Sudden Tank Crash

[Morpheus77]

So the 2.5 gallon suddenly spiked in about 18 hrs. 2.0 on ammonia, 2.0 on nitrites, and 80 on nitrates, phosphates .03. 18 hrs prior, .25 ammonia, 20 nitrates, 0 nitrites. My CUC is accounted for. The only changes I made were two in particular. First off, been slowly switching over from Imagitarium SW from Petco, to Oceans Own nutri-water, a little experiment I'm doing, and the second thing was I removed the foam filter from HOB filter and replaced it with matrix. At same time time, I switched out the floss, so now running floss, purigen, and matrix in the little HOB. I went to filtration about two weeks ago to help keep nitrates in check. I did a 75% WC in about a 12 hr period. Basically 50% when I got home yesterday, another 6 cup WC two hours later, and another 4 cup WC this morning. Any ideas what may be up with my tank? The corals stayed closed up obviously, and what's crazy, is my palythoa looked the best I've seen him in about 6 months, right before it crashed. Just when I was thinking we were moving forward, and then a crash. Can changing filtration cause a sudden spike? When I tested again this morning, nothing changed for the worse, stayed about half of what it was after the 50% WC. Could the tank have cycled again? It's a year and a half old, just curious on what's yall thoughts are. Thanks.

[seabass]

If the filter floss was a significant part of the biological filtration, that might help explain it.  But I'm guessing that something died as well.  With such a small tank, I'd do a 100% water change to export the ammonia.  Also, remove anything dead or dying.

[Morpheus77]

Thing is, all my critters are accounted for, so I don't know what could have died. 

[Morpheus77]

Plus one on the WC seabass, I am planning to do that, but just confused on what could have suddenly went wrong? I have my Son helping me while I'm at work, checking Temps and salinity, top offs, etc, and the kids didn't do anything around the tank while I was at work, no chemicals, cleaning, etc. In the back of mind, I'm considering changing the LS completely, and wondering about the LR, wondering do I need to take these out, maybe dip them, clean them? But then again, my paly has made one their home, so a deep cleaning for that one piece is out of question, but would a dip do anything for the LR? Would changing LS hurt? All the questions, and I'm just at a loss. TIA

[brandon429]

False ammonia reading here, I collect these for ten pages at rtr. Post a tank pic.  We don't need extra biological filtration in picos, removing it won't harm. Your in tank work/ exchanges kicked up nutrients that caused your non digital ammonia kit to trick you, won't happen on digital kits

 

 

All your animals are fine because it's a misread, symptomless ammonia concerns again.  Removing your filter instantly and permanently won't affect ammonia control at all, it affects non digital test kits only. Live rock in your pico is enough for triple the bioload it'll ever see, we put filters on because peers do it, the system doesn't need the extra surface area. 

 

**removing surrounding surface area incidental to the core surface area (your rock) never leaves a deficit** we only think that way due to old cycling science rules. Updated rules= you can add to, or subtract from extra unneeded surface area at any time in a display reef and still have plenty of surface area for bioload control from the basic rocks in the display

 

Live rock is this good. 

 

A crashed reef is a dead reef, let's see pics. A false alarm is a non digital test kit only causing panic but the tank runs and looks just fine

[Morpheus77]

I can post a pic later today, but there is no visible signs, except a closed up Paly and GSP. No cloudiness, or any of that. Water is super clear. Not too sure about a false reading, when just 18 hrs prior, the same test kit should otherwise. And it wasn't just ammonia, it was a big difference in Nitrites, Nitrates, and Ammonia. I am actually looking into digital test kits though, I do like the simplicity of these. I understand biological filtration dealing with LR, I have had a few tanks over the years, but just makes me wonder if something went wrong dealing with the LR side of it, maybe not enough? Maybe some critters came with it, and have suddenly died off? I have noticed a lot less bristleworms lately, like a LOT less. At one time there were 20-30, now only noticing one or two. I hate to admit it, but do to my circumstances with no LFS in my immediate area, I had to purchase LR from petco unfortunately, and that's assuming you can even call it that. Last time I was in the hobby, I had a LFS, but they have since closed, found this out when I started this tank. The HOB filter was a last ditch effort to get Nitrates down, have been fighting them for awhile now. Here is a pic from two weeks ago, looks identical to this, except closed up corals.

[Tamberav]

Possible the sponge was housing a lot of bacteria. Generally removing it is fine with rock and sand but since all your tests are wacky. Seems it may not have been. 
 

Adding matrix and letting it seed for a few weeks and then removing sponge may have helped but honestly I wouldn’t have expected any issue just making a straight swap. 

[brandon429]

These are non digital test kits, and this was a false read added to these pages here only because everyone believes the non digital kits no matter what. Absolutely no other indicators other than api or Red Sea, for pages, of false alerts. 

 

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/sustained-ammonia-spikes-are-misreads.802470/

 

Nitrite can't crash neither can nitrate and those are non digital kits here too, this is a misread that's exactly surface area shown above predicted and repeated in scale for all reef displays. False ammonia alert, false nitrite and false nitrate alert combine here for one big misread. That's eight pages of symptomless ammonia panics. 

 

 

Don't measure nitrite in a display, especially with api, we don't factor it or need to know it. You can see it causes panic reactions to adhere to old cycling science, the fear of ammonia or nitrite noncontrol

 

If you want to measure nitrate get a digital kit. 

 

The surface area rules above aren't in question at all, this is yet another false alert issue logged with the others and seneye would have never made the concern

 

 

*you reacted to the initial ammonia reading as nh4 we covered above, when converted to nh3 your reading required no action. That's every tank in our study thread above. Those are grouped together above because they're all false issues caused by non digital kits, nh4 reads, in symptomless tanks. We track out all kinds of unneeded remedial steps taken there. Simply not testing for ammonia or nitrite after a cycle completes would have prevented all those alert threads. 

[seabass]

On 6/14/2022 at 8:21 AM, brandon429 said:

False ammonia reading here, I collect these for ten pages at rtr.

Can you please explain the difference between digital kits and analog kits?  Isn't it just a sensor that interprets the result versus visually checking a sample against a color chart?  I'm not trying to be difficult, I'd just like to understand why one would read positive (2.0 ppm) and the other would return an inconsequential level.  I assume one is measuring NH3 and the other is testing total ammonia (NH3 + NH4).

 

If possible, I'd like specifics versus a link to a 50 page thread (which shows one or more examples of non-negative ammonia tests in aquariums which show no visible signs of distress).  However, if your point is that a non-negative test isn't necessarily something to worry about, then I'm onboard with your that take on that.

 

 

On 6/14/2022 at 8:21 AM, brandon429 said:

Your in tank work/ exchanges kicked up nutrients that caused your non digital ammonia kit to trick you, won't happen on digital kits

So you are saying that phosphate and nitrate are affecting total ammonia readings on non-digital tests?  I don't understand. 😕

 

 

On 6/14/2022 at 8:21 AM, brandon429 said:

Removing your filter instantly and permanently won't affect ammonia control at all

I agree with this.  It's unlikely that with sand and rock in this tank (which is over a year old), that replacing filter media (even biological filter media) would cause this level of ammonia spike.  That's why I suspected a death..

 

 

On 6/14/2022 at 8:21 AM, brandon429 said:

A false alarm is a non digital test kit only causing panic but the tank runs and looks just fine

2.0 ppm of total ammonia is an unusually high number.  Are the corals and other inverts at risk at such a level?  Maybe, maybe not; it has a lot to do with the current pH (which determines the free ammonia levels).  Even then, I haven't seen data on what is safe versus unsafe for inverts.  However, I do know that 2.0 ppm of total ammonia indicates an elevated level; and I don't see a problem in trying to get that lower.

 

 

On 6/14/2022 at 9:49 AM, brandon429 said:

These are non digital test kits, and this was a false read added to these pages here only because everyone believes the non digital kits no matter what. 

 

Nitrite can't crash neither can nitrate and those are non digital kits here too, this is a misread that's exactly surface area predicted. False ammonia alert, false nitrite and false nitrate alert combine here for one big misread. 

That's a lot of tests to just dismiss as wrong (especially since we have nothing to compare it to).

 

 

On 6/14/2022 at 7:30 AM, Morpheus77 said:

I'm considering changing the LS completely, and wondering about the LR, wondering do I need to take these out, maybe dip them, clean them? But then again, my paly has made one their home, so a deep cleaning for that one piece is out of question, but would a dip do anything for the LR? Would changing LS hurt? All the questions, and I'm just at a loss.

Don't dip your rocks.  Also, don't change out your rocks.  If you want to thoroughly clean your sand bed, you can (I've seen some people even replace it because they don't feel like cleaning it out).

 

Again, I'd do the 2.5 gallon water change.  Removing, cleaning, and returning your cleaned sand might be valid if it is saturated with organic wastes.

[brandon429]

I've learned the #1 telltale sign of a false ammonia alert is in the title itself. If the title references only a test reading, the tank will never line up to be a crash when we ask for tank pics. We do this for over a year running above, legit patterns. 

[brandon429]

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/new-cycle-seneye-vs-api.859493/#post-9370206

 

 

There's api over reading ammonia compared to seneye. Y'all can decide if that's believable or not. 

 

What i do is assemble patterns from web links together and we can check for snippets of truth and repeating outcomes

 

That's like nine pages and not one single lost animal, although every poster is fully sure they're crashing or crashed. 

 

The only way to make study ground here is to seek out seneye data logs posted to the web, there's thousands, and see how the ammonia there always matches lack of symptoms. Seneye is the only kit that matches symptoms/ lack of to the reading. All other kits are total disparity, we can see in the rolls of patterns. ** its the way they read the kits more than bad kits

 

This is all just nh4 panics. The nh3 is fine for everyone, we keep seeing in pics and follow up on these tanks logged. Click any entrant and track their tank up to today... any died? 100% fine. 

 

Old cycling science claiming nh4 should always be zero is the problem, and old cycling science does test for nitrite and believe absolutely anything an api nitrite kit says, without question. New cycling science is opposite, and focuses on fish disease prep vs any type of cycle fear. 

 

I mentioned a firm rule about surface area above. Here's us applying that rule for seven years in one thread. * of any link on the internet this is the most surface area removals done in reefing. 

 

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/official-sand-rinse-and-tank-transfer-thread.230281/page-48#post-10271613

 

That's why on this tank above we already have diagnostics set from prior jobs to discern the issue. We already study what removing extra surface area from a display tank does, it didn't harm anything. 

 

We could have removed the Op's filter, the sand, half the rock, and on seneye it'll still pass (we did that above a few times in digitally tracked scape changes)

[seabass]

I'm half tempted to buy a Seneye kit just to see what you are talking about.  There are some things to consider, like if a kit is past its expiration date, is properly calibrated, the results validated with a trusted third kit, or if the kit that had previously reported a low result is now showing a higher level.  You quickly dismiss "non-digital" kits and embrace digital results without much explanation.  If one test can detect changes, and the other cannot, I would suspect the deficiency with the one that can't detect the change.

[Morpheus77]

18 minutes ago, brandon429 said:

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/new-cycle-seneye-vs-api.859493/#post-9370206

 

 

There's api over reading ammonia compared to seneye. Y'all can decide if that's believable or not. 

 

What i do is assemble patterns from web links together and we can check for snippets of truth and repeating outcomes

 

That's like nine pages and not one single lost animal, although every poster is fully sure they're crashing or crashed. 

 

The only way to make study ground here is to seek out seneye data logs posted to the web, there's thousands, and see how the ammonia there always matches lack of symptoms. Seneye is the only kit that matches symptoms/ lack of to the reading. All other kits are total disparity, we can see in the rolls of patterns. ** its the way they read the kits more than bad kits

 

This is all just nh4 panics. The nh3 is fine for everyone, we keep seeing in pics and follow up on these tanks logged. Click any entrant and track their tank up to today... any died? 100% fine. 

 

Old cycling science claiming nh4 should always be zero is the problem, and old cycling science does test for nitrite and believe absolutely anything an api nitrite kit says, without question. New cycling science is opposite, and focuses on fish disease prep vs any type of cycle fear. 

 

I mentioned a firm rule about surface area above. Here's us applying that rule for seven years in one thread. * of any link on the internet this is the most surface area removals done in reefing. 

 

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/official-sand-rinse-and-tank-transfer-thread.230281/page-48#post-10271613

 

That's why on this tank above we already have diagnostics set from prior jobs to discern the issue. We already study what removing extra surface area from a display tank does, it didn't harm anything. 

 

We could have removed the Op's filter, the sand, half the rock, and on seneye it'll still pass (we did that above a few times in digitally tracked scape changes)

Looking forward to reading the thread, will definitely check it out.

19 minutes ago, seabass said:

Can you please explain the difference between digital kits and analog kits?  Isn't it just a sensor that reads the color change versus checking it against a color chart?  I'm not trying to be difficult, I'd just like to understand why one would read positive (2.0 ppm) and the other would read an inconsequential level.  Do they measure just NH3?  How do the reagents affect pH?

 

If possible, don't just post a link to a 50 page thread which shows one or more examples of non-negative ammonia tests in aquariums which show no visible signs of distress.  However, if your point is that a non-negative test isn't necessarily something to worry about, then I'm onboard with your that take on that.

 

 

So you are saying that phosphate and nitrate are affecting total ammonia readings on non-digital tests?  That doesn't make sense to me. 😕

 

 

I'd agree with this.  It's unlikely that with sand and rock in this tank (which is over a year old), that replacing filter media (even biological filter media) would cause a dramatic ammonia spike.  This is why I suspected a death (coral or otherwise).

 

 

2.0 ppm of total ammonia is an unusually high number.  Are the corals and other inverts at risk at such a level?  Maybe, maybe not; it has a lot to do with the current pH (which determines the free ammonia levels).  Even then, I don't believe I've seen an actual number of safe versus unsafe.  However, I do know that 2.0 ppm of total ammonia indicates an unusually high level.  I don't see a problem in trying to get that lower.

 

 

That's a lot of tests to just dismiss as wrong (especially since we have nothing to compare it to).

 

 

Don't dip your rocks.  Also, don't change out your rocks.  If you want to thoroughly clean your sand bed, you can (I've seen some people even replace it because they don't feel like cleaning it out).

 

Again, I'd do the 2.5 gallon water change.  Removing, cleaning, and returning your cleaned sand might be valid if it is saturated with organic wastes.

 

[Morpheus77]

21 minutes ago, seabass said:

Can you please explain the difference between digital kits and analog kits?  Isn't it just a sensor that reads the color change versus checking it against a color chart?  I'm not trying to be difficult, I'd just like to understand why one would read positive (2.0 ppm) and the other would read an inconsequential level.  Do they measure just NH3?  How do the reagents affect pH?

 

If possible, don't just post a link to a 50 page thread which shows one or more examples of non-negative ammonia tests in aquariums which show no visible signs of distress.  However, if your point is that a non-negative test isn't necessarily something to worry about, then I'm onboard with your that take on that.

 

 

So you are saying that phosphate and nitrate are affecting total ammonia readings on non-digital tests?  That doesn't make sense to me. 😕

 

 

I'd agree with this.  It's unlikely that with sand and rock in this tank (which is over a year old), that replacing filter media (even biological filter media) would cause a dramatic ammonia spike.  This is why I suspected a death (coral or otherwise).

 

 

2.0 ppm of total ammonia is an unusually high number.  Are the corals and other inverts at risk at such a level?  Maybe, maybe not; it has a lot to do with the current pH (which determines the free ammonia levels).  Even then, I don't believe I've seen an actual number of safe versus unsafe.  However, I do know that 2.0 ppm of total ammonia indicates an unusually high level.  I don't see a problem in trying to get that lower.

 

 

That's a lot of tests to just dismiss as wrong (especially since we have nothing to compare it to).

 

 

Don't dip your rocks.  Also, don't change out your rocks.  If you want to thoroughly clean your sand bed, you can (I've seen some people even replace it because they don't feel like cleaning it out).

 

Again, I'd do the 2.5 gallon water change.  Removing, cleaning, and returning your cleaned sand might be valid if it is saturated with organic wastes.

Thinking the same. Maybe it's time to do a deep sand cleaning, take it completely out, and rinse it well, areate a bit, and go back in. Thanks for the info.

[brandon429]

To me its fascinating to see that for all eight pages above of similar concern posts, if they simply weren't testing for ammonia and nitrite after cycling we wouldn't have a single one of those threads or this one. 

 

 

Try and find # of seneye owners who post crash alerts or ammonia help threads.  All the fear literally skews to only one testing mechanism, a non digital method.

 

Seneye does the nh3 conversion step auto, is why it helps so much. 

 

*also in play

How many alert posts would we have if each non digital kit owner reported as nh3 after following directions in the kit? We're trained to see any ammonia, and buy or add something.  Not once did anyone post: I converted my nh4 reading to approximate nh3; and its still concerning. When someone does eventually report in nh3/ seachem badge/ we see it passing each time as safe. 

 

Non digital test kits take days to indicate a drop after a common spike in a system... we don't know why. In my seneye vs api thread, we don't know why api was green for ten days and then dropped while the nh3 was matching what a cycled reef runs at the whole time. That's tbd

 

 

Non digital test kits and all the variation that surrounds them are causing this pattern. 

 

We do lots of seneye patterning over at reef 2 reef. I've never once seen any activity other than a multi fish kill move up ammonia to action required levels, even a single fish kill, a tang left to rot among rockwork, didn't move the nh3 out of spec. Our systems quickly neutralize all common spikes.

[Morpheus77]

Interesting.

[seabass]

On 6/14/2022 at 10:35 AM, brandon429 said:

To me its fascinating to see that for all eight pages above of similar concern posts, if they simply weren't testing for ammonia and nitrite after cycling we wouldn't have a single one of those threads or this one. 

 

 

Try and find # of seneye owners who post crash alerts or ammonia help threads

API is showing an actual increase in total ammonia.  Maybe it shouldn't concern us, but claiming that this information is false just feels wrong.  You talk about new science, but how has science changed so that the chemical reactions of the reagents no longer work?  I questioning why Seneye doesn't seem capable of detecting these same increases.

 

I still haven't read through that link.  I'll try to find the time to do so later today, and I'll post my reaction afterward.

[seabass]

On 6/14/2022 at 10:04 AM, brandon429 said:

I've learned the #1 telltale sign of a false ammonia alert is in the title itself. If the title references only a test reading, the tank will never line up to be a crash when we ask for tank pics.

The title should have read Ammonia Spike, versus Sudden Tank Crash.  A crash indicates a cascade of deaths (usually caused by lack of oxygen, which then results in higher ammonia levels).  However, this was obviously just an increase in total ammonia, and not a tank crash.  But no loss of life doesn't mean there wasn't an increase in total ammonia.  It's wrong to think that any increase in ammonia automatically results in signs of distress (and that no signs of distress mean no ammonia).

[Morpheus77]

You are right on the title, but considering tank size and the amount of time, it was a crash to me. I have had successful 55 gallon and 29 gallon reef tanks with their share of issues, but never had a sudden increase in the big three in that amount of time. I get given the tank size, it shouldn't be of no surprise in that time frame, it was actually closer to 15 hours, but what happened? 15 hrs prior, the ONLY issue was nitrates at 20, and Ammonia at .25. Then suddenly I have a big increase in Nitrites, Nitrates, and Ammonia. In fact I don't think I've seen Nitrites purple on API's test kit, like ever.

 

I am reading the thread in r2r, but that is a new science that will need to be reviewed and read up on more, at least for me, not too mention, I don't even own a PC, no need for one. In the mean time, in my experience dealing with API, it's never let me down in the past, and whatever readings it gave me, false or not, I went with it, made changes, adjustments, etc, and my tanks always seemed to improve after the fact. So I'm hard pressed to believe ammonia and nitrites aren't to be monitored in any given day, API or otherwise. If I remember correctly Nitrites turn into ammonia which turns into Nitrates, so why is nitrites suddenly no longer important?? Now I am open to new things, and will read more into the seneye, and do research on this new tech, but for now I'm gonna go with what has worked for me in the past, and stick with this knowledge. Seneye could be the next best thing since the swing line stapler, but API for now. That post is definitely interesting. More studying/research.

[Tamberav]

He is saying nitrites are not important because they are not toxic in saltwater. I agree with this although testing them is more data to see how a cycle or spike is progressing so it is helpful in some regard. 

 

Perhaps that petco rock is dense and the sponge was just pulling some extra weight. I am not sure.

 

What do you feed? I could see some powdered foods causing a spike in a little tank. 

[seabass]

On 6/14/2022 at 10:57 AM, seabass said:

I still haven't read through that link.  I'll try to find the time to do so later today, and I'll post my reaction to it afterward.

Here are a few comments just from the first post:

 

"so why do reef peers always teach each other that sensitive marine organisms all swimming and acting fine are symptomless for weeks on end in a tank claimed to not have full control over free ammonia?"

When you say full control, are you saying that increasing ammonia input won't ever affect the level of total ammonia in the water column?  But if ammonia levels continue to rise (and the nitrifying bacteria aren't able to keep up), I wouldn't consider the biofilter to be be able to control the current level of ammonia produced.

 

"there is only ONE time you will ever see an ammonia problem in a display reef tank: when disease or hardware error kills multiple fish and you leave them in the tank to rot out for one reason or another. That’s it, there aren’t any other causes you’ll ever see someone posting about that will make a cycled tank unable to control its ammonia. perhaps a six pound ten year old anemone the size of a super large pizza left to rot in a 40 breeder might do it, but we’re talking extremes so extreme you won’t need a $9 test kit to discern the problem-you would remove the dead anemone."

You are talking about ammonia levels high enough to cause additional deaths (possibly a cascade of deaths, a.k.a. a tank crash).  And you're arguing that ammonia test kits aren't necessary.  I'm actually fairly OK with that reasoning.  However, test kits like API, can show lower levels which will not cause a cascade of death.  This information provides some information as to what is going on inside our tanks.

 

"Every false panic post on this thread is a non digital ammonia test kit, in a perfectly running reef tank"

Yeah, I don't mind you calling them "false panic" posts.  However, I do have an issue with saying that the results are false.

 

"have you ever, ever, ever seen a cycling chart where the ammonia line rises back up after day ten?"

Not without an increase in the production of ammonia.  A typical "cycle" without livestock shouldn't have big swings in ammonia production.  Therefore, levels tend to continue to decline unless ammonia production were to increase.  However, if it does, then we might wish to look into why this might have happened, versus dismissing it.

 

NOTE: I haven't read through all of the examples you referred to.  But if there is a particular one which you'd like me to address, I'll go back and read it.

 

I just looked up the Seneye monitor, and HOLY CRAP, they're nearly $200.   I'm a bit skeptical already. 🤔  But anyway, I digress.

 

Regarding the thread New Cycle - Seneye vs API, where the API kit reported total ammonia at 2 ppm and the Seneye ReefPro900 reported free ammonia at 0.042 ppm.  If we use the Free Ammonia Calculator we get:

 

Again, just looking at your first post in that thread...

"the seneye measures above are directly in safe range for nh3"

Seneye actually would categorize that in the upper band of the Alert range.

 

"this post you made shows how far off the mark api is when compared to seneye, great job"

This actually just shows that the two may or may not be in agreement.  Which one is more accurate is another matter.  And actually, the two are in agreement if total ammonia was 1.8 ppm, pH was 7.7, with a temperature of 77 °F.

 

"Even the untrimmed reading above is safe zone nh3 compared to that heinous over read by api, even if it’s reporting as total ammonia."

It's arguable how safe 0.042 ppm of NH3 really is for fish; it's getting up there.  But as I pointed out above, depending on pH, the two might not be that far apart.

 

"thousands of tanks have done dry rock + Fritz + clownfish with zero wait time, you're two days into the wait and even those skip cycle attempts tested out fine on seneye. quick cycling is no longer bad, its a function of paying forty bucks for super concentrate in a bottle."

I assume by skip cycle, you mean no appreciable increase in ammonia.  You'll get no argument from me that nitrifying bacteria is helpful, or that clownfish are hardy.  Any statements regarding the safety level of NH3 would ideally differentiate between sensitive animals and hardy animals.  Still, it'd be nice to see what level of NH3 might typically cause visible signs of distress.

 

 

So far, I'm just not seeing a case that API is giving false positives.  Although its resolution is obviously less precise than a digital readout.

 

It's pretty time consuming to go through these threads responding to each statement, but I felt that some clarification was warranted.  Not sure if I'll have the time or will to dig through all of it, but I'll try to read though the rest and sum it up for people following along.

 

 

On 6/14/2022 at 11:56 AM, Morpheus77 said:

I am reading the thread in r2r, but that is a new science that will need to be reviewed and read up on more, at least for me, not too mention, I don't even own a PC, no need for one. In the mean time, in my experience dealing with API, it's never let me down in the past

It's a relatively new piece of equipment (but unless it's using something radically different, like theoretical particle physics, I doubt that it's really new science).  However, it might even be using a new method (maybe something like electrical resistance to determine NH3; IDK, I'm just not familiar with it).  I think we saw a lot of this when Hanna came out with their Checkers.  Digital readouts are much easier to interpret than comparing color charts.  Many people spent hundreds of dollars getting all of their Checkers.  Unfortunately, it turned out that people were complaining about most of them.  However, a lot of people (including myself) like to use their low resolution phosphate Checker (which reports levels much lower than a traditional color chart can clearly distinguish).  Likewise, people like the convenience of their alkalinity Checker.  However, I feel that most people (besides those with visual impairments, like being colorblind), might be better off staying away from their other Checkers.

 

From what I have experienced, API is capable of showing actual increases in total ammonia.  It allows you to track a cycle, and can alert you if something is off.  I don't believe claims that it yields false positive results (and haven't seen actual proof that it does).

[Morpheus77]

1 hour ago, Tamberav said:

He is saying nitrites are not important because they are not toxic in saltwater. I agree with this although testing them is more data to see how a cycle or spike is progressing so it is helpful in some regard. 

 

Perhaps that petco rock is dense and the sponge was just pulling some extra weight. I am not sure.

 

What do you feed? I could see some powdered foods causing a spike in a little tank. 

I don't normally feed them, since both the GSP and Paly get their nutrients from photosynthesis, however I have been looking into it, and actually have some stuff on order now, called Coral Exponential from Continuum, supposed to be in this week, however, I should probably hold off on this since the tank is out of balance. 

You think I should go back with the sponge? I mean obviously it wouldn't hurt, never even thought I would have to even run filtration in such a small tank, but the nitrates are staying at the 20 mark, got them down to about 10 over the weekend, but there is something completely off, the ammonia and nitrates are staying steady at .25 on Am, and 20 on nitrates, so reason being for the HOB. One or two things are gonna happen soon, more WC's over next few days, if that doesn't help, then taking sand out, and doing a complete rinse on the sand, and I'm even tempted to just go with a different batch of LS all together, but we'll see.

[Morpheus77]

51 minutes ago, seabass said:

Here are a few comments just from the first post:

 

"so why do reef peers always teach each other that sensitive marine organisms all swimming and acting fine are symptomless for weeks on end in a tank claimed to not have full control over free ammonia?"

When you say full control, are you saying that increasing ammonia input won't ever affect the level of total ammonia in the water column?  Showing low levels of total ammonia doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't under control.  However, obviously, if ammonia levels continue to rise, and the nitrifying bacteria aren't currently able to keep up, then I wouldn't consider the biofilter to have full control over free ammonia.

 

"there is only ONE time you will ever see an ammonia problem in a display reef tank: when disease or hardware error kills multiple fish and you leave them in the tank to rot out for one reason or another. That’s it, there aren’t any other causes you’ll ever see someone posting about that will make a cycled tank unable to control its ammonia. perhaps a six pound ten year old anemone the size of a super large pizza left to rot in a 40 breeder might do it, but we’re talking extremes so extreme you won’t need a $9 test kit to discern the problem-you would remove the dead anemone."

You are talking about ammonia levels high enough to cause additional deaths (possibly a cascade of deaths, a.k.a. a tank crash).  So you are arguing that ammonia test kits aren't necessary.  I'm actually fairly OK with that reasoning.  However, test kits like API, can show lesser increases of ammonia, which will not cause a cascade of death.  This information provides some information as to what is going on with our tanks.

 

"Every false panic post on this thread is a non digital ammonia test kit, in a perfectly running reef tank"

Yeah, I don't hate calling them "false panic" posts.  However, I do have an issue with saying that the results are false.

 

"have you ever, ever, ever seen a cycling chart where the ammonia line rises back up after day ten?"

Not without in increase in source ammonia.  A typical "cycle" without livestock shouldn't have big swings in ammonia production.  Therefore, levels tend to continue to decline unless the ammonia source were to increase.  However, if it does, then we might wish to look into why this might have happened, versus dismissing it as old science.

 

 

NOTE: I haven't read through all of the examples you referred to.  But if there is a particular one which you'd like me to address, I'll go back and read it.

 

 

Regarding the thread New Cycle - Seneye vs API, where the API reagent kit reported total ammonia at 2 ppm and the Seneye ReefPro900 reported free ammonia at 0.042 ppm.  I just looked up the Seneye monitor, and HOLY CRAP, they are $200???  I'm a bit skeptical already. 🤔  But anyway, I digress.  Using the Free Ammonia Calculator we get:

 

Again, just looking at your first post in that thread...

"the seneye measures above are directly in safe range for nh3"

Just curious, what is the safe range for NH3?

 

"this post you made shows how far off the mark api is when compared to seneye, great job"

This actually just shows that the two are seemingly not in agreement.  Which one, if either, is truly accurate, is another matter.  And actually, the two are in agreement if total ammonia were at 1.8 ppm, pH at 7.7, and a temperature of 77 °F.

 

"Even the untrimmed reading above is safe zone nh3 compared to that heinous over read by api, even if it’s reporting as total ammonia."

 

"thousands of tanks have done dry rock + Fritz + clownfish with zero wait time, you're two days into the wait and even those skip cycle attempts tested out fine on seneye. quick cycling is no longer bad, its a function of paying forty bucks for super concentrate in a bottle."

I assume by skip cycle, you mean no appreciable increase in ammonia.  No argument that nitrifying bacteria is helpful, or that clownfish are hardy.  I'm guessing that any statement regarding the safety level of NH3 should differentiate sensitive animals from hardy animals.  Still, it'd be nice to see what level of NH3 is considered "safe" versus what might cause visible signs of distress.

 

 

So far, I'm just not seeing a case that API is giving false positives.  Although its resolution is obviously less precise than a digital readout.  It's time consuming to go through these thread responding to each statement, but I felt that some clarification was warranted.  Not sure if I'll have the time or will to dig through all of it, but I'll try to read though the rest and sum it up for people following along.

 

 

It's a new piece of equipment (and unless it's using something radical, like theoretical particle physics, I doubt that it's really new science); however, it might even be using a new method (maybe something like electrical resistance to determine NH3; IDK, I'm just not familiar with it).  I think we saw a lot of this when Hanna came out with all of their Checkers.  Digital readouts are much easier to interpret than comparing color charts.  Many people spent hundreds of dollars getting all of their Checkers.  Unfortunately, it turned out that many people complained about most of them.  However, a lot of people (including myself) like the low resolution of their phosphate Checker (which reports levels much lower than a traditional color chart can clearly distinguish) likewise, people like the convenience of their alkalinity Checker.  However, I feel that most people (besides those with visual impairments, like being colorblind), might be better off staying away from most of their other Checkers.

 

From what I have experienced, API is capable of showing actual increases in total ammonia.  It allows you to track a cycle, and can alert you if something is off.  I don't believe claims that it yields false positive results.

Yeah I agree. But time will tell, it's still somewhat new, looks like the seneye made its debut in the 2020 range, and I'm seeing some folks on the r2r forum trying to dial it in, and seem to be getting frustrated. I am all about monitoring and if I can do a live monitoring in the near future, I would be totally on board with that. Right now, just want my tank stable, may look into the seneye deal on the 20 long project that's on the horizon, we'll see.

[seabass]

On 6/14/2022 at 2:12 PM, Morpheus77 said:

I don't normally feed them, since both the GSP and Paly get their nutrients from photosynthesis, however I have been looking into it

I feel that both of these will do fine with detectable phosphate and nitrate.  Feeding should be unnecessary and might even cause you more problems (more organics, more cyano).  Certain other corals benefit from feeding; but I'd hold off for now.

 

[Tired]

Generally you only want to feed LPS corals and anemones. Those do best if fed, and, depending on the tank, some LPS and anemones may need feeding to thrive. Feeding soft corals (that display a feeding response) can be helpful if you're trying to raise nutrient levels, or really trying to push for growth, but otherwise it's not especially needed. If the corals display little to no feeding response, like many softies will, don't bother. I do find that my blue-green syngonium, which shows a fairly strong feeding response to Reef Roids, grows best when fed.