180 Gallon EI dosed fish Breeding

[Tom Barr]

I've had some folks long claim EI is bad for fish and bad for fish fry, bad for soft water fish, on and on........well time for them to eat some humble pie:

Most of the fry gets eaten by the rams, checker boards, cardinals, so I have to stand around and net them as they hatch, if........I'm around. I had poor results rearing fry in ultra pure water and in plain tap that was well aged prior to adding them in a quarantine tank(10 Gal bare bottomed with dual sponge filter, heater etc). I have those hospital net tank inserts, basically a hang on net. Fish fry would get caught/entangled and water changes made it a PITA, had a few squashed fish.

This simple tray float and exchange the water-3-4 times a day seems to work very well with plain old tank water, tank water has NO3 sitting about 30ppm or so, high PO4, about 5-6, and Fe at 1.0ppmm +, Gh about 3, KH 1.5, temp 82F.

Zero losses.

I would think and expect higher losses in this tray, where O2 and no filter are less, and where the higher ppm's would be detrimental. But...........

In both cases, I tried with tank water 100% to the new quarantine tank exchange, also plain tap, also DI/AC filtered, I only manged to get 7 fish to adulthood. Fungus and other issues, unexplained death. My question was mostly well, maybe it is the higher NO3 and fry's exposure is much more sensitive?

Could have been, until I started doing this method using the tank water and exchanges. If I'd not had this result, I might be tempted and feel strongly otherwise.

Such unexpected results are often the case. Without some evidence otherwise, we are left to our own devices and assumptions. Now..if someone else came along and challenged me to try it and see, I'd have nothing to lose, I was losing fry anyhow and the fish breed like clock work every 2 weeks.

Since I'm using nothing but tank water, it cannot be due to the N, P, Fe etc.............nor low O2 etc.

I cannot say with any certainly what was killing the fry prior, only what was NOT killing them/leading to mortality etc. We often seek answers, when we should seek the questions. This is 3rd x I've had this same result.
Once the fish get to about 1" or more, they are tough as nails. This takes about 8 weeks.

So this, along with Discus, Apistos, Angels(sorry, not altums), cories, shrimps(CRS/RCS, Amanos) are added to the list of fish I have bred with higher nutrients.

We know we can now answer "are higher nutrients have an adverse effect/s on fish, algae and plants? We can say "no, not in any general way". Thus the risk is minimal.

So for those that wish to claim nutrients are detrimental, where is your evidence? Like the example I stated above, if you have no tried to falsify your own hypothesis, then you'd never know.
Here's my evidence and it's going to be exceeding difficult to falsify the results.

 

[tmaciak]

Apistos

Month ago I restarted my non-CO2 tank on new Amazonia and PS. I did 3 water changes (1/3 volume of tank in first week) and 2 in second. I planned 3 water changes but it was impossible, because my appistogramma baenschi (F2) put eggs Now, I have a multitude of fry and it's growing well. Although obviously I not use "full" EI in this tank, I use method you devised for non CO2 tanks. I started to fertilize from 3rd week (as usual).

I do not test water in this tank but considering new setup and fertilization, I think that it's much more than what is expected from apisto to endure, but fishes seems to be happy. I think, that huge mass of healthy, growing plants makes difference

In other, CO2 tank, my apistogramma cacatuoides breed when I was dosing 20ppm of NO3 and 3ppm of PO4 weekly and did not looked less happy that now, when I decreased NO3 to 12ppm (it's enough for my plants at the moment).

 

[Tom Barr]

It should be noted that EI can be reduced with the same results for 99% of the tanks out there, but not doing so also poses no harm.

I would rather people start at the higher end of dosing to ensure non limiting reference conditions, then slowly reduce once the tank is nice and doing well, this also means that a good stable CO2 dosing is done, which is much harder to master than any dosing of ferts.

 

[ghostsword]

The question should be, aren't those nutrients available on a natural river or lake? Don't the fish breed there? For example some fish breed only there , on the wild.

So of course the nutrients do not harm fish, kinda common sense.


.

 

[Tom Barr]

The question should be, aren't those nutrients available on a natural river or lake? Don't the fish breed there? For example some fish breed only there , on the wild.

So of course the nutrients do not harm fish, kinda common sense.


.

Yes, but the problem is many assume and tell others in the hobby, that "less is best". While being on the safe side of ignorance(Often called "fear"), it's still does not make ignorance any less ignorant.

How much and over what range is this "risk"?
Which species are effected?
How could we set up a test that would falsify(or tentatively confirm) the hypothesis?

The nutrients vary widely in natural systems, particularly Freshwaters.............they are not these stable systems that many seem to imply.
Reefs? I grant those are fairly stable, but they change some also.

The Amazon has a 40-50ft elevation drop every year, wet season and the Very very wet season.
If the ppm's are measured ONLY at one time point and only in one field location, this is NOT representative of the species or the habitat, you cannot make a wide range conclusion based on such limited data.

I have seem many attempt to pull the wool over aquarist' eyes with this.

I do not know the range of ppm's for Sturisoma, my mother use to find them in streams above Lago Gatun in Panama, but that habitat has been destroyed years ago.

 

[AquaticJim]

That photo of the fry is awesome (and the eggs)!

 

[Tom Barr]

The fry are still growing and getting bigger, they have effectively doubled in biomass.