Yes
PSA: Ditch your API test kit
- Thread starter CryptoNautical
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I have about 10 years on @vetteguy53081 and we have had multiple private discussions about API. IMHO - it's all about how you do the test. Most of the debate is the copper test.
However years alone is not a definition of success. There are others claiming they have a tank that is xxx years old. I was not trying to disagree with @vetteguy53081
vetteguy53081
Well known Member and monster tank lover
Ultimate Member
Reef Squad
Excellence Award
Reef Tank 365
RGB
Photo of the Month
R2R Secret Santa 2024
R2R App User
Secret Santa
Article Contributor
Tampa Bay Reef Keepers
West Palm Beach Reefer
Hospitality Award
Ocala Reef Club Member
305 Reef Club
Wisco Reefers
Midwest Reefer
Fish Medic
MAC of SW Florida
Rock Pool Reef Keepers
ThreadAward
My Tank Thread
My Aquarium Showcase
Ive been in hobby now 41 years and once upon a time it was Api, tetra, seatest kits with the little pill as examples. There was no ICP, digital anything and more understanding now of testing equipment and analysis
brandon429
what, exactly, are you doing in your avatar
The changing cycling rules are redeeming api I can see.
example- 1991: any ammonia detected means the cycle is broken, stuck, continuing, not done, and your tank is likely going to die soon unless you buy something or take a decisive action
it doesn’t matter if you convert the reading to nh3 like the directions say, what only matters is if the initial reading says anything above hard yellow zero.
Animals in this water are in pain if there’s anything but hard yellow zero reading for their water
therefore, api‘s known propensity for .25-.5 reading in tanks (caused by myriad subtleties in the kits and test takers and room lighting and angle of dropper and subjectivity interpretation / name the cause it doesn’t matter this is what everyone but the most exacting chemists can expect to see) was 1000% interpreted to mean the tank wasn’t handling ammonia. This is every stuck cycle post ever made to the internet we can search on the goog
vs
2023, years after digital seneye meters came online and thousands of uploads are on the web for searching:
conversion to nh3 matters, context matters, and stocked / post cycle reef tanks don’t run zero ammonia
ergo, the ten million .25-.5 api tests ran on stocked tanks as nh4 were reading rather correctly given the context of the setups AND the natural variations test takers and the kit itself have inherently. No panic is needed in 99.99% of cases, given the rule that reef tanks don’t run zero ammonia to have detected some with api only confirms what we expect now that precision digital test kits have been telling us that since they came online for the hobby (mind stream in ~2013 and seneye thereabouts…mindstream is defunct and seneye continues strong)
the changing rules in cycling that sellers of bottle bac chose not to tell us matters big time in hating or loving api (they who are uninformed will buy our bottles of bacteria redundantly until the end of time, doubt in cycling equals strong sales for the retail market)
example- 1991: any ammonia detected means the cycle is broken, stuck, continuing, not done, and your tank is likely going to die soon unless you buy something or take a decisive action
it doesn’t matter if you convert the reading to nh3 like the directions say, what only matters is if the initial reading says anything above hard yellow zero.
Animals in this water are in pain if there’s anything but hard yellow zero reading for their water
therefore, api‘s known propensity for .25-.5 reading in tanks (caused by myriad subtleties in the kits and test takers and room lighting and angle of dropper and subjectivity interpretation / name the cause it doesn’t matter this is what everyone but the most exacting chemists can expect to see) was 1000% interpreted to mean the tank wasn’t handling ammonia. This is every stuck cycle post ever made to the internet we can search on the goog
vs
2023, years after digital seneye meters came online and thousands of uploads are on the web for searching:
conversion to nh3 matters, context matters, and stocked / post cycle reef tanks don’t run zero ammonia
ergo, the ten million .25-.5 api tests ran on stocked tanks as nh4 were reading rather correctly given the context of the setups AND the natural variations test takers and the kit itself have inherently. No panic is needed in 99.99% of cases, given the rule that reef tanks don’t run zero ammonia to have detected some with api only confirms what we expect now that precision digital test kits have been telling us that since they came online for the hobby (mind stream in ~2013 and seneye thereabouts…mindstream is defunct and seneye continues strong)
the changing rules in cycling that sellers of bottle bac chose not to tell us matters big time in hating or loving api (they who are uninformed will buy our bottles of bacteria redundantly until the end of time, doubt in cycling equals strong sales for the retail market)
brandon429
what, exactly, are you doing in your avatar
I still have plenty of threads available where api reads dark green, black in some cases, in perfectly normal tanks.
at no time, no time, does what api says override the known dynamics and wait time from updated cycling knowledge. any type of cycle approach has a countable number of wait days to completion that will override what errant test kits say. This is why all cycling charts have a time axis and it’s not different chart to chart. Api isn’t out of the woods but I went from a hater to an acceptor based on Dan + Tarichas work + all collective seneye posts in reefing we can scrape from the boards.
there have been some seneye misreads too we can see. i can see that no test is perfect in reefing.
the reason people hate api is it’s rather accurate reading averages conflicts with their perceived rule set. It’s not that the kit itself is terrible like I once thought. Change the rule set changes the quality interpretation of the kit at hand.
at no time, no time, does what api says override the known dynamics and wait time from updated cycling knowledge. any type of cycle approach has a countable number of wait days to completion that will override what errant test kits say. This is why all cycling charts have a time axis and it’s not different chart to chart. Api isn’t out of the woods but I went from a hater to an acceptor based on Dan + Tarichas work + all collective seneye posts in reefing we can scrape from the boards.
there have been some seneye misreads too we can see. i can see that no test is perfect in reefing.
the reason people hate api is it’s rather accurate reading averages conflicts with their perceived rule set. It’s not that the kit itself is terrible like I once thought. Change the rule set changes the quality interpretation of the kit at hand.
And - of course, if you took 1000 reefers testing their already cycled tanks - according to the instructions of an API test kit, my guess is you would have 995 people reading 0 ammonia if they follow the directions. But - its becoming unclear to me - is the thesis get rid of all ammonia test kits? Or is the thesis get rid of API test kits. Using your logic - there is also no reason to buy a Seneye correct?
Last edited:
My thesis is that it's impossible to argue with someone about API ammonia kits and saltwater fish tanks with someone that does use API ammonia kits and doesn't keep saltwater fish.
Try not to mention tank cycling in an API thread challenge (IMPOSSIBLE)
jabberwock
2500 Club Member
Were you disagreeing with my point? If so - I'm curious as to why? Its fine to disagree:)
The other guy
The DFWMAS reef club used to have a .pdf of an experiment they ran looking at different test kits and having one of the first companies to provide a wide spectrum test for aquarists. Their results showed quite a wide range of results depending not on the test kit but on the user. FWIW, API did as well as most of the other test kits. A new aquarist should try different test kits/testers to see what they find easiest to use and still be fairly accurate; when new test kits are acquired they should be compared to older test kits to see if there's been degradation in reagents (depending on how reagents are stored they can go bad long before an espiration date); instructions should be checked to be sure steps or methods haven't been forgotten. And always remember there's a lot more going on than just what we can test for.
brandon429
what, exactly, are you doing in your avatar
Tim that may be the best post on the matter I've seen in a long time. to add: choose the rule set you will apply before choosing a test, they're mutually opposing rulesets. you will deem your choice of test kit accurate or not based on the ruleset you apply
we either expect to find zero ammonia in a post cycle reef tank or we expect to find low persistent levels. can't occupy the same ground, there will be instant conflict depending on the choice made to use old vs new cycling science.
depending on the ruleset we use, we may not ever actually own an ammonia test kit. already knowing it's status in any reef display situation without testing is handier than needing a kit, or kits to verify one another.
we either expect to find zero ammonia in a post cycle reef tank or we expect to find low persistent levels. can't occupy the same ground, there will be instant conflict depending on the choice made to use old vs new cycling science.
depending on the ruleset we use, we may not ever actually own an ammonia test kit. already knowing it's status in any reef display situation without testing is handier than needing a kit, or kits to verify one another.
Last edited:
brandon429
what, exactly, are you doing in your avatar
if I was running a qt tank, the seachem alert badge is what I'd use. we have misread posts on those too, but not four hundred thousand pages of them / api
of those many hundreds of thousands of pages, the ruleset chosen was the likely culprit. badges certainly have the lowest degree of prep steps compared to the other kits, that streamlines them too per above study linked it seems.
of those many hundreds of thousands of pages, the ruleset chosen was the likely culprit. badges certainly have the lowest degree of prep steps compared to the other kits, that streamlines them too per above study linked it seems.
Last edited:
CAbercrombie
Community Member
I know its old but your saying its .25 and .2 off and thats actually not bad .2 and .25 off isn't going to kill or hurt anything so like others said they have their place. New people in hobby aren't going to spend 100s on test kits but will spend 40 on a test kit
CAbercrombie
Community Member
Actually not they are less than .25 off in alot of comparison
jabberwock
2500 Club Member
I think API test kits are just fine for when you are just getting a tank started and testing a lot. As with any other test, you have to follow the procedure exactly, maintain consistency, and cleanliness. Their downfall, I believe is the subjective color observation. People SEE color differently...
tharbin
10K Club member
I'm sorry but this statement makes no sense to me.
Saying that a hobby-grade test kit is inaccurate because it doesn't give the same results as another hobby-grade test kit seems to imply that the Hanna kits are laboratory grade but they are not. How do you know it is not the Hanna test that is inaccurate? Most likely they are both inaccurate.
Similar threads
