OrangeCones,
"I beg to differ, MOA. If the ammonia is bound, it is non-toxic to fish but still available to be used by the bactera that makes up the 'nitrogen cycle'."
Not if it is bound--binding stabalizes the molecule and makes it harder for the bacteria to break it apart. The bacteria do best if the ammonia is left as an anion.
"Bound ammonia does not becomes 'unbound' after a time limit, and will not cause a 'spike' in ammonia later."
I was not saying that the ammonia would suddenly unbind. What I was saying is that the fish naturally produce ammonia that would require more additive to bind. If the additive is not added, then the ammonia levels will rise because the fish are constantly producing waste.
"A 'true dechloriniator' that just removes the chlorine or chloramine as you say, is using reduction to change the Cl2 to Cl- ions in the case of chlorine. The Cl- ions will evaporate into the air."
Yes, thus the chlorine/chloramine is removed.
"When the chlorine is removed from the chloramine molecule (NH2Cl), you are left with just Nitrogen and Hydrogen. This is unstable, and in the presense of water, will combine with Hydrogen, creating NH3 or ammonia."
Yes, meaning that chloramine removal, in itself, contributes to the problem.
"So a 'true dechloriniator' as you called it, will change chlorimine to Chlorine ions (which will evaporate into the air), and ammonia. If the ammonia is not bound, then it is toxic to fish."
No, the ammonia will be in an environment that is properly cycled if I were to have my way: the bacteria would quickly break the ammonia down. Ammonia is constantly being produced by the aquarium inhabitants--the little bit that comes from dechlorinating the water used for water changes is pretty inconsequential by comparrison.
The problem with using chemicals is that the tank is constantly producing ammonia. Thus, if you only use an additive at particular times, then your are only solving the problem for that moment (also, testing once such an additive is added is invalid since the solution is only temporary; if the tank is uncycled, the ammonia/nitrite will begin to rise after a few days). In the mean time, the fish will generate more waste and the ammonia can exceed the stoichiometric capacities of the additive. The net result is possible (not necessarily definite) system failure.
I see no reason to rely on chemicals when natural methods are safer and more effective. What's more, using an additional bacteria source or a silent cycle is cheap! Why spend extra money? I am not saying that using additives can't work:
"Now there are a couple of additives out there that use a binding agent that does not keep the bacteria from getting to the ammonia"
However, I am saying that isn't necessarily needed or best--nature works pretty well on its own. I have been keeping fish for a decade, have bought and sold them, bred them, and have kept all sorts. Never have I seen one of my tanks fair better with additives. I have tried additives before, but all they did was cause my values to swing or "ride" high. Yes, there were exceptions--a couple tanks did okay. No less, all my tanks that I cycled using bacteria or a silent cycle worked beautifully. What's more is that they were cheap to maintain.
If you love your additives and are convinced that they work, then fine, but I am going to stick to my inexpensive tanks that don't require any special manipulations. Water in, water out--that's all I do with my tanks once they are up and running, no reason to worry about more (unless breeding or in the case of some special species).
I respect your opinion, I really do. Additives can and do work if done properly. I agree with you on that point. Where we differ is that I see no use in spending extra money or fiddling with extra stuff. I've sold a lot of fish merchandise and people like you kept me in business (so thank you for paying my salary), but the fact is that I myself didn't use most of what I sold to people like you because I knew that there were easier, more cost effective methods.
MOA
*SUNSMILE**PEACE!*
