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?)
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.
And they wrote this before the Monsees and Davidson 2017 articles!After I finished compiling this data, I wonder why I even bothered testing for nitrates.
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.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.
ha. Fair enough. I'm sure someone will take away some valuable information from that debate.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.
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.Joyceheatherington said:
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.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'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.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.
haha,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.
Please refer to reply #5.Joyceheatherington said:
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!!Joyceheatherington said:
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).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.
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.Joyceheatherington said: