earth crowds. He's free to believe whatever he wants but he can't say science backs him up.
haha,
I do believe in vaccines, I'm vaccinated, and so is my 6 yr old son. I do believe the Earth is spherical.

Anyways, I just created an account on Seachem's forum and submitted my theory that the active ingredient hydrosulfite (Sodium dithionite) reverses the effect of nitrite on hemoglobin, reducing it from methemoglobin back to nitrite and hemoglobin. We'll see if they'll follow up and do some research on their own and finally get some scientific confirmation on Prime's efficacy on nitrite poisoning.

Joyceheatherington said:
Uhhh Wow this is all above my knowledge and over my head as a beginner. Not even sure if it answered my question with so much info.
Please refer to reply #5.
Most conditioners only remove chlorine and chloramine.
Prime, Kordon AmQuel+, and HikarI Ultimate claI'm to also detox nitrite and nitrates.
Prime has a number of anecdotal reports from fish keepers that it does.
This debate showed that since nitrate levels are no where near toxic levels in most home aquariums that Prime et al aren't actually "protecting" fish from nitrates in the home aquarium.
 

bizaliz3

Member
Joyceheatherington said:
Uhhh Wow this is all above my knowledge and over my head as a beginner. Not even sure if it answered my question with so much info.
You poor thing!!!!! If I was a newbie and asked such a simple question and it turned into a thread like this, I would lose my mind trying to understand it all! SHEESH GUYS!!

Lets just keep it as simple and simple can be. Prime is a water conditioner. LOL!

Yes there are added benefits to prime over other brands. (after skimming through your thread apparently not everyone believes that though) but when it comes down to it, prime is a water conditioner. Period.

If you choose to use seachem prime as your water conditioner, due to its added benefits, you do not need to use ANOTHER type of water conditioner. I am going to guess that is why you asked the question to begin with. haha But maybe not.
 

ReneRivera

Member
AvalancheDave said:
That's not how science works. Religion, maybe. A few hundred years ago the vast majority of people would swear the Earth was flat.

I doubt there are thousands of fish keepers reporting this. On all the aquarium forums out there I've only seen you make that claim.

Remember the thread from the Seachem support forums where someone used Prime for nitrite and it failed. I used it for ammonia and it also failed.

Most aquarists have no idea what levels of nitrite and nitrate are toxic. They think any amount of nitrite is toxic while studies have found it can be anywhere from 1-100 ppm for tropical fish. And they think nitrate is toxic above 40 ppm when the actual value is more than a hundred times that amount. It's very likely false reports were made based on a lack of knowledge of nitrite and nitrate toxicity.

Is it possible a product is simply so great that it borders on magic? Every few years they discover miraculous new properties. How long before Seachem starts claiming Prime will resurrect the dead?

Why hasn't Seachem done so and released the results?

Why don't you devise a scientific test that doesn't involve anecdotes? I'm willing to split the cost of the experiment with you.
Ithink that a a test that measures free ammonia and not total ammonia should be marketed. Free ammonia is the unionized (toxic) form. You could have high total ammonia and low free ammonia. Prime works by ionizing ammonia into ammonium which isn't toxic. This however , is temporary. Ammonium will unbind and return to ammonia within 48 hours. That's why prime is a lifesaver.it allow the bio filter a brief respite to catch up with the increased demand. Also it's important to understand the relation / interaction between PH an ammonia levels. Lower Ph will render ammonia less toxic. I use test kits along with seachem's ammonia alert badge, which monitors free ammonia. The badge could read safe and the test could show high levels ( but that's a reading of TOTAL ammonia).
 

Kjeldsen

Member
How did I miss this thread? All I'm going to say is Seachem probably spends more on Marketing than R&D.
 

Fish0n

Member
Joyceheatherington said:
Uhhh Wow this is all above my knowledge and over my head as a beginner. Not even sure if it answered my question with so much info.
If you are using tap water you can check the city's website and see what they claI'm the water levels *should* be from your tap. I have heard they aren't always what they claI'm in terms of nitrates and such but it does inform you of what they are treating the water with so you know what conditioner to use to detoxify. For example chlorine or chloramine are commonly used to kill bacteria and micro organisms.
So in conclusion knowing what water conditioner is better to use depends on how your city treats their water!

*Disclaimer* I have been on well water for the past 5 years the products could have changed since I had an experience with this, but the more you know about your source water the better usually.
 

richiep

Member
Well guys/gals after reading all that I'm in melt down mode, I need a beer
 
Top Bottom