Nitrate reading: 40-50 ppm

dundadundun said:
thanks for clearing that up, the v.

it does say (measured as nitrogen) (N). i was reading on barrreport recently that no3 measured as simply N would have to multiplied by 4.44 or 4.42 (not sure which) to ascertain accurate ppm's when measured as no3.

basically... ~45ppm no3 is ~10ppm pure N. sound about right? would make sense from what i read, sepehr's tap measurement and your link to the epa guidelines.

gotta say... i absolutely agree about not drinking that water un-filtered.
Click to expand...
You are dead on Dun.
 
Since states can pass stricter standards that exceed federal standards but not vice versa one must conclude that for some reason CA tests for nitrate as nitrate and not as nitrogen. To compare apples to apples that means CA drinking water standard is 7.5 ppm measured as nitrogen.
 
As far as the fish go, the nitrate reading isn't so significant. Nitrates aren't particularity harmful to most fish. In some study I remember reading, fish exposed to 100ppm lived normally. In your case, the nitrate level isn't from fish waste or poor water conditions --it's directly from the tap water. If you're concerned, I'd suggest adding more plants. Although most plants feed off ammonia more than nitrate, there are some plants that prefer nitrate over ammonia.

Everyone, remember to vote in the AC pumpkin carving contest.

http://www.aquariacentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=238042
 
i completely agree with you, fabsroman. nice references, too.

sub... thanks a lot. i knew somebody could confirm that. you're definitely the man for the job.

one thing, though... in government... the lesser municipality can pass looser laws than the greater... it just means law breakers are more susceptible to the laws enforced by the greater municipality. also... less likely to get caught right away... which means even greater consequences when they are caught usually due to repeat/increased offenses and the greater consequences of the higher court. medical marijuana stands out loud and clear as an obvious example of that. pretty much illegal in most forms, to grow, harvest, possess, transport, trade, exchange, etc. federally... but certain states/areas have legalized it in/for limited usage. california itself stands out in this example. may not be how it was meant to work but...

however... it is pretty much well known that california has some of the strictest standards for waste, safety and health in general... as well as water quality. back to square one...

rustyray... i agree there too... and i already voted.
 
part II

Ok so by the time I dose ferts and feed the fish my nitrates levels are going to be off the charts thanks to high levels of nitrates in the tap water. Now I'm switching to RO but it lacks the essential salts and minerals that fish and plants need. The KH is almost non existent and the PH is around 6.4. I've heard that baking soda could raise the KH but it still lacks other minerals such as magnesium and calcium. Is there a product that I could use with RO? What do you think about Seachem Replenish? Does it only contain minerals & trace elements? Should I use Replenish along with baking soda?

TIA,
Sepehr
 
a gh booster. replenish should be fine. i use barr's, personally. 1.5 tsp raises the gh in 5 gallons by 6dgh.

1/2tsp b/s raises the kh in 5 gallons by 5dgh.

those should do just fine for most tanks. doesn't have to be perfect, either.
 
I would drink the RO and use the tap water to change the water in the fishtank. The levels of N in the water is just about perfect for plants.

I wouldn't worry about dosing the tank with ferts immediately after a water change. If you notice the plants are missing trace nutrients then buying only the micronutrients online is cheap and easy.

A good example is to order in some CSM+B Plantex from http://aquariumfertilizer.com.

If you want to know more about plant nutrition and what you should do visiting Tom Barr's site would be a good idea. He's got some great beginners guides posted.

http://www.barrreport.com/forum.php
 
SubRosa said:
Since states can pass stricter standards that exceed federal standards but not vice versa one must conclude that for some reason CA tests for nitrate as nitrate and not as nitrogen. To compare apples to apples that means CA drinking water standard is 7.5 ppm measured as nitrogen.
Click to expand...

Water treatment operators and reports use N-NO3, which is Nitrogen.
So to get Nitrate, you need to multiply by 4.4 to get ppm of NO3.

Regards,
Tom Barr
 
fabsroman said:
What I do know is that using my test kit, the water coming out of my tape, municipal water, is ALWAYS less than 5 ppm nitrate. I don't think I would want to be drinking it if it was at 45 ppm, even if it is on the edge of the acceptable range.
Click to expand...

Yes, but...........and this is a big "but", unless your test kit, or the OP's is calibrated and we can confirm it is actually measuring the range based on a known standard, it's just a speculation, a guess.

Aquarist can calibrate test kits fairly easily, and every researcher would confirm their method with a standard.

Sadly, few aquarist bother to calibrate anything, pH meters are about it in general. Then they poo poo on me when I suggest folks dose and base things on estimation of an index target range:p:

Bit of irony there.

Regards,
Tom Barr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
AquariaCentral.com
Top Bottom