• 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

Accuracy of test kits?

Much of what I've read in this thread thus far could indeed be confusing for some,not for me.
I'll stick with my test kit's, and keep the curtain's pulled tight, lest folks walking by report me to those who feel as Clive does and I then become fodder for ridicule.


I
 
Running a tank requires that you have the ability to deal with lots of inaccurate data and yet still make a successful decisions. This is a skill that is learnt through experience and knowledge and isn't limited to a fish tank but applies to many things you do as you go about your daily life.

Lack of accuracy isn't limited to test kits, it applies to flow, co2, dosing, o2, filtering, plant health - almost every important parameter is a best guess refined by trial and error.

Taking this holistic approach puts test kits into perspective. They aren't accurate, so what, they give you clues which adds to your picture of what's going on. It's how you deal with those clues that makes or breaks a tank.
 
I think an important distinction needs to be made here. That is the distinction between reliability and accuracy.

I don't think there are many people on this forum who believe that commercial test kits are accurate. As stated above the margin for error from reading the colours is enough to ensure they are not accurate.

However, as George states, they may still be of use if they are indicating a trend. I.e. your nitrate test kit may be telling you 40mg/l in the tank whereas it's actually 60. But if it

a) consistently tells you this
b) goes up when you add nitrate to the tank

it is at least reliable. It's genuinely picking up on real changes in the tank. Therefore it may have a place in the process of cycling or when there is a concern about something untoward going on in the tank.

Here's a personal example. I'm currently cycling a new nano. Tank water seems to be a bit high given that I'm using aquasoil and RO. Anyway, my Red Sea GH kit has been telling me the GH is between 7 and 8 for the first three weeks. At end of the third week, with nothing having fundamentally changed as far as I can tell, I get a reading of 13.

Why? Because I dumped a pot of salts in the tank? No, because my JBL kit ran out and I bought and started using a Sera one.

However, whether test kits really are reliable is up for debate. I've always found that I get consistent readings if I stick with the same brand. But I know others have reported wild swings, especially with nitrate kits.
 
Err..well I'd like to know what clue people think they are getting from a NO3/PO4 test kit that they couldn't already figure out, and what problem they think could be solved with a NO3/PO4 kit. I mean, really, if you add NO3 to your tank don't you think there should be a general trend of increasing NO3? I need a 10 quid test kit to tell me that? If it's not accurate then of what use is it? What happens if you add NO3 to your tank and the reading goes down? Then what do you do? What happens if the kit reading goes up 10X higher than what it should have? What trend does that indicate? What happens if you get an algal bloom and you coincidentally measure high Silicates or high PO4? What do you do then?

At the end of the day we think that we are exercising a choice when we decide to use these kits "even though they are not very accurate". Would you continue to use the same bank if the balance shown on your account every month "wasn't very accurate"? How useful would the fuel gauge be on that airplane you'll be taking on your next vacation if it only showed "general trends" of the remaining fuel quantity? Please, we need to get real. The data indicates that people are simply addicted to their test kits, and no rational arguments will sway them.

See Matrix Reloaded. Merovingian, although an evil character, was telling the truth; Choice is an illusion provided by those with power and offered to those without power. This keeps the powerless happy and under control, which facilitates milking them of their money like a dairy cow.
Merovingian.jpg


Cheers,
 
Clive that has to be the funniest, but most truthful post I have read. I gotta admit, I like your style. Since reading your earlier posts on test kits, I dont test now. :thumbup:

Out of interest, do you feel there is a benefit of ammonia and nitrite testing when cycling a tank ?
 
Well, this is another set of circumstances that if we simply excercise a little patience and do the right things then we would eliminate the need for these kits as well as save ourselves headaches. You have to ask yourself this question: Why do you want to know the values or trends of Ammonia/Nitrite? Is it because you are fascinated with the mechanism of nitrification? Or is it that you want to add fish as soon as possible? If it's answer number 2 then ask yourself WHY? Why do you need to add fish to the tank ASAP? This is another irrational approach.

A tank takes about 6-8 weeks to fully mature. I'm not just talking about the popular manic concept of "Cycle", "Cycle", Cycle". I'm talking about a fully mature tank that has stable, full compliment populations of bacteria and other microorganisms that can clean the tank properly, and that can handle any transient condition that might otherwise upset the biochemical balance. It takes 6-8 weeks, regardless of these test kit readings, to develop adequate populations of these microbes. It doesn't matter whether you use bacteria starter kits, mud from the garden, or a few fish food flakes. People add amonia to their tank not realizing that high ammonia concentration actually kill the very same bacteria they are trying to nurture. "Hello, Earth calling hobbyists": There is a reason ammonia products are found in the disinfectant/cleaning section of your loca supermarket. It kills bacteria, even the ones that use ammonia.

So if you clean you tank frequently during these first few weeks to eliminate toxic buildup of organic products, and if you just wait, then in 6-8 weeks the tank will be ready and will be able to handle the introduction of fish without even so much as a hiccup. There will therefore not be any need to measure NH3/NO2. It's automatic - but people just can't wait to thow fish in the tank so they pursue these measurements and dump fish in as soon as the reading shows that "all's clear" as quickly as if it were some kind of off road rally.

In a planted CO2 enriched tank, you still clean the water, you still do all the same things you would normally do, but you do it without fish, you keep the lighting low and the CO2 high. Bacteria need CO2, they need Oxygen, PO4, NO3 Mg, all of that. Cater to the plants and that will help to improve the microbe population faster than any of these phony products or zany ammonia methods. I still have the same NH3 and NO2 test kit that I bought 10 years ago. They have never helped me figure out anything. If I see strange behavior with fish in the tank what do you do? The only thing to do is to do a massive water change right? At the end of the day, whether you get a high test reading or not, the correct response will ALWAYS be to immediately change the water. Testing won't help you do anything because the readings are as like to be false as true, so why not just change the water frequently as a regular part of your procedures and be done with it?

So, just being proactive with a tank saves you from the ordeal and stress of dealing with these hypnotic little vials. Having some patience and waiting a couple of months to introduce fish is the safest thing to do and it will give you the time you need to figure out CO2 and flow/distribution while not being afraid to turn the gas up to fix a CO2 problem. The plants and microorganisms are the infrastructure of your tank. Fix that first, then you will have a better home for your fauna.

Cheers,
 
Well thats made my mind up. Got a new tank on the way and fish are going to be later concern.

Now only one post away from the buying and selling section ;)
 
ceg4048 said:
It doesn't matter whether you use bacteria starter kits, mud from the garden, or a few fish food flakes. People add amonia to their tank not realizing that high ammonia concentration actually kill the very same bacteria they are trying to nurture.

Hi Ceg,
does this mean to leave your tank with nothing to feed the bacteria on, or is it advocating the use of starter kits, mud or food to feed the filter, but not using ammonia?
As i understood things it was bacteria that break down ammonia, which turn it to nitrite, then more bacteria which turn nitrite to less harmful nitrate? A cycle which then builds the necessary bacteria reserves to adequately manage the wastes produced with the addition of fish, surely you need sufficient of all the bacteria types for a filter to work effectively? Many advocate the use of aquasoil and its ammonia leaching as a good way to fishless cycle as it starts the whole nitrogen cycle process.
ceg4048 said:
A tank takes about 6-8 weeks to fully mature. I'm not just talking about the popular manic concept of "Cycle", "Cycle", Cycle". I'm talking about a fully mature tank that has stable, full compliment populations of bacteria and other microorganisms that can clean the tank properly, and that can handle any transient condition that might otherwise upset the biochemical balance.
Are you saying this is not necessary to add anything and that the bacteria and microorganisms will find their own 'food' needed to colonise thus being in suitable numbers for the addition of fish after 6-8 weeks
I may have missed the point as you may have been advocating starter kits, mud or food as a food source for the bacteria, but surely they all result in ammonia which then needs to be filtered?
Cheers,
Ady.
 
Hi all,
I'm talking about a fully mature tank that has stable, full compliment populations of bacteria and other microorganisms that can clean the tank properly, and that can handle any transient condition that might otherwise upset the biochemical balance.
I'll add my tuppence, in this case I agree with Clive, "good things come to those who wait".
Are you saying this is not necessary to add anything and that the bacteria and microorganisms will find their own 'food' needed to colonise thus being in suitable numbers for the addition of fish after 6-8 weeks
I believe this to be true.
I may have missed the point as you may have been advocating starter kits, mud or food as a food source for the bacteria, but surely they all result in ammonia which then needs to be filtered?
All aquatic heterotrophic ("non-photosynthesing") organisms will be producing some ammonia as a by-product of their metabolism ("proteases break the peptide bonds (of proteins) releasing the amino acids and then deaminases break the amino group off the amino acids, releasing ammonia"). In a non-planted tank with minimal surfaces, this ammonia will build up to toxic levels fairly quickly and can only be removed by water changes, being bound by a zeolite or Amquel etc, or it can enter "nitrification", the biological oxidation of ammonia to nitrite and nitrate.

This isn't true in the planted tank, unless we add toxic amounts of ammonia, or starve the plants of light and nutrients, the plants will act as "nitrogen sponges", combining the available NH3, NO2 and NO3 into new proteins (and particularly chlorophyll). This works even in a bare tank, particularly if we add floaters such as Amazon Frogbit (Limnobium), with access to atmospheric CO2. Plants are extremely efficient at scavenging available fixed nitrogen, it is a scarce resource in nearly all natural ecosystems, and they have evolved complex systems to exploit sudden abundance.

If you have add in a substrate, rooted growing plants and the biofilm on surfaces, you begin to get some idea why planted aquariums are both enormously resilient to changes in fixed nitrogen levels, and why we are never entirely reliant on the filter bacteria for nitrification. The other gain, gain situation with plants is their oxygen production, nitrification is an oxygen intensive process which is often limited in non-planted situations by oxygen availability to the filter bacteria.

cheers Darrel
 
Hi,
so when using new aquasoil, which initially leaches ammonia, is it best to plant immediately to get the system working, or wait for filter 'nitrogen cycling' and then plant? The reason i was told to do it this way (or the reason as i understood it) was so that the ammonia didnt feed the algae before the plants got a proper hold.
Cheers,
Ady.
 
Generally speaking most folk just fill the tank & avoid the effects of ammonia by carrying out water changes.

I guesse you could fill the tank, start the filter, cover the tank with a blanket & stare at it for two months or you could fill it with plants & enjoy the tank!
 
so plants dont care about the ammonia, and no other disasters will occur if every day/other day water changes are carried out....no point in wasting time then, just get it planted up immediately?
Cheers,
Ady.
 
You must try to avoid the ammonia spike if possible that is one of the reasons for mutable, regular large water changes especially in the first few weeks.
Starting off with a mature filter & partly using mature substrate is very helpful.
One over way that is quite popular is the dry start method where the tank goes through the cycle with only just enough water to cover the substrate.
 
Right im confused, these last posts seem slightly conflicting... surely the best way to avoid the ammonia spike is to be patient, let the filter mature and then plant and carry on with water changes. This seems to offer the least risk, especially in totally new set ups without mature filters or substrate.
Cheers,
Ady.
 
Right, i think ive read it correctly now.
Ammonia is a no go with the plants, but you can plant immediately, avoiding the ammonia spike with large, frequent water changes, the tank will then cycle and (6-8 weeks) then add fish to a 'mature' set up. Using mature filters and/or substrate helps this process along. This way avoids a dormant tank devoid of interest and allows us to watch it grow from the off!
Thanks,
Ady.
 
Ady34 said:
Right, i think ive read it correctly now.
Ammonia is a no go with the plants, but you can plant immediately, avoiding the ammonia spike with large, frequent water changes, the tank will then cycle and (6-8 weeks) then add fish to a 'mature' set up. Using mature filters and/or substrate helps this process along. This way avoids a dormant tank devoid of interest and allows us to watch it grow from the off!
Thanks,
Ady.

Ady, for what its worth, I have florabase (1.5cm) capped with Unipac Samoa 2.5cm at the front and 8cm at the back (or thereabouts). The florabase STILL leached ammonia even though it was capped, and I expected this. However possibly not as much as if it had been the only substrate in a larger quantity. I did 50 to 80% water changes every other day (one would be 50, the next 80 etc). I think the term "spike" can be confusing because its the level of this spike that can be problematic. Clive has written basically that if its too high (please Ceg, correct me if my interpretation is wrong) then the ammonia can be detrimental the the cycling. But SOME ammonia in one form or another, be it produced by fish food flakes, or substrate, or even the organic die off that is associated with initial planting, is necessary for the cycling.

My Ammonia never exceeded 3ppm and was reduced every other day, significantly by the water changes. My nitrites never exceeded 2ppm (again, we are using the values indicated by hobby test kits !!). In addition to this I used Sera bio nitrivec and the Sera biostart. It is a popular thing in our hobby for bio cultures to be poo poo'd in general. I believe some are better than others, and indeed, some may be totally useless. However I also know that a completely non biased scientist performed independant tests on the Nitrivec product and when introduced to a freshly started aquarium under controlled measured conditions, there was indeed huge levels of nitrosomonas and nitrobacter bacteria. I am mentioning this because within 16 days my aquarium had fully cycled. In the first 14 days of this my tank was only sparsely planted and not untill the nitrite levels had all but receeded did I add the final compliment of plants (which seems now to be ever increasing).

Thus, if it is expected a "natural cycle" can take 6 to 8 weeks, mine took TWO give or take a day or TWO.
 
Hi all,
Ammonia is a no go with the plants.......
This is entirely dependent upon the level, but
..... but you can plant immediately, avoiding the ammonia spike with large, frequent water changes, the tank will then cycle and (6-8 weeks) then add fish to a 'mature' set up. Using mature filters and/or substrate helps this process along. This way avoids a dormant tank devoid of interest and allows us to watch it grow from the off!
Is the summary of the method I've always used.
Clive has written basically that if its too high ...... then the ammonia can be detrimental the the cycling.
Yes.
But SOME ammonia in one form or another, be it produced by fish food flakes, or substrate, or even the organic die off that is associated with initial planting, is necessary for the cycling.
There will always be some ammonia, in a low BOD situation this will be rapidly mopped up by plants, algae and bacteria as levels of dissolved oxygen will not limit NH4+ uptake and ammonia (NH3) toxicity is not a problem. As the amount of ammonia rises (in this case NH3 will be the major component of BOD), oxygen will become limiting (potentially even in planted systems) and direct toxicity will begin to effect the biota.
My Ammonia never exceeded 3ppm and was reduced every other day, significantly by the water changes. My nitrites never exceeded 2ppm (again, we are using the values indicated by hobby test kits !!).
I'm not going there, particularly for the ammonia. If you could measure it accurately, levels of "un-ionised ammonia nitrogen" (UIA-N) of about 0.5mgl-1 (0.5ppm) are toxic to non-tolerant organisms.

The quote below on NH3 are from:
<http://watertreatment.enva.com/Products/upload/File/Ammonia and Nitrification.pdf>
Nitrifiers are excellent indicators of toxic shock in an effluent treatment plant – significant loss of nitrification will occur before loss in efficiency of carbonaceous BOD removal. This can give an operator time to take remedial action to prevent excess damage to the organotrophic population. Nitrifying bacteria are also inhibited by relatively low concentrations of free ammonia (10 mg/l for Nitrosomonas; 0.1 mg/l for Nitrobacter) and free nitrous acid (1.0 mg/l for both Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter). Free ammonia (NH3) is produced from ammonium ions under a high pH in the aeration tank. Free nitrous acid (NHO2) is produced from nitrite ions under a low pH in the aeration tank. This type of inhibition is known as substrate inhibition. Substrate inhibition usually occurs at a concentration of 400-500 mg/l ammonium ions or when ammonium ions are converted to nitrite ions at a faster rate than nitrite ions are converted to nitrate ions. .......
I've never added NH3 deliberately to a tank, but I've worked on the aerobic bio-remediation of land-fill waste, and basically the quicker you can get photosynthetic organisms involved the better.

This is the abstract from Huddleston, G. et al (2000): "Using constructed wetlands to treat biochemical oxygen demand and ammonia associated with a refinery effluent". Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 45(2):188-93.<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10648135>
This study evaluated the effectiveness of constructed wetlands for tertiary treatment of a petroleum refinery effluent. Specific performance objectives were to decrease 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD(5)) and ammonia by at least 50% and to reduce toxicity associated with this effluent. Two bench-scale wetlands (replicates) were constructed in a greenhouse to provide tertiary treatment of effluent samples shipped from the refinery to the study site. Integrated wetland features included Typha latifolia Linnaeus planted in low organic (0.2%), sandy sediment, 48-h nominal hydraulic retention time, and 15-cm overlying water depth. Targeted constituents and aqueous toxicity were monitored in wetland inflows and outflows for 3 months. Following a 2 to 3-week stabilization period, effective and consistent removal of BOD(5) and ammonia (as NH(3)-N) from the effluent was observed. Average BOD(5) removal was 80%, while NH(3)-N decreased by an average of 95%. Survival of Pimephales promelas Rafinesque and Ceriodaphnia dubia Richard (7-day, static, renewal exposures) increased by more than 50% and 20%, respectively. Reproduction of C. dubia increased from zero in undiluted wetland inflow to 50% of controls in undiluted wetland outflow. This study demonstrated the potential for constructed wetlands to decrease BOD(5), ammonia, and toxicity in this refinery effluent.
and this is from Li, L. et al (2008) "Potential of constructed wetlands in treating the eutrophic water: evidence from Taihu Lake of China." Bioresour Technol. 99(6):1656-63.
Three parallel units of pilot-scale constructed wetlands (CWs), i.e., vertical subsurface flow (VSF), horizontal subsurface flow (HSF) and free water surface flow (FWS) wetland were experimented to assess their capabilities in purifying eutrophic water of Taihu Lake, China. Lake water was continuously pumped into the CWs at a hydraulic loading rate of 0.64 m d(-1) for each treatment. One year's performance displayed that average removal rates of chemical oxygen demand (COD), ammonia nitrogen (NH(4)(+)-N), nitrate nitrogen (NO(3)(-)-N), total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorous (TP) were 17-40%, 23-46%, 34-65%, 20-52% and 35-66%, respectively........Wetland plants (Typha angustifolia) grew well in the three CWs. We noted that plant uptake and storage were both important factors responsible for nitrogen and phosphorous removal in the three CWs. However, harvesting of the above ground biomass contributed 20% N and 57% P of the total N and P removed in FWS wetland.......
cheers Darrel
 
ceg4048 said:
It's actually the good news, because your eyeballs were given to you for free. 8)

I am colour blind with a big helping of stupid !! I do not use test kits because i agree with ceg (which is like a kareoke singer telling pavarotti he is in tune :lol: )

however i rely on looking at my plants behavior ie holes different shades at the tips and melting, to tell me how things are going. Trying not to worry too much about the different parameters that i dont frankly understand.

To be fair though my tank will never be a master piece, but in my defence im getting really good at just enjoying it which i think is really important :)

Sorry no clever advice just enjoy your tank

ps any tips for early signs of unhappy plant behaviour (considering im colourblind) would be much appreciated
 
somethingfishy said:
Trying not to worry too much about the different parameters that i dont frankly understand.

:thumbup: Phew!!! I'm glad I'm not the only one, I can read some of the information on here and I still don't understand sometimes. :?

Some of us need a KIS method..... :lol:
 
Back
Top