# Nitrate



## Nubster (Aug 9, 2011)

Plants can help lower and keep it low. Also WC's as needed. Unless you have nitrates in your tap, you're overfeeding, or you have lots of shrimp in the tank, you really shouldn't be having much issue with nitrates that some plants and weekly WC's can't take care of.


----------



## Asphalt Art (Apr 18, 2013)

Certain plants are more efficient than others at attacking Nitrate levels. Red Mangrove pods are apparently vacuums for it, as are any high demand plants such as duckweed (which is a love/hate relationship for many)

Also keep in mind that those cute little pillows you are referring to also remove as much Ammo and Nitrite as they can along with the Nitrate. I am not sure I would want to starve the BB to save 10 minutes of a water change, and spend more in the long run.


----------



## vamcbride (Oct 14, 2012)

*water change*

nothing takes the place of routine water changing


----------



## wicca27 (May 3, 2009)

best thing to use is live plants. filter media only last so long and you will have to replace it. once it stops absorbing the nitrates it will dump them back in the tank and kill stuff if you know test all the time.

good plants are floaters, hornwort is my fave, duck weed is good but a pain in the but to get rid of. frog bit is another one i use cause its easy to get rid of. my shrimp seem to like horn wort the best cause of all the tiney leaves.


----------



## CrypticLifeStyle (Jan 16, 2013)

Size tank, what type of filter(s), how much water change per week/month?


----------



## Clemsons2k (May 31, 2009)

wicca27 said:


> ....filter media only last so long and you will have to replace it. *once it stops absorbing the nitrates it will dump them back in the tank and kill stuff* if you know test all the time.


False. The only reason that any sort of nitrate absorbing media would release anything back into the water is if the material itself starting breaking down (which if thats happening you have other issues besides nitrates) or if another compound that has a higher affinity for the media comes along and bumps the nitrate molecules off. Which once again means you have other water quality issues that need attending to.


----------



## fplata (May 20, 2012)

^^^^ 100% correct. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## WheeledGoat (Mar 17, 2013)

my cabomba furcata is a nitrate sponge, too - I struggle to get any nitrate reading at all, despite fertz dosing. if my ammonia & nitrite were't firmly pegged on 0, i'd worry for my lack of nitrate readings.


----------



## Destroyer551 (Dec 1, 2009)

Anyone know THE best nitrate sucking plants? I have anacharis in my tank but it's not doing too good of a job.


----------



## Clemsons2k (May 31, 2009)

Anything that floats will demolish nitrate. Water sprite, duckweek, Salvinia, red root floaters, frogbit, etc.

The faster the plant grows the better.


----------



## wicca27 (May 3, 2009)

carbon will only work so long that is why they make the toss out pads, once they stop working they leach it back in the tank. i use sponge filters in all my tanks. even my hot magnum only has the blue sponge in it. and no i dont get nitrate probs. but all my tanks are planted and some have floaters.


----------



## pejerrey (Dec 5, 2011)

Hello,

Imma quote myself here, this is a topic that is been brought up so so so much:

"Shrimp and no3"

Sorry to disagree with the nitrate thing.

No3 is not really harmful to them, is the nh4 and no2 that came before no3 what is poisonous. So test for nh4(ammonia) and no2(nitrite), because if there is no readings for no3 yet but there is ammonia and nitrite then the water is no good. 

No3 is at the end of the cycle. We really need to be careful with the previous nitrogen compounds. 

This is why people can keep shrimp with more than 150ppm of no3 from ferts. If that was coming from ammonia and nitrate then it would be toxic, not the no3 but the previous nitro compounds.

Anyhow, my point is: testing for no3 in a non cycled mass of water is not enough as a preventive measure. 

Based on:

Shrimp and no3
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=160205

Nitrates, how high is too high?
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=72507

What is a safe range of nitrates for CRS/CBS: (this thread has more conclusive info)
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=125445

Similar to the posts above:
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=44307


----------



## Clemsons2k (May 31, 2009)

wicca27 said:


> carbon will only work so long that is why they make the toss out pads, once they stop working they leach it back in the tank. i use sponge filters in all my tanks. even my hot magnum only has the blue sponge in it. and no i dont get nitrate probs. but all my tanks are planted and some have floaters.


You're correct that carbon will only absorb so much. They make toss out pads and tell you to change them so frequently to make more money mostly  But nothing leeches out of the carbon when it is exhausted, that is a myth. All activated carbon does is bind on the atomic level to certain compounds that have an opposite charge and high affinity for the carbon surface. These bonds don't just spontanously break because all of the free area on the carbon is saturated with molecules.


----------



## fplata (May 20, 2012)

Correct, once carbon in no longer active it becomes a biological filter, but it will never leech back into the water column. it's a great myth that I am sure was created by the Carbon filter manufacturers to scare you into changing your carbon filter


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CrypticLifeStyle (Jan 16, 2013)

Carbon leaching back toxins it has absorbed isnt a myth, but a lot of sub-par fish forums have created this whole thing that it is, but to be fair, incidents do vary based on the grade of the carbon, and what exactly is being leached back. A carbon cartridge is only good for 6 days max, high grade pellets maybe 2 weeks at best. 

Either way carbon is crap, and a waste of money, nor is it needed IMO. If you have some stinky well water fine, but just for general use dont bother


----------



## Clemsons2k (May 31, 2009)

CrypticLifeStyle said:


> Carbon leaching back toxins it has absorbed isnt a myth, but a lot of sub-par fish forums have created this whole thing that it is, but to be fair, incidents do vary based on the grade of the carbon, and what exactly is being leached back. A carbon cartridge is only good for 6 days max, high grade pellets maybe 2 weeks at best.
> 
> Either way carbon is crap, and a waste of money, nor is it needed IMO. If you have some stinky well water fine, but just for general use dont bother


It doesn't just happen on its own though. There has to be some other force acting on it to strip off the molecules.


----------



## CrypticLifeStyle (Jan 16, 2013)

Usually its PH related, but carbon wears down, and give enough flow/time there's nothing left of the carbon to hold anything. There's more scientific means of explaining other ways it can happen, one being on tom bars site, but to save myself from a long discussion, it isn't exactly a myth, and can happen, especially with detritus release


----------



## mordalphus (Jun 23, 2010)

Carbon doesn't last long in my filters, I guess just from water eroding it? 

I do not use it anymore, because anything that can be removed with carbon can also be removed by water change. 


As far as nitrates being good or bad for shrimp, it's not the same as when you add nitrates as a fertilizer. When nitrates are present in high amounts in an aquarium that DOES NOT get fertilizers added to it, indicates a lot of decay, organic matter, phosphorus, etc that ARE harmful. High nitrates are simply an indicator that something is decomposing in there, and that you need to do a water change. 

So instead of using plants to absorb lots of nitrates, try doing water changes instead.


----------



## Lexinverts (Jan 17, 2012)

mordalphus said:


> ...High nitrates are simply an indicator that something is decomposing in there, and that you need to do a water change.
> 
> So instead of using plants to absorb lots of nitrates, try doing water changes instead.


If you have shrimp that are sensitive to water changes, such as baby Taiwan bees, I think it makes sense to reduce the need for water changes by having lots of plants to absorb/use the nitrates that are present.


----------



## mordalphus (Jun 23, 2010)

If you are having nitrate problems in your baby taiwan bee tank, there is something wrong with your feeding schedule, hah.


----------



## Lexinverts (Jan 17, 2012)

mordalphus said:


> If you are having nitrate problems in your baby taiwan bee tank, there is something wrong with your feeding schedule, hah.


I'm not having nitrate problems.

I have babies in all of my Taiwan Bee tanks, so I try to minimize water changes in all of them. All of these tanks also have lots of plants, so I am really not sure what my nitrate levels would look like in a bare tank. 

I do know that if I cut back too many plants in a pruning I can get an ammonia spike, so I assume the plants are using quite a bit of nitrate as well.


----------



## Clemsons2k (May 31, 2009)

CrypticLifeStyle said:


> Usually its PH related, but carbon wears down, and give enough flow/time there's nothing left of the carbon to hold anything. There's more scientific means of explaining other ways it can happen, one being on tom bars site, but to save myself from a long discussion, it isn't exactly a myth, and can happen, especially with detritus release


Agreed, and I mentioned in my original response that the break down of the carbon pellets themselves can lead to compounds being put back into the water. Too many people think though that carbon spontaneously releases things back into the water just because it can't absorb anymore, and that is false. The release of chemicals back into the water is due to issues on the atomic level for whatever reason (erosion, pH, higher affinity compounds, etc).


----------



## pejerrey (Dec 5, 2011)

What is up with the carbon talk? Isn't the op asking for nitrate?


----------



## fplata (May 20, 2012)

pejerrey said:


> What is up with the carbon talk? Isn't the op asking for nitrate?


I would guess it is some what related, the op has been provided with multiple solutions, why not let this discussion get more technical, after all it's related


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dolfan (Apr 8, 2005)

As others mentioned, fast growing plants will suck up the nitrates best. Hornwort does a good job, anacharis, duckweed, and frogbit are some other good ones. In my tanks, I can almost watch hornwort grow it does so well. I think having tons of tiny leaves gives it more surface area to react with the water and soak up the nitrates.

Plants cannot replace routine maintenance and water changes though. They do help though.


----------



## pejerrey (Dec 5, 2011)

Plants can only absorb nitrates depending on that there is no other limiting factor such as lack of other nutrient like phosphate, co2 or light.

Plants do not only "suck up" nitrates they need all their nutrients in proportion . Therefore floaters are more efficient at this because they are closer to the light and using atmospheric co2. 

Again, the problem is not nitrates is the process to get to nitrate where the problem is. No3 is pretty harmless itself.


----------



## inthepacific (Oct 21, 2012)

moss is perfect for taking up nitrate. shrimp love it too. it also doesnt need high light or nutrients which is why so many shrimp breeders and keepers just do bare tanks with moss.


----------



## pejerrey (Dec 5, 2011)

inthepacific said:


> moss is perfect for taking up nitrate


Really? I thought moss needed very little nutrients thus not good at removing anything. 

With a fully planted tank (lots of plants) I could only measure about 5ppm decrease in TDS maximum, with medium lights and co2 involved, so I doubt a few patches of moss in a shrimp tank (usually very poorly planted) will do anything with low light as its low metabolism.

I wish I could replicate the experiment with a heavily planted moss only tank.


----------



## Clemsons2k (May 31, 2009)

inthepacific said:


> moss is perfect for taking up nitrate. shrimp love it too. it also doesnt need high light or nutrients which is why so many shrimp breeders and keepers just do bare tanks with moss.


It doesn't need high light or nutrients because it grows slowly. Slow growth = slow nutrient uptake = slow nitrate uptake.

Shrimp breeders do moss because its a great place for biofilm and other critters to grow.


----------



## Asphalt Art (Apr 18, 2013)

Clemsons2k said:


> Shrimp breeders do moss because its a great place for biofilm and other critters to grow.


This is 100% correct. The more surface area you can muster in a tank, the more of that surface area can hold biofilm. I personally do not use moss as I have 3 spare sponge filters floating in a tank that perform double duty by the massive surface area increases, and providing seeder filters for new tank setups.


----------



## Clemsons2k (May 31, 2009)

Asphalt Art said:


> I would like to see the "nitrates are not harmful argument" backed up by producing a shrimp specific tank running excessively high nitrates over the period of several months. Otherwise that position has more holes than a screen door. Theory is nice, reality holds more weight.


Agreed. Until some proof is served up I think a better way to put it is: Nitrates are not AS harmful as we originally thought and ammonia/nitrite are more toxic to livestock. That I can believe.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Lexinverts said:


> If you have shrimp that are sensitive to water changes, such as baby Taiwan bees, I think it makes sense to reduce the need for water changes by having lots of plants to absorb/use the nitrates that are present.


I agree with this.

Floating water sprite is an excellent plant that;'s overlooked by many non CO2/Shrimp folks.

a perfect plant and much better/easier to manage than Yuckweed.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

> Originally Posted by Asphalt Art
> I would like to see the "nitrates are not harmful argument" backed up by producing a shrimp specific tank running excessively high nitrates over the period of several months. Otherwise that position has more holes than a screen door. Theory is nice, reality holds more weight.


Define excessively high NO3?

30 ppm?

60 ppm?

If you cannot manage things in the 30 ppm range, then you really have many other problems not related to to dosing. 

Folks make mistakes all the time.

And their high grade shrimp SSS shrimp are fine.
I have CRS, Fires, and Amano's, 3 different species of commonly kept shrimp, never seen ANY evidence that high NO3's, let's say since you were NOT specific, 30 ppm is high or excessive, this is plenty for any plant species and a fairly easy higher range for management for a say a 10-30 ppm target over years.













































I've falsified your claim, unless you want to state that 10-30 ppm is not excessive. 

Perhaps you want to be much more specific in the types of species of shrimp?
Can we assume that ALL the types an species we keep are the SAME here?
No.

But we can generalize somewhat that the evidence is not looking good so far about this NO3 at high levels say 10-30 ppm, are bad.

The onus is upon those making the claim that NO3 at those ppm's are bad.
They need to show this, and test their own claims, but......haha, guess what? Virtually none of them actually do this nor search for others who might have done this. That does not help the hobby.


The CRS crowd a few years back tried in vain to pull on me about the progressively higher and higher grades being more and more sensitive as I falsified with lower grades, then went up to higher and higher grades. This was due to poor genetics and inbreeding, not NO3's or CMS+B dosing. they back peddled as each myth was falsified. They did not want to actually test anything, but they wanted to argue all day and night that their belief had to be correct. 

Same with some fish types that were rushed to market too quickly that were inbred.

Once you cross 2-3 independent lines, the genetics improves, so did the vigor and reduce loss. I've had plenty of experience showing that without any doubt about specific claims about dosing ferts are not valid and not just with shrimp, with fish, plants and breeding/brood production. This myth over NO3 and traces etc goes back farther before people really kept anything other than ghost shrimp in the USA. It was an issue with fish. It was an issue with plants. After the evidence is shown to folks, many still cling to the myths. But over time, those are slowly replaced. 

Other folks such as -rain also posted here years ago stating a similar thing with CRS. 

Now I'm not going to keep every cotton picking type and variety of shrimp, but I've done enough this far to show there's a lot myth, and very little actual testing going on with shrimp and ferts. No one will know it all, but there's enough evidence to generalize that ferts are a non issue with respect to plant and shrimp parameters.

I'd say that based on what I've not been able to falsify, that CO2/excel reduces brood production, that many species of fish can eat or kill shrimp that we might think are safe, water changes/reduced seems to help for many types, TDS stability seems to help, cooler temps helps, lower light helps, moss, they love that and keep it clean, good filtration, lots of plant biomass. 

If someone comes out and says those things are true, I'd have a tough time arguing otherwise. But that does not mean or imply they are true, only that we have not found a case yet where they are NOT true. With non CO2 methods, the lack of water changes becomes fairly easy, and the slowed rate of growth with the cool temps and increased O2 levels sure seems to offer some help. Pretty easy to manage then. Easy to care for, good home and good brood production. 

I think many are tempted to think EVERY single thing that guy's tank who has a bunch of plants/shrimp that you want/ADORE, is the causative agent for their success, it might be something as simple as temp alone, or feeding them routinely and that whole business about NO3 is mere correlation, that has little to do with a hill of beans. FOLKS NEED TO TEST TO SEE.

And hobbyist can do effective test on their own to see if their hypothesis are true or not. Particularly if you are a good shrimp keeper and can breed well, because you end up with a lot of culls, so the low grades? Test with those.
Keep/sell the high grades.

This works out very well.


----------



## Asphalt Art (Apr 18, 2013)

plantbrain said:


> Define excessively high NO3?
> 
> 30 ppm?
> 
> ...


I am almost not willing to type this out, as you decided to take a rather exceptional jot at words. Excessively high is not 30, don't be coy with common knowledge. 60, yes that is getting into what is widely accepted as being a bit high, considering most people do water changes in the 40ppm range and it solves some problems keeping them below this level. "Excessively " is a pretty common word, but I will save the time and place the definition right here: Exceeding a normal, usual, reasonable, or proper limit. So, me saying an excessive amount is anything over the NORMAL ACCEPTED VALUES. Being the normal accepted limit is around the 40 mark I will leave this here. 

I am failing to see how you have falsified anything. The last time I did any research I had to use quantifiable measurements instead of bench racing the idea any farther than it already has to prove a thesis.


----------



## Clemsons2k (May 31, 2009)

Holy novel batman. 

Nobody on either side of the discussion has definitive, quantifiable evidence to support either viewpoint. Until someone performs experimentation, all we are doing is bench racing as Asphalt put it. And I'm sorry Tom but I have to agree you did not even come close to falsifying his claim just because you stated you've kept shrimp in 10-30 ppm nitrate conditions. The widely accepted definition of "high" nitrates begins at 40 ppm from my understanding.


----------



## shloken38 (Aug 17, 2012)

Whoa....this is getting intense. I am no pro, but I have been successful at fish and shrimp breeding for awhile. Nothing fancy, just what I like.

I have done TONS of research on almost every aspect of the aquarium hobby. My wife says I love the fish more than I love her because I am constantly on the internet researching, but whatever. I've learned to take a lot of what people say with a grain of salt because, in the end, everyone's situation and resources are different. That may sound cliche, but it is especially true in this hobby.

I always have nitrates in my tanks, even after changing the water constantly. There is no nitrate in my tap water, I feed once every 2 to 3 days, my tanks are moderately planted, I don't dose ferts (just osmo+ tabs in one tank every 2 or 3 months). My nitrates will be as low as 10 and up to 40 at any given time.....even up to 60 sometimes. I don't lose fish or shrimp, and the shrimp breed all the time. My schedule is a water change once every 3-5 weeks (approx 20-25%) with top offs in between and rinse my filters in old tank water "when I remember".

I went nuts when I first started to try and follow everyone's instructions. This was a waste of time. I learned and I developed my own routines, and my tanks are happy and healthy.

My advise to the OP.....in the beginning stages of your tank, you will need to follow the routines that have been suggested (water changes and whatnot). Once your tank is mature and your fish have been in there for awhile, you can figure what's best on your own. Fish will acclimate to slight changes in your parameters (my tanks started at 7.6ph, and over time have gone down to a steady 6.8).

Stop arguing everyone.....what works for you might not work for others. There are no specific facts or paramters in this hobby. Everything is just a guide. Sheesh....


----------



## pejerrey (Dec 5, 2011)

> Originally Posted by Asphalt Art
> I would like to see the "nitrates are not harmful argument" backed up by producing a shrimp specific tank running excessively high nitrates over the period of several months. Otherwise that position has more holes than a screen door. Theory is nice, reality holds more weight.


I cannot find the original post by asphalt quoted in post #32 , I will assume its somehow erased or edited.

However, I backed up my opinion about shrimp vs no3 in the very first post I shared (#13) with 3 links related to the topic. 

I just want to stress: the point of arguing that no3 is not the problem, is for the hobbyist to realize where the problem really is, as stated by several members no3 readings are just an indication of decaying stuff which is poison (ammo and no2).

debate it's not a personal thing but rather sort of a scientific process that makes this hobby improve and gets rid of myths. We are all here to learn from each other and that is what I like about it.

Another things I want to add:

- I've kept cards and neos with or without CO2 (timed and 24/7) and with or without water changes with same brood results. So I also can't conclude to anything knowing people that actually breed CRS with co2 and without... However, this are very low levels of gas in medium to low light set ups. 

- The tank I experimented with was rather cold 65-70F which is slow growth even with 40-50PAR at substrate level and co2. I dosed like 1/6-1/4 of PPSpro and used seachem equilibrium. So with all of those plants I didn't see much drop in the TDS levels. 


This is the experimental tank:

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=183530

After the broad explanation of the first post, I provide links to similar set ups from plantbrain and youjettisonme with their approval, there is also other links to related topics like this.


----------

