• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up

Does CO2 injection cause disease? Thoughts?

Food for thought there. Shame symptoms are so hard to identify especially in small fish.
Must admit I have thought before,can it be good to for fish to be long term in an environment where they are on the verge of showing signs of hypoxia.

Think that's why I prefer the idea if having co2 on a timer and degassing overnight....but then there is the ph swing of course ...
 
It's a ramble round the planet gonads...a dead donkey...they've got to write something to produce the mag, and I'm guessing not much is happening in the finite news/article worthy fish world.
 
Well, it's very easy find out if someone is honest enough to actually admit either way.
If you've got fish that should live X amount of years but they never do in your tank, then something is not right for them, be it CO2 or something else.
So many people have CO2 injected tanks I'd be very curious to know how they are getting on in the fish department and life spans of their fish.
 
My Cardinal Tetra's and Ottos I got in early 2012 are still going despite numerous attempts to gas or over fertilise them. Before my tank went hi tech my fish never lasted long.
 
if we are brutally honest, far more fish die from open top tanks and idiots with no knowledge of keeping an aquarium than long term co2 effects.... what ever they are..??
while i hold myself to account for open top tanks i always consider my fish purchases as saving the fish from slow deaths with said idiots!

demonic co2 :twisted:, give it a rest.
 
I think we all have killed our share of fish one way or another. At least I have and I certainly didn't need injecting CO2 to help me out. But from this and other similar threads I am getting the idea that for any lack of optimum achievement in the fish department we just shift the spotlight to those that are even worse fish keepers.
I was once advised to stop comparing myself to others but to start thinking about my own agendas and what I should be doing to achieve them. So I think that what "most" people do to "most" fish is not an excuse for what we do as individuals.
 
Tank's temperature affects growth rate and lifespan. Mine is generally at 28 celsius and dosing CO2.

My Oto cats die at average age of 5 years. Black neon tetras, 4 years. A Rineloricaria sp., 6 years.
There are several that died from diseases and accidents. But I think it's probably normal?
 
So I think that what "most" people do to "most" fish is not an excuse for what we do as individuals.
agreed, however i would say that the article is in the public domain, i guess with the intention to stimulate fish welfare discussion, in that sense writing articles around the biggest issues would be more beneficial..... seeing an article about the shortened life expectancy of keeping fauna in the wrong GH/KH, temp, fishless cycling etc would have a bigger impact and larger audience. I can hear the 'idiots' now... "at least i dont inject co2" :banghead:
Thats not excusing what we do as individuals simply a case of picking your battles :)
 
Hmmm...that was my first thought as well. Perhaps I'm overstating, but I feel that sort of journalism is a bit irresponsible especially considering the lack of scientific evidence to support it. I should also state tho' that I usually like Nathan's pieces.
 
agreed, however i would say that the article is in the public domain, i guess with the intention to stimulate fish welfare discussion, in that sense writing articles around the biggest issues would be more beneficial..... seeing an article about the shortened life expectancy of keeping fauna in the wrong GH/KH, temp, fishless cycling etc would have a bigger impact and larger audience. I can hear the 'idiots' now... "at least i dont inject co2" :banghead:
Thats not excusing what we do as individuals simply a case of picking your battles :)

Well, that's a bit harsh. Certainly not having injected CO2 is one less worry to accidentally kill fish.
You are shifting the spotlight as usual to different topics like the significance of Gh, Kh, etc....which are not the subject of discussion here. I don't think it's about picking battles, but right now it sounds like it's about avoiding battles.
There was a character in a book that once said: "It's not important that I am bad. What's important is that average Joe is worse."
 
Hi all,
I think we all have killed our share of fish one way or another.
I certainly have, I used to kill them with such alarming regularity, that I stopped keeping fish for several years. I knew it had to be things that I was doing that caused the deaths, but I didn't know what they were, and before the WWW most of the literature available suggested that "aged water" was an elixir of fish health, rather than a toxic brew of ammonia etc.
Certainly not having injected CO2 is one less worry to accidentally kill fish.
I've never been tempted to add CO2 for the same reason.

In terms of the article, I agree with the other posters
As plants photosynthesise, they draw carbonic acid out of the water, causing pH levels to increase. When plants respire (as they do at night) some of this carbonic acid is reintroduced back to the water, causing pH to plunge. This back and forth of acid/alkaline levels can easily prove fatal to many fish, and all too often does.
This sort of statement doesn't show the level of understanding you would expect from from a professional publication.

However, whilst I don't agree with all of it, but I think that he makes a lot of valid points in the article. I'm not arguing that fish health is worse in the tanks of forum members who use CO2, in fact I'd vehemently argue that planted tanks (of any persuasion) are much more likely to contain healthy fish.
Must admit I have thought before,can it be good to for fish to be long term in an environment where they are on the verge of showing signs of hypoxia.
Would be my worry as well. If any-one wants some more, there is this thread <Fluval Studio......>.

cheers Darrel
 
Hmmm...that was my first thought as well. Perhaps I'm overstating, but I feel that sort of journalism is a bit irresponsible especially considering the lack of scientific evidence to support it.

The problem with this statement is that it isn't true.

As I mentioned on another thread it was my original email to Nathan that spurred his blog post.

so, a little background.

I have Danios. I'm also interested in the science part of fishkeeping. which essentially follows from my low tech approach.. a kind of walstad style. (ish)

While reading about Danios I soon realised 2 things. They're of extremely high importance to 'Science' and because of this have been investigated thoroughly and this isn't new, its been going on for years. This makes the species fairly unique within the hobby as the only fish we're likely to keep that has had any genuine research done upon them. (some of the findings are really fascinating and eye popping in their implications - but I digress.)

I came across a website devoted to the maintenance of these fish in Laboratories. It should be fairly obvious that keeping the species in perfect health is the only way to get good results. If you're doing research into a gene or genes related to (for example) Ageing. Then a fish or group of fish that die early due to some other factor or have a chronic illness - can upset your findings. It can destroy months or even years of work at a stroke. any paper that was going to result from the research will be worthless.

This site I mentioned is operated by the University of Oregon. They have a section devoted to disease. some i had heard of. some not. This entry stood out:

Nephrocalcinosis

This condition occurs in many species of fish held in captivity, and we occasionally observe it in our diagnostic cases. Nephrocalcinosis is the accumulation of calcium deposits in kidney tubules and collecting ducts. Causes of nephrocalcinosis include high CO2 (e.g., > 12 mg/L) in water or excessive levels of calcium and magnesium in the diet. The use of calcium carbonate (rather than sodium bicarbonate) to buffer water in recirculating systems has been associated with the condition (Chen et al. 2001). Only when the lesions are extensive is the condition associated with overt clinical disease. In other words, we see many fish with the condition (diagnosed by histology) in which it was probably not a significant cause of the disease.

Clinical Signs and Gross Pathology. We have not observed macroscopic changes due to nephrocalcinosis in zebrafish. However, with larger fish, kidneys with severe nephrocalcinosis may exhibit distinct, white, opaque deposits in the kidney. The ureters may be filled with a chalk-like material, and vermiform deposits may occur in collecting ducts and tubules.

Microscopy. Histological sections reveal basophilic, crystalline deposits (uroliths), in renal tubules and collecting ducts. The deposits often cause severe dilation of the affected structures.

NeprhocalX104.jpg

Click for high resolution image

Histological section showing masses of basophilic crystalloid material (arrows) in kidney tubules and collecting ducts
Diagnosis.
Observation of calcium (basophilic) accumulations in the kidney by histology is generally sufficient for confirmatory diagnosis.

Control and Treatment. With zebrafish, high CO2 associated with crowding or the use of calcium carbonate (e.g., crushed coral) are two factors that have the potential to cause nephrocalcinosis. Chen et al. (2001) recommended buffering with sodium bicarbonate. In addition, proper CO2 concentrations should be maintained by proper water exchange and avoiding crowded conditions. Proper atmospheric CO2 levels should be maintained by appropriate ventilation.

end.

Obviously i didn't leave it at that.. it didn't take long to find a multitude of papers that addressed this problem.. nearly all in the fish farm industry. It was first recognised as a problem in the early 1970s and since then has been largely forgotten about. With the method of prevention being so simple.. its really no longer an issue. Its reappeared in more recent times due to side effects of other problems in as an example the Baltic sea fishery. elevated CO2 due to environmental factors. pollution etc.

To say there is a lack of evidence to support it is much like suggesting Rickets isn't a problem. we know the cause, we know how to prevent it. Its now extremely rare in western society. so why do any more research? thats probably a terrible analogy. ho hum.

The problem we face is that there has been no research. the levels of CO2 in 'High tech' aquaria do not, as far as I can tell exist in nature. All the people with a financial interest avoid it like the plague. Obviously the quote above means its still seen in laboratory fish. And that resource can then be called upon by any research team that find it in autopsied fish. "ah.. calcium deposits. we need to look at the co2 levels in our fry and holding tanks."

I thought this was interesting stuff. but I didn't know what to do with it. so, before unleashing hell by starting a thread i gave a moderator on the PFK forum the heads-up. He told me to get in touch with Nathan Hill.. who, it appeared found the entire thing fascinating and wrote his piece.

its pretty obvious to me that this is likely an issue. but Im not daft, Ive seen fish in CO2 injected tanks and they 'appear' absolutely fine. But, after I came across this information i wondered if that was really the case. are they really as fine as they look. I can't honestly answer that. but i think it is at least worth considering.. and hopefully at some point. a definitive answer will be forthcoming.
 
Many animals/pets in captivity live much longer then they would in nature that's already a prooven fact for many spieces. I guess this also goes for certain kinds of fish. In captivity there is (mostly) better care, less parasites, no predators, so if they get older and weaker of old age, they live till dying of old age. In nature it probably was one of the first to be a predators dinner. This goes the same for weakend fish by parasite or illnes.. Most of them die in the mouth of the predator instead.

Fish living longer in captivity do as we humans also suffer from certain luxury diseases because they get to time to develop them.

I do not believe our fish are getting realy that sick from fluctuating water parameters. In nature the parameters fluctuate maybe even as much or maybe even more (dangers). Mother nature isn't far from constant as our tanks are. I think that those fluctuating parameters will make them only stronger than an constant healthy environment. If you stay out of the killing zone of course. This works the same for us, look at the hobo's they eat from the trashbin and nearly never get ill from it. And somebody always living very clean and protected eats an expired sausich :) and sits on the toillet for the rest of the night feeling green and blue.

Go 200 years back in time :) back then the avarage age of a human was 35 maybe 40 years and then you were considered an old fart. Only the very rich and protected lived somewhat longer if not poisened. 70 years was considered as old as methusalem and e rare find. 60% of the children died before the age of 3. Diseases like cancer were not realy invented because nobody lived long enough to get it. Back then nobody died of smoking..

So actualy yes :) living longer causes more diseases to discover. And i can't imagine anybody taged a Oto or a Tetra with a transmitter to follow them to see how old they get in nature..
 
Last edited:
Back
Top