# Accuracy of test kits?



## foxfish (9 Feb 2012)

I have read quite a few post on this forum stating that standard test kits are not to be relied on!

However it seems that the vast majority of forums still quote their tank parameters based on using commercial, readily available test kits?

So are they any good or not?

What can we test for & which ones are not accurate?


----------



## Tom (9 Feb 2012)

From testing several NH3 kits against known concentrations in college, we didn't find an accurate off-the-shelf one, with Tetra being the least accurate iirc. Also, if you look at the colour charts - Do any of them actually test down to the supposed lethal levels of NH3 (0.02mg/l), let alone be accurate to those levels?

Yet by law, shops etc. have to provide evidence of testing, regardless of accuracy.


----------



## Radik (9 Feb 2012)

So which one not off the shelf would you recommend? Same lab. grade one perhaps? Do they exist?


----------



## dw1305 (9 Feb 2012)

Hi all,
NH3 is a really tricky one to test for, even with an ion selective electrode. Same applies to dissolved oxygen. This is partially because they are gases. Nitrate and orthophosphate are possible to test for by colorimetric methods, but other compounds can interfere with the readings. The measurement of pH is slightly different in that you can measure pH with either a meter  or indicator strips/titration, but you really need some measure of dKH (temporary hardness) to interpret it. Temporary and permanent hardness you can obtain ball park figures for with a test kit.

It was because of the difficulties of measurement of these parameters that the BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand) techniques were developed. Measurement of total BOD is very time consuming, so people tend to use a combination of 5 day BOD test and a biotic index to estimate water quality. Neither technique is of much use to us, although marine aquarists are using a measurement of Redox potential (oxidation-reduction reactions) which would use the same general idea, but is only relevant for carbonate rich alkaline water and again values would need some interpretation. 

Conductivity you can measure pretty accurately with a £25 dip meter, but you need to have some idea of which solutes (salts and weak acids) are present in your water. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## foxfish (12 Feb 2012)

Thanks guys but is it not amazing how virtually every fish keeper relies on shop bought test kits!  :?


----------



## ceg4048 (12 Feb 2012)

Not amazing at all. It's the result of a neural interactive software we call The Matrix.
The Matrix tells you what to think, and you think it. This is exactly why realty often seems more bizarre than fiction.

Cheers,


----------



## Ady34 (12 Feb 2012)

Hi,
this worries me as a fish/plant keeper, it seems more like a neat retailing trick to enhance the sales of water buffers, conditioners and purifiers.
I was posting on another sub forum, and the hobbyist grade test kit scenario came up. George Farmer alluded to the idea of there limitations. 
I generally use ph, gh and kh test kits to help me with water management in my soft and low alkilinity water area. Im currently buffering to maintain a reasonable GH (4-5dgh ish) for mineral content and some KH (2-4 dkh ish) for reassurance really. Are hobbyist grade test kits able to give results that you can work with for these tests, or are they too a waste of time and money?
It would be good to find out what if any brands offer the most consistency/accuracy.
I know more seasoned plant growers can tell from there plants if any deficiencies appear and react to that specific need, however as more of a beginner i like to try and provide some of the basics in the water itself, especially as i buy off the shelf fertiliser (TPN+). Im also presuming, perhaps wrongly, that minerals in water which give you your gh and kh levels are some of the same minerals we provide for our plants with the addition of fertilisers?
Any help/clarification would be much appreciated.
Cheerio,
Ady.


----------



## ceg4048 (13 Feb 2012)

Hi,
    Can't see why you need to be worried at all. Part of the ingenious programming of The Matrix is a little subroutine that tells people to worry, so they worry for no good reason at all. For example The Matrix tells people to worry about pH fluctuations, so people scurry around spending their whole lives measuring and trying to stabilize pH. The wise entrepreneur invests in the companies that manufacture pH test kits, or in those that manufacture pH controllers.  The people who aren't worried about pH (or KH or GH) don't have problems due to fluctuating pH.

It is a fact that the same elemental components that are responsible for GH also happen to be micronutrients. But there are only two of these; Calcium and Magnesium. Fundamentally therefore, it would be wiser to worry whether or not you have enough Ca and Mg than to worry about GH. If you're using RO or live in a soft water municipal area then simply adding a few teaspoons of Calcium salts and Magnesium salts at water change time solves that problem immediately. Measuring GH actually doesn't tell you anything because GH does not tell you how much Ca or Mg you actually have. GH only tells you what the sum of the two are. Even if you live in a hard water area, you can still add these to see if it makes a difference. Once you confirm whether adding these salts makes a difference or not, you then no longer need to measure GH.

In the case of these parameters, worrying causes lots more problems than not worrying. If you want to worry then worry about CO2/flow and distribution. That's whats so sad about the whole test kit soap opera. Worrying about test kit readings diverts your attention away from where you really ought to be worried. Ironically, no test kit can tell you much about nutrient/CO2/flow and distribution. You have to look at the plants. I don't see why you need to be seasoned. Can you tell when you have algae? Of course you can. Do you have a lawn? Well, go outside and look at it. Can you tell if the grass is a nice deep dark green, or if it is pale or has a yellow tinge? If so then it's a very similar indication inside the tank. Nutrient test kits never could tell you any of this and that's why everyone continues to have problems, because they think that a test kit can tell you something better than what you own eyes can tell you.

Since test kits are all basically made the same way, using the same chemistry, how could you possibly hope to determine what brand is more accurate or more consistent? The BRANDS aren't even real. There probably aren't even that many test kit manufacturers in the world. The reagents are probably made in a few places and simply branded or bottled differently depending on the contract. I mean, most pH test kits are Bromothymol Blue. Do people actually think that Company A, or Company B, or even Brand X actually produce their own Bromo Blue in their own labs from scratch? I'm pretty sure they just go to the lowest bidding Bromo supplier, buy the reagent in bulk, chuck it in a bottle and put their label on it. It wouldn't surprise me if they all used the same suppliers. So you could easily have several competing brands whose products are identical inside the bottles. Isn't that just business as usual?

So at the end of the day, understanding the fundamentals of plant growth and using your eyeballs is much more important, and is much more useful than the information that any hobby grade test kit can give you. But this is not something to be depressed or worried about. It's actually the good news, because your eyeballs were given to you for free. 

Cheers,


----------



## Skatersav (13 Feb 2012)

I've spent a lot of time trying to distinguish between coral red, cadmium orange and burnt amber.  Having concluded that I would need to employ the services of a skilled interior designer to aid me in my weekly testing regimen, I decided that these test kits were truly useless and gave up using them for about 10 years.  When I started focusing on keeping plants about a year ago, I was told that I needed to keep nitrates and phosphates at a 10:1 ratio and so would need to start measuring these compounds again - I think there is probably some credible scientific logic behind the 10:1 ratio, but determining whether your tank has this ratio or not using these test kits is not difficult, it's impossible - it simply can't be done.  Having spent quite a bit of money on the test kits and quite a bit of time squinting at various hues of orange and light blue, I have given up on them again.

One thing to think about is the error brackets in a test.  For instance, say you buy into the 10:1 ratio thing and are trying to monitor this number.  You test for nitrates and determine that it is 10mg/l.  Even if you have correctly identified the correct colour you have an error range of at least 7.5 to 15mg/l (half way between the 10mg/l gradation and the next above and below).  So, if you do the same thing with your phosphate and determine it to be 1mg/l (rejoice and hallelujah, the ratio is 10:1 and my plants will now explode with luscious growth), but the error range on this is probably something similarly ludicrous: 0.75mg/l to 1.5mg/l.  This means that the range of ratios that may exist in the tank is somewhere from 5:1 to 20:1.  And that's assuming you haven't squeezed in an extra drip or tipped in a little too much powder with the tiny spoon, and that you have identified the right colour on the chart.  Now, one would expect the plants to be able to thrive at a range of n ratios but the above testing process still seems pretty futile - how much more enlightened are we having spent the time and the money?

I have reverted to my previous view on these test kits (slightly embarrassed that I was duped into spending time and money on it again having had very few problems with my fish for ten years in spite of not testing), and have given  up testing again.  I simply do a big water change once a week and follow a fert regimen.


----------



## Ady34 (13 Feb 2012)

Skatersav said:
			
		

> Even if you have correctly identified the correct colour you have an error range of at least 7.5 to 15mg/l (half way between the 10mg/l gradation and the next above and below). So, if you do the same thing with your phosphate and determine it to be 1mg/l (rejoice and hallelujah, the ratio is 10:1 and my plants will now explode with luscious growth), but the error range on this is probably something similarly ludicrous: 0.75mg/l to 1.5mg/l. This means that the range of ratios that may exist in the tank is somewhere from 5:1 to 20:1. And that's assuming you haven't squeezed in an extra drip or tipped in a little too much powder with the tiny spoon, and that you have identified the right colour on the chart.



Hi there, 
i hear you on this one and sometimes it just needs putting into word context for people like myself who had previously been fishkeepers, and naive ones at that, to see it for what it is. I had relied upon test kits for 10 years or more whilst keeping fish and continually struggled with 'guesstimate'  results based on colour renditions. The margins for error involved are clearly too large to rely upon results for anything more than a vague idea!



			
				ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Can't see why you need to be worried at all.





			
				ceg4048 said:
			
		

> The people who aren't worried about pH (or KH or GH) don't have problems due to fluctuating pH.



your right, but im one of those programmed to believe in it and it takes time to accept after its all youve known. Since starting my first planted scape ive had my eyes opened to several 'myths' of fishkeeping for example PH fluctuations being unacceptable, when clearly the addition of C02 for the planted aquarium shifts ph on a daily basis with no ill affects, something im sure that happens in nature after rainfalls etc.



			
				ceg4048 said:
			
		

> It is a fact that the same elemental components that are responsible for GH also happen to be micronutrients. But there are only two of these; Calcium and Magnesium. Fundamentally therefore, it would be wiser to worry whether or not you have enough Ca and Mg than to worry about GH. If you're using RO or live a soft water municipal area then simply adding a few teaspoons of Calcium salts and Magnesium salts at water change time solves that problem immediately.



Well that certainly clarifies that question, and i suppose to some degree i was coming to that conclusion myself from various research and problems ive experienced. Ive just last week began dosing sera mineral salt to add Mg, Ca and K as a possible remedy for a continual crypt melt issue, and hey presto (maybe too early to say for sure) the plants are much stronger for it.



			
				ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Measuring GH actually doesn't tell you anything because GH does not tell you how much Ca or Mg you actually have. GH only tells you what the sum of the two are.



Again this is useful to know as both salts can be added in the required dosage to ensure enough of both rather than a shortfall of one or the other. Its not rocket science when you know, and seeing it in black and white helps me to understand better.



			
				ceg4048 said:
			
		

> In the case of these parameters, worrying causes lots more problems than not worrying.



Advice duplicated by others including Geroge Farmer on another thread..... about time i changed my thinking!



			
				ceg4048 said:
			
		

> You have to look at the plants. I don't see why you need to be seasoned.



Agreed to a point, however I can see when i have issues, its just diagnosing the deficiency which isnt as straightforward until you have some greater experience and understanding of what it is your looking at. For example, I may think i have a potassium deficiency because i have holes in my leaves, but i dont know for sure yet as i havnt personally experienced adding K and seeing the plant thrive.

oops, not finished, ive come back to edit this sentence on as i hit the 'submit' button by accident, there is a more polite ending on the next page.


----------



## Ady34 (13 Feb 2012)

OOPS... wasnt finished and pressed submit by accident,



			
				ceg4048 said:
			
		

> So at the end of the day, understanding the fundamentals of plant growth and using your eyeballs is much more important, and is much more useful than the information that any hobby grade test kit can give you. But this is not something to be depressed or worried about. It's actually the good news, because your eyeballs were given to you for free.
> 
> Cheers,



Im beginning to understand this, as i have said in the last post its just a little difficult to get all you have known out of your head and relearn. Only from being a part of an organistaion such as UKAPS, and asking the questions can we learn more. Having Global Moderators, and experts who are willing to spend their time posting replies is a privilege we have here on UKAPS and every bit of advice is something new learned!!.... and its often less expensive too!!
Thanks,
Ady.


----------



## foxfish (14 Feb 2012)

Thanks for the answers & discussion.
I wonder how this debate would fair on a more fished based forum like PFK, no doubt many thousands of folk rely on test kits as part of the hobby!


----------



## Ady34 (14 Feb 2012)

foxfish said:
			
		

> Thanks for the answers & discussion.
> I wonder how this debate would fair on a more fished based forum like PFK, no doubt many thousands of folk rely on test kits as part of the hobby!



Indeed, i was one of them who relied upon them like gospel. They have a place but as is becoming apparent to me, only as a very general guide. I think in future for me, test kits will be used only during 'cycling' routines to check highs and lows of ammonia, nitrite and nitrate readings. They may not be entirely accurate but when following the same procedures, they can show changes to 'zero' levels of ammonia and nitrate for example which shows trends rather than specifics to help ascertain safe perameters for the introduction of livestock. 
Other than that my eyes will tell me the rest.   
Cheers.
Ady.


----------



## George Farmer (14 Feb 2012)

foxfish said:
			
		

> Thanks for the answers & discussion.
> I wonder how this debate would fair on a more fished based forum like PFK, no doubt many thousands of folk rely on test kits as part of the hobby!


When discussing test kits I think it’s important to differentiate between ‘general’ fishkeepers and planted aquarium owners.

In a non-planted tank there’s little or no nutrient export except via water changes and/or chemical adsorption. Perhaps there’s de-nitrification in some circumstances.

For this reason in a non-planted tank it may be more prudent to rely on test kits to measure things like NO3 and pH regularly. These are a good indicator if your maintenance regime is effectively dealing with the waste build-up. The same with PO4 kits.

Although kits themselves may be inaccurate they still have their use in these types of aquariums for spotting trends. 

Actual ppm (mg/l) levels aside, it’s fair to say that a NO3 test kits results will show the fishkeeper whether their nitrate levels are on the up or not if they test regularly using the same kit. If the NO3 does increase over the weeks then it’s time to change more water, give the substrate a better clean, or maintain the filter more frequently. 

The same principle can be applied to a drop in pH, which is commonly associated with excess organic build-up. High nitrates and low pH are classic symptoms of “old-tank syndrome” and test kits are a good indicator to help identify this. 

KH and GH test kits are also a good indicator of roughly how hard your water is so you know whether it’s appropriate to keep Rift Valley cichlids or wild-caught discus (although a TDS or conductivity meter may be more appropriate).

Obviously most modern planted aquariums are fundamentally different and the consequent nutrient management through plants growth, nutrient dosing, and water changes renders testing almost redundant, except for pH and hardness when choosing appropriate livestock. 

I also advocate the use of KH3/4 and NO3 kits when stocking for the first time after using new Aqua Soil-style substrate.

In summary test kits have their place but IMO shouldn't be relied upon in a planted tank to determine exact parameters. They can be useful to perform basic trend analysis and to determine baseline parameters for tap water.


----------



## dw1305 (14 Feb 2012)

Hi all,


> In summary test kits have their place but IMO shouldn't be relied upon in a planted tank to determine exact parameters. They can be useful to perform basic trend analysis and to determine baseline parameters for tap water.


 I'd agree with that, they should give you a ball-park figure. From my experience on other forums the one that people have most trouble with is actually pH, particularly now that a lot of soft tap water is being treated with NaOH to raise its pH above pH7. Once you are into the realms of buffering and adding carbonates to water where the "_pH is already too high_" you begin to encounter (or possibly engender) real confusion.

cheers Darrel


----------



## sWozzAres (14 Feb 2012)

Was handed a brochure for these today...

http://www.hannachecker.co.uk/

Seems to solve the problem of reading/interpreting the test result.


----------



## Crispino Ramos (15 Feb 2012)

Home test kits may not be 100 % accurate but they can give you a rough estimate.  Combining that with planted tank observation, the amount of maintenance you have done - you can do something to solve a problem.   :idea:


----------



## dw1305 (15 Feb 2012)

Hi all,


> Was handed a brochure for these today...
> http://www.hannachecker.co.uk/
> Seems to solve the problem of reading/interpreting the test result.


Looks interesting, a little colorimeter. These work by shining a beam of light, (set to a certain wave-length) through the solution in the cuvette (little perspex box with 2 clear sides) over a known distance of light path, and then measuring the % light aborbance (or transmission) at the wavelength that corresponds to the colour that the reagent and sample compound create. 

The greater the amount of light being intercepted by the sample the larger amount of your test substance in the water. 

This isn't usually a linear relationship, it is a curve, but by diluting your sample you should be able to get it onto the initial linear section of the standard curve.

I'll do phosphorus, as that is a test you would often use colorimetry for, even in a lab situation. You  would need to know which reagent it uses, in this case it looks like it is the "ascorbic acid/ammonium molybdate" method. http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2011/8/review>


> Ascorbic Acid Method: Ammonium molybdate and potassium antimonyl tartrate react in an acid medium with ortho-phosphate to form phosphomolybdic acid that is reduced to molybdenum blue by ascorbic acid .. measured light absorbed or transmitted at a wavelength of 700 - 880 nanometres"


 from <http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/vms56.cfm>.

I can see a couple of problems straight away, you can't create a standard curve, unless you use at least 3 of the "starter pack of 6 reagents for Phosphate", and have access to a phosphate standard solution so you would be reliant on the internal standard curve used as a datum by the colorimeter, also potassium antimony tartrate is a poison, so won't be in the reagent, or if it is this would make it impossible to make up your own reagents, and you would be reliant on buying the Hanna ones. 

Having said that the results in the "Advanced Aquarist" review look pretty good. This is the comparison with a Hach spectrophotometer costing several thousand dollars.






Would I buy these? personally I wouldn't, but they should be slightly more accurate than using colour strips for orthophosphate or nitrite, but you would still have the problems of interpretation etc.

My suspicion would be that they will sell, but only in limited numbers to Reef Keepers etc.

cheers Darrel


----------



## foxfish (23 Feb 2012)

Hmmm there seems to differing opinions here!

So the kits are not accurate but, use them all the same so you can obtain a ball park figure.

Once you have a ball park figure, if you keep using the same make of test kit, then you should be able to see a change  :? 

I am still confused    my main concern is for the thousands of folk who not only rely on test kits (matrix effect) but insist upon there use..... I mean look at any fish keeping forum (including this one) & you will see hundreds of post empathising just how important it is to test your tank water & your tap water.

I think it would take a brave man to stand up on a reef tank forum or any large fish keeping forum (PFK) & start a thread titled "test kits are not accurate"

There does seem to be all the evidence to prove that statement but I guesse there are not that many people who want to admit to something that they have been preaching for years.

Look at all the books & magazines articles that quote ideal water chemistry & what you need to achieve to keep plants or fish, which one of those authors is going to admit that by writing "you should test you water", has in fact been giving out a near impossible challenge ?


----------



## ceg4048 (23 Feb 2012)

It doesn't take someone brave, just someone who understands the truth. As discussed on several other threads about test kits the problem runs deep because there are several fallacies of logic at play. The first being the belief that the kit is accurate and the second being that people are told to fear certain parameter values when they actually don't need to. So if you are prepared to attack test kit accuracy, then you also have to attack the fear of that parameter.

How difficult has it been for Tom Barr to convince people that nutrients don't cause algae? How about that the addition of inorganic Nitrate salts is not dangerous to livestock? A very difficult proposal. So if someone has a fear of NO3 because they think NO3 causes algae, and that NO3 is responsible for poor livestock health you are going to have trouble convincing them that not only are the test kit readings false, but that the readings are irrelevant even if they were accurate, because the problems in the tank are not related to this particular parameter.

It's the same story for pH and KH. People panic when they find out that a certain substrate affects the KH and pH in the tank. Shockingly, it actually affects their sediment choice, and they run away from an otherwise excellent product just because it has an effect on a parameter that doesn't even matter. My reaction is always; So what? Why should I care what the pH and KH does after sediment addition? Neither plants nor fish will care, so why should I? So really, test kits and their bogus readings are not the root cause of the problem. Irrational fear of the very same disciplines of chemistry that nobody wanted to learn when they were in high school is the culprit. People think they will find solace in those little colored vials because they don't want to trouble themselves with the more difficult task of learning the truth. The test kit is only the tip of an iceberg that runs deep in our psyche.

Cheers,


----------



## roadmaster (23 Feb 2012)

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


----------



## sWozzAres (23 Feb 2012)

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.


----------



## hotweldfire (14 Mar 2012)

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.


----------



## ceg4048 (14 Mar 2012)

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.





Cheers,


----------



## Antipofish (14 Mar 2012)

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. 

Out of interest, do you feel there is a benefit of ammonia and nitrite testing when cycling a tank ?


----------



## ceg4048 (14 Mar 2012)

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,


----------



## Tomfish (14 Mar 2012)

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


----------



## thingymajig (14 Mar 2012)

What a fantastic easy to understand post,there should be no more cycling
woes.  

cheers mark.


----------



## Ady34 (14 Mar 2012)

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.


----------



## dw1305 (14 Mar 2012)

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


----------



## Ady34 (14 Mar 2012)

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.


----------



## foxfish (15 Mar 2012)

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!


----------



## Ady34 (15 Mar 2012)

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.


----------



## foxfish (15 Mar 2012)

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.


----------



## Ady34 (15 Mar 2012)

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.


----------



## Ady34 (15 Mar 2012)

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.


----------



## Antipofish (15 Mar 2012)

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.


----------



## dw1305 (15 Mar 2012)

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


----------



## somethingfishy (15 Mar 2012)

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   )

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


----------



## geaves (15 Mar 2012)

somethingfishy said:
			
		

> Trying not to worry too much about the different parameters that i dont frankly understand.



 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.....


----------

