The premise that every reactive thing done in reefing is from test misreads

[brandon429]

want to null a claim I'm holding currently...that using titration kits for anything is chemical horseshoes and the masses make jumpy responses usually lacking any bioindicators in the tank.


https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/salifert-nitrate-test-card.273649/
Online searches show comparison threads between hobby test kits going back to early 2000s and the links show unless it's a verified probe reading, every known hobby kit gives a different reading, some by huge margins

Reference any ten pH problem threads on any forum. Or alk problems
Of the ten, how many are from readings from tests already covered in comparison threads? (8) yet to this day, most posts about pH problems are from the test groups shown to read wrong.


*to base any tank reaction on api readings is the number one problem I see in mass reaction posts

80% of every poster wanting a magnesium dropping or a pH boosting is using kits directly from those old threads, but never consider the reading may not be what an accurate probe would say. Discuss


Look at this back and forth over the ammonia badge and the nuances it takes to read one and trust it
http://reef2reef.com/threads/ammonia-and-prime.260953/
Ps, flashlight trick not in the directions.

 

[Reefrookie220]

Tagging along , wanna see everyone's opinion in this one.

 

[brandon429]

adding to confounds, readers test measures between samples, indicating the ability to show range, but we don't know how the initial read compares to a lab verified sample.

being off even a little for measures like pH is a big deal, those reactions can be tank lethal, coral bleaching reactions.



we are contending with meniscus variances and other physical changes per test, shaking reagents, human subjective color charting, expiry dates and more. even probes have plenty mis calc threads... and reactions headed off just before someone dosed a bunch of acid to a tank for false high *probe* reading.

How much tank reaction should we be doing when the tank is fine, all other params seem fine, and only one is out of line by a color chart?

 

[brandon429]

http://reef2reef.com/threads/red-sea-pro-alk-test-kit-does-this-thing-suck.252045/

starts to collect some results on the common kits

 

[dbrewsky]

Hobby grade test kits are not going to give exact readings, regardless. Much worse is often errors in completing the tests and human error creating inconsistency. Test kits give an insight into what is happening at a chemical level. I look for trends, I don't chase numbers. IF i'm seeing a consistent rise/drop in alk/calcium etc over at least a weeks time I then take corrective actions. I don't make impulsive changes to chemistry. I always order reagent refills while I still have plenty of the original test kit left so i can run the same test sample with both kits to check for consistency.

You have to understand that literally everything in life IS Chemistry! Two containers of clear liquid will look and behave the same- put a fish in each container- one swims one dies instantly. Without testing, you would never no that one container was rubbing alcohol and the other saltwater.

 

[brandon429]

http://reef2reef.com/threads/red-sea-test-kit-question.253413/#post-2990872


neat example of a live time thread, there's a neat sub pattern of poster behavior we can see now. That thread is dissecting how Red Sea is wrong and the pages building are in support of that detail.


But five thousand parameter posts right now across the web are using Red Sea and if you read those posts, it's scores of reactions to bad alk no source asked for, or verified. A reading is posted, and what to do then is six pages not one report asks if the reading is right.

exact kit but different direction thread based on how Red Sea was framed in the discussion, the start.



that is both amazing poster psychology

I should have an outdoor hobby

 

[Diesel]

You're up to something.
Constant testing and asking second opinions will verify the accuracy from each test kit.
Getting a Triton test done is one thing but collecting the sample the same time when you do your home test is another.
Many readings are off but I wonder with how much and should we be worried?

 

[brandon429]

up to full skepticism of 9/10 parameter posts on the web...figured that link above showed the times we do and do not consider test kit errors in planning tank actions.
The posts there are good details about how things go wrong, the procedural actions that cause misreads, but in other param threads online test error isn't considered in nearly all of them.


We can find links plenty how hobby kits range, greatly, but we don't consider it by and large when making reaction plans... seemed worth considering if the majority of tank actions made are from highly ranging param readings

 

[brandon429]

http://reef2reef.com/threads/problem-with-salifert-nitrate-test.253570/

The relevance to our thread here is 100%

We can collect misreads from every known hobby kit and post them here in short order. Salifert is what I recommend.

Just because a misreading occurs didn't even mean the test itself is bad... those variables that add up to misreads and reactions are what we are discussing.

The poster has two kit brands that are among the most popular used right now, if referenced singularly without comparison the variation would have a keeper forty or more ppm off (that's -if- forty was the actual spread, undetermined)

The pH tests are the greater concern

where can some mysterious tank bleachings come from?



If someone is going to use a one off no compare reading to chase a param that seems out of line, using a probe is better than color kit but even the probe miscal threads show the double probe (separate probe readings) per sample really to be the only decent proof of any given measure. It means some, but not all, tank reaction threads are being based on completely false results.

When a colorimetric kit shows small variance, don't react, just verify.

Test your carbon dioxide retention via bubble sample testing before pH chasing.
Mail a small water sample off to a buddy on here with a probe, eight bucks calibrates your test kit. If you really want calibrated, mail out samples to two different probe readers and post results back.

When all other params line up, the tank is acting normal, but a single param is barely out of line via titration test kit, begin the assessment by doubting the kit and by hunting for carbon dioxide
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1989842&page=2

 

[brandon429]

http://reef2reef.com/threads/how-do-i-raise-ph.253662/

Continuing with pH examples.

Someone was saved from unneeded buffering here, using seneye high quality pH measure.


Here's one from today from reefcentral. Lamotte, salifert, and Red Sea all reading different calcium and alk

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2585028



So far, facts are adding up that all the param chasing we do is a bunch of generalized guessing. Have you chased any params recently? How did you become sure of your test reading? How do we even know the Lamotte kit above was a correct baseline?

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

Though you might say 'The premise that every reactive thing done in reefing is from test misreads' it invites the debate of 'the premise that every reactive thing done in reefing is from tank misreads'.

For example, you can assign multiple ranges of data towards each reaction:
(recently even, never seen this kind before)

tunicates popped up in the tank
week or so later
tunicates that were pretty little flowery things, are now melted blobs

In reaction to that physical sign, subjective to ocular debate, I either do nothing, change water, test water parameters, freak out, stay calm, or feed more. (or insert opinion here)

I fed more, and did nothing.

Couple days later, they were back doing just fine. It was their reproduction cycle!

On another note, take the necrosis subject. People do base reactions off of a few water tests and a limited understanding of all the chemistry. Most seem to just frag up the entire coral. I personally think that's only bringing horrible stress into an already stressful situation, so I just feed more because of all the times I've seen necrosis, it was either an alk swing or lack of food. So one out of 10 isn't too bad..

But back to the reactions based from parameters, you're spot on. Though I don't think the reaction is wrong, I think our understanding of nature is.

Now what I mean by that is this. Someone says 'help, sps dying! nitrate 0 and phosphate .3!!'
It seems most people, though the trend is turning, would say, 'omg get ur phosphate down!'
And they completely ignore that glaring zero for nitrate. Which, according to the generic +/- 5% error rate for tests, could land that 0, as a HARD zero. Meaning, 0.00000000, which is too low for life to go on. The entire situation was a lack of nitrogenous food, but we the hobby, are so fixated on phosphate being 'so hard to control' it's often overlooked that the test was correct, but our reaction was wrong, thus making the data incorrect.

I always enjoy the thread elsewhere, if you google 'guess the phosphate level reef tank' I think you'll find it. It completely smashes apart the past, and current, theories as to where phosphate should be, in our tanks, even with sps coral.

So what's our reaction to that? I keep reading and trying to learn more. Because test kit or bio-indicator, we're more fallible than either of those.

 

[atoll]

The only test I trust is my eye sight test, never fails me ..... well hardly.

 

[chefjpaul]

Great thread.

By no means am I an "experienced" hobbyist.

I have pretty much kept a stable, thriving, colorful, (most of the time), tank.

As hobbyist we need to practice and teach consistency.

The one thing that keeps my tank stable, be it in the wrong "numbers" or not is a consistent test regiment. To stick what one is comfortable using, learning to use it correctly, consistently, leads to more accuracy, leading to stability.

This chasing a shade of pink or blue is what leads to instability, even if your true reading of PH is 8.3 yet your test indicate 7.9, keep your tank at 7.9. This is stability.
Reefs will adjust to slight changes and adapt.

Say your test reads ALK @8.3 consistently, but a true number is 9.0..... does it matter being this close as you wouldn't know anyway. Tinkering small numbers is the creation of destruction. Now, being said, if you have a major swing in a parameter, then, all means correct it to YOUR testing / methods & results.

Stability or chasing, not both.

 

[ZoaReefer]

Ph is overrated.

Alk stability is much, much more important.
Aquariums can handle a daily Ph swing from 7.8-8.2, which is what everyone's aquariums normally swing daily without running counter-timed lighting on macro algae in their sump, or whatever.
People who test everything just to test, and are not using the tests to back up something (like dosing) are always going to be worried about something that isn't that big of a deal. If the coral and fish are happy, then there's nothing to worry about.

It's better to leave things alone then go intervening, if possible. Intervention tends to disturb stability.

 

[chefjpaul]

Ph is overrated.

Alk stability is much, much more important.
Aquariums can handle a daily Ph swing from 7.8-8.2, which is what everyone's aquariums normally swing daily without running counter-timed lighting on macro algae in their sump, or whatever.
People who test everything just to test, and are not using the tests to back up something (like dosing) are always going to be worried about something that isn't that big of a deal. If the coral and fish are happy, then there's nothing to worry about.

It's better to leave things alone then go intervening, if possible. Intervention tends to disturb stability.

Agreed,
I haven't tested PH in over a year.. I personally only test ALK, NO3. If I notice sonething off, I'll break out the test kits, after I check my system and physical maintenance routine.

But- we should encourage people to learn how to use them as properly with consistency, not necessarily precision to achieve accuracy and not chase numbers continually.

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

Heck, I've seen massive water changes mess with stability about as much as people chasing numbers..
That's not based from a test reading..

I'm with you guys though, only really test for nitrate and alk anymore. Though I do test phosphate, and in the case of a recent food change, it was a good idea.

 

[themcnertney]

I have never dosed my tank with anything other then the occasional alk buffer if it goes too low. I can tell just by looking at my tank if something is wrong. If it is I usually test just to see where I am at, then start a routine of small frequent water changes, testing frequently while doing so until everything is stable again.