Nitrite and nitrate concerns

[brandon429]

it should also be said not everyone would agree with my assessment lol we're just having fun tracing out the puzzling readings. I feel confident its misreads though, the simplest way to put it is Id expect your ammonia to climb daily vs hold at any low level rating, if current bac were insufficient. .2ppm is your zero calibration for that kit. if it climbs to 1.0 then we've got lack of bacteria.

but if todays reading is exactly like yesterdays, then we're cycled :) even though the test kit doesn't show perfect zero. there are reasons they wont, at times.

 

[Bobek]

welcome to R2R

 

[Westoncase]

it should also be said not everyone would agree with my assessment lol we're just having fun tracing out the puzzling readings. I feel confident its misreads though, the simplest way to put it is Id expect your ammonia to climb daily vs hold at any low level rating, if current bac were insufficient. .2ppm is your zero calibration for that kit. if it climbs to 1.0 then we've got lack of bacteria.

but if todays reading is exactly like yesterdays, then we're cycled :) even though the test kit doesn't show perfect zero. there are reasons they wont, at times.

As of just now my ammonia is still around .2, nitrates are between 5-10 and nitrites still aren’t reading or reading 0. Water change coming tonight[emoji1362]

 

[LynzieS]

I also have the red sea ammonia kit and it can be difficult to tell the difference between 0.2 and 0. Mix up a batch of fresh saltwater and test that and compare to your tank. That's what I had to do to make sure it was actually a 0 reading.

 

[Westoncase]

Ill link this to the microbiology of cycling thread.

duration cycling doesn't vary, this tank is cycled. he's spent more than 30 days underwater with ammonia producing animals in place and an ammonia reading that doesn't rise e24h

Why test kits may or may not show it varies. use of Prime water conditioner, kitchen lighting, fw vs sw charts, reagent shaking and line fill, the variation never ends.

but what never ever varies is this:

this tank cannot have persistent .2 ppm ammonia, there's no biological mechanism for it.
two reasons
1. its holding vs climbing
2. this tank can pass a digestion test of likely 3-4+ ppm movement, not necessarily zero per your testing, and we can prove that if required you'll just need to remove your corals and fish for a sec. Since I can make that tank measure 3-4 ppm oxidation of ammonia in 24 hours when I get to use that test kit the way I want to, where .2 ppm equals zero then we boost to 1 ppm above that and check in 24 expecting .2, that means you have no way for it to hover at .2 or .25 as most other kits would show

when seneye monitors read .2 free ammonia, alert.

you'd have to be emitting a source of ammonia greater than 4 ppm in 24 hours...that water would be stinky and cloudy.

No mechanism exists for holding low level ammonia -that a titration kit will show accurately- in a four mo old reef. This is a mistest any way you slice it. even if your tester shows hard zero on distilled water calibration, you don't have free ammonia in that tank as I can't see a source of that much rot available for sustained input above what the tank can certainly already oxidize every 24 hours.

Is it possible that my Red Sea test kit measures ammonia at .2 when it’s really at zero? I tested the water I get from my lfs and the ammonia read at .2

 

[brandon429]

Yay agreed each tester just calibrates differently at the low end


We use testers to register -change- over time, not what the bottom end says

Now to add a twist, sometimes we verify them with distilled water and it is a true zero, still doesn't mean you have .2 sustained as there is no microbial mechanism in a reef tank of normal surface area underwater with boosters like yours has been

We find people using prime additive in the reef, and not in the calibration solution, so a change still indicates on the tester


Biology beats current titration chemistry for making calls about free ammonia. Every single time

The day a seneye setup seems to disagree, I'll show you a system in need of calibration

What ammonia does is so predictable we are at sixteen pages on a cycling thread that doesn't use testing. Even though people keep posting test data we don't consult, and they hint about the accuracy of the tests despite my work on page one lol, we just sit back and collect nondead tanks. Cycling mis calls where ammonia truly isn't ready produce dead tanks, cloudy and smelly is the hallmark of true free ammonia

It'll never be pristine clean water, healthy fish swimming breathing normally with all snails and crabs behaving normal. Free ammonia is doom once the submersion times from the thread have been met.

The specific reason for that is because after a month with boosters, a system cycles more than one ppm daily there is no possible way they can stop at the last tenth and hold. Cycled systems are hungry for ammonia, they sponge it up every twenty four, they can't afford to leave trace amounts as eons of prep made it too valuable an energy substrate

 

[brandon429]

I have other Red Sea misreads for ammonia in the thread we traced out as well. I used to harp on API alone

We have salifert misreads. API and Red Sea

I hate titration chemistry for marine ammonia assessment you're better off rolling dice to make the call if we aren't factoring submersion time and booster presence. The microbes are the timely reliable system, only testers range. Only ranging testers makes people think bacteria aren't the strongest creatures we keep, and they are.

Submersion time biology always works and chemistry testing hardly works, ironic. And offensive, to chemists lol

They should write on all tester boxes: please before making changes based on our readings check your kitchen lighting to be in the 6600k range for rendition, please don't use Prime the no one water prep additive on the planet, and please consult a seneye if our product fails to adhere to brandon masons submersion cycling timelines. heh

 

[brandon429]

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/cycle-question.584374/

Similar example, but you'd be amazed at the level of expectation that test kits do not vary. Most posters have learned to see cycles as variable because it takes variation until most testers will spit out an accurate reading or the tester finally agrees they can be off

 

[Beth Villmow]

Reading this made me feel more stupid

Me too!