All for Reef!!! Excited to make the change! What say you?

[Cichlid Dad]

I use kalk and all 4 reef

@Reefahholic says it's for newbies LOL!

 

[RelaxingWithTheReef]

I guess none of you guys would be interested in this kind of data then.? @cliff Ramsdell made a nice spreadsheet to collect data from all the different salt brands using ICP-MS analysis. All the others before this have only been OES data. With all the cumulative data coming in from this, we’ll be able to see/monitor consistency within each brand. Can’t wait to see this thing grow.


Photo spreadsheet credit: Cliff Ramsdell

Feel free to include the Red Sea Salt ICP-MS results I posted a couple days ago in the data set.

 

[rishma]

Thanks! I add B-ionic, not usually equal but as my testing trends dictate, but it is close. The issue that can arise with your method is AFR is formulated to replace elements in the same portions as NSW so as it is a one step process. If you are using another step to control your Alk and Calcium (kalk) you are not replacing the total amount of trace elements in your system. You then have to add your missing trace (via testing [ICP-MS]).
If you are only running a low demand system, water changes and AFR is probably all you would ever need. In a high demand system, There maybe a change in the needs of your tank, that because it is a closed system, falls outside the NSW standard. ie; SPS may have different needs than softies or LPS. Every tank has different needs and even the same tank changes over time. There is no silver bullet unless you had a 100% turn over rate of NSW daily. I mean, AFR can get you 75-90% of the way there I believe, and for some that is fine for them. But to really achieve proper coral husbandry, the last little bit is just as important as the first bit.

Interestingly, my “method” was not really well thought out. It’s not really method at all. It just happened. My tank started with Kalk. I dose Kalk at night to stabilize pH, and have used Kalk for decades. It’s just what I am used to. Once a month I’d dump in some Magnesium and change water.

My kalk reservoir was sized for the space in my stand. As demand increased over time, it got to point I had to mix new kalk every month. I didn’t want to mix Kalk more often than that because I travel for work, so I started dosing AFR with my other dosing head.

Later I started periodic ICP tests and found Ca high and iodine low. The high Ca was probably always high, and the few times I had tested it I recall thinking my test kit was wrong. I rarely tested for Ca because I figured controlling the alkalinity with kalk was good enough (I only recently learned Kalk overdoses calcium, so does AFR) . I test alkalinity religiously. I dose iodine now every couple of weeks. Repeat ICP showed all other elements in the target range.

The results are satisfactory for me. For reasons I don’t completely understand the unplanned approach I landed at seems to be working. I wouldn’t suggest it’s repeatable for others and might not continue to work well in the long term, but I’m not inclined to mess with it….at least until I run out of kalk or AFR

 

[Reefahholic]

Feel free to include the Red Sea Salt ICP-MS results I posted a couple days ago in the data set.

I’d tag Cliff Ramsdell, but I’m unsure what his board name is here. I’ll send him a link to this post reply on FB.

 

[Doctorgori]

@Reefahholic …. I totally get your logic: one can’t possibly be “wrong” if/when attempting husbandry by trying to duplicate the environment an animal evolved in….
Basically my understanding of RM is that it tries to achieve the trace levels found in NSW. Makes sense, I get it….

But we can’t have it both ways; and I’ve used this same argument to justify keeping corals in the 5500K lighting that actually is closer to duplicating natural sunlight, yet we fight white lighting like it’s some enemy. We blame it on algae issue and adjust lighting as a parameter when the root cause is actually another parameter being out of tolerance: Basically using light to fix a water quality issue…

My question is if you RM folks adjust your water to NSW levels, do you adjust your lighting to 5500K? I mean it’s the exact same “ can’t go wrong” logic isn’t it?

Same goes for temperature. I know the ocean is stable, but who the heck proclaimed and announced 78F is ideal, universal and or optimal? I mean wouldn’t a small variance in temp that duplicates seasonal changes, upswells, storms, runoff be closer to natural conditions. Is every reef from the Bahamas to Fiji at solid 78F all year long or is 78F another “can’t loose” setting ?
yet we all blindly set our thermostats at 78F because someone said so in some study back in time….. 78F, 24/7…. really? and why?

Not to make RHF’s argument for him but Do we actually know exactly which trace outside the main 5 or 6 elements are actually needed?
( apologies in advance: a piggyback on @Randy Holmes-Farley argument)

And not getting on some soapbox, but all of us seem to pick which parameters are optimal/important without any actual meaningful sample from our own experiences…. Someone makes a proclamation and we follow, be it lighting, temperature or trace elements…
We all do it

Edited for clarity and because I can as a “Supporting Member” LOL

 

[Reefahholic]

@Reefahholic …. I totally get your logic: one can’t possibly be “wrong” if/when attempting husbandry by trying to duplicating the environment an animal evolved in….
Basically my understanding of RM is that it tries to achieve the trace levels found in NSW. Makes sense, I get it….

But we can’t have it both ways; and I’ve used this same argument to justify keeping corals in the 5500K lighting that duplicates natural sunlight, yet we fight white lighting like it’s some enemy. We blame it on algae issue and adjust lighting as a parameter when the root cause is actually another parameter being out of tolerance: Basically using light to fix a water quality issue…

My question is if you RM folks adjust your water to NSW levels, do you adjust your lighting to 5500K? I mean it’s the exact same logic isn’t it?

We don’t keep NSW levels. We elevate most elements slightly to keep a buffer zone so that if something becomes rapidly consumed it hopefully won’t be too far off from normal levels. Sometimes elements like Fluoride, Iron, Manganese, etc…are hard for people to get dialed in.

As far as lighting I’m a believer in more white light grows corals faster. I run 14K Metal Haldies for 4 hrs and also a more white spectrum with my G5’s during that time, but not as long. We could be wrong trying to duplicate the environment, but I think it’s more likely you’d be wrong if you didn’t. The only thing I don’t like to duplicate in the ocean are the nutrient levels. Nutrients are typically very low, but the ocean has an abundance of resources available. There’s also available P in many microorganisms that corals are consuming 24/7 so even if the P level is .01-.02 they are still getting plenty. Our reef tanks are like a ghetto. Not much food, poor light quality compared to natural sunlight, a lot of fluctuations, etc. For me…the more I can replicate the good things, I feel it’s better for the corals. Some of those good things are trace elements that keep the corals functioning. They keep the corals healthy, and reduce the risk of pathogens. Too many processes going on to leave a lot of those elements depleted. If some of these elements are too low or depleted those processes are slowed or even stopped completely.

 

[Reefahholic]

Better picture of the first one:

 

[kilnakorr]

Been using AFR for about 6 months now, and everything seems pretty good.
As @Randy Holmes-Farley mentioned in an ealier comment theres is a delay, which might be why my kh has a slight deviation, as my kh director adjusts dosing based on measurements.

I did have to remove my roller filter, as seemingly clean fleece was used up in just a week or two.
Migh be an increase in bacteria. Anyone else had this issue?

 

[Dburr1014]

It’s a Cult-like brainwashing bro.

I laughed when I read this.

This is exactly what I thought of moonshine rs method.

 

[Doctorgori]

but I think it’s more likely you’d be wrong if you didn’t.

I am SO GLAD you took what I said and ran with it in lieu of taking it personal….
I might not be 100% on board but TBH it’s hard to argue with the logic here…

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

@Reefahholic …. I totally get your logic: one can’t possibly be “wrong” if/when attempting husbandry by trying to duplicate the environment an animal evolved in….
Basically my understanding of RM is that it tries to achieve the trace levels found in NSW. Makes sense, I get it….

Well, I can give many ways and reasons it can be wrong because we know so little about what is actually in the water.

I'm not sure we want to drive this thread off track that way, but here are some thoughts and examples...

1. On trace elements, total concentration is only a small part of the story. There are many different chemical forms of most trace elements, and those chemical forms have different bioavailability and toxicity. The forms present may not be at all the same as in the ocean, and may change tank to tank and over time. A very well known one is iodide and iodate, but it applies to most metals as well, since they sometimes have multiple oxidation states and a very wide range of different organics binding/chelating them.

2. We have very little useful information on how high and how low most trace elements can get without them being a problem for any individual organism, and those ranges likely vary organism to organism.

3. A clear example of how we went wrong assuming natural levels were always best was assuming the natural levels of nitrate and phosphate would be best. They clearly are not in many reef tanks.

 

[Reefahholic]

I am SO GLAD you took what I said and ran with it in lieu of taking it personal….
I might not be 100% on board but TBH it’s hard to argue with the logic here…

Well it’s like saying we should mix our NSW to 1.019 for corals. Why would we do that if most reefs are around 1.025-1.026 range.


Things like that don’t make much sense to me. It would be more logical to keep corals in the same salinity to match where they’re growing at.

 

[Reefahholic]

Well, I can give many ways and reasons it can be wrong because we know so little about what is actually in the water.

I'm not sure we want to drive this thread off track that way, but here are some thoughts and examples...

1. On trace elements, total concentration is only a small part of the story. There are many different chemical forms of most trace elements, and those chemical forms have different bioavailability and toxicity. The forms present may not be at all the same as in the ocean, and may change tank to tank and over time. A very well known one is iodide and iodate, but it applies to most metals as well, since they sometimes have multiple oxidation states and a very wide range of different organics binding/chelating them.

2. We have very little useful information on how high and how low most trace elements can get without them being a problem for any individual organism, and those ranges likely vary organism to organism.

3. A clear example of how we went wrong assuming natural levels were always best was assuming the natural levels of nitrate and phosphate would be best. They clearly are not in many reef tanks.

This is all true. I agree, and wish we had more people who studied these areas. I’m pretty sure we have some things wrong.

 

[Reefahholic]

This is exactly what I thought of moonshine rs method.

I’d leave any method if somebody can figure out how to grow the corals faster. I’m getting too old to be waiting for these acro frags taking 2-3 years to hit colony size.

 

[RelaxingWithTheReef]

Well, I can give many ways and reasons it can be wrong because we know so little about what is actually in the water.

I'm not sure we want to drive this thread off track that way, but here are some thoughts and examples...

1. On trace elements, total concentration is only a small part of the story. There are many different chemical forms of most trace elements, and those chemical forms have different bioavailability and toxicity. The forms present may not be at all the same as in the ocean, and may change tank to tank and over time. A very well known one is iodide and iodate, but it applies to most metals as well, since they sometimes have multiple oxidation states and a very wide range of different organics binding/chelating them.

2. We have very little useful information on how high and how low most trace elements can get without them being a problem for any individual organism, and those ranges likely vary organism to organism.

3. A clear example of how we went wrong assuming natural levels were always best was assuming the natural levels of nitrate and phosphate would be best. They clearly are not in many reef tanks.

Forgive me for contributing to the derailment of this thread, but one quick question please.

Let’s cast a “big net” and consider the ICP-MS driven method to replenish individual elements as a whole. I totally agree that sorting out the “optimum” target levels of each element is a complete mess right now. Everyone has differing opinions. But let’s sidestep the level issue by setting the goal to duplicating the levels of the original sea salt we purchased for our tank. In my case it’s Red Sea Salt.

What’s interesting to me is your first point is still valid. “On trace elements, total concentration is only a small part of the story. There are many different chemical forms of most trace elements, and those chemical forms have different bioavailability and toxicity.”

This leads me to a little paradox and the conclusion that our synthetic salts may also suffer from similar bioavailability and toxicity issues. Is this valid reasoning?

And at this point, is our ICP-MS driven method to original sea salt levels any better or worse then the original sea salt we purchased?

 

[areefer01]

Absolutely sensible to have multiple sources. Just adds a little troubleshooting complexity.

On the other hand for every alkalinity and calcium component they are getting from the 2 part they are not getting from AFR. So no trace elements. Similar to what happens when using Kalkwasser with AFR.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

And at this point, is our ICP-MS driven method to original sea salt levels any better or worse then the original sea salt we purchased?

Some aspects are similar, yes. Many of the chemical ideas we rely on may have a weak foundation if drilled down too deeply.

I expect that most chemicals in the salt mix are pure inorganic chemicals in one specific form, often likely chose for solubility (such as ferrous iron vs ferric iron which is much less soluble). Maybe not all, but most.

In the tank those eventually get bound to organics, most of which will help with solubility but may reduce bioavailability.

In some supplements, the metals may already be bound to organics. That's true in my iron DIY as well (ferrous gluconate) to keep them soluble.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

On the other hand for every alkalinity and calcium component they are getting from the 2 part they are not getting from AFR. So no trace elements. Similar to what happens when using Kalkwasser with AFR.

Depends on the two part. Some claim add more than is needed just to maintain ionic balance.

 

[Doctorgori]

I'm not sure we want to drive this thread off track that way, but here are some thoughts and examples.

Since AFR is a single dose solution, trace element relevance or not is kind of germane to the thread….
I got the feel @Reefahholic isnt 100% onboard with AFR as a “total solution” vs ad hoc trace additions

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Since AFR is a single dose solution, trace element relevance or not is kind of germane to the thread….
I got the feel @Reefahholic isnt 100% onboard with AFR as a “total solution” vs ad hoc trace additions

Sure, trace element issues are very pertinent. I did not intend to suggest otherwise. My point on that topic was purely to comment on the statement that natural levels are an inherently beneficial target level. .