Hannah Phosphate checked or ULR phosphate ???

[ivanzlemus]

What is the difference between a regular Hannah phosphate checker and the ultra low version ? Just getting into dosing and I am confused on wich one to use

 

[exnisstech]

ULR is the most common and what I use. I don't know the specs of the regular PO4 but the ULR maxes out at 0.9

 

[Tangdora]

Ulr has 0.02 better accuracy in individual result readings . That’s about it. It trying to stay below .1 and about 0 is your goal ULR is better. Above that probably makes no difference in which you use. Also have the ULR as I have no intent of running phos about .9 so I’ll take the slight more accurate meter

 

[EnterName]

HI-717: 0.0 to 30.0ppm in 0.1ppm steps.

HI-774 (ULR): 0.00 to 0.90 in 0.01ppm steps.

HI-736 (ULR): 0 to 200 ppb. Measures in "Phosphorus" (P) not "Phosphate" (PO4). Values have to be converted by multiplying with 0.003066 if you want Phosphate readings in ppm which are more commonly used in the hobby.

Note: The actual precision/error is larger than the step size, so measurements won't be exact down to the last digit.

 

[mcarroll]

What is the difference between a regular Hannah phosphate checker and the ultra low version ? Just getting into dosing and I am confused on wich one to use

Most folks get the ULTRA version because "reefs should have no nutrients".

Unfortunately that's hooey.

The regular unit covers a much more useful range, and won't tempt you to lower nutrients toward "zero" and wreck your tank.

 

[exnisstech]

Most folks get the ULTRA version because "reefs should have no nutrients".

Unfortunately that's hooey.

The regular unit covers a much more useful range, and won't tempt you to lower nutrients toward "zero" and wreck your tank.

I wish I would have gone with the regular unit. My curiosity has me wondering how high my tank really is because quite often I get a flashing 0.9 . Most people don't run it that high so the ULR works for the majority.

 

[mcarroll]

You can dilute your sample with 50% clean saltwater and then double the result the tester generates, but it also compounds the uncertainty of the unit as well, so half as accurate/precise too I guess. Usually worth it to get a real number tho.

 

[BriDroid]

I use the phosphorus ULR only because I bought it used on FB marketplace. It works great for me, but I keep my PO4 0.04-0.06ppm.

 

[EnterName]

I would use the ULR meter. I have the HI-736 but would recommend the HI-774 for ease of use.

Coral reefs have something between 0.003 ppm and 0.036 ppm PO₄ iirc. So you can still go 25 times higher than a phosphate-rich coral reef and 300 times higher than a low-phosphate reef until you max out the meter. It's far more accurate within the range most people run their tanks and the better option if you like to stay within Randy's recommended target range for phosphate of 0.06 ppm to 0.3 ppm PO₄.

Nutrients are certainly essential, but high phosphate levels may also have some negative effects (Koop et al., 2001 & Nalley et al., 2023), so I personally don't see a reason why you would want to go above 0.90ppm PO₄. Regardless of whether you want ultra-low or very high phosphate, you can achieve both within this checker's range.

You also have to remember that not all organisms even have to rely on the dissolved phosphate you can detect. Corals can digest particulate matter, and there are also ways for some organisms to get the phosphate bound to calcium carbonate (Millero et al., 2001), so having low readings is not the same as an actual phosphate limitation, especially considering that coral reefs can deal with levels below the meter's detection limit.

 

[mcarroll]

I wish I would have gone with the regular unit. My curiosity has me wondering how high my tank really is because quite often I get a flashing 0.9 . Most people don't run it that high so the ULR works for the majority.

I suspect lots of people would get more mileage out of the regular unit.

I think most people read "0.03 ppm" as some kind of target. Some people probably even hold that as an ideal.

I don't know that I agree that most people run ther tanks that way though....in that idealized range.

Higher phosphate levels seem pretty common. (eg Steinhart aquarium, etc)

Zero phosphate levels seem pretty common. (eg Every tank with RTN and other P-related issues)

Tanks dialed into a tiny "idealized" low range seem to be a lot fewer and a lot further between.

The whole low nutrient thing is a misunderstanding anyway. It's that "ergo propter hoc" thing....

In the wild, the reef's existence is the reason for the low dissolved levels in the water, not vis versa.

The reef wouldn't be there at all if there weren't AMPLE nutrient inputs.

Further, there's no inherent problem to elevated nutrients.....all of the problems the literature talk about are related to imbalances that happen in the wild, usually due to disturbances of one kind or another; often human related activity. If you look further in the literature for studies where they look at the issues more completely (not purposefully simulating wild condition) you see the problem as an imbalance. This is within our control in a home reef tank, so the logic being applied to wild reefs is less relevant.

High CO2 drives pH lower. So do we idealize the wild and go through commotions to force pH higher because wild reefs run at X.X pH? Or do we realize the wild reefs are subject to pH variation, and that elevated CO2 is a problem because of the imbalance it creates with N and P.....ambient (high) nutrient levels in our tanks naturally offset the added carbon from CO2, keeping corals healthy even under higher CO2 levels and lower pH.

So the low test numbers from the wild are completely coincidental to wild reefs, not a precondition for the success of the reef, and not really a good idea for home reefs. Quite the opposite.

In my opinion (and I've said this many times, not just here), if our tanks arrive at low nutrient levels the same way reefs in the wild do it – by a mature reef utilizing what nutrients are present – then I predict not having any issues.

Arriving there by other means (ie forcing it) is something different.....and folks have problems.

 

[exnisstech]

if our tanks arrive at low nutrient levels the same way reefs in the wild do it – by a mature reef utilizing what nutrients are present – then I predict not having any issues.

This reminds me of @CHSUB who runs zeros because they feel hobby grade test kits aren't accurate enough to be trusted (probably not the exact wording) and his tanks look great.

 

[mcarroll]

This reminds me of @CHSUB who runs zeros because they feel hobby grade test kits aren't accurate enough to be trusted (probably not the exact wording) and his tanks look great.

The user is very vocal about it, so yes. :)

But if you look around, mature reefs quietly achieve this more often than we might think.

 

[CHSUB]

This reminds me of @CHSUB who runs zeros because they feel hobby grade test kits aren't accurate enough to be trusted (probably not the exact wording) and his tanks look great.

Thanks for the praise.
To clarify my position, I don’t necessarily target inorganic nutrient levels and I don’t use methods to artificially target low numbers, for example supercharging bacteria. I do however “target” a very clean aquarium and measure that cleanliness with hobby testing. I believe closed systems are inherently dirty and household dust alone can provide significant nutrients. The lowest detection limit of Salifert no3 tester is about 500% higher than ocean reefs. If stuff is growing whether it’s corals, dinoflagellate, algae, mangroves or fish; the system has enough nutrients regardless what a 12 dollar hobby test kit reads.

Today I did my weekly cleaning that includes: 8 gallon wc, turkey basting, manual removal, etc, etc. I removed nearly a square foot of GSP growing on the glass to get a view I had been missing for months. You can see where the Stylophora was battling the GSP….

 

[exnisstech]

Thanks for the praise.
To clarify my position, I don’t necessarily target inorganic nutrient levels and I don’t use methods to artificially target low numbers, for example supercharging bacteria. I do however “target” a very clean aquarium and measure that cleanliness with hobby testing. I believe closed systems are inherently dirty and household dust alone can provide significant nutrients. The lowest detection limit of Salifert no3 tester is about 500% higher than ocean reefs. If stuff is growing whether it’s corals, dinoflagellate, algae, mangroves or fish; the system has enough nutrients regardless what a 12 dollar hobby test kit reads.

Today I did my weekly cleaning that includes: 8 gallon wc, turkey basting, manual removal, etc, etc. I removed nearly a square foot of GSP growing on the glass to get a view I had been missing for months. You can see where the Stylophora was battling the GSP….

Is that a Blue ridge front and center?

 

[CHSUB]

Is that a Blue ridge front and center?

Purple Stylophora. I do have a Blue Ridge coral but it is getting overgrown by a torch coral…
Here it is basically growing in the dark and on the glass…