Ammonia at .25 PPM. Water change or wait?

[brandon429]

.

 

[vetteguy53081]

Still do a water change and if there is a question of accuracy with API kit, take water sample to a trusted LFS which does not use API kit and have them test for you and see what reading they come up with and to compare with yours

 

[HockeyRooster]

I ran a canister on my 54 corner. Can I suggest you remove all foam filters? I had only live rock and carbon on mine.

 

[brandon429]

And then if the kit at lfs disbelieves the landslide of posted work, don’t believe the lfs.

Vette, I see you advise lots of folks that their bacteria can just die off for unnamed reasons, pls list some

 

[Beau_B]

Wait. What? You're saying that ammonia testing is not required at all (in an established tank, at least)?

After the tank is established there is no need to test for ammonia unless you have a catastrophic event.

 

[brandon429]

All cycling charts ever written agree with Beau B

not a single cycling chart in history shows ammonia going back up, after it went down


good thing forum ammonia troubleshooters do not manage wastewater plants or drinking water production, we’d be dead from drinking so many associated panic additives there wouldn’t be much clean water in the final product.

 

[brandon429]

The top marine biologists on the planet speak about ammonia false positives

and instead of running to the pet store....

https://cdhc.noaa.gov/_docs/TCB%20Small%20Scale%20Exp%20Systems%20TM%20Final.pdf

 

[Garf]

Excellent

can u post an analysis in the other thread to put it back on rails lol


if you post that one is stalled and this one isn’t, ill have to interpret that as an early April fools yoke

two reefs doing just fine don’t get to pick and choose when the tests are right and wrong. What filters do is infallible

you’ve never seen us kill a tank with a single mis call. I have however seen lack of surface area mechanics in the tracing steps cause absolute madness in reefing and fifty bottles of bac sold, unnecessarily.

Analysis complete

 

[brandon429]

There are so many of these ammonia threads lately I had to go back and re read first post looking for detail outs, like that one cycler who didn’t tell us they’d left all rock and sand out until the main water in the tank cycled.


it’s fun science to detail as much about a cycle as possible off the wording and generalizations used

in this case if his fish were in a tank too new, the thread title would be about a test reading and a total tank wipe out, not just the classic combo of tank fine, day by day, test kit causes alarm and then we make a retail purchase in the nick of time.


is that a remotely fair assessment in your opinion Garf

It’s fun to see which portion of completely consistent cycling rules that different people’s tanks align with, depending on the stage they’re at in cycle


the reports would need to be well above .25 and normal tank for us to assess lack of surface area or bacteria, I can’t think of any outs to consider that would make this tank not cycled or in distress...

 

[brandon429]

Can we get tank pics am curious ratios etc


if this thread was titled “new tank, cycling, free ammonia .25” then all readings will be promptly accepted as fact and the tank is stalled and the bacteria aren’t ready and new bottle bac will be needed immediately. These posts are also fun to watch how we all referee filtration questions in the hobby

 

[ScubaSkeets]

And then if the kit at lfs disbelieves the landslide of posted work, don’t believe the lfs.

Agreed. However, when a newbie like me who doesn't know better takes their water to a LFS, you would hope (expect?) that they are using a higher grade test.
For example, just the other day, I was at one of the LFSs when another customer brought his water to be checked and the shop actually used strips to check it. I don't know what brand strips they were, but even I know that strips are even less accurate (unless they had some type of super special strips that are only available at aquarium shops).
That much i do know better but when your average person brings their water in for a "professional" grade test (its gotta be...its at the LFS, right?) and you get a strip test, how does the average person know better?

 

[brandon429]

Not any lfs would steer a customer wrong on purpose, they all mean well, they’re using the old set of rules that accepts single point readings as fact independent from the context of the tank, that’s the issue->rocks or sand, surface area, bottle bac kind used, number of days already underwater compared to a cycling chart are the important details we should factor along with test reading (the cycle completion date is written on bottle instructions)


*Most lfs agree if a test kit says ammonia, we wait longer, that’s no harm.

the one reason it’s fun to discern the absolute bankable start date for any reef is because having certainty about what bacteria do (and when) makes your reef investment live longer, through deliberate actions when required and by no action when required. Precision vs indefinite wait is a valid study within our hobby.

I like how reef conventions can assemble reefs for thirty years all by a given Friday start date, no fails, no stalls, 100% retention of animals. That’s the power of accurate cycling science.


todays test kits have such a profound delay in accurate reporting, everyone has to wait three times the duration the bottle bac directions show in order to please the test kits, thats the old science for the buyers. The sellers who show up ready on time never have issue carting $900 frags to and from without a cycle are using seller’s cycling science, the hidden fun stuff

 

[KrisReef]

Not any lfs would steer a customer wrong on purpose, they all mean well, they’re using the old set of rules that accepts single point readings as fact independent from the context of the tank as the issue-rocks or sand, surface area, bottle bac kind used, number of days already underwater compared to a cycling chart are the important details we should factor along with test reading (the cycle completion date is written on bottle instructions)


*Most lfs agree if a test kit says ammonia, we wait longer, that’s no harm.

the one reason it’s fun to discern the absolute bankable start date for any reef is because having certainty about what bacteria do (and when) makes your reef investment live longer, through deliberate actions when required and by no action when required. Precision vs indefinite wait is a valid study within our hobby.

I like how reef conventions can assemble reefs for thirty years all by a given Friday start date, no fails, no stalls, 100% retention of animals. That’s the power of accurate cycling science.


todays test kits have such a profound delay in accurate reporting, everyone has to wait three times the duration the bottle bac directions show in order to please the test kits, thats the old science for the buyers. The sellers who show up ready on time never have issue carting $900 frags to and from without a cycle are using seller’s cycling science, the hidden fun stuff

Brandon
I suspect that some of these test kits were designed by rocket scientists who were planning on setting up a tank on Pluto before it was delisted as a planet? "Knowledge" does change slower than mixing water.

Rocket Science

 

[MnFish1]

Hi folks!
After my water change last week, my ammonia read 0 (API). Always does. However, after yesterday's water change (approx 20%), the ammonia is reading .25PPM. Tested 3 times. The fish seem fine, but I'm freaking out! I added Microbe-Lift Nite-Out II, but this morning it is still reading .25. How fast should a ammonia remover like that read 0? Should I do another water change today, or should I just monitor it and wait for next week's water change?

Thanks!

This is my answer. Your fish are fine. Why are you testing ammonia after a water change (which shouldn't cause any rise in ammonia)? Here is my advice - test something - when there is a problem (aside from your regular testing). I personally have never tested ammonia, or nitrite. Never felt the need. Oftentimes - IME - you will run into problems with all the 'stuff' you add to fix a non-existent problem. So - I would not freak out. Its a test - and tests have errors. Especially API ammonia tests.

 

[brandon429]

Lol ha I know some people have seen the test kits comply by the right dates Kris

lots of readers get frustrated if I bash test kits that have worked for them



but for the large portion of samplers that don’t see that compliance we bend the timing rules to fit the test readings. I also cannot understand how the test kits are supported as accurate in some threads and then universally discounted as inaccurate in others, the test kits themselves don’t get independently checked and benchmarked enough in my opinion

 

[MnFish1]

Still do a water change and if there is a question of accuracy with API kit, take water sample to a trusted LFS which does not use API kit and have them test for you and see what reading they come up with and to compare with yours

I'm curious - Why? He did a water change - Before his ammonia was zero - his fish are fine. Then the ammonia registered .25. with no symptoms. Maybe another water change will just make it worse>

 

[Uncle99]

Be wary of some LFS, while they like to help, they don’t always have the best solutions.

 

[vetteguy53081]

I'm curious - Why? He did a water change - Before his ammonia was zero - his fish are fine. Then the ammonia registered .25. with no symptoms. Maybe another water change will just make it worse>

Not knowing the accuracy of his ammonia. I suggest change to remain safe UNTIL he can get it tested.
Since when does a water change prove fatal? (Unless the salinity/temp/type of water is way off)
Remember- his .25 is uncertain with the API kit and with an ammonia reducer still at .25 denotes false readings

 

[MnFish1]

Not knowing the accuracy of his ammonia. I suggest change to remain safe UNTIL he can get it tested.
Since when does a water change prove fatal? (Unless the salinity/temp/type of water is way off)
Remember- his .25 is uncertain with the API kit and with an ammonia reducer still at .25 denotes false readings

You dont have to be argumentative - I just asked for your rationale. He Said his ammonia was zero before the water change - I just didnt see how doing another one would help. What if its .25 again - another water change? My only point was his fish are 'fine'. To me everything points to the test being in error.

 

[vetteguy53081]

You dont have to be argumentative - I just asked for your rationale. He Said his ammonia was zero before the water change - I just didnt see how doing another one would help. What if its .25 again - another water change? My only point was his fish are 'fine'. To me everything points to the test being in error.

Test is no doubt off. Hopefully he takes a water sample in and has it verified