Which water conditioner to use?

[d0hb0y]

Hi everyone,

I just started this fun hobby and am a bit lost on conditioners. I was hoping to get some opinions on two brands and maybe some recommendations for others. In my area the pH is a constant 8.0. I am trying to get my tank ready to have Angelfish, my wife and daughter absolutely love watching them at the LFS. I've read not to mess with the pH but am afraid that a pH of 8 might be too high for angelfish and am looking at options.

I've also done quite a bit of research on water conditioners and some people have informed me to get a water conditioner to minimize the chlorine and chloramine as well something that will help minimize the ammonia levels.

I've heard quite a bit about "Seachem Prime" and am leaning towards that product. But i've also been hearing about the LFS product, "Big Als water condition and bio support", does anyone have any experience with these two products from Big Als?

Can anyone recommend some other products I could look into?

Thanks in advance!

[jvision]

Prime is excellent - I've been using it exclusively for 10yrs at least. You can get it a bit cheaper at Nature's Corner - an AlbertaAquatica sponsor (click on their banner for location, etc.) Most angels have been tank-raised and are quite comfortable in Edmonton water. I've even had angels spawn in Edmonton tap water treated with nothing but Prime.

[fishclubgirl]

I breed angels in Calgary water with a ph of 8.0 and am on my second generation. My tanks are well established and I don't use water conditioners(use aged water instead).However when you purchase angelfish, ensure their bodies are loonie size. Small angels can be quite sensitive to changes in water parameters. Angelfish are so pretty!!

[Noodles]

I only use prime. This is a previous thread from R.D. that I found to be a good read. http://albertaaquatica.com/index.php?showtopic=501&hl=water+conditioners

[Jay Huska]

The difference between the Prime and the big Al's is the concentrations. Prime is far more concentrated therefore you use less, so in the longrun it is cheaper because it treats more gallons per bottle.

[rayfong]

Prime is what I use. As for angels in Edmonton water, I've got wild caught angels and they are fine in the untreated water. They haven't paired up yet so we will see.

[robin]

Ditto for prime, and for Edm water and angelfish!

[RD.]

The main difference between Prime, and most other brands (including BA's house brand) is that Prime also neutralizes ammonia, which is essential when dealing with chloramine treated tap water such as found in Edmonton. Calgary's water is treated with chlorine, which when aged will remove chlorine. Chloramine does not simply gas off, or break down from aging, it can remain at full strength for weeks at a time. Don't be fooled by labels that state they will remove both chlorine AND chloramine, most will simply split the chlorine/ammonia bond (in chloramine) but will do nothing for the resulting free ammonia. If it doesn't clearly state that it will remove ammonia, then it won't. There are more concentrated dry powder formulas on the market, but typically you won't find them at your LFS.

Edited January 7, 2010 by RD.

[Aguabonita]

This is an interesting topic. From using Big Al’s multi-purpose conditioner at double dose for 4 years in Edmonton I would have to say removing ammonia from the disassociation of chloramine during water changes is not an essential factor in regards to freshwater planted aquariums using unadjusted Edmonton tapwater (also seems fine with Red Deer tapwater). My tanks are fairly heavily planted and I expect the plants take out the ammonia pretty quick. I currently have 2 lemon tetra’s, 6 bronze cories, 1 marbled hatchetfish (the other 5 jumped out... and were perfectly preserved as per usual), 2 Bolivian rams, scads of Endler’s and one angelfish that I’ve maintained for those 4 years (plus many fish for 2-3 years that are going strong) and were subjected to weekly 30% water changes using what is undoubtedly sodium thiosulphate to “neutralize” chloramine. During that time I’ve also maintained blue rams that lived for at least two years, as well as, apistogramma cacatuoides that spawned and raised fry. I really haven’t noticed any difference in the health or longevity of my fishes as compared to my fish keeping experiences in Calgary where I just aged water to remove chlorine. In my experience, this product can be successfully used to “neutralize” chloramine in a planted aquarium supplied with unadjusted Edmonton or Red Deer tapwater. Not to say a product like Prime isn’t superior, I just don’t see it as an absolute necessity for the average fishkeeper in these locations. However, if it’s cheaper and results in less ammonia spiking I’ll have to give it a shot!

Dean

P.S. I have two chloramine neutralizing products at home right now and neither one indicates the active ingredient/concentration, but do indicate to seek medical attention if swallowed. Pretty crappy practice; I wouldn’t want to be trying to figure out exactly what was in these products in a pinch.

[RD.]

While your point about heavily planted tanks is a valid one, I'm not so sure that one can safely conclude that the average fishkeeper in Edmonton or RD keeps heavily planted tanks.

Also, keep in mind that the LC50 values (concentrations at which you can expect mortality from half of the animals exposed) for most tropical fish species are mostly unknown, so what might be safe for one species, may prove to be deadly for another. And obviously the larger & more frequent the water changes, the more exposure of NH3 to the fish, which over the long haul can still be harmful to all species of fish. A "little" bit of exposure to second hand smoke once or twice a week may not kill an infant, but it certainly isn't going to do anything for their long term health, either.

More in the following link, specifically my last comment in that thread.

http://albertaaquatica.com/index.php?showt...amp;pid=2207381

My advice for what it's worth, if you truly want to save $$$ buy the dry powder formulas that will neutralize/bind NH3, Such as ClorAm-X, or Seachem Safe, not watered down sodium thiosulfate. If you're going to go the sodium thiosulfate route, you might as well just buy some in bulk & mix it yourself.

Edited January 9, 2010 by RD.

[punman]

The only conditioner I use is the one I apply after the shampoo!!

Actually sodium thiosulfate is all I use in Calgary as I just want to remove chlorine.

I never try to mess with PH, water hardness, etc.

I do African cichlids and nothing else.

[Aguabonita]

Sublethal effects are pretty hard to see... maybe the rams would have lived an extra month or two. I’ll do the math and let me know if I make a calculation/interpretation error.

The average concentration of chloramine in Edmonton tapwater is 2.19 mg/L according to EPCORE. Therefore ammonia is (16/51) x 2.19 = 0.68 mg/l. 30% water change = 10 x 0.68 = 30X X = 0.23 mg/L total ammonia after a water change. Your short term recommendation is less than 0.1 mg/L in all cases or @ ph 8.5 and 86 degrees? Since water in Edmonton is ph 7.8, my tanks are 78 degrees I’d estimate from your table a 1 hr LC50 of about 4.5 mg/L, so if we went one tenth of the LC50 we would want to be below about 0.45 mg/l which I was under and if we look at the 0.1 mg/l blanket recommendation it is double but close. I had to make my lack of aquatic difficulties make sense, because your point is completely legitimate and being a Calgarian I never had to deal with chloramines, just went with what was advertised to remove chloramine and never thought about ammonia. Obviously, my plants sucked up the ammonia quickly and I didn’t have any outward problems. Certainly shows the advantages of maintaining plants, makes a near bullet proof system. I’ll have to switch over to a chloramine/ammonia remover and save my fish the potential sublethal effects. Thanks for calling me on it; I ended up researching it for a while and learned a thing or two for future use.

Thanks again

Dean