Low Kh

[Meyer Jordan]

Six separate post from someone that does not want to argue?!

Here is a reference that specifically addresses the effects of high Hardness on fish.

"The recommended ideal value of hardness for fish culture is at least 20 ppm (Swann, 1997) and a range of 30-180 mg L-1 (Santhosh and Singh, 2007). According to Stone and Thomforde (2004) the desirable Range is 50-150 mg L-1
as CaCO3 and acceptable Range is above 10 mg L-1 as CaCO3.
According to Bhatnagar et al. (2004) hardness values less than
20ppm causes stress, 75-150 ppm is optimum for fish culture and >300 ppm is lethal to fish life as it increases pH, resulting in non-availability of nutrients."

Water quality guidelines for the management of pond fish culture
Anita Bhatnagar, Pooja Dev
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Volume
3, No 6, 2013

Your first source is primarily in context of pH, not health nor growth.

Exactly. If pH is not stabilized the health of fish is certainly a concern since it has been shown that pH levels over 8.0 adversely affect the growth rate in carp.

As to the concern of other elements required for proper fish nutrition being available, These are already included in any quality fish food.

 

[Mitakuye]

Six separate post from someone that does not want to argue?!

Correct, as the separate posts is more so a reflection of my frustration.


Late edit:

...as well as posting as I am thinking, taking serious consideration, of what has been / is being written.

My apologies for not having my replies condensed into a single post.

 

[Mitakuye]

Here is a reference that specifically addresses the effects of high Hardness on fish.

"The recommended ideal value of hardness for fish culture is at least 20 ppm (Swann, 1997) and a range of 30-180 mg L-1 (Santhosh and Singh, 2007). According to Stone and Thomforde (2004) the desirable Range is 50-150 mg L-1
as CaCO3 and acceptable Range is above 10 mg L-1 as CaCO3.
According to Bhatnagar et al. (2004) hardness values less than
20ppm causes stress, 75-150 ppm is optimum for fish culture and >300 ppm is lethal to fish life as it increases pH, resulting in non-availability of nutrients."

Water quality guidelines for the management of pond fish culture
Anita Bhatnagar, Pooja Dev
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Volume
3, No 6, 2013

This I mostly agree.

Take note the lethal statement is directly linked to "as it increases pH, resulting in non-availability of nutrients".

A hardness of above 300ppm can be easily achieved without notable increase in pH (actually the opposite) when Gypsum and other mineral salts are utilized. I am quite curious what mineral salts their study utilized to obtain above 300ppm that notably increased the pH; my guess they primarily relied on carbonate salts.

 

[Mitakuye]

As to the concern of other elements required for proper fish nutrition being available, These are already included in any quality fish food.

I simply have to agree to disagree with this. I do agree fish food is capable of providing most, except not all, nutrition. Minerals in the water column also notably aid fish nutrition and overall health, that goes beyond pH stabilization.

 

[Mitakuye]

Exactly. If pH is not stabilized the health of fish is certainly a concern since it has been shown that pH levels over 8.0 adversely affect the growth rate in carp.

My statement of health and growth was in the context of total hardness, not alkalinity nor pH stabilization.

 

[Mitakuye]

An observation to be noted as well, you have 3 studies giving 3 separate recommendation ranges for hardness, each quite different.

Depending on the recommendation, the other recommendations might disqualify your preference.

From the most recent study, lets take the 180ppm hardness recommendation for below.

 

[Mitakuye]

I am more concerned of good fish growth, thus health, being notably impacted if the GH was in, or lower than, the 20~80 range thus then GH should be twice KH.

This would mean an alkalinity of 3*dKH (53.58ppm CaCO3) would equate to a total hardness of 107.16 ppm CaCO3.

Within recommendation of your study reference and quite well below the supposedly 300ppm lethal limit from the study you desired to reference.


An alkalinity of 5*dKH (89.3 ppm CaCO3) would equate to a total hardness of 178.6 ppm CaCO3.

Still, within recommendation of your study reference and quite well below the supposedly 300ppm lethal limit from the study you desired to reference.


I see no reason for total hardness to go any higher than this unless raising crustaceans or the waters are inundated with pollution from heavy metals or pesticides, but, then, I would opt for an enclosed system.

 

[Mitakuye]

Next curiosity would be... Why have an increase in hardness, mostly calcium? Well, I am tired and can not continue this. Research purposes for Alum and Gypsum.

This is exhausting. Good night and I am done. I will remember this, to write like a lawyer in hopefully a single post, the next time I decide to opine..

@Gordo33 , I hope this conversation was insightful..

 

[Gordo33]

@Gordo33 , I hope this conversation was insightful..

Went beyond what I was looking for and way over my head. But I did learn from your back and forth with @Meyer Jordan

 

[Mitakuye]

Went beyond what I was looking for and way over my head. But I did learn from your back and forth with @meye rjordan.

Thanks and Good morning!

I was trying to avoid getting into the weeds, but appears to be the result as I was being pushed into a corner, which I now regret for inviting.

 

[Meyer Jordan]

My statement of health and growth was in the context of total hardness, not alkalinity nor pH stabilization.

But they are all inexorably linked together.

So we will have to agree to disagree.
Note for future discussions. Be able to supply scientific references for your statements.

 

[Mitakuye]

But they are all inexorably linked together.

None of what I wrote held otherwise.

 

[Mitakuye]

Note for future discussions. Be able to supply scientific references for your statements.

I would be curious if you hold your self to the same standard for every single response you supply in a discussion.

 

[Mitakuye]

@Meyer Jordan , when I opine next time, I will leave your references with no response.

 

[Meyer Jordan]

I think that the problem in this discussion has, as is often the case, definition of terms.
The original discussion was about GH (carbonate and agnesium) not Carbonate hardness or any of the other possible Hardnesses.
In scientific papers, terminology is usually quite specific. If an author is intending to address Carbonate Hardness that is what they will write. They will not use the generic term Hardness unless they are speaking of GH.