humbug

Don't get me wrong - I agree entirely with both AoA and malawiman about the importance of trend data.  Its why I'm forever pointing people to the importance of having their own kits and testing to establish how often they need to do water changes etc. 

The point I'm making is that trend data is useless if your kit is providing a result of 80ppm or 160ppm EVERY time you test, irrespective of what the actual nitrate level is.  This is what we seem to be finding all too often.  How do you possibly reconcile that data into anything useful in the way of a maintenance regime?

I also suspect that at times the nitrate kits are giving readings lower than actual.  This problem is less likely to be picked up.

These issues aren't batch specific, and are being seen in other countries as well.  The problems may well be only a small proportion of kits, but it places doubt over EVERY kit.  How do we predict which are "good" and which are "bad"?

I’m so glad you cleared that all up for us Age of Aquariums.  If I’m understanding your advice correctly – those who get odd results from API test kits are dim-wits unable to follow simple instructions, and those who speak out openly about potential issues are “prolific posters”, who’s experiences aren’t valid, and should be ignored.
 

So now furnished with this new-found knowledge, it seems I have a bit of work ahead of me. 
 

Firstly, I’ll need to let Sharon know that she should be using the consistent 160ppm+ nitrate readings she’s been getting from her near new API kit when testing her lightly stocked, well maintained tank, and use them to plot trends.  From this she will be able to determine her maintenance regime going forward, even if that indicates that she needs to do twice daily, 90% water changes to get the readings down to anything like recommended levels for her fish. 
 

I’ll need to pass similar advice on to Adam . . . . . and Ken  . . . . . . and Andrew . . . . . . and Debby . . . . . .  who have had similar experiences.  In the future when I encounter guys tearing their hair out trying to reduce unbelievably high nitrate levels in their tanks – I’ll let them know not to worry!!!   All they need to do is plot trends!!  Just like with Sharon, it will solve all their problems!
 

I’ll let Larry know that the first two LFS he went to who couldn’t help him identify his tank issues got it totally wrong.  They should have got him to bring in water samples over an extended period of time so they too could “plot trends”.  Trends of zero nitrite, and low nitrates in all likelihood, based on their initial findings.  Hopefully they will come to some sort of conclusion based on those trends before he loses the rest of his fish. 
 

But geesh - that third LFS Larry went to must have had rocks in their head!!!  Why on earth would they even contemplating doubting the accuracy of API tests and retest using another brand? And why on earth would they think that the nitrite level they identified could be a pointer to an issue?  It just beggars belief.  I’ll let them know their course of action was entirely unwarranted.  Apparently API have a low failure rate.
 

I’m in a bit of confusion here though – should I instead be dropping a note to the two LFS that originally tested Larry’s water and found no nitrite and low nitrates, and pass on the advice about “user error”?  Do we assume that they too are struggling to follow the kit instructions?  Or maybe they accidently swapped the caps of the bottles over? 
 

Eeekk – I can see this is all going to take me a bit of time.  Ummmmmm . . . . .  what’s next on my list? 
 

I need to let Sandra know that the vet she had out to attend to her mystery fish deaths, who got an ammonia reading using his Sera kit while Sandra’s API kit registered zero, has come to entirely the wrong conclusion.  He’s likely just another of these incompetent souls who suffers from “user error” with API kits, and has misguidedly switched to Sera.  I wonder if Sandra will pass the message on to the vet for me to save me one call . . . . I’m starting to get nervous about my phone bill now.
 

After all that, I’ll need to sit back with a coffee and somehow reconcile with myself those fry deaths in my tank.  Bugger – user error again.  I should have known! My incompetence was responsible for not getting a nitrite reading using a perfectly adequate test kit.  But then that begs the question - should I go as far as to contact the Uni and let them know those high distinctions I got in chemistry must have been a clerical mistake? I’m incapable of placing five drops of a single reagent into a sample of water and shaking it!  I can’t possibly have stumbled my way through all those uni pracs!
 

Hmmm – I can see I’ve got a busy day ahead of myself here.  No time to finish that coffee.
 

But here’s my real problem.  What am I going to say to the specialist aquarium shops who, through personal experience and customer feedback, have stopped stocking API kits?  Guys with decades of experience in fish keeping and the industry.  I had massive respect for these guys, and I now realise that respect was misplaced.  Hmmm – obviously they too are misguided in their opinions. Their mistaken views on these kits, and their decisions to place their ethics ahead of profit, were simply idiotic.  Think of the money they have lost through sales!!!!  More dumb-asses I guess.  Good job that they felt unable to publicly voice their concerns because of the potential implications of future dealings with a large wholesaler.  If they had voiced those concerns, they would now have egg on their faces based on this latest info.  But I’m still not quite sure how best to break this astounding news to those guys . . . . . . .
 

I’m exhausted already just thinking about it all.  I’m glad the failure rate of API kits “is very low”.  Imagine the task I would be facing now if it was higher!!!
 

I guess when I’m asked in future for advice about alternative brands, I’ll just have to let people know that apparently while they may be capable of using two reagent bottles for a test, three bottles will likely prove too taxing for them.  And I mean, who actually cares about getting a meaningful result from their kit anyway – ease of use is far more important!  And fancy even considering a kit with a powder????   That’s simply beyond the capabilities of anyone without a higher degree in chemistry.

 

Or perhaps . . . . just perhaps . . . . I should be just a tiny, weeny bit sceptical of the above response, knowing that perhaps there may be a tincey, incey, wincey little bit of a vested interest involved in defending a product.  But no, that would be very wrong of me to even contemplate that a company with a considerable turn-over of these products, and in receipt of discounts based on their sales volumes, might provide such a response . . . . . .

 

As I said before, perhaps the alternative action is for hobbyists to take caution using test kit results - ANY RESULTS.  If you consider yourself capable of contending with three bottles of liquid reagent instead of two, or going as far as dealing with the immense complexities of a spoonful of powder, then perhaps take that massive leap and consider an alternative brand. 
 

PS – names above have been changed in an attempt to protect the identity of the misguided, ill-informed, dim-wits involved

 

i use straight tap water as a test constant... it has never tested positive for nitrate... and although ammonia levels used to vary since they built/upgraded treatment plants ammonia level is constant also...  i have 60 odd tanks and use redtail tank as a nitrate high reading... at best its 40ppm and at worst 80ppm... so if i get a reading of zero theres a problem... also if i get a nitrate reading from straight tap water theres a problem... so i have a test constant to fall back onto if i need to check my test kit....

with ammonia its same deal test tap water for a high reading and i have one tank that has more media and filtration it could ever use... it always produces zero ammonia reading... it has self cleaning media and isnt effected by filter cleaning... so thats my constant zero ammonia reading...

i have a big pond out front that is lowly stocked and can be used as another constant backup......

to date never had a problem with api....

Just so you know - the kits we have come across that are giving such high results for nitrates still give zero results when on used on samples of tap water. 
 

Whooops - I've just had one of those smh moments. I hadn't realised that API were a sponsor of this forum . . . . . 

. . . . but then I sat back and thought about it.  Should that make a difference to my ability to voice a concern to the group?  Should forum sponsorship act as a form of censorship, either directly or indirectly?  Hopefully not.  Apologies if I've made things uncomfortable for forum admin, though.  Certainly not my intention!

 

I use so many different test kits its insane. The API one has the advantage of being FAST! Its better than strip tests for accuracy. ALL test kits have issues, reagents dont always play nice with other aquarium chemicals, and it only takes putting the wrong lid on a bottle to send its accuracy to hell. User error is a HUGE problem with testing and dosing. No matter the kit you use, record the results. Trend data is more helpful than 0.000001% accuracy.

Sorry - but I'm going to take you to task on this one.  Statements like this are nothing but a smokescreen. 
 

I can assure you that with my background in T&E, I don't inadvertently place the wrong cap on the wrong bottle. I store products properly.  I use them in accordance with instructions.

Recording "trend data" is utterly meaningless for troubleshooting issues, which is what most more-experienced hobbyists use kits for.  Trend data is only useful in other circumstances if those results are REPEATABLE.
 

We are NOT talking about small, inconsequential errors in results here. Do you seriously suggest that this is a discussion about "0.000001% accuracy"???????   There is a HELL of a difference in the required course of action in dealing with a tank with a nitrate reading of  5-10ppm, and one of 160ppm.   In my high pH tanks, actually knowing if I have 0.5 ppm ammonia or not is important to me. I certainly need to know if nitrite is present when trying to troubleshoot a tank with dead fry.  If our uncertainty level in results from these kits is this great, what exactly is the point of the test??????? 
 

These are products which are marketed to HOBBYISTS, for HOBBYIST use.  In hobbyists' hands, it can be expected that they will be used irregularly, and over an extended period of time.  These products SHOULD maintain their effectiveness under those conditions - in fact there is a legal obligation on the manufacturer under Consumer Law that they do so.  There is a significant body of evidence in the public domain which demonstrates that API kits are simply not providing reliable, repeatable results in the hands of users. 
 

Suggesting that "user error is a huge problem" is a pretty convenient fob-off line.  Perhaps I have a higher regard for users and their ability to follow simple instructions than you have.  But putting it frankly, if the general hobbyist is unable to achieve meaningful, reliable results with these kits, and those results are so heavily impacted by "user error", then they are simply not "fit for purpose".
 

I sincerely believe that in attempting to produce a product which is "easy to use", API have lost focus on the actual reason for the product - that of providing useful results.

Thought I’d share this one with the group. I’ve mentioned it before in threads, but though it worthy of a bit more visibility.  The aim here isn’t to product-bash per se – it’s to try to encourage people to QUESTION the products they are using, and just not to accept they behave in accordance with manufacturer’s claims.
 

For years I’ve used API test kits . . . and recommended them to others as readily available, affordable kits. It’s only in recent times that I had some questionable results from my own tanks, and a niggling doubt formed. Then I started seeing a string of interesting posts on Facebook groups that just didn’t make sense – people battling “high nitrates” which continual, massive water changes in scrupulously clean tanks couldn’t combat. It didn’t make sense. The one common factor – API test kits.
 

So I did some tests for myself. I tested a water sample with two API nitrate kits from my collection, and one JBL kit. All kits were within use by dates and had been stored properly since purchase. The water came from a large moderately stocked tank running a large Marine Pure block in the sump for nitrate reduction. With my maintenance regime I would expect nitrate levels to be low. Results were as follows:
 

Older API kit - 40 ppm (3 months before expiry, bottles well used but shaken well before every use)
Newer API kit - 160 ppm (2+ years to expiry, bottles used for one or two tests only)
JBL kit - between 5 & 10 ppm
 

I have since made a comparison using JBL and ELOS kits on other samples from the same tank and they gave identical, low results.
 

While the API nitrate kits appear to be particularly problematic, I no longer trust the API nitrite kits either. I had a situation with dead fry in a tank. API kits indicated water was fine, while JBL showed elevated nitrite. Without the JBL kit I wouldn’t have known how to deal with the problem.
 

I keep hearing of similar stories – a couple of weeks ago a guy had unexplained deaths in his tank. Took water samples to two shops and their testing using API kits indicated there were no issues. He took a sample to another shop who tested with another brand and identified elevated levels of nitrite and sky-high nitrate. Problem identified . . . . . eventually.  If the guy hadn’t been persistent, he would still be in the dark as to how to proceed to solve his very real problem.
 

I hear the cries already. “API kits are fine – you just need to use them properly!” Sorry – I am fully aware of the issues of API nitrate kit reagent 2 settling out of solution and the need for shaking the @*&% out of the bottle before use. I’m well aware of the pitfalls of unclean test tubes, inaccurate sample sizes etc, etc. I’m a degree qualified engineer with 25+ years’ experience in Test and Evaluation. I suggest if I can’t get reliable, repeatable results from a test kit, then they aren’t suitable for the general hobbyist.

 

A hunt on the internet quickly reveals that my experiences aren’t uncommon. We are now seeing a number of well-respected LFS refusing to sell these kits, based on customer’s and in-shop experiences.
 

The response I’ve had from a technical representative of API on this subject is to say . . . . . interesting. Let’s just say it didn’t do anything to improve my confidence in the products.

I used to recommend API kits to others as a relatively affordable, readily available option. I no longer do so. False negative test results mean problems can’t be identified. Excessive readings lead people to take drastic, unwarranted interventions on their tanks.

 

Problem is – we buy a product, particularly one from a major well-known company, and we just expect it will do what it says it should . . . . . .

Please – rather than accept those results with blind faith, retain a healthy degree of scepticism.  If results don’t seem to make sense, try to find a LFS who use an alternative brand who can validate or otherwise your parameters.   You owe it to your fish!

Its reassuring to know that I'm not the only old fart here, Chris

Here's a selection of fish food ads from the February 1960 issue of Tropical Fish Hobbyist magazine. 
 

I laugh when I see people suggesting a high protein diet causes bloat. We didn't see bloat in beefheart fed fish. Not that I suggest its a good diet!!!!

Im currently leafing through some 1959 TFH magazines. The fish food adverts are very entertaining.   So much of the advertising spin is similar to today, but a few other selling points like packaging dont seem to be on the radar in current ads. I'll see if I can scan a couple.

. . . . and before you lot start, no, Im not THAT old!
 

The black book is out and I'm taking notes  . . . . . .

Great resource!!!  Thanks to Terry for sharing his experiences, and to whoever made it possible to record the talk for others to benefit from! 

Kudos yet again for the efforts the society is making in supporting the hobby.  You guys rock!

Dr. Herbert Axelrod, was one of the founders of the ornamental aquarium hobby.  He was the author of many books and publications, and his name is honoured in the scientific name of many aquarium fish (Cardinal tetra, Black neon tetra, Corydoras, etc.) He passed away on 15th of May 2017 at almost 90 years of age.
 

I'm guessing his passing will mean little to newer hobbyists. In this age of the internet there isn't the same need for printed works. For the older generation, who started dabbling in fish well before the advent of the internet, books by the likes of Axelrod were our bibles. Either way - each and every one of us, young and old, owe a debt to this man for his huge contribution to our hobby.

I’m not sure if it’s been mentioned on the forum before – apologies if this is old news
 

The CARES Preservation Program has been set up in recent times.  The list of those involved reads like a who’s-who of the game with the likes of Konings, Lamboj, Loiselle etc etc included amongst their authorities.  Details can be found at the website http://caresforfish.org, but as a bit of an intro I’ve copied their Purpose & Goals statement below.
 

"Purpose and Goals
The purpose of the CARES Preservation Program is to create a base stock of conservation priority species through encouraging hobbyists worldwide to devote tank space to one or more species at risk and distribute offspring to fellow qualified hobbyists, while forming an information network where possible between aquarists, scientists, and conservationists.

CARES has four major goals:
1) to bring awareness to the critical situation of fish in nature, while educating the public and stressing the importance of our roles as responsible aquarists;
2) to recognize, encourage, and offer support to hobbyists who maintain species at risk;
3) to share fish as well as data and experiences through notes and manuscripts so that others may learn to maintain those identical and similar species; and
4) to preserve species at risk for future generations."

 

I’m guessing there is limited opportunity for Australian cichlid keepers to be involved directly with CARES.  Only a proportion of the current list of fish is available in this country. But it does rather beg the question as to whether a similar program could/should be worked on within Australia in an attempt to try to preserve some of the species we have here for future generations of hobbyists.  More and more species in the local hobby are lost every year to hybridisation, reduced popularity, or just the lack of a dedicated person/people to foster them in a pure form.  Perhaps we should be placing more emphasis on identifying those species in danger before they are lost?

Ouchhhhhh !

One that's been a real saga for us in Adelaide is unsafe tanks.  Guessing its more widespread than just here.  For some time we have had at least a couple of tank builders in Adelaide building “budget” tanks which just don’t meet modern practices with regards safety.  As a result, there are a hell of a lot of tanks in the second-hand market which are potential time bombs. When (rather than if) these tanks fail, I can only hope that the only damage they do is to flood a house and perhaps destroy the sound system. 

Large display tank in the living room.  The family’s pride and joy.  Young child playing in front of the tank, accidently knocks the glass.  The front of the tank fails catastrophically, sending a tidal wave of water through the room.  Take a look at some of the tank failures on youtube to see just how devastating this could be . . . . . .

But what to look for when buying a tank is probably a topic for another thread
 

In the light of the interesting events of this week in SA with a family hospitalised after a marine tank clean went wrong, I thought it might be worth starting some discussion about some of the dangers involved with our hobby.
 

With the rise of the internet, many people getting into fishkeeping these days are having less interaction with the well-established shops run by experienced people, or with the clubs of old frequented by experienced hobbyists.  As a result we have the proliferation of newbie-coaching-newbie in the hobby.  I wonder how many of the important lessons are being passed on – those lessons which are too often learnt the hard way by bitter experience. 
 

I don’t find it at all surprising that the event yesterday occurred.  I suspect that aquarium-related incidents resulting in physical harm to people are a pretty frequent occurrence.  Just looking at the comments on threads on fish groups discussing the event yesterday showed the level of “ignorance”.  Before details of what had happened came out, sooooooo many people were suggesting that it couldn’t be the aquarium. Chemicals involved with aquariums are safe – they must be, they don’t harm the fish.  Hmmmmmmm

Just as an example, I’ve heard first-hand of a couple of people receiving bad burns from African cichlids salts.  Here’s the scenario.  Large tank, and need to add salts after a water change.  Grab a big handful of dry powder and place the hand into a bucket of water to dissolve the salts before adding to the tank.  When wet, an “exothermic” reaction takes place – ie a lot of heat is given off.  We don’t usually have any evidence of it when we spoon the powder into water.  The heat given off has no real impact on the large volume of water in our tank.  But against the skin it’s a different story!!!  One case resulted in burns sufficient to badly blister the whole palm of the hand.

I know of at least one product used by some which is a carcinogen (ie cancer causing agent) when inhaled. OK that might not happen too often in everyday interaction with our fish, but this material precipitates out of the water column and collects in the substrate and filters.   At each use, more of the product builds up in the tank.  I personally would be EXTREMELY careful in how I handled dry substrate from a tank in which it had been used.  Even cleaning the filter could expose you to the material.

An update on this one.  I now have a small group of albino fuelleborni that all came from the same source as the one above.  The males and females are quite easy to tell apart - the females have the orange tinge of the fish in the photo above.  The males are an attractive silvery colour.  While the group is still young, I noticed the first mouthful today.  Both parents are albinos, so assuming the fry are viable, then technically they should all be albinos as well.  I continue to watch with interest