Manual vs Automatic Testing

[Reef Kinetics]

This is a controversial topic in the reefing community and often draws fervent responses from reefers supporting one method or the other. In this article, we are going to examine some of the claims made by both camps, highlight the main differences, and help you make up your mind.

Manual testing is awesome:
Reefers who prefer to manually test their tank’s water often claim that they derive a lot of pleasure from the process of manual testing itself and go on to say that switching to automatic water-testing would take that pleasure away. Given the subjective nature of this claim, it’s impossible to produce a counterargument from the other camp. Suffice it to say that if you are one of these people, then just keep doing you!

Automatic testing is super convenient:
The most beneficial advantage of automatic water testing is that it is more convenient and less time-consuming than manual testing. This is especially useful for reefers who lead busy professional lives and find that they have very little time to take care of their aquatic life. Part of the convenience of automatic testing also lies in the fact that you can run the tests remotely without even having to be physically present to do so, which can literally be a lifesaver when you are travelling! This is the case with the ReefBot, which allows you to fully customize the testing schedule and receive the results via web or mobile app.

Manual Testing is more accurate:
Some members of the community have the perception that manual testing is more accurate than automatic testing, likely because they feel they have more control over the process and are thus more prone to trust it. However, the truth is that automatic testing devices are also similarly accurate, depending on each specific device and how it works of course. In the case of the ReefBot for example, the device tests the parameters using the same off-the-shelf brands used by manual testers, which means that the results are identical to what you would get through manual testing without the human error.

Automatic testing is consistent
Given the mechanical nature automatic testing, the margin for human error usually seen in manual testing is completely eradicated. Taking the example of the Reefbot again, the margin of error of the device when using titration to test the parameters does not exceed %2.5, which is completely insignificant for generating and interpreting the results. The margin of error in manual testing on the other hand is far higher, though it’s hard to put a specific number on it.

Manual testing allows you to test more parameters
This is certainly the case with some of the automatic testing devices available on the market, which usually test between 1-3 main parameters. This is not the case our ReefBot, however, which is currently capable of testing up to 7 parameters, and more are on the way!
We cannot objectively conclude that one method is better than the other, as that depends on several factors such as the reefer’s preferences, their lifestyle, time-commitments… But, we do hope that we have been able to illuminate some of the main differences between the two testing methods and helped you form your own opinion. We would love to hear your opinion; please feel free to leave a comment below!

 

[Lasse]

It is an interesting question raised here. I´m not so sure that I like the trend with automatic testing at all. It feels like it is very easy to enter a false zone of safety. Let me take one example. The first pH meter I used had a scale there the very tin pointer has to be read in a certain angle and you use a mirror in order to read it the right angle. You know that the pH was between 7.6 and 7.7 and that it had a large uncertainty in the reading. When the digital displays was introduced - the uncertainty of the electronic was the same but you could read with the result with 3 decimals - and we believe in the result as a truth. In reality - more than 1 decimal in pH readings is the same as the chrome of an old Cadillac - beautiful but of no importance. The bottom line here is that if we know that the result can have an error - we use the result with a better balance.

One thing is if new techniques to measure things will be developed, new methods or new equipment have evolved that make the result more reliable - they could be more useful than the technique we use today - but techniques that relay on the same hobby tests as we as hobbyists use - I doubt. IMO - it only put in on more dimension of uncertainty. Whats say that the dose pump will give the same amount as the calibration, what say that the test tube is clean, what say that the mechanics are not broken or worn and so on. Because you get the result in digital form or on internet - it does not need to be more correct:

My experiences with automatic sampling and analysis are that the calibration procedure often take more time than doing the test manually every day. If it shows up that new techniques to analyze NH3/NH4, NO3, O2, Ca and PO4 with a better reliability than our present tests - I´m with but there must be ways of control the result because we use the result to make decisions that impact the life of our animals.

IMO - the problem with most hobby tests today is not the tester - it is the test by themselves.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Hitman]

It is an interesting question raised here. I´m not so sure that I like the trend with automatic testing at all. It feels like it is very easy to enter a false zone of safety. Let me take one example. The first pH meter I used had a scale there the very tin pointer has to be read in a certain angle and you use a mirror in order to read it the right angle. You know that the pH was between 7.6 and 7.7 and that it had a large uncertainty in the reading. When the digital displays was introduced - the uncertainty of the electronic was the same but you could read with the result with 3 decimals - and we believe in the result as a truth. In reality - more than 1 decimal in pH readings is the same as the chrome of an old Cadillac - beautiful but of no importance. The bottom line here is that if we know that the result can have an error - we use the result with a better balance.

One thing is if new techniques to measure things will be developed, new methods or new equipment have evolved that make the result more reliable - they could be more useful than the technique we use today - but techniques that relay on the same hobby tests as we as hobbyists use - I doubt. IMO - it only put in on more dimension of uncertainty. Whats say that the dose pump will give the same amount as the calibration, what say that the test tube is clean, what say that the mechanics are not broken or worn and so on. Because you get the result in digital form or on internet - it does not need to be more correct:

My experiences with automatic sampling and analysis are that the calibration procedure often take more time than doing the test manually every day. If it shows up that new techniques to analyze NH3/NH4, NO3, O2, Ca and PO4 with a better reliability than our present tests - I´m with but there must be ways of control the result because we use the result to make decisions that impact the life of our animals.

IMO - the problem with most hobby tests today is not the tester - it is the test by themselves.

Sincerely Lasse

As usual you make some very valid points sir. I’m definitely interested in automated testing, but with that said I’m that guy that would still tests at least weekly with my normal test kits. I just feel more involved when I do the tests. Allows me to feel like it’s ok for me to say look what I’ve accomplished in my tank vs says look at what hundreds of dollars have done while I sat in my chair. I worry that if everything becomes automated in life what in the world are we going to do in a power outage? Gosh people at stores can’t even do math for change anymore if the computer doesn’t tell them.

 

[Sallstrom]

I wonder if it would be possible to make it more clear when a company writes an article on a subject or a product they are selling? Of course they have good knowledge about the subject, but they also want to sell. Perhaps mark it as a sponsored article or something like that?

I'm glad new articles are coming again!

 

[Rjramos]

I am an old timer in this great hobby. First tank in 1995 and still got a pearl bubble coral that’s gonna be 25 next year! Older than my kids, or many other household pets! A coral! Must be doing something right!
So when I started, it was only manual and for me, it continues to be. Not to say I don’t like technological advancements in the equipment we use in the hobby. But you either play scientist, hand it over to robo- scientist, or rely on probes I feel need more common testing like KH, Cal, and Mg.
One thing I like about auto testing is when you have a doser attached and now maintaining parameters is fully automatic. Very powerful in maintaining things real stable throughout the day. I also like the versatility of virtual access on phone from anywhere. Great to get away!
One thing I have learned throughout the years of manual testing and adding additives (2 part in my case, and other minor elements), is that I haven’t made a costly mistake yet and it feels good to know that. The confidence that simplicity brings, I tested this, I got this, and I added this. I have also never been one to test with frequency. I test when I feel I need to, like after water changes, and when I’ve obtained and started to add a new batch of chemicals, etc. I try to maintain a range in my parameters not a specific number. I’m sure there are fluctuations throughout the day in my tanks but not enough to cause any harm.

 

[sg88]

I wonder if it would be possible to make it more clear when a company writes an article on a subject or a product they are selling? Of course they have good knowledge about the subject, but they also want to sell. Perhaps mark it as a sponsored article or something like that?

I'm glad new articles are coming again!

Not sure if it was in response to your comment, but when I first saw this article today, it had a big blue "sponsored" tag next to the title.

 

[jordan9095]

I think doing both is the best practice along with sending to third-party lab for verification once in a while. So many great options these days

 

[Sallstrom]

Not sure if it was in response to your comment, but when I first saw this article today, it had a big blue "sponsored" tag next to the title.

They were already working on the "Sponsored" tag when I wrote that post, I've learn afterwards. So I can't take credit for that
But great to see the new "Sponsored" tag! Very clear.

 

[JLynn]

For me, it comes down to this: I will never do manual testing regularly. It's just not gonna happen. I know I should, but it's such a nuisance for me that I never work up the motivation to do it. So automatic testing is the only way my tank will ever get regular testing on a reasonable schedule. And I think as long as you periodically check the accuracy of your automatic tester by sending a sample in for ICP-OES analysis, you should be perfectly fine.

Certainly, the manual tests aren't anywhere near as precise some perceive them to be - BRS TV recently did a fantastic video testing the accuracy and precision of a variety of test kits performed at a variety of skill levels/stringency and I was astonished at how large the variance could be. It's definitely food for thought.

 

[Falreef]

Anyone know what Mindspring it? I've heard it mentioned, but don't see it anywhere.

 

[reefwiser]

Falreef mindsoring would be and automatic testing system.
There are issues with all testing.
What the auto testing systems bring is less human mistakes in testing. Many issues with test kits come down to human mistakes.
It is always good to check your results against a standard. So that you can rely on the results you are getting.
When you get an auto testing system you will need to do a preventative maintenance check once a month to make sure all things are working well.
Everyone’s lives are busy and auto testing will allow you to do testing that in many cases hobbyist are not doing because they just don’t have the time to do them properly.

 

[scabbedwings616]

I like the thought of automatic testing And currently have a trident. I still test right before a water change and when it is close to the time it is going to test anyways, Which is every other week. For me, I work 55-65 hours a week and having the tridents been a life saver On my main tank which also has a frag/grow out tank attached to it. The main tanks mainly sps. There was multiple times my calcium reactor was messed up and having the trident helped Me recognize I needed to look at the tank and see what the issue is. I do have multiple tanks(3 other tanks) that I do have to manually test and that’s once a week so I know I’m not over dosing my other tanks.