In the past, this topic I've raised several times (maybe I lost count, but at least 8-10 x now) on line when a person suggest about how a dosing method suggests adding "pollutants" (NO3 from KNO3 and PO4 from KH2PO4 fertilizers) and I had to ask, this person had no issues adding CO2, a gas when not used correctly........ easily kills fish.
I asked them at what levels to fish and inverts suffer and die from for both PO4(there is no known levels for humans or fish near as any reference I could find or hunt for) and NO3. the references I've found for NO3 are very high, 250-13,000ppm of NO3 for LD 50's.
Much much higher than CO2 toxicity.
Now they have suggested by limiting the nutrients, this would be better for the fish, I countered if that was their argument, they should not place the cart before the ox, limit the light and CO2 instaed if that was their goal.
I asked how many folks have gassed and killed their fish with CO2 versus killed them KNO3. Curiously, they chose to avoid this one
Cowards.
I'm the only one that seems to have been able to kill shrimp with KNO3, but I had to add 160ppm or more to test it(this did not damage to the fish though). I know Richard went to 220-300ppm for several weeks with a wide variety of species of fish. Seems he missed a decimal place Oh my my.........
So I have to ask, why do folks suggest adding CO2 and also suggest and discuss fish health as well? Can we have both and is really less better?
If you buy into the less is better argument, then non CO2 methods are the way to go. It seems contradictory froma risk and argum,ent prespective top suggest otherwise.
Why this high standard for NO3 and PO4(even though testing specifically and research suggest otherwise) and not the same applied to CO2?
Hummm.........................
Is CO2 the great evil that kills fish? Or is is a lack of water changes?
Or NO3's that get too high?
Or is it NH4 from fish waste that's causing the problems?
I've used CO2 gas for 20 years this fall. I've yet to kill a fish with it, I have had then breathing hard a few times, maybe 5-7 or so over that period and with many tanks.
But is the benefits of CO2 really helping the hobby vs the risk to fish?
I often wonder............
As yet another newbies wipes out their prized discus tank...................
As yet another newbie has a CO2 tank and a algae all over.............
We all know why and want can be done to prevent it, but I really have to scratch my head when I hear these crazed ideas about 20-40ppm of NO3 being bad while they add the same amount of CO2.
CO2 is very lethal and every much a limiting nutrient/toxicant/pollutant/fertilizer as any NPK.
And much like less than 20ppm of NO3, plants can and do adapt to less CO2 as well.
Generally, it seems to me, I may be wrong here, when you start with an argument and rational, stick with it all the way through. Excessive light causes a lot of problems also, but few fish die due to high lighting, I suppose you could cook one if you added enough light though.
Metal Halide seared Halibut with butter sauce.
Regards,
Tom Barr
I asked them at what levels to fish and inverts suffer and die from for both PO4(there is no known levels for humans or fish near as any reference I could find or hunt for) and NO3. the references I've found for NO3 are very high, 250-13,000ppm of NO3 for LD 50's.
Much much higher than CO2 toxicity.
Now they have suggested by limiting the nutrients, this would be better for the fish, I countered if that was their argument, they should not place the cart before the ox, limit the light and CO2 instaed if that was their goal.
I asked how many folks have gassed and killed their fish with CO2 versus killed them KNO3. Curiously, they chose to avoid this one
Cowards.
I'm the only one that seems to have been able to kill shrimp with KNO3, but I had to add 160ppm or more to test it(this did not damage to the fish though). I know Richard went to 220-300ppm for several weeks with a wide variety of species of fish. Seems he missed a decimal place
Oh my my......... So I have to ask, why do folks suggest adding CO2 and also suggest and discuss fish health as well? Can we have both and is really less better?
If you buy into the less is better argument, then non CO2 methods are the way to go. It seems contradictory froma risk and argum,ent prespective top suggest otherwise.
Why this high standard for NO3 and PO4(even though testing specifically and research suggest otherwise) and not the same applied to CO2?
Hummm.........................
Is CO2 the great evil that kills fish? Or is is a lack of water changes?
Or NO3's that get too high?
Or is it NH4 from fish waste that's causing the problems?
I've used CO2 gas for 20 years this fall. I've yet to kill a fish with it, I have had then breathing hard a few times, maybe 5-7 or so over that period and with many tanks.
But is the benefits of CO2 really helping the hobby vs the risk to fish?
I often wonder............
As yet another newbies wipes out their prized discus tank...................
As yet another newbie has a CO2 tank and a algae all over.............
We all know why and want can be done to prevent it, but I really have to scratch my head when I hear these crazed ideas about 20-40ppm of NO3 being bad while they add the same amount of CO2.
CO2 is very lethal and every much a limiting nutrient/toxicant/pollutant/fertilizer as any NPK.
And much like less than 20ppm of NO3, plants can and do adapt to less CO2 as well.
Generally, it seems to me, I may be wrong here, when you start with an argument and rational, stick with it all the way through. Excessive light causes a lot of problems also, but few fish die due to high lighting, I suppose you could cook one if you added enough light though.
Metal Halide seared Halibut with butter sauce.
Regards,
Tom Barr
