# Ammonia test kit and Urea



## MirandaB (9 Mar 2021)

Apologies in advance if this is a really stupid question but Chemistry has never been my strong point 😬
What effect will Urea have on the usual Ammonia test as I keep Alcolapia alcalica which solely excrete Urea.


----------



## ceg4048 (10 Mar 2021)

Hello Miranda,
                         Not a stupid question, but very difficult to predict. 
There is a hefty supply of an enzyme in the sediment called Urease which breaks down urea to form ammonia (NH3) and CO2.
If you have healthy plants in the tank they will remove the NH3 from the water and what the plants do not take the sediment and  filter bacteria, over time will use. So it really depends on the plant mass, the bacterial population, as well as how much the fish excrete and how often the water is changed. In any case ammonia test kits readings are always a lottery, so at the end of the day it is always a good policy to do large and frequent water changes then you really never have to worry.

Cheers,


----------



## MirandaB (10 Mar 2021)

Hello Ceg,many thanks for your reply 🙂
No plants in the tank as I've yet to find anything that will cope with the 32 degees C they're kept at.
They have a 50% water change every other day and it's a well established filter but planning on having a decor/substrate change so wanted to check for any possible spikes and it just occurred to me about whether it would affect the ammonia test.


----------



## ceg4048 (10 Mar 2021)

Hi Miranda,
                Substrate changes can be tricky. It might be advisable to do it in smaller sections over time and allow each section to start repopulating with bacteria, then move on to the next section. Your frequent water changes will always help to keep toxicity down.

Cheers,


----------



## MirandaB (10 Mar 2021)

I think that's a good suggestion and I'll do that....as they're extremophiles they could possibly cope with some slight wobbles in parameters but I'd rather they didn't have to!


----------



## Zeus. (10 Mar 2021)

I've been using Urea prills instead of KNO3 for some time without any issues, think one of the reasons I haven't had any issues is I dose it very frequency in very small doses, My 50L gets an AIO fert which is dosed every 12.5 mins and my 500l gets macros then Micros every two hours repeating. Same weekly doses as before, just very small doses which I think the bacteria deal with better, Filters and tank are mature also.


----------



## jaypeecee (10 Mar 2021)

ceg4048 said:


> In any case ammonia test kits readings are always a lottery...


Hi @ceg4048 

I can't see why that should be the case. Most "ammonia" test kits measure TAN* and most hobbyist test kits use the salicylate method, I believe. I use the JBL kit and I've never found it to be a lottery. What problems have you had using ammonia hobbyist test kits?

* TAN = Total Ammonia Nitrogen

JPC


----------



## dw1305 (10 Mar 2021)

Hi all,


jaypeecee said:


> I can't see why that should be the case.


It is <"mainly because of the transitory nature of ammonia/ammonium"> and also because there isn't a safe level of ammonia (NH3). You might also have issues with <"test kits etc"> An ion selective electrode works pretty well, but it is quite an expensive bit of kit, and you still have to convert the TAN to ionized NH4+.

If we have an aquarium system with a huge potential for nitrification, so basically a huge gas exchange surface area and a lot of plant/microbe biofiltration, you don't need to measure ammonia, because you have a system that can deal with a huge bioload.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Zeus. (10 Mar 2021)

dw1305 said:


> If we have an aquarium system with a huge potential for nitrification, so basically a huge gas exchange surface area and a lot of plant/microbe biofiltration, you don't need to measure ammonia, because you have a system that can deal with a huge bioload.



So a large Biomass with a twinstar reactor and good flow, possibly sounds a bit like my tanks, drip dosing the Urea/Ammonia has got to help also IMO


----------



## ceg4048 (11 Mar 2021)

jaypeecee said:


> I can't see why that should be the case. Most "ammonia" test kits measure TAN* and most hobbyist test kits use the salicylate method, I believe. I use the JBL kit and I've never found it to be a lottery. What problems have you had using ammonia hobbyist test kits?


It's exactly as Darrel mentions. all the nitrogenous compounds that interest us (NH3/NO3/NO2) move dynamically between aqueous and gaseous phases, so the readings are not consistent. You say you've not found these kits to be unreliable, but how do you know? Against what standard are you comparing them to? Is it a certainty that the NH3 kits use sodium salicylate or do they use some other cheaper proxy reagent for phenol ? No one can be certain because the boxes never actually list the ingredients. Also, sodium salicylate is subject to interference by metallic cations, plenty of which are in aquariums, so this property introduces even more errors. There are a boat load of threads here where the poster reports absolutely impossible readings from their test kits. There is too much evidence to the contrary to have blind faith in these kits.

Cheers,


----------



## dw1305 (11 Mar 2021)

Hi all, 


Zeus. said:


> large Biomass with a twinstar reactor and good flow


Yes, plenty of plants (ideally with some rooted emergents) and some flow. I haven't tried a Twinstar, so can't really pass comment 

In terms of gas exchange my preference would always be for an over tank "wet and dry" trickle filter, they are simple and robust. Canister filters are convenient, but they aren't optimal for gas exchange. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## jaypeecee (11 Mar 2021)

ceg4048 said:


> Against what standard are you comparing them to?


I make up my own reference solutions - for example using high-purity NH4Cl. I can accurately measure down to 0.01g and I use distilled water with specified purity.


ceg4048 said:


> There are a boat load of threads here where the poster reports absolutely impossible readings from their test kits.


These would need to be investigated on an individual basis.


ceg4048 said:


> There is too much evidence to the contrary to have blind faith in these kits.


I am a degree-qualified scientist. I don't have 'blind faith' in anything.

As a scientist, testing is a vital tool in order to _manage_ what one is doing. An alternative approach is to rely on experience but that only comes with the passage of time. The ability to combine both of these is the privilege of the few.

JPC


----------



## ceg4048 (12 Mar 2021)

jaypeecee said:


> I am a degree-qualified scientist. I don't have 'blind faith' in anything.
> 
> As a scientist, testing is a vital tool in order to _manage_ what one is doing. An alternative approach is to rely on experience but that only comes with the passage of time. The ability to combine both of these is the privilege of the few.


Well, in my opinion, your being a qualified scientist is a disadvantage, primarily because it seemingly imposes a degree of confirmation bias to your ideas. At least you do recognize that experience is a valid alternative, so that's encouraging. 
Have a look at this article in venerable Krib: Control of Algae in Planted Aquaria

 The author of this article, Paul Sears was iconic in our hobby as he (along with Kevin Conlin) was responsible for the development of the PMDD dosing scheme. Now, Paul was a scientist, held a PhD in Organic Chemistry and had access to mass spectrometry, but he had a serious bias against PO4 and tried to limit PO4 as much as possible, so much so that PMDD does not contain any PO4. For years we continued to have problems when dosing PMDD, until Barr proved that PO4 is a vital component of nutrition and understands the laws governing plant health. Looking back at that article, it turns out, we now know, that almost every single assumption and conclusion in that article is wrong.

I've been growing plants for over 30 years and I've witnessed every single one of your arguments over that time - and - I've seen them disproven, not only in my own tanks, but in many other folks' tanks The reality of the test kits are that a sample made from distilled water , even if it is prepared stoichiometrically accurate, does not represent the dynamic behavior of those same compounds in  the tank. It's the _behavior _of the compounds in the tank and their interactions that falsify the readings.

Furthermore, no one gets into this hobby to test and measure things down to 0.01g or to fight algae. They get into the hobby to be aquatic gardeners, and no, testing is NOT really a requirement. One need not be a scientist to enjoy the hobby or to have success. But that isn't actually the problem in the hobby. The problem is that people are told that they _need _to test in order to grow their plants. They are given false information and are frightened into buying these kits under the assumption that the kits can solve their problems. In this forum many beginners, and experienced alike, start their post with a long list of their tested water parameters, which are mostly meaningless and irrelevant to their problem at hand.

False doctrines litter the web and reliance on test results, once ingrained, erects a barrier to learning. THAT is the problem with test kits.


jaypeecee said:


> These would need to be investigated on an individual basis.


You're damned right it needs to be investigated. It's a pity that you haven't actually looked through the archives of this forum to see what works and what doesn't work, or paid attention to the degree of inaccuracy. Here, look at this poster child for test kit inaccuracy => ferts causing high nitrate!
This is just one example. There are plenty more. You just need to look and learn.

Cheers,


----------



## dw1305 (12 Mar 2021)

Hi all,


ceg4048 said:


> The problem is that people are told that they _need _to test in order to grow their plants. They are given false information and are frightened into buying these kits under the assumption that the kits can solve their problems. In this forum many beginners, and experienced alike, start their post with a long list of their tested water parameters, which are mostly meaningless and irrelevant to their problem at hand.


That is the real point for me. It isn't that I'm not interested in levels of ammonia (NH3). I am, mainly because it is a very toxic substance and it is also as an indicator that something has gone very wrong with the tank.

Because dissolved ammonia is a bit <"of an abstract concept">, I'll swap it for "*fire*".

You can *test directly for fire with a thermometer* and you can have a smoke sensor (<"*as a proxy">* that indicates that you may have a fire), and you can link that to a fire alarm and a sprinkler system. You have all bases covered,* if fire breaks out*. You also have an indication of when the sprinklers have come on if everything is wet.

If you choose to store "_cotton wool"_ and "_cooking oil"_ in a "_wood built"_ "_welding shop"_, with "_Grenfell Tower type cladding panels"_, and "_foam insulation"_, you have much more chance of a fire breaking out, and you may have multiple fires during a year, all of which are put out by the smoke sensor/alarm/sprinkler system. You might also have a bigger fire, where the assistance of the fire service is required, after they've been summoned by the alarm. Sooner or later your welding shop burns down.

*The system "works",* but it hasn't addressed the issue of <"*the probability of having a fire">. *If you address "_the issues that lead to the fire"_, you have *many fewer fires *and the least useful item is actually the thermometer that accurately and directly measures the temperature of the flames.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Zeus. (12 Mar 2021)

dw1305 said:


> Because dissolved ammonia is a bit <"of an abstract concept">, I'll swap it for "*fire*".



Great analogy , Using Ammonia/Urea is playing with Fire, when KNO3 is cheap and safe. I only started using Urea after the the background work lead to the obvious conclusion that some commercial ferts are using Ammonia/Urea as source of nitrogen, Urea Prills are very cheap per 'N' and easy to get hold of, got 500g and slowly dabbled with the [Urea] slowly increasing it so the net weekly [N] was unchanged. Results are promising but nothing conclusive, the paper walls have yet to catch fire 

Initially in the IFC calculator you had to 'tick' a box to accept/understand the risks involved in using Ammonia/Urea (with a hyperlink to the risk) before the Ammonia/Urea salts could be used, however since release the IFC calculator the general feedback from our _peers_ is that the calculator is not for the novice and more for the experience users, so myself and @Hanuman decided that the 'tick' box wasn't needed as the experience user would be (or should be) well aware of the risks. Making the calculator easier to use for the experience user to use, as no need to find the 'tick box'.


----------



## dw1305 (12 Mar 2021)

Hi all,


Zeus. said:


> Using Ammonia/Urea is playing with Fire,


Yes, I choose "fire" partially <"for that reason">.

In the same way that you can mitigate for the risk of fire, you <"can mitigate for the risk of ammonia toxicity">, by having "spare" dissolved oxygen, not having a single point of failure, having plenty of plants in active growth, including some plants with the aerial advantage etc..

I'm still using a mix including both <"ammonia and urea">, but in a much <"less scientific manner"> than @Zeus., partially because I'm a pretty <"lazy and shoddy aquarist"> and partially because I consider it a <"low risk"> in my very <"heavily planted tanks">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## jaypeecee (13 Mar 2021)

ceg4048 said:


> Well, in my opinion, your being a qualified scientist is a disadvantage, primarily because it seemingly imposes a degree of confirmation bias to your ideas. At least you do recognize that experience is a valid alternative, so that's encouraging.





ceg4048 said:


> It's a pity that you haven't actually looked through the archives of this forum to see what works and what doesn't work, or paid attention to the degree of inaccuracy.





ceg4048 said:


> You just need to look and learn.


Hi @ceg4048 

In your last post, you make some valid points and it would have been good to discuss them with you. But I feel unable to do so. I am struggling with the manner in which you choose to express yourself sometimes. And each of the above snippets illustrates the point I'm making. So, let's leave it there - please.

JPC


----------



## Hanuman (13 Mar 2021)

Zeus. said:


> 'tick' a box to accept/understand the risks involved in using Ammonia/Urea


Reminds me I need to update the change log of the calculator on that specific change.


----------

