# Testing kit recommendations



## Andy265 (20 Feb 2022)

Hi

Am starting back up in the planted tank world having come from marine i am no stranger to having to test water, what are peoples opinions on the best test kit to use ? Strips or chemical tests? any best make to use?

Thanks


----------



## John q (20 Feb 2022)

Errm... the biggest difference between marine and freshwater planted tanks is you don't need to test the water parameters. I used to use api test kit, which gave me consistent results.
The concensus is that test kits are unreliable, I never bought that argument but agree that testing isn't needed.

Jbl and Api liquid test kits will give you fairly consistent readings,  but be aware  they won't magically give you a beautiful tank. The simplistic approach is to release yourself from the shackles of testing and embrace the fact that planted freshwater tanks don't need such in depth micro management 😉


----------



## plantnoobdude (20 Feb 2022)

Hi, have heard good things about JBL test kits. and API gh/kh kits seem reasonably accurate to me.
tds pen and ph pen can be helpful.


----------



## ian_m (20 Feb 2022)

What about Test Kits ?

Please read this and use your money to buy something worthwhile like fish, plants or equipment.


----------



## dw1305 (20 Feb 2022)

Hi all,


Andy Dean said:


> chemical tests?


<"Semi-quantitative titrimetric methods"> (drop tests) ideally with a calibration  standard, but I'd agree with @ian_m and @John q  you are going <"to need a lot of time and money"> to get <"accurate results"> and they still won't necessarily help you greatly in tank management.  If I was going to test regularly? I'd buy a reasonably good  <"conductivity meter"> and, if I had a lot of money, <"a dissolved oxygen meter"> and an <"IFSET pH meter">.

Conductivity meter (about £250)






In a marine situation you have a datum to aim for and high levels of many of the elements you are interested in, so using <"an ICP is a valid method">.

I have access to a <"water testing lab.">, but I use a <"probability based approach"> and I honestly think it <"is more effective">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Andy265 (20 Feb 2022)

OK sounds good thanks for the advice, definitely with marine I was testing at least once a week so will not be sorry to see that go, will grab a basic test kit as it will be a new set up to establish when the tank is cycled.
Thanks all


----------



## John q (20 Feb 2022)

Second biggest difference with planted tanks is there a lot easier to cycle 😀 apologies if you already know this but if you don't here's a useful link.






						Beginner new tank question regarding cycling
					

Hey all, I'm completely new to this. I've been reading around and there seems to be many different opinions.   Is it possible for me to start a new tank without using ammonia or fish food to start the cycle? Currently, my new tank has stones and some good amount of plants in it. I'm also using...



					www.ukaps.org


----------



## jaypeecee (20 Feb 2022)

Andy Dean said:


> Am starting back up in the planted tank world having come from marine i am no stranger to having to test water, what are peoples opinions on the best test kit to use ? Strips or chemical tests? any best make to use?


Hi @Andy Dean 

I really don't understand why some people are so vehemently opposed to the use of _all _test kits. How is an aquarist supposed to know how much ammonia or nitrite, for example, is in the aquarium water? It's somewhat disrespectful of others like me who _choose_ to use test kits. So, if you wish to use test kits, my experience is that the JBL liquid reagent test kits are a good choice. I've not used the full range but just check with me for the specific tests you decide to purchase - if you go down this route.

JPC


----------



## swyftfeet (20 Feb 2022)

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @Andy Dean
> 
> I really don't understand why some people are so vehemently opposed to the use of _all _test kits. How is an aquarist supposed to know how much ammonia or nitrite, for example, is in the aquarium water? It's somewhat disrespectful of others like me who _choose_ to use test kits. So, if you wish to use test kits, my experience is that the JBL liquid reagent test kits are a good choice. I've not used the full range but just check with me for the specific tests you decide to purchase - if you go down this route.
> 
> JPC


I would have definitely poisoned the <expletive>  out of some fish without my drop test kit.    Tank looked ok,   light planting.  very little ferts, root tabs and few dashes of MiracleGro.

It took 2 or so weeks for ammonia from 2 or 3  to get to 0 and another 2 weeks for the Nitrite to come down to 0, it was completely off the scale 5ppm + even after 50% water changes and my tap tested 0.    If youre patient, jsut waiting a few 5-6 weeks will work. However patience is the hobgoblin of the untreated ADHD brain.

Again my tank is anemically planted, I am waiting for the ferts to arrive before I subject any more plants to an unknown environment.


----------



## dw1305 (20 Feb 2022)

Hi all, 


jaypeecee said:


> I really don't understand why some people are so vehemently opposed to the use of _all _test kits.


I don't think we are anti-testing, or opposed to test kits, or to people using them if they feel happier to.  I didn't start from a position that testing wasn't important, quite the opposite, it was the difficulties with getting consistent results in soft and hard water etc. that made me think about <"inferential methods">.

If there was a simple test for nitrate (NO3-) I would <"unequivocally recommend it">.

I've recommended a drop checker (a type of titration) and conductivity meters because they work in nearly all circumstances. Phosphorus (as orthophosphate PO4---) would be another element where it is possible to <"test for using test kits">, although you would probably need to carry out some dilutions.

cheers Darrel


----------



## ceg4048 (20 Feb 2022)

jaypeecee said:


> I really don't understand why some people are so vehemently opposed to the use of _all _test kits.


Could it be that the vehement people had previously wasted their time, money and energy using test kits and then managed successful tanks after they stopped using test kits? Could it be that they are attempting to prevent newbies from repeating the experience of wasting these precious resources?
What test kit lovers always fail to understand in this (seemingly) eternal argument is that it is not the test kit, per se, that is disposed. It is the phycological impact of the testing process that traps individual into a life of endless testing. Newbies typically fail to understand the typical causes of failed plants - castigating excess nutrients as the cause of their demise. The aquarium industry dupes people into thinking that they can solve their problems with a test kit. The industry then offers test kits for sale. We have never seen any informative or elucidating discussion on the instructions or packaging of test kits - only scare mongering tactics such as "...This product does not contain nitrate, which causes annoying algae..."

In general, people get into aquariums for the primary purpose of enjoyment and/or challenges. No one enters the aquarium world for the primary purpose of testing, however, if someone enjoys testing then by all means, test - but let it be known for transparency that advice is being given within the context of "enjoyment of testing". Please have a look at post #6, where the OP clearly indicates that he did not enjoy testing. So this is an easy convert because testing is an expensive drudgery.

On the other hand, it seems that the people who test fanatically seem to be the ones that continually have problems, and that can be attributed to the fact that they have not embraced the cause-and-effect motto that nutrients do not cause problems in a freshwater planted tank, but instead, that the lack of nutrients causes problems.

If one accepts this motto, then the need to test for nutrient values disappears.
Furthermore, it has never been stated that "All" test kits are unnecessary.  General Hardness, pH and Alkalinity values are useful tools, but again, these parameters are innocuous in-and-of themselves.

As Ian_M mentions, there is much greater value buying 20 Euros worth of plants, fish or equipment rather that on test kits.

Cheers,


----------



## Stu1407 (21 Feb 2022)

ceg4048 said:


> On the other hand, it seems that the people who test fanatically seem to be the ones that continually have problems, and that can be attributed to the fact that they have not embraced the cause-and-effect motto that nutrients do not cause problems in a freshwater planted tank, but instead, that the lack of nutrients causes problems.


Couldn't agree more people just end up chasing the results of a test. Over the years my most successful tanks have worked on the principle of, "if it ain't broke don't fix it."


----------



## swyftfeet (21 Feb 2022)

In the US most pet stores test your water free of charge.  Same across the pond?

I think if you’re the impatient type such as myself a test kit has been valuable.  I got it because I read everywhere you needed it.

I could have probably got 3 plant pots for what it cost me.

I’ve 3 aquariums and just started in novemberish.

I can see and understand where some of the more experience folks say they are not needed.

If you don’t mind knowing the time frame or status of the bacteria, I’m willing to bet if you WC often the non stocked tank for the  6weeks your tank will be mature and you can then safely add fish,

If you’re doing some feet regimen like EI tast kit can be thrown away, because you have to maintain your water changes anyway for the regimen to work.   The water changes are the control factor. 

 if you’re not budget limited and are capable of adding a large plant mass at the beginning that delay time probably shrinks to a matter of days, as long as you are doing large water changes.

I’m not using my kit to chase some holy grail /Sisyphean task of making my  measurements for ideal replication of some stream or lake, when my supply water is completely unsuitable, I’m using it to make sure I waited long enough that I don’t kill the fish due to ignorance and impatience.


----------



## Matti (21 Feb 2022)

Andy Dean said:


> Hi
> 
> Am starting back up in the planted tank world having come from marine i am no stranger to having to test water, what are peoples opinions on the best test kit to use ? Strips or chemical tests? any best make to use?
> 
> Thanks


Just see that the  kit contains the essentials: PH, KH, NH4, NO2, NO3, K, Fe. Some JBL kits have also SiO2 and O2 tests that you don't need. The strip and drop PO4 tests are useless, if you want to test PO4 get the Hanna PO4 LW -colorimeter (expensive but it works)


----------



## dw1305 (21 Feb 2022)

Hi all,


swyftfeet said:


> most pet stores test your water free of charge. Same across the pond?


I'm not trying to be funny, some do, but why would they get a more accurate result than you would?  I've been told the most incredible (and totally clueless) things by a number of LFS, on the widest range of subjects, including water chemistry.

If you said:


> "_Some water companies get their scientists to test your water, free of charge, in their analytical lab.  and a couple of days later they supply you with the  range of values within which your water parameters lie." _


Then it would be both, simultaneously, credible and incredible.


swyftfeet said:


> I’ve 3 aquariums and just started in novemberish. I can see and understand where some of the more experience folks say they are not needed.


It isn't really about experience etc.  I've kept fish off and on since the 1970s and I'm still not very good at it, I'm better with plants, but I'll never have the radiant tanks that many other members have. I need all the help I can get.

I don't think any of us have any problem with people wanting to test and testing, personally I would really like to know what the water parameters in my tank are, but there are issues with lots of test kit results and that was what lead me to <"plants and time"> and I'm convinced it is a method with a better <"long term probability of success">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## hypnogogia (21 Feb 2022)

dw1305 said:


> I've been told the most incredible (and totally clueless) things by a number of LFS


Yup, was recently told that a berried a Amano would produce shrimplets in a freshwater tank.


----------



## swyftfeet (21 Feb 2022)

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I'm not trying to be funny, some do, but why would they get a more accurate result than you would?  I've been told the most incredible (and totally clueless) things by a number of LFS, on the widest range of subjects, including water chemistry.
> 
> ...


They do it right in front of you, I cant imagine it would be worse. 

The point being saving the pennies on the test kit and spending it on plants.


----------



## dw1305 (21 Feb 2022)

Hi all,


swyftfeet said:


> They do it right in front of you, I cant imagine it would be worse.


That is the whole point. I've done a lot of water testing (and a lot of lab. work) in the last thirty years. I work with proper scientists, some of who are environmental chemists. If I went and said to them:

 "_you don't need to do any further tests on this sample, I have accurate readings from the  aquarium style drop test I performed in the field" _

they would probably find me even more laughably inept than they do already.

Sometimes it is the user, but often it is the test kit that is the issue. You can get <"accurate readings for nearly all water parameters">, the provisos are that you have to have access to <"appropriate analytical equipment">, staff <"who can use it"> and a large amount of time and money.

cheers Darrel


----------



## swyftfeet (21 Feb 2022)

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> That is the whole point. I've done a lot of water testing (and a lot of lab. work) in the last thirty years. I work with proper scientists, some of who are environmental chemists. If I went and said to them:
> 
> ...


I get it, I dont think we are disagreeing,   I recognize my own ignorance and honestly don't have the background to debate it verses someone who specializes in this sort of thing.

What I have gathered is these things are wildly inaccurate, the color-metric scale is hard to read for most of us, but I did test my water for nitrites back to back to back to back and even swapped the test tubes to ensure it wasnt some kind of contamination.   My tap came up zero (light blue)  every time, my tank came up wildly purple, so much so that I did 50% water change and it was still wildly purple and I tested my tap again in the same test tube which came up light blue or 0.

I honestly have zero idea what the composition of the chemicals in the drops are, what they do, how or why they change color.

I fully agree accuracy might not be up to or even close laboratory standards, but I honestly feel it let me know that I shouldn't put fish in that water yet.

After I came back from travel and was doing WC day, when I tested this past weekend tank came up 0,  I tested three times in 3 tubes to ensure I was consistent and all were 0 or light blue.

maybe its placebo, but I felt value for the money spent.

The nitrite test is basically a pass / fail so I feel like it did its job.   I do have a terribly time differentiating some of the results.  Again I am not chasing a specific parameter value like pH, KH, GH or Nitrates other than make my water "safe for fishies".

 I just wanted my ammonia and nitrite to read 0 after an ammonia spike followed by a nitrite spike,  which given almost all the information that I understand and have parsed it should allow me to slowly add livestock safely.  As with any step into learning something complex, I believe the more you try to educate yourself, there is a realization of just how much you don't know, the desire to learn more is there, my capacity is questionable.


----------



## hypnogogia (21 Feb 2022)

swyftfeet said:


> I just wanted my ammonia and nitrite to read 0


I’d say those two are worth testing when establishing a new tank.  Like you say, you want the tank to be fish safe.


----------



## sparkyweasel (21 Feb 2022)

swyftfeet said:


> They do it right in front of you, I cant imagine it would be worse.


It can be worse, because when I used to test I followed the instructions on the kit.
I have seen shop staff who ignore things like "shake well and wait 30 seconds before adding reagent 'B' "
Just chucking it in seems OK to some of them. 
And I'm sure there's a reason you're supposed to measure out (eg) 5ml of water and not just put 'some water' in the vial.
Of course some shops are great, but some are very dodgy.


----------



## Andy265 (21 Feb 2022)

Blimey!
Wasn't aware this was such a divisive subject. Having been in marine I will be glad to step away from weekly testing and documenting results and constant tweaking to ensure rock solid water chemistry.
One of the reasons that I have returned to planted tanks.
From all of the extensive advice and opinions given ( Always welcome so much advice thank you ) I think I feel confident letting my tank cycle but will test for ammonia and nitrite to ensure filter working correctly and that it is safe for livestock. From then on will be nice to monitor the tank visually, put the test kits away and when needed tap into the experience on here when things go sideways.

Again thanks for the help


----------



## ian_m (22 Feb 2022)

Andy Dean said:


> I think I feel confident letting my tank cycle but will test for ammonia and nitrite to ensure filter working correctly


No need to test at all. Just whop some garden dirt, dirt from old tank, a spare tank sponge from a mate  AND loads of plants (could be sacrificial plants to be replaced by nicer plants when happy), leave 8-12 weeks. Job done, not a test in sight. Some people have managed in 4 weeks, but play safe 8-12 weeks is fine.

In that 8-12 weeks you can perfect your water changes, fertiliser dosing regime, plant re-arranging techniques, perfecting CO2 injection as well as doing long critical stares at your tank from comfy armchair, all without any testing or harming live stock.

If you are really worried after all this time (or just can't wait), just add something like Kordon AmQuel that removes ammonia (as well as acting as a dechlorinator). Not AmQuel+ as that removes nitrate, which plants want.


----------



## dw1305 (22 Feb 2022)

Hi all,


swyftfeet said:


> The nitrite test is basically a pass / fail so I feel like it did its job. I do have a terribly time differentiating some of the results. Again I am not chasing a specific parameter value like pH, KH, GH or Nitrates other than make my water "safe for fishies".
> 
> I just wanted my ammonia and nitrite to read 0 after an ammonia spike followed by a nitrite spike,


<"I don't see any issue with this">, nitrite (NO2-) is relatively easy to test for, because some nitrite containing compounds are both coloured <"and insoluble">.


> _........ Nitrites react with chromotropic acid reagent to form a pink tint in the sample. The amount of color developed is proportional to the concentration of nitrite present in the aqueous sample........_


Ammonia/ammonium (NH3/NH4+) is a <"little bit more problematic">, because you have the two <"different states of the TAN"> and because of the solubility of most ammonia containing compounds.  An ion selective electrode would work, but they are expensive bits of kit.

Personally I'm never going to base decisions, <"about fish welfare">, on the results of the ammonia or nitrite test.

The real problem I have is with the <"whole "cycling" concept"> as a binary switch between "fish unsafe" and "fish safe" and using test kits to tell you on <"which side of the binary divide you reside">. 

You don't need to do any of this you just need to <"plant the tank and wait">, once the plants are in active growth and a reasonable biomass has developed <"the tank is cycled">.   It is the <"Seasoned Tank Time"> concept.


Andy Dean said:


> Having been in marine I will be glad to step away from weekly testing and documenting results and constant tweaking to ensure rock solid water chemistry.


It is <"slightly different with sea water">, you have <"known datum values"> to aim for in a much denser, saltier liquid. The increased density of  sea water allows you to use a "protein skimmer" and you the <"ionic content of the water"> allows you to use a hygrometer or refractometer to measure salinity.  For many parameters there are a very small range of values which are "good" and everything else is sub-optimal. It is a <"very black and white world">, compared to freshwater, where everything is <"shades of grey">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## jaypeecee (24 Feb 2022)

ceg4048 said:


> Could it be that the vehement people had previously wasted their time, money and energy using test kits...



Yes, that's entirely possible. But, in that case, those people may not have even had a basic understanding of aquarium water chemistry and didn't fully understand the rationale for why they were testing. Very recently, I had a discussion with @dw1305 suggesting the inclusion of 'Water Chemistry' in the UKAPS Articles section. I think that could be helpful.


ceg4048 said:


> It is the phycological impact of the testing process that traps individual into a life of endless testing.


Perhaps you meant 'psychological'. The testing process will not have any phycological impact on anything. The word 'phycological' refers to matters relating to algae.

And I'm sitting here thinking why am I bothering with this reply? If anyone in our hobby recognizes the importance of water chemistry, then it should be a logical step to recognize the importance of water testing.

Let's leave it at that.

Have a nice day!

JPC


----------



## dw1305 (24 Feb 2022)

Hi all,


jaypeecee said:


> why am I bothering with this reply? If anyone in our hobby recognizes the importance of water chemistry, then it should be a logical step to recognize the importance of water testing.


I think there are some things we all agree on,  personally I would really <"like to know the water chemistry of my tanks">, and the reason I would like to know is because of the importance water chemistry to the organisms that live in it.

The problems are <"not in the concept">, but <"*in the measuring*">*. *

I've always told people that the <"water chemistry values"> they get from their water company are <"likely to be accurate">, because they come from:

multiple samples
tested to a standard protocol,
in an analytical laboratory,
with hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of analytical equipment,
<"by scientists">
who do this for their day job.
That is a totally different scenario to the water testing that most of us can do, even if we understand the scientific method etc.

cheers Darrel


----------



## jaypeecee (24 Feb 2022)

Hi Folks,

It is no surprise that many people have major problems with algae and cyano growth in their tanks. I offer this as just one example of what can happen when an aquarist doesn't have the knowledge to understand what's going on in the water itself. It is my view that we should be encouraging people to develop an understanding of water chemistry. Discouraging any, and all forms of testing will have the opposite effect. Water testing is a valuable tool when supported with appropriate knowledge. It concerns me that we are sending out a different message. Could we not, instead, leave individuals to _decide for themselves_ if they want to test water parameters, etc? That's the approach taken by other forums. No bickering, no arguments. Just informed discussion.

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee (24 Feb 2022)

dw1305 said:


> I've always told people that the <"water chemistry values"> they get from their water company are <"likely to be accurate">,



Hi @dw1305 

But, getting water parameter figures from one's water company will only tell us what's coming out of our tap. Thereafter, these figures will have changed and it's these latest figures that are of most relevance.

JPC


----------



## dw1305 (24 Feb 2022)

Hi all,


jaypeecee said:


> It is my view that we should be encouraging people to develop an understanding of water chemistry. Discouraging any, and all forms of testing will have the opposite effect. Water testing is a valuable tool when supported with appropriate knowledge.


I don't think we are discouraging people from having <"an understanding of their water chemistry">,  personally I've always tried to answer <"water chemistry questions"> to the <"best of my ability">, and if I haven't known the answer (which has been frequently) I've tried to <"find some-one who does">.


jaypeecee said:


> No bickering, no arguments. Just informed discussion.


I think this is informed discussion and <"we are enabling people"> to use <"inferential methods"> and informing them of why they may offer <"more probability of success"> than decision making based entirely on test kit results.


jaypeecee said:


> But, getting water parameter figures from one's water company will only tell us what's coming out of our tap. Thereafter, these figures will have changed and it's these latest figures that are of most relevance.


John, I understand this, but how are going to get <"accurate values for our tank water?">

cheers Darrel


----------



## Ria95 (24 Feb 2022)

In comparison to reactive testing , proactive maintenance and dosing have given me better results at a fraction of the cost,time and effort/loss of enjoyment. 

To balance my post a little bit, let me say that if you ever used a thermometer to check the water temperature of your tank ... you tested your water. Used  a pH test (liquid or probe) to figure the 1pH drop for your CO2 injection? You tested the water.

In my opinion, the most important point that was made is that most hobbyists become very absorbed by the numbers they get and forget to look at the tank.  For example, how many starting aquarists we know who are adding chemical to get the exact pH found on some website . How many  are guided in their decision to do / or skip  water changes purely on the nitrate test kit result. Following that logic  adding a nitrate removing solution such as a selective resin = never change water.  Many times the issue is caused by something that was never tested for or can't be tested for by the average aquarist (  'liquid carbon' cytotoxic effects etc.).

I agree with the previous posts that highlight the issues with test kits for nutrients. Some are better than others, some are unreliable even for yes/no results, some have gotten better/cheaper over time. As was mentioned, even if equipped with recently calibrated research grade gear the person doing the test is just as important. Just ask your newest intern to test a sample and give them the same samples to test after 6 months of learning  In that sense, testing is not a required skill to be an aquarist. I test nutrients when I experiment, normal tanks I just enjoy.


----------



## alnitak (24 Feb 2022)

Hello, 
When I was young, decades ago, an old aquarist told me "don't try to push in that way or in that way, stop measuring this and that. You settled your tank the best you could, you applied the global rules, leave it. Because your tank is your tank, it has its own parameters, its own characteristics. It is different from the other which seems to be the same.. It will find its balance, by time" 
Based on that, I would say that time is the key. Not the tests kits.  Look at the horizont, feel and enjoy your plane. Stop looking at the instruments. Keep in mind that the balance is fragile. Chemistry and maths are the best way to headaches, because your little living world surrounded by glass walls has its own rules.  So the best test kits are your eyes, your feeling, and the best medicine is... time.
Let it be


----------



## dw1305 (25 Feb 2022)

Hi all,


Ria95 said:


> To balance my post a little bit, let me say that if you ever used a thermometer to check the water temperature of your tank ... you tested your water. Used a pH test (liquid or probe) to figure the 1pH drop for your CO2 injection? You tested the water.


That is really it. If it works use it, if it isn't reliable? Don't. 

If it is a water parameter we are really interested in, like fixed nitrogen levels or dissolved oxygen, then find a <"proxy for estimating it"> and / or  a mechanism for ensuring <"that levels never becomes problematic">.

We have a <"few threads"> that make <"exactly that point">.


Ria95 said:


> In my opinion, the most important point that was made is that most hobbyists become very absorbed by the numbers they get and forget to look at the tank.


I think <"that probably is"> the <"_nub_* of the issue">.


dw1305 said:


> ....... I don't often try and measure the pH of the tank water. If you dip a meter in you are really just measuring the <"dissolved oxygen : CO2 ratio">. I can get a more accurate reading by taking the sample away (in scrupulously cleaned glassware), adding some NaCl (a neutral salt to raise the ionic strength) and then calibrating and using three of the bench type pH meters linked above.
> 
> Alternatively I can observe the <"condition of the snail shells"> and <"measure the conductivity of the water"> with a dip meter. It doesn't sound as scientific but it gets you to the same place a lot quicker..........





John q said:


> ......... asked Dr Sven Kullander what the water parameters were; here's his reply.
> Did you record water chemistry parameters?
> 
> I used to do that for many years, *but it was a pain to carry extra stuff and get dubious recordings*.


Dr Kullander would definitely be described as a <"proper scientist">.
_*specially for @Hufsa _

cheers Darrel


----------



## ceg4048 (26 Feb 2022)

jaypeecee said:


> Perhaps you meant 'psychological'. The testing process will not have any phycological impact on anything. The word 'phycological' refers to matters relating to algae.
> 
> And I'm sitting here thinking why am I bothering with this reply? If anyone in our hobby recognizes the importance of water chemistry, then it should be a logical step to recognize the importance of water testing.


Yes, that's right, I meant psychological.
Understanding the importance of water chemistry does not automatically mean that testing is necessary. It's exactly as Darrel points out. The problem is not in the recognition of the importance of water chemistry but in the implementation of testing  and in the fruitlessness of inconsistent and irrelevance of the test results. 


jaypeecee said:


> But, getting water parameter figures from one's water company will only tell us what's coming out of our tap. Thereafter, these figures will have changed and it's these latest figures that are of most relevance.


This is another misconception. The water municipal takes reading from several locations, none of which may be representative of your tap. The results are typically averaged and the value used as a proxy in their published reports.
The fact that they change thereafter, whatever the initial numbers are, supports the argument that testing puts the hobbyist on a perpetual hamster wheel. As we mention in the EI world view, simply executing regular large water changes virtually ensures that any toxic buildup is removed. In fact, the toxic buildup is that of water pollution due to organic waste, which is 1000X more important and deadly than nutrient buildup. So at the end of the day, one needs tp decide between endless testing (expensive) versus endless water changes (cheap).


jaypeecee said:


> It is no surprise that many people have major problems with algae and cyano growth in their tanks. I offer this as just one example of what can happen when an aquarist doesn't have the knowledge to understand what's going on in the water itself.


As far as I can tell, you are the one suffering the most from algae and cyano growth based on the number of threads you started complaining of algae in your tank. Furthermore, since you love playing the "show me data" card, please show me data indicating that those who do not test for nutrients suffer more cyano and algae than those who test.

Cheers,


----------

