Most of you are aware of the little tag that Seachem produces that alerts you at a quick glance about ammonia levels. I just got mine in the mail yesterday and put it in the tank last night. I just went to check the alert and it's telling me everything is safe when I just had tested last night and saw the cycling ammonia level at around 2.0ppm I tested this afternoon and saw the liquid test kit throw somewhere between 0.5-1.0ppm so something is up. Figured this would be a simple way to keep an eye on the ammonia, but I'm not sure I trust it. Always have been a liquid kit person and figured I'd give this a shot with as many people using them in their posts.
Seachem Ammonia Alert Faulty?
- Thread starter Tihsho
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Tanks been filled for two or three weeks at this point. The rock and sand were both inert in the case of bacteria. I started the tank with 1.5ml of ammonia on the day I flooded it and then followed up with another dose a few days later to bring up the ammonia level on the test kit.
I've added bacteria to the system in the form of Brightwell Aquatics MB7 and after the first week migrated over some LR from the display tank that this one is replacing as well as biomedia.
I've added bacteria to the system in the form of Brightwell Aquatics MB7 and after the first week migrated over some LR from the display tank that this one is replacing as well as biomedia.
excellent status, here's how I factor that into your kit reading:
From the microbiology of cycling thread we have collected tanks like yours under a similar timeframe that would show to be cycled by now using a different test method. The badge is good at indicating spikes like a dead fish, but routinely we couldn’t rely on it to cycle tanks and indicate true zero, but it may work for others. We can’t use the badge tests in our cycling thread due to misread errors and we are cycling too many tanks to be relying on testers anyway, all of them but the digital ones are too often wrong
We use submersion timing, number of days flooded and factored boosts to call a cycle done. If the masses had access to good ammonia testers, we’d be using those. The few that have seneye and other digitals occasionally pop in and back up our ammonia statements factored by time only.
The timeframe of ~ three weeks, bottle bac, feed and live rock/active surface carryover = a cycled tank for all surfaces and I don’t know any other way to prove it other than using seneye monitoring which is accurate -or- a little trick we use to calibrate api ammonia tests so they’ll work correctly. Hard on large tanks bc it requires a full water change but if your tank is small, then it’s easy.
Calibrated zero api cycle proofing:
Change all tank water this gets you to known zero ammonia regardless of any tests bottom limit for accuracy. Take a new reading using api, that hue is now baseline zero ammonia.
Using liquid ammonium chloride for cycling, add tiny amounts into the tank and take api reading until you get a discernible color change barely. Not 2 ppm, the tiniest change you can perceive indicating free ammonia. Stop
Retest in 24 hours and it’s back to calibrated zero for proof of nitrifiers solely on surfaces. I don’t know if badges work for that test but if your tank couldn’t pass calibrated proofing it’d be the first in sixteen pages. We think today’s cycle science is wrecked by inaccurate testers #1 and #2 everyone is testing wastewater. We test the clean water and surfaces only in this way...adulterants like Prime water conditioner are factored in this way, but with wastewater testing + non calibrated kits we get the madness of the last 25 yrs cycling variations.
If your tank is huge/no full water change possible then you can proceed in normal fashion using other testers and current water for approximations
Your tank will pass based on times and boosters used is my firm prediction for digital testing or calibrated api testing.
Sorry for delay
B
From the microbiology of cycling thread we have collected tanks like yours under a similar timeframe that would show to be cycled by now using a different test method. The badge is good at indicating spikes like a dead fish, but routinely we couldn’t rely on it to cycle tanks and indicate true zero, but it may work for others. We can’t use the badge tests in our cycling thread due to misread errors and we are cycling too many tanks to be relying on testers anyway, all of them but the digital ones are too often wrong
We use submersion timing, number of days flooded and factored boosts to call a cycle done. If the masses had access to good ammonia testers, we’d be using those. The few that have seneye and other digitals occasionally pop in and back up our ammonia statements factored by time only.
The timeframe of ~ three weeks, bottle bac, feed and live rock/active surface carryover = a cycled tank for all surfaces and I don’t know any other way to prove it other than using seneye monitoring which is accurate -or- a little trick we use to calibrate api ammonia tests so they’ll work correctly. Hard on large tanks bc it requires a full water change but if your tank is small, then it’s easy.
Calibrated zero api cycle proofing:
Change all tank water this gets you to known zero ammonia regardless of any tests bottom limit for accuracy. Take a new reading using api, that hue is now baseline zero ammonia.
Using liquid ammonium chloride for cycling, add tiny amounts into the tank and take api reading until you get a discernible color change barely. Not 2 ppm, the tiniest change you can perceive indicating free ammonia. Stop
Retest in 24 hours and it’s back to calibrated zero for proof of nitrifiers solely on surfaces. I don’t know if badges work for that test but if your tank couldn’t pass calibrated proofing it’d be the first in sixteen pages. We think today’s cycle science is wrecked by inaccurate testers #1 and #2 everyone is testing wastewater. We test the clean water and surfaces only in this way...adulterants like Prime water conditioner are factored in this way, but with wastewater testing + non calibrated kits we get the madness of the last 25 yrs cycling variations.
If your tank is huge/no full water change possible then you can proceed in normal fashion using other testers and current water for approximations
Your tank will pass based on times and boosters used is my firm prediction for digital testing or calibrated api testing.
Sorry for delay
B
Last edited:
No problem on the delay at all!
This is interesting, I'll have to look into it more. I'll do a partial waterchange today as I wanted to get the tank running on a different salt mix anyways.
Question on the calibration process. If I have clean sw sitting in my mixing bin with the current salt mix that is in the tank, is that water considered enough of a baseline for the 100% change? Or is the drain and fill accounting for surface contaminants mixing with clean water to provide a value that is different then a clean mix alone?
This is interesting, I'll have to look into it more. I'll do a partial waterchange today as I wanted to get the tank running on a different salt mix anyways.
Question on the calibration process. If I have clean sw sitting in my mixing bin with the current salt mix that is in the tank, is that water considered enough of a baseline for the 100% change? Or is the drain and fill accounting for surface contaminants mixing with clean water to provide a value that is different then a clean mix alone?
it was only to account for use of prime and things that are 100% ready to make ammonia appear more than it is and/ or nitrite.
also, by using varying-accuracy ammonia guiding, we're all dosing various initial amnts of ammonia=different amnts of metabolites nitrite etc, we needed a way to square all that mess.
some peoples nitrite was taking 70+ days to clear, no google cycling chart shows nitrite persisting past day ~20, they'd blasted 8x the initial amnt of ammonia no wonder it was a backup.
still it didnt stop bioslick formation....that which we can test with the full water change and redose.
not a chemist but the prime use issue has something to do with being bound and unavailable for damage, but still fully detected on the kit. I can't imagine any setting in which live rock and seeded material couldnt oxidize/move that ammonia down given this much time, so Im suspect of unspoken variables in the current water, the only way I know to keep consistency is with the full change or maybe compare current reading to a diff kit/
before the water comparison how about checking current readings on api or someone elses red sea/curious to see that compare
also, by using varying-accuracy ammonia guiding, we're all dosing various initial amnts of ammonia=different amnts of metabolites nitrite etc, we needed a way to square all that mess.
some peoples nitrite was taking 70+ days to clear, no google cycling chart shows nitrite persisting past day ~20, they'd blasted 8x the initial amnt of ammonia no wonder it was a backup.
still it didnt stop bioslick formation....that which we can test with the full water change and redose.
not a chemist but the prime use issue has something to do with being bound and unavailable for damage, but still fully detected on the kit. I can't imagine any setting in which live rock and seeded material couldnt oxidize/move that ammonia down given this much time, so Im suspect of unspoken variables in the current water, the only way I know to keep consistency is with the full change or maybe compare current reading to a diff kit/
before the water comparison how about checking current readings on api or someone elses red sea/curious to see that compare
Last edited:
Since I'm off work on Fridays I was able to a large water change this morning. Swapped from AquaVitro Salinity over to Tropic Marin Pro. Since this is a IM 30L, I drained the display section down to right above the sand layer and pumped in freshly mix (well fresh since it was mixing last night) RO/DI with the new salt. I figured the water retained in the sand bed + what was behind the false wall was enough of an ammonia source so I didn't have to redose.
I don't use anything such as Prime or any binding chemicals when it comes to display tanks. I save Prime for QT stuff. The only filter media within this tank are filter pads, Seachem Matrix bio media, Brightwell Aquatics Bio media (seeded from the other tank) and a few bits of LR rubble from the other tank. Nothing chemical is running, not even carbon as I don't want to mess with anything until the cycle is complete. At that point I'll work towards adding Purigen and maybe a bag of Matrix Carbon which will be replaced weekly.
Per testing the fresh mixed water I was down to 0ppm ammonia, once I topped off the tank with the new SW I let it run for about 30 minutes to get everything circulated and then restested. The tank is now around 0.25-0.5ppm of ammonia. I'm going to let it run for the rest of the day and retest this evening. I'm planning on stopping by the LFS, so I'll go and grab another test kit. I was hoping to burn through all my API stuff that my GF got and then move to another test kit as I know they are not the most accurate when it comes to SW/Reef params.
I don't use anything such as Prime or any binding chemicals when it comes to display tanks. I save Prime for QT stuff. The only filter media within this tank are filter pads, Seachem Matrix bio media, Brightwell Aquatics Bio media (seeded from the other tank) and a few bits of LR rubble from the other tank. Nothing chemical is running, not even carbon as I don't want to mess with anything until the cycle is complete. At that point I'll work towards adding Purigen and maybe a bag of Matrix Carbon which will be replaced weekly.
Per testing the fresh mixed water I was down to 0ppm ammonia, once I topped off the tank with the new SW I let it run for about 30 minutes to get everything circulated and then restested. The tank is now around 0.25-0.5ppm of ammonia. I'm going to let it run for the rest of the day and retest this evening. I'm planning on stopping by the LFS, so I'll go and grab another test kit. I was hoping to burn through all my API stuff that my GF got and then move to another test kit as I know they are not the most accurate when it comes to SW/Reef params.
hey that's great we can make it work off that alone for sure, Ill link up this thread for sure to our cycling thread as it reveals trending.
once we get that new test to simply hold a reading in place, we can use that as the baseline. we'd dose only slightly above it, wait etc. I bet it'll work
the #1 claim we're testing/verifying is that given this much time and boosters, ammonia cannot hold in place at any setting if its accurately measured, it has to be dropping to some measurable degree. the old debate used to be when final zero was met (if ever)
and now 2019 until better science comes along, we track only movement it doesnt have to get to a solid zero and it doesnt have to originate at 2 ppm. acceptable submersion time + movement of ammonia verified = cycled.
once we get that new test to simply hold a reading in place, we can use that as the baseline. we'd dose only slightly above it, wait etc. I bet it'll work
the #1 claim we're testing/verifying is that given this much time and boosters, ammonia cannot hold in place at any setting if its accurately measured, it has to be dropping to some measurable degree. the old debate used to be when final zero was met (if ever)
and now 2019 until better science comes along, we track only movement it doesnt have to get to a solid zero and it doesnt have to originate at 2 ppm. acceptable submersion time + movement of ammonia verified = cycled.
Last edited:
Ammonia has since increased since the water change. Not sure how this can be as there are no fish and no food going into the system as of right now. The only thing that has changed is the addition of some Live Rock from an established system that I added on Friday, as well as the addition of Arc Reef coralline spores. I may go through and do yet another large water change in a few days. Generally fishless cycles for me have never produced these results. Normally I don't feel rushed either, but as I'm trying to migrate fish and coral from another tank to this one (other tank has a tendency to cause floods) the oddities of the cycling process are becoming frustrating.
can we see another testers reading on sample. I agree its strange, we have a 16 page thread on transferring live rock among tanks and never getting a cycle at all. those guys and gals set up insta cycle tanks at reef conventions and command them like a whip!
all free ammonia events in a reef tank are accompanied by: a clear source. something dead, something added. a smell, you can smell half a ppm ammonia it smells like an unclean bathroom. Color: that water will be cloudy, with resident bac being overcome by some rot or addition source.
my money so far: you've no free ammonia. test issues are likely.
all free ammonia events in a reef tank are accompanied by: a clear source. something dead, something added. a smell, you can smell half a ppm ammonia it smells like an unclean bathroom. Color: that water will be cloudy, with resident bac being overcome by some rot or addition source.
my money so far: you've no free ammonia. test issues are likely.
Last edited:
beaslbob
2500 Club Member
As I remember the ammonia dots react to the dangerous free ammonia. Whereas the liquid tests both the free and locked ammonia. So it is possible the lower reading on the dot and the higher reading of the liquid test are both accurate and the difference is ammonia locked up by such such things as prime and other chemicals.
my .02
my .02
Similar threads
