Test Kits: How do I love thee ?

[Professor Myers]

Q: 1. How much have you spent on test kits since your induction into the hobby ?

Q: 2. How many test kits have you thrown away ?

Q: 3. How many of those reagents had expired before you "actually" threw them away ?

Q: 4. How many test kits do you presently own with questionable/expired reagents that you haven't mustered up the financial fortitude to finally throw them away ?

Q: 5. Have you ever upgraded to a "Better" test kit before disposing of the last ?

Q: 6. Has your spouse ever become curious or anxious about your accumulation of test kits, and your presumed fiscal responsibility ?

Q: 7. How much does the standard regimen of nutrients cost at Aquarium Plants, Aquatic Plants, Planted Aquariums, and Aquarium Plant Fertilizer ?

Q: 8. Have you enjoyed continued success since undertaking EI dosing parameters ?

I would sincerely like to read everyone's answers to these questions. Perhaps this should be listed as a survey ? I'll leave that up to the Admins better judgement.

Myself ??? I'm afraid I will have to plead the 5th. on questions 1 through 5 as my lovely wife actually reads this forum.

A: 6. She has indeed and of course she's every bit as right as she is Lovely, Intelligent, Kind, and Generous !

A: 7. Considerably less than 1 clinical analysis kit, or two respectable OTC kits.

A: 8. I don't know about the rest of you, but my tanks are Kickin @$$ and takin names ! Prof M

 

[nursie]

1. Who can remember, lol!
2. None
3. They have expiration dates Those are kind of a reccomendation, Right?
4. Oh probably most of them, except maybe the AP master test kit.
5. Yes, absolutely. Hint: don't buy the Red Sea test kits just because they are cheap. Mistake!
6. Not at all. He has his pricey hobby..I have mine
7. Can't answer that. I got mine from Big als/Walgreens/Lowes.
8. When I'm compliant with doing it

I've been off track with my EI. Hate to confess it. I am in the midst of kicking algae butt and taking names later.


My spouse, handsome and charming as he is, doesn't read the forums, unless it's over my shoulder. He's not that interested.

 

[Professor Myers]

Just a Rant...

I am continually amazed at the money people will spend to find out what they did wrong, and thoroughly confused by their continued apathy to invest in what they have already confirmed.

The more obssessive among us will lather a small fortune to substantiate their own historical failures. Yet they can't find their wallet when they step up to the line ?

I admit this openly and freely, and have moved on with my life. LOL.

"Hind sight is 20/20"

 

[Tom Barr]

It is interesting when Troels, Ole, myself and Karen took a couple of days of sight seeing around CA at the AGA event last weekend.
We all agree, but it's the folks with a little knowledge that have the most issues and tell others we are all wrong.

I have about 3000$ in my test kits for the home.
I have no clue as to the labs and the University cost etc.

I use test to answrr specific questions and verify the test error every single time.

This gives me a lot more confidence in my assertions. Adding to that, is a lot of plant torture and growth experience with about 300 species now.

I've used eI for a very long time and know I can rule out nutrient related issues and the rest falls on CO2 for growth and algae issues.

So I know very well what to look for and see if we assume the nutrients are in good shape. CO2 is all that is left.
Specific plants, issues etc are easy to target and resolve with this method.

As the water column is non limiting, adding anything to sediment compliments or gives no significant help in terms of growth.

It all starts with non limiting nutrients and their mainteance in the water column, from there, you have a much better understanding about what is occuring within the sediments and with CO2 and light.

I'm not sure why so many folks obsess over the nutrients when it's the CO2, light and other potential locations and forms of nutrients that present a much better solution to most problems whether they be algal, plant, or human induced.

Seems they'd be much better to put their energy into CO2 testing and obsessing.

Now for the life of me, why doesn't PPS suggest obsessive close critical testing of CO2?

That seems very counter to the original goal/premise.
Why would one limit the other nutrients and watch them critically yet ignore such rigor with CO2 which can easily kill fish if too much is added?

I really try to address CO2 much more prominently. At risk of becoming a CO2 nag

Regards,
Tom Barr