Jump to content

Cichlid Buffers


Caesar

Recommended Posts

BaZ - you're after the usual suspect, refer below... wink.gif

Gav we wouldn't want to tarnish a brand that you just happen to be selling :roll

Also DO YOU HAVE ANY PROOF THEY WORK? and i mean real proof not "confessions" like on a demtel ad like "I added the salts and 3 minutes later they were spawning, I would recommend them to a friend" :roll

So please don't try and force things on me because i won't buy your buffers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 135
  • Created
  • Last Reply
the usual suspect

LOL.gif

Would be funnier if it wasn't true dry.gif

Teflon, read my request above which was directed towards midnightexpress rolleyes.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teflon, Duck and Others.... settle down wink.gif.

I've kept a range of malawi and tang cichlids over the last 12 years or so. Buffers and salts are IMHO a total and utter waste of money (read my disclaimers though...).

1. For finnickity extra touchy species they might be helpful but for 95% of rift lake cichlids they are not necessary

2. if you dont have a alkaline substrate (limestone, marble, shellgrit) then these buffers are absolutely vital wink.gif.

In all my aquaria with lamprologines I just have shellgrit as a substrate. All my lamprologines (and all the malawis I've kept) breed fine & appear very happy/healthy with this setup.

There are good discussions of this topic in the FAQ which is worth a look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it's like humans and vitamin supplements?

You can do OK without it, but if you want to be perform better and add some dimension of prophylaxis then it's not a bad idea. I know that if I lay off the health-pills that I start to degrade over a few weeks - but that's a side effect of a quite unhealthy lifestyle (chain-smoking, caffeine-swilling, corporate-hospitality-leeching, etc).

However, like any sudden change in one's biochemical composition through supplementation or environmental alteration (air, water, food, etc), excessive or incorrect dosages really can be quite uncomfortable or damaging, either immediately or in the long term.

Cheers - OziOscar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Ozi -

You can do OK without it, but if you want to be perform better and add some dimension of prophylaxis then it's not a bad idea.

possibly?

I dont know of any evidence which supports this hypothesis either way. My fish breed and live healthy long lives. So do those in tanks with buffers and salts (provided you add them slowly and avoid pH shock etc) so I guess it raises the question:

Why pay for it?

David.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose the only reason would be if there was a conclusive test done, under reasonably controlled conditions over an extended period.

I would love to do it, but for now I don't have the time or the space. Maybe next year when I am in the new house. It would sure settle my curiosity.

Cheers - OziOscar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted Today, 01:07 PM

  BaZ says:

Teflon if you do not keep your posts polite and constructive you will find yourself losing some forum priviledges.

Think before you post in future 

Look out Adam or they may bring back the warn meter. woot.gifLOL.gif

On a serious not this debate about salts and buffers comes up a far bit on cichlid forums. I really believe they are of benefit to keeping rift lake cichlids. I found they improved the fish the filtration and the breeding.

So I decided so use them and have never regretted doing it. The cost to some people is a bit prohibitive but it does not alter the fact that if you can afford it use them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the saying goes people, 'what ever works for you', i use tang buffer because the person who i bought my fish off of used it as well. 'It works for me' i feel it is beneficial rather than detrimental 'in my situation'.

Anthony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lads and Lasses,

I currently use coral/marble substrate on the majority of my tanks which I imagine has provided enough buffers so far. But I have seen alot of people who don't use substrate in their breeding tanks.

Does that mean that they need the Seachem Buffers and Salts??? dntknw.gif

I was advised that it was better not to use substrate in breeders. Is this true?? Should I take mine out? confused.gif

Ave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Caesar -

I have substrate (around 3mm deep) in all my tanks. It's no problem for breeding most cichlids.

If you dont have cabronate containing substrate and want to keep them you need to either include shells in the filter (or shell grit or limestone or coral sand etc) OR use buffers. Buffers are more or less just powdered up shell-grit after all.

Hi Nigel -

On a serious not this debate about salts and buffers comes up a far bit on cichlid forums. I really believe they are of benefit to keeping rift lake cichlids. I found they improved the fish the filtration and the breeding.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they don't work (ie: they increase the pH & gH) but I'm curious how you've measured this improvement to fish, filtration and breeding. What exactly did you compare it to?

The cost to some people is a bit prohibitive but it does not alter the fact that if you can afford it use them.

Fact? There is no fact.

Why buy or use a product that may have no benefit, or potentially a negative (in terms of their misuse re: pH (or osmotic) shock) effect on your fish?

Also... (speculation follows)

There is also another factor to consider. Rift lake cichlids come from very alkaline waters which a rich in a range of disolved ions. They are adapted to survive in this environment (which is presumably quite a stressful one). While they require alkaline water for long term health one wonders if they may not do even better when conditions (ie: water chemistry) is no so harsh? This is fairly common in other organisms from stressful environments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they don't work (ie: they increase the pH & gH) but I'm curious how you've measured this improvement to fish, filtration and breeding. What exactly did you compare it to

I compared it to not using them. When I started in this hobby rift lake cichlids where just coming into Australia. So we tried all sorts of ways to keep them shell grit, coral sand, I used to make all my own buffers from a recipe that came for the US.

They all sort of worked but when I started keeping Tropheus I had a lot of problems. When Seachem was first imported I was asked to try it and found it to be the best I have tried.

As for filtration it does increase the bacteria count. Also I found it increased the number in spawns. Al this from first hand experience over a lot of years.

Why buy or use a product that may have no benefit, or potentially a negative (in terms of their misuse re: pH (or osmotic) shock) effect on your fish?

I believe its the best way to keep rift lake cichlids and disagree that it has no benefit. Also I have never had a problem with PH shock if its added slowly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is also another factor to consider. Rift lake cichlids come from very alkaline waters which a rich in a range of disolved ions. They are adapted to survive in this environment (which is presumably quite a stressful one). While they require alkaline water for long term health one wonders if they may not do even better when conditions (ie: water chemistry) is no so harsh? This is fairly common in other organisms from stressful environments

David you have always had a negative approach to Seachem. I suggest you set up one tank I would use a Lake Tanganyika one. I advise to set it up with out any reactive substrate just and inert sand and good filtration. This way you can do your own experiment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Nigel -

I compared it to not using them.

On the same species of fish at the same time in the same conditions? What factors did you compare? Mortality? Condition (if so, how?) As you yourself said rift lake cichlids were only just becoming available - could it be you simply got better at what you where doing? You also single out Tropheus (see my disclaimer #1 re: finnickity species, Tropheus are IMHO nothing if not finnickity).

As for filtration it does increase the bacteria count.

How did you count the bacteria? As someone who analyses bacterial (and other microbial) communities for a living I know for a fact this is not a simple matter.

I believe its the best way to keep rift lake cichlids and disagree that it has no benefit.

NB: I didnt say it had no benefit, I said it may have no benefit on the fish. It's different.

David you have always had a negative approach to Seachem.

That's simply false. I use Prime as my water ager of choice (but have used a range of other water aging products which where also effective). I have no beef with any company, period. I'm speaking generically of ALL additional buffers.

Cheers -

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Nigel -

For the sake of my hypothetical future experiment I'd appreciate your feedback on the questions I asked above re: your data.

ie: how did you count the bacteria?

ie: how did you conduct your comparison? (see my previous post)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have not read all the other posts because there are bloody 5 pages but here is my say;

i have been using seachem prime and lake tang buffer for 3 years now, i have been keeping lake tangs for 5, and i have observed some great results.

First brood sizes are incresing, fish show better colour and it gives me peace of mind as i know that i am giving my fish a better environment then most lfs on central systems.

Cheers

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Nick -

I'd ask of you the same as Nigel:

1. How do you know brood size and better colour arent related to age? Or some other aspect of your fishkeeping? Have you run controlled side by side trials?

I agree buffers, if used properly, arent harmful and if they give peace of mind and that then that's a good thing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not had enough 'breeding experience' yet to have any significant contribution to this thread. It is an interesting read though. I'm going to stick with what i stated earlier 'what ever works for you'. At the moment i don't want to stop using the tang buffer as these fish have always had it. I did run out of tang buffer and was just using bi-carb for a month and the fish to me seemed more timid from this change. (is probably a result of the change rather than not using the buffer....oh and the testable parameters did not change in this time).

Anthony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ie: how did you count the bacteria?

I did not count them I observed that before using Seachem if the tanks where empty for a long period when I added a big stock load I would get an ammonia spike. Now it does not matter if the tanks are empty for months I can added stock to the tanks have no ammonia spike. So what would you put it down to.

ie: how did you conduct your comparison? (see my previous post)

Over many years with both Malawis and Tangs and noticed and increase in the size of spawns. I still think that the only way you will ever know is to conduct your own experiment don't you agree.

I also agree with Nick in the previous post I see better colour in rift lake cichlids with Seachem than with out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Nigel -

We agree on one thing - some experimental data is needed. Hopefully this is something that companies supplying the buffer are willing to provide (I'll ask @nthony about that) as you'd assume they've tested their own product.

I dont understand your first statement re: bacteria. Could it be you are using a different water ager which binds ammonia differently to before (companies dont disclose what's in their water agers so this may change without you knowing!!)

Can you clarify the "before's" and "after's" for the observation you describe here:

I did not count them I observed that before using Seachem if the tanks where empty for a long period when I added a big stock load I would get an ammonia spike. Now it does not matter if the tanks are empty for months I can added stock to the tanks have no ammonia spike. So what would you put it down to.

Ammonia is more dangerous in buffered tanks than non-buffered tanks. This is particularly true in high pH tang tanks.

I have my doubts as to whether the observation you are describing re: ammonia spikes has anything to do with the addition of buffers - but would appreciate you detailing more of the "before treatments" and "after treatments" (which in themselves arent really proof of much as they arent conducted simultaneously).

With regard to your and others claims to better colour and spawns:

You yourself state that this is an observation over years - have you been using the buffers "on and off" during this time, or do you use the products in all your tanks always (since a certain date when you switched to the product). Are we simply talking about fish getting older or your fishkeeping getting better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No same water ager I started using prime now safe but they are the same when I started using the salts and buffers. The tanks I had before I had either reactive substrate or KH generater in them. So can only assume that its the Seachem buffer that gives the higher count.

I would like someone else to do a similar test but they would need all the years I have spent on this I guess.

I think I should also have said that I don't do this as a hobby anymore. So if there was a cheaper alternative and after all these years I have not found one I would use it. I try to sell fish in the best condition and colour that I can get them in and I achieve that buy using these salts and buffers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...