Hanna phosphate. Reg vs low

[Uwharrie]

I have a hanna HI 713. Is the UL HI774 a better choice for a reef tank. ( working on a Christmas list)

 

[X-37B]

I have both. ULR is better for reef systems.
I use the other when I know po4 is above .1.
Looking back I should have just bought the ULR but its nice to have more than one way to test po4.

 

[xabo]

Can anyone verify this:

| The Beginners Reef

Phosphate is an important but often overlooked parameter in a saltwater aquarium. High levels of phosphate can prevent the skeletal growth of coral and fuel…

www.thebeginnersreef.com

"The Hanna HI713 LR (Low Range) Phosphate Checker is best used for Freshwater or Fish Only aquariums where the Phosphate levels being tested for can be higher. The LR checker is not able to test low enough for any aquarist keeping corals, especially LPS and SPS."

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Can anyone verify this:


"The Hanna HI713 LR (Low Range) Phosphate Checker is best used for Freshwater or Fish Only aquariums where the Phosphate levels being tested for can be higher. The LR checker is not able to test low enough for any aquarist keeping corals, especially LPS and SPS."

Not true.

This tank has 1 ppm phosphate:

Skeptical Reefkeeping 9: Test Kits, Chasing Numbers and Phosphate

By Rich Ross and Chris Jury There are many standard parameters in the reefkeeping world that aquarists strive to match in their home reefs – water quality,

reefs.com

Rich’s 150 gallon display, on a 300 gallon system, is running a phosphate level of 1.24 ppm, a level at 24.8 times higher than the often recommended .05 ppm. Photo by Richard Ross.

 

[Gtinnel]

While I agree there are people running successful tanks with much, much higher phosphate than what's considered normal for our tanks, that is the exception rather than the norm. I think the ULR Phosphate (or even the ULR Phosphorus if you don't mind converting the results to ppm phosphate) Hanna checker is the better choice for someone running a reef tank.
I've been using the HI774 for several years and have been incredibly happy with it.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

While I agree there are people running successful tanks with much, much higher phosphate than what's considered normal for our tanks, that is the exception rather than the norm. I think the ULR Phosphate (or even the ULR Phosphorus if you don't mind converting the results to ppm phosphate) Hanna checker is the better choice for someone running a reef tank.
I've been using the HI774 for several years and have been incredibly happy with it.

Sure, I don't disagree that 1 ppm phosphate is not generally the best goal.

But to say, as was stated above, that a Hanna LR phosphate checker 713 that can read down to 0.04 ppm is unsuitable because its range is too high for LPS and SPS seems clearly incorrect.

 

[Gtinnel]

Sure, I don't disagree that 1 ppm phosphate is not generally the best goal.

But to say, as was stated above, that a Hanna LR phosphate checker 713 that can read down to 0.04 ppm is unsuitable because its range is too high for LPS and SPS seems clearly incorrect.

I don't disagree that the 713 would still serve the average reef hobbyist perfectly fine, but in my very humble opinion it's still not the best option for the normal reefer.

I would rather have the accuracy of the 774 which is accurate to .02 instead of the .04 of the 713, so that when my phosphates approach 0 I am more confident that they aren't 0.
Plus if my phosphates were to reach even close to the max of .9 of the 774 at that point they're way higher than I want and it won't really matter if the checker can read up to 2.5.

While I agree with you that the statement that the 713 is only useful for fish only systems is not true. I think showing one extreme example of why the 713 is useful for reefers is not fair.

Will they both work for reefers, sure. Is the 713 the better option for the average hobbyist, not in my opinion.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I don't disagree that the 713 would still serve the average reef hobbyist perfectly fine, but in my very humble opinion it's still not the best option for the normal reefer.

I would rather have the accuracy of the 774 which is accurate to .02 instead of the .04 of the 713, so that when my phosphates approach 0 I am more confident that they aren't 0.
Plus if my phosphates were to reach even close to the max of .9 of the 774 at that point they're way higher than I want and it won't really matter if the checker can read up to 2.5.

While I agree with you that the statement that the 713 is only useful for fish only systems is not true. I think showing one extreme example of why the 713 is useful for reefers is not fair.

Will they both work for reefers, sure. Is the 713 the better option for the average hobbyist, not in my opinion.

Again, I don't disagree. If I were to get one, I'd get the 774 as well.

But the question the OP asked was if the claim he copied was correct, which it is not.

 

[Gtinnel]

Again, I don't disagree. If I were to get one, I'd get the 774 as well.

But the question the OP asked was if the claim he copied was correct, which it is not.

The intentions of my initial post was to hopefully clarify to the OP that even though that statement wasn't accurate that doesn't mean that the LR checker is the better option over the ULR checker for most reefers. I was in no way trying to argue that your post was wrong, I just felt that one example could be misleading to the OP.
I have no desire to argue, ecspecially since we seem to agree, and my opinion has been clearly stated (hopefully) so I will gracefully bow out of this thread.