Is this normal?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an interest in aquariums or fish keeping!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I absolutely agree, with the exception that in many of these cases time is of the utmost importance. If someone was generally asking about a good test kit, I would always (and have always) recommend shopping around online and finding a good deal. However, when there is a mysterious situation and there is the possibility that fish are currently suffering from acute ammo / no2 poisoning, I'd happily spend an extra $20 to get to the bottom of the situation as quickly as possible and make sure I'm in the best situation to deal with it. I view it the same way as if one of my dogs seems to be in distress, I don't wait until the regular Vet opens, I climb into the car and head towards the emergency vet clinic knowing it'll cost me hundreds of more dollars than waiting until my normal vet office is open.

I completely, 100% agree with your statement, but there are always exceptions to the rules.

I agree with you about getting what you can where you can in an urgent situation.
But after someone grabs their first Master Kit at the more expensive place, it's a good time to order your next kit online for less. That way you have it, when the first one runs out and then there's no panic to get another kit in 24 hours, it's already there for you.
I know that the test kits don't have a real long shelf life. But it's like 2-4 years I think. Please no one thrash me if I'm wrong, I'm speaking from memory. My Master Kit is in my Grandsons bedroom and he's sound asleep at 11:42pm, so I can't verify my memory at this time.
Any way as long as you're testing as often as you should, shelf life wouldn't be an issue.
 
I ordered mine online also, the LFS prices are marked up wayyy too high. And honestly, if you are in emergency mode, as in needing to know what the test levels are immediately, then you probably need to do a water change. Repeat daily till your test kit comes in. :)

Anytime I have a fairly new tank and I even have a the slightest hint that there is ammonia/nitrite issues, guess what the first thing I do is. Grab the test kit? No, I do a substantial water change conditioning with a detoxifier.
 
I ordered mine online also, the LFS prices are marked up wayyy too high. And honestly, if you are in emergency mode, as in needing to know what the test levels are immediately, then you probably need to do a water change. Repeat daily till your test kit comes in. :)

Anytime I have a fairly new tank and I even have a the slightest hint that there is ammonia/nitrite issues, guess what the first thing I do is. Grab the test kit? No, I do a substantial water change conditioning with a detoxifier.

If in doubt, always do a big PWC every day until you get your API MTK, right there with you on that one. But I don't let myself be out of any part of a MTK. One time I let myself be talked into using another brand of nitrite/nitrate test kit. Boy was I sorry, I got readings all over the place. It said my longest running tank had 0 nitrates and the newest was was at 50ppm. It was driving me crazy then my API kit came in and WOW, the tank that was reading 0 was actually almost 180ppm, thank goodness Mbunas are hardy and it was only 5 days or that other test kit would have killed all my fish.
All is well now and API is all I'll buy.
Before I knew about cycling and MTK, I have no idea how my fish survived my idiocy & ignorance.
 
My water change routine is too frequent to even be concerned with testing nitrates, apart from testing it in planted tanks to gauge how much kno3 to dose. I used to use my nitrate test to get an idea of how much water I should be changing each water change, but now that I do them every 3 days it is less relevant.
 
My water change routine is too frequent to even be concerned with testing nitrates, apart from testing it in planted tanks to gauge how much no3 to dose. I used to use my nitrate test to get an idea of how much water I should be changing each water change, but now that I do them every 3 days it is less relevant.

I do PWC twice a week on all 4 of my tanks. But I'm a bit OCD when it comes to any animal care. So I test everything beforethe PWC and then 1 hour after and keep it in a comp. book so I know if there are any changes going on, like I said, OCD.
 
As I originally said...I agree and it's nice that we're having a discussing about doing pwc's and saving money, but did you guys follow this thread from the beginning? The OP was consistently getting readings of 120 parts or nitrAte AFTER doing multiple pwc's. When there's the possibility that the pwc's were part of the problem...that would be a valid reason in my eyes to run to the lfs. Maybe I'm not quite as thrifty, and I'm sorry if the OP spent a few extra dollars in exchange for not waiting days for a kit to arrive in the mail...but I bet he got a better nights sleep knowing his fish weren't suffering from ammona/no2 and no3 poisoning.
 
eco23, I agree with you that in an urgent situation like this, definitely get the closest API MTK you can find, no question.
I was just saying that in the future, long before that first MTK runs low, order another one online. Avoiding these expensive panic buys whenever possible, think ahead.
But right now do a PWC then run to (drive to) the nearest FS that carries MTK, cost is irrelevant this time.
I would never advocate waiting for a delivery if the fish are in even mild distress. All our fish deserve better than that.
 
yup I read the beginning of the thread. He said he's using r/o water in the PWC's, so getting a huge amount of nitrates from the source water really shouldn't be possible (although i'd still test to be sure).

I wasn't really advocating skipping testing, if thats what gives someone peace of mind then have at it, I just tend to fall back on the old saying 'the solution to pollution is dilution' idea.

@wendi- lol I know what you mean, I cannot be OCD about my tanks, I'd be in there all day every day if I was, and putting some API employees children through college since I'd have to test 30+ tanks every couple of days at WC time. I just keep em in good shape, keep the water clean, and they do great :)
 
jetajockey said:
yup I read the beginning of the thread. He said he's using r/o water in the PWC's, so getting a huge amount of nitrates from the source water really shouldn't be possible (although i'd still test to be sure).

I wasn't really advocating skipping testing, if thats what gives someone peace of mind then have at it, I just tend to fall back on the old saying 'the solution to pollution is dilution' idea.

@wendi- lol I know what you mean, I cannot be OCD about my tanks, I'd be in there all day every day if I was, and putting some API employees children through college since I'd have to test 30+ tanks every couple of days at WC time. I just keep em in good shape, keep the water clean, and they do great :)

First, I can link a thread from a week ago where a guy was getting RO water from a lfs that contained over 80ppm no3, he went back to the store and almost got into a fist fight with the owner, so it's not unheard of. In fact, I've been on numerous threads over the past few months where RO water from a lfs contained super elevated levels of no3. When you do a pwc and the numbers go up instead of down...I don't think the dilution for pollution mantra applies, even though in virtually all other cases it does.

I don't mean to get defensive about this, but it works me up a little bit when I work through a potentially deadly issue with a member, find a solution, go to sleep, and then wake up in the morning to numerous posts between you two about how the OP running out for a test kit was a bad decision.

If the test kit wasn't faulty (which it was even though it wasn't expired and the testing was performed right), and my concern that the no3 was in the RO water was correct (which was the logical explanation due to his current readings with his API kit) , the recommendation of continuous pwc's (which again, I advocate 99.9% of the time) would have only compounded the problem.

I've said this in almost every post on this thread...I agree with you guys, but there are exceptions to virtually every single rule on the planet.
 
First, I can link a thread from a week ago where a guy was getting RO water from a lfs that contained over 80ppm no3, he went back to the store and almost got into a fist fight with the owner, so it's not unheard of. In fact, I've been on numerous threads over the past few months where RO water from a lfs contained super elevated levels of no3. When you do a pwc and the numbers go up instead of down...I don't think the dilution for pollution mantra applies, even though in virtually all other cases it does.
That's a seriously rare case, though. A post or two claiming that their LFS is selling them nitrate filled water is not enough to assume that this one in particular is doing it also.

Why would r/o water contain nitrates at all? I'm sure it happens, when someone rips someone off, but it's definitely not the norm, any fish store that is selling r/o water with 80ppm no3 in it is going to catch all kinds of lawsuits, imagine them nuking thousands of dollars in a reef or two because of it.

i'm not even sure why the OP is using r/o for wc's to begin with.
I don't mean to get defensive about this, but it works me up a little bit when I work through a potentially deadly issue with a member, find a solution, go to sleep, and then wake up in the morning to numerous posts between you two about how the OP running out for a test kit was a bad decision.
I didn't say it was necessarily a bad decision, just not something I would personally do. I don't get freaked out when my water quality isn't up to par, I just do water changes. If my water isn't good enough to do wc's with, then I'd get some from elsewhere.

If my LFS was suspect also, then I'd just get some bottled water from wally or something. That's just a common sense move (imo) at that point.

I'm not even an advocate for r/o since it brings on the need to manage gh/kh also along with toxin levels, just making things even more complicated and requiring a separate test kit.

If the test kit wasn't faulty (which it was even though it wasn't expired and the testing was performed right), and my concern that the no3 was in the RO water was correct (which was the logical explanation due to his current readings with his API kit) , the recommendation of continuous pwc's (which again, I advocate 99.9% of the time) would have only compounded the problem.

I've said this in almost every post on this thread...I agree with you guys, but there are exceptions to virtually every single rule on the planet.
I just think we have different methods to approach this problem. No need to get defensive about it. This is an open forum so I assume that subjects are open for discussion and input is welcome, so I posted my 2 cents.

Personally, I would go with a method that would reduce my nitrates. In most cases (not all, as you stated), a water change would help the issue. After narrowing down reasons as to why the nitrates would be so high, I'd still find a method to reduce the nitrate level in the tank first and foremost, and order a test kit at half the cost of what the LFS charges. Assuming the current test kit I had was faulty, well, changing the water out with some known good water will help resolve the problem, at least temporarily.
 
jetajockey said:
That's a seriously rare case, though. A post or two claiming that their LFS is selling them nitrate filled water is not enough to assume that this one in particular is doing it also.

Why would r/o water contain nitrates at all? I'm sure it happens, when someone rips someone off, but it's definitely not the norm, any fish store that is selling r/o water with 80ppm no3 in it is going to catch all kinds of lawsuits, imagine them nuking thousands of dollars in a reef or two because of it.

i'm not even sure why the OP is using r/o for wc's to begin with.
I didn't say it was necessarily a bad decision, just not something I would personally do. I don't get freaked out when my water quality isn't up to par, I just do water changes. If my water isn't good enough to do wc's with, then I'd get some from elsewhere.

If my LFS was suspect also, then I'd just get some bottled water from wally or something. That's just a common sense move (imo) at that point.

I'm not even an advocate for r/o since it brings on the need to manage gh/kh also along with toxin levels, just making things even more complicated and requiring a separate test kit.

I just think we have different methods to approach this problem. No need to get defensive about it. This is an open forum so I assume that subjects are open for discussion and input is welcome, so I posted my 2 cents.

Personally, I would go with a method that would reduce my nitrates. In most cases (not all, as you stated), a water change would help the issue. After narrowing down reasons as to why the nitrates would be so high, I'd still find a method to reduce the nitrate level in the tank first and foremost, and order a test kit at half the cost of what the LFS charges. Assuming the current test kit I had was faulty, well, changing the water out with some known good water will help resolve the problem, at least temporarily.

I think we are both pretty much on the same page.

I run a water purification company so I am familiar with numerous ways that a RO unit could potentially become faulty and introduce impurities into a water source if not properly maintained.

My issue is that the OP raised an issue, the problem was troubleshot, worked through, a successful solution was reached, and then for some reason a conversation broke out regarding the methods used to reach the conclusion. I'm curious what course of action you would have recommended if pwc's seemed to be compounding the problem instead of helping it? If there's a troubleshooting step I missed other than the possibility of a faulty test kit or no3 in the replacement water, it's information I would like to know in the future. I assume if the OP is not using water directly from the tap, there is a legitimate reason...even if there was not and the tap water was usable as long as it was conditioned, the difference in water conditions between the store bought water and tap would in itself have been detrimental to the fish with a large pwc.

I am honestly not trying to be argumentative, I just don't understand the need for, or the rationality behind questioning a method that resulted in a positive outcome considering the circumstances of the situation.
 
I am honestly not trying to be argumentative, I just don't understand the need for, or the rationality behind questioning a method that resulted in a positive outcome considering the circumstances of the situation.
That's simple, I wasn't addressing your methodology, I was originally going off of Wendi's post in regard to the vast difference in cost of online purchase vs LFS purchase.

120ppm nitrates is not something that is going to send me to petsmart at 8pm. Maybe up to the gas station to get some purified water, if necessary, but that's about it.

Getting a test kit might give me some peace of mind about the tank situation, but so would a WC with known good quality water. And if I did end up buying a test kit in a panic, I'd be kicking myself for paying double for something that I could have gotten much cheaper by applying some patience.

It's not something I've ever had an issue with, most of my tanks are well planted, and I do very frequent water changes with good quality tap water, so I'm just speculating on how I'd handle it.

Maybe this can be summed up as me being thrifty, that's ok too. :lol:
 
I just wanted to report on my tests: Ammonia 0, nitrItes 0, and nitrAres 2 ppm. Hurray!
 
Back
Top Bottom