Cichlid Buffers

[Ducksta]

Dave the one point I must strongly disagree on is that using buffers (regardless of substrate and other such variables) may increase pH swings/shock.

Explain how?

The way I see it, using the buffers does the exact opposite?

For the purpose of my explanation, Sydney tap water pH 7.6-7.8, low hardness, after aging, pH drops to 7-7.2 time dependant because of the low hardness.

If I am running my tanks at pH ~8, medium hardness (as per coral or shell-grit substrate), and I do a 40% water change with aged Sydney tap water (no buffer etc), I am effectively creating a large pH shift because the aged tap water is lower in pH and much lower in hardness. If I use water withouth aging, the pH wont swing as far initially but the hardness will still drop, reducing the ability of the pH to remain stable and high.

However if I have added the correct amount of buffers to the water while aging, I have less chance of a pH/hardness swing, and if there is one, it will be not as harsh.

I guess if someone just buys some buffers and tips the jar in the tank it might have a negative effect in this way.

[YeW]

Duck -

Once added, the buffer does indeed protect against pH swings.

Picture a situation, however, where someone doesnt use buffer normally, changes 30% of their water and treats it all with tang buffer. The pH can rise 2 units very quickly! pH shock, then dead fish would quickly result.

What you are describing is a better approach to adding them (if you want to do so)... and it's not this situation I'm talking about.

Nigel -

Your experiences don't constitute a useful experiment. The time (ie: years) are irrelevant. You can't compare events which occured at different times, with different fish, with potentially different water agers and make some useful conclusions. If you want to draw sensible conclusions you need a well controlled sensible experimental design.

I think many people are missing the point. Tanks without added buffer, providing they have a carbonate substrate, ARE buffered . The buffering works and I'm yet to hear anything compelling to the contrary. I'm also yet to see ANY evidence that one is better than the other - other than anecdotes.

[Nigel]

Well if thats true David I don't think it changes anything as far as I am concerned. I can only assume that its just your opposition to the product and you are intitled to that opinion. I would still highly recommend it. I have no more to add.

[YeW]

Nigel -

With respect that's nonsense (re: my opposition to products made by this company), I think the company in question makes some very fine products. This one, however, appears to be unnecessary (see my two disclaimers from my very first post) for general use.

Consider the actual facts:

95% of cichlids from Lakes malawi or tanganyika breed, appear healthy, are highly coloured and live long lives in aquariums using a (#1) carbonate-based substrate alone, (#2) using a carbonate-based substrate & additional "buffers", or (#3) in tanks with neutral substrate and with additional buffers (note here the added buffers are the ONLY buffers and are thus crucial).

There is no compelling evidence (NONE, ZIP, ZERO) in this thread that they are better off in ANY of the three situations described above. Though I suspect #1 and #2 are better as there is a "reserve" of as yet unsolubilised calcium carbonate.

Buffers are expensive for what they are, ie: a mix of MgSO4, KCl & CaCO3 and a few other bits and bobs thrown in for luck. If you want to use buffers make your own, it's cheaper and, while it may be still unnecessary, you can spend the cash you save on something that will make a REAL difference to your fishes wellbeing.

[Cuong]

Just wanted to pick this point

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.

Having evolved in those 'stressful' conditions and now thriving in it, rift lake cichlids would not probably thrive in 'not so harsh' conditions as much as they do in rift lake water. Perhaps initially their ancestors would have found the conditions 'stressful' and needed to adjust to the unique water chemisty, but they haven't just 'adapted to survive' it is more a case of 'adapted to thrive'.

[monlunn]

Hey Nigel,

I think I would give up with this guy. No matter what you say he will dispute it. Those of us that are doing what is best for our fish should keep doing it and reap the rewards. Those that want to save a dime continue to do so. I guess it's in our best interests the less fish bred else where the more we sell.

[Ducksta]

OK Dave, I don't think you can recommend people don't use a product just in case they don't use it properly. After all, water ager, food, medication, any and all products just about can be fatal if used incorrectly. And conceding your point about calcium carbonate buffers and hardness, what about 'rift lake salts' as a product?

As I have said before after Ash's question, with the buffer Vs. the buffering substrate, I think you can get by with a good substrate skipping the buffer. But the salts are a totally different ball game IMO. They aren't just changing measurable values (well measurable by 'normal' test kits) they are adding the trace elements which IMO, is what makes the biggest difference.

[Josh]

Your experiences don't constitute a useful experiment

Maybe not in the sceintific world Dave but in the fish keeping world I would say that they do.

I also rememeber that you did a talk at a cichlid meeting a few months ago and lamprologus species and you said there was one species you couldnt breed. Did you think to try some of these buffering products and see what happens?

Picture a situation, however, where someone doesnt use buffer normally, changes 30% of their water and treats it all with tang buffer. The pH can rise 2 units very quickly! pH shock, then dead fish would quickly result.

If any hobbiest does and 30% water change and adds water that is greatly different the existing tank water the same thing would happen. I thought It would be common knowledge that such water changes are not good for fish.

No-one has offered and scientific argument to this thread. I guess it will come down down to personal belief's and financial situations. I for one have had nothing but good results from them and will continue to use seachem buffers and salts

[r.d.m]

i use aquasonic rift lake salts at $12 a kilo just as ducksta said "to do the best by my fish" it holds the ph stable between weekly water changes the fish breed and grow normally and show good colour , i'd guess the seachem would do the same but being imported would cost a bit more but as a kilo lasts me for 6 months cost isnt a major factor

[Ant]

Science is not a specific world as it transcends all disciplines, science helps us explain and understand things within our world. The only thing science can't do is answer ethical questions. Dave is talking about 'fair testing' a product rather than simply using anecdotal information. Evidence is important and no one can make conclusions without it, they can just make guesses. There is no evidence within this post without bias. Having had good experience with a product is a source of bias and is not evidence.

On the other hand when there are obvious benefits one can use their own common sense and know what it is beneficial and what isn't. When making a comparison between using buffers vs using buffering substrate and no added buffer product it has no real obvious differences that you can use common sense to judge.

As Dave is saying there is no viable evidence that says wether they are beneficial or not. Dave is simply using his knowledge to explain an opinion as to one way they may not prove to be beneficial.

My brain hurts..... ...correct me if i'm wrong Dave, i could be pi**ing in the wind...

Anthony

Hope i made sense

[Nigel]

While the opinions given here may not have a sound scientific bases the product itself sure does. All you need to do to prove that is have a look at the company and the development of the rift lake salt and buffers. Thats without question as it was developed on hard scientific evidence. I also understand that as the chemicals of the lake are so complex the more they understand and find they improve the product.

[BaZ]

I have no more to add.

←

After reading everything presented in this thread I'm not convinced the salts and buffers do anything other than offer piece of mind. No-one seems to have done a test or comparison which can be relied upon to prove that these products are necessary, or give any real benefit. Please note that I currently use a manufactured salts mix, so do not assume I have never tried it therefore know nothing about it.

I'm going to gradually change a couple of my tanks over to a cheaper alternative and see if I can notice any difference.

I'll be using a crushed marble substrate and will add Rock Salt at a rate of 5g/10L when doing water changes.

Ideally the best way to prove or disprove the benefits these products offer would be to run a test with 2 tanks side by side. Same number and species of fish, same water changes, same temp and other conitions.

But I just don't have the room or time to be doing something like that here, so hopefully my 'test' will give me an indication one way or another

[teflon]

I think ant pretty much summed it up "What ever works for you" I agree it's a preference as with many things in this hobby

I hardly think it's something to get upset over as it's your choice and people can't be forced to use them or not use them

I would like to say sorry if i sounded abit "bitey" in previous posts and would like to say sorry to Gav for what i said

[midnightexpress]

. Those that want to save a dime continue to do so. I guess it's in our best interests the less fish bred else where the more we sell. 

←

monlunn

if you are in this hobby to make money,you should give it up now.

[crabros]

Hi all,

I have have used Seachem as long as Nigel it is a very good product.

However I have been running a few tests with my water parameters with the same species of fish in both tanks with and without seachem.

In one tank I had seachem and the other a very new product with something added.

I have now switched to the new product as the very touchy fish that I couldnt spawn are now going off. The tanks look cleaner with my new salts and buffer and you dont get the white cloudy effect after adding seachem.

I dont really care what you all think but if its working for you stick to it.

If it isnt working try something else.

thats my opinion

Brett

[YeW]

This thread, I believe, has all that's required for people to make a choice and it's beginning to get a touch circular.

For all those ppl getting their hackles up, my point remains simple: there is no evidence that buffers are better than a buffering substrate. NONE, ZILCH, ZERO. This is not to say that the buffers don't work (which I've never said, they clearly do). Duck my point re: pH shock remains (IMHO) undiminished and I'm happy to discuss it with you via email.

[Ducksta]

Dave I agreed with the point I just qualified it with the fact that ANY product used incorrectly can be equally as fatal. And that to disregard use of a product for potential problems occurring when it is used incorrectly would mean that you couldn't treat your water for chlorine, medicate your fish, feed your fish or use an aquarium heater or any filtration. As far as I can see they all have potentially dangerous possibilities if used incorrectly.

While I am on the subject it would mean you couldn't drive a car, catch a train, take medication, exercise, eat, etc etc.

[monlunn]

. Those that want to save a dime continue to do so. I guess it's in our best interests the less fish bred else where the more we sell. 

←

monlunn

if you are in this hobby to make money,you should give it up now.

←

Well Midnight express who said anything about being in it for the money. I must say though it's nice having a hobby that pays for itself. I love the fish and I love seeing them breed. Lets face it if they breed you need to move them one way or the other and yes my fish really do pay for them selves well and truly so hey I must being doing something right. I use the buffers and salts and I will stand behind them 100% regardless and I'll tell you right now I ain't about to give something up that I thouroughly enjoy just because you say so.

[Nigel]

there is no evidence that buffers are better than a buffering substrate

The problem with buffering substrates is over time they become organically coated and provide an unreliable buffering means. Also such substrates initally may help to raise hardness to a desired level ultimately they will pull levels down. I have experienced this myself with shell grit and found it to be very unstable.

There is also the problem of adding a buffer with these types of substrates. I have found that when you do this the KH is near impossible to stabilize.

While I don't have a science degree I have experimented with all types of ways to raise KH and GH and after all these years the one I use now works.

[YeW]

Nigel -

Organically coated? Huh? How do you know this? Perhaps you've been reading too many vitabits packs. The kH stabilises itself and a substrate made of shell grit can't pull it down (if it does, I'd be lining up for a Nobel prize if I were you!).

Josh -

Science applies to everything - the fish "world" isnt exempt. To draw good conclusions you need to have information which allows you to make those conclusions. Nigel and the other "pro-buffer" movement don't have that information. All the comments in this thread which state "buffers give me larger spawns, better colour etc" are not well founded and I can suggest a number of other reasons to which we may attribute this "improvement" if it exists at all.

I've said multiple times, my system (ie: no added buffers) works, as does the buffered system - which is better? There isnt enough data. I suspect they work equally well (one's just a lot cheaper!).

With regard to N. olivaceous, no they havent spawned, and no I havent tried buffer. A number of ppl commenting on this thread seems to ignore the two disclaimers I made in my very first post that buffers and salts might be helpful for finnickity species. I also make the point that for 95% of cichlids from the rift lakes they are a total waste of money - and I stand by this. It might be that if I added buffers my N. olivaceous would spawn, it also might be that they are immature, require a specific spawning site, are all girls or require a Bach fugue to really get them in the mood . I dont know .

Molunn -

I ain't about to give something up that I thouroughly enjoy just because you say so.

Huh? If you "thouroughly" enjoy using buffers go for it. Whatever turns you on I suppose! I've not told you not to use them have I?

David.

[Nigel]

Posted Today, 11:06 AM

  Nigel -

Organically coated? Huh? How do you know this? Perhaps you've been reading too many vitabits packs. The kH stabilises itself and a substrate made of shell grit can't pull it down (if it does, I'd be lining up for a Nobel prize if I were you!).

David for some one that bases there argument in science I find this statement hard to believe. Not only is it a personal jibe at me any one that new anything about water chemistry would know it to be true. I don't know what your degree is in but I think I would find out the truth before making comments like these.

[YeW]

Nigel -

I have two degrees - both in biology. It's not a jibe a you it's a jibe at the "organic" movement (vitabrits being organic etc - of course they are!).

You've also not answered my question: How do you know it's "organically" coated? What does organically coated mean? I cannot imagine a situation where the substrate wouldnt work - explain further what organic material is actually doing the coating and how said coating prevents equilibria? As for kH stability, there's no mistruths there, the kH is stable in tanks with buffering substrate.

As for me "not telling the truth" I'm not going to justify that. I'm not the one making conclusions on poorly founded observations.

[Nigel]

What would you call waste that builds up in and aquarium. I call it organic waste and this can coat the substrate and over time coat a reactive substrate such as coral sand and shell grit thus rendering it inert and lowering the PH. How do I know this because I have tested tanks with shell grit and found them to be in the acid range so you tell me.

[YeW]

Nigel -

That makes good sense . Calling it organic waste is fine, and I apologise if my organic vitabrit joke offended you.

I certainly can't explain your observation of shell grit tanks having an acidic pH. From a chemistry point of view it makes no sense. I have a thin layer (1 piece more or less) deep in all my tanks. On repeated testing all have pH's round 8. I've never used buffers in these tanks so I am at a loss to explain your observations. On every testing all my tanks read the same (tested on an accurate pH meter at work) - so I'm unsure what the problem is with your setup.

I would be happy to do 10 days of testing and will let you know the result if you like?

[Ash]

OK, long term I can see how a buffering substrate would loose it's ability to buffer - the calcium carbonate in the medium is obviously being dissolved as it buffers to do it's job, so eventually it will need replacement.

But with a powdered buffer, you replace it every water change.

With the substrate method, it might last a year or more?

I think this invalidates the substrate method "wearing out" theory - if you do waterchanges ANY buffer method will need to be replaced as you are exporting the buffer with the water.

Also I'd like to make mention that the salts & buffers are different creatures - let's not mix them up!