Anyone detect clear evidence of a fluoride effect?

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Yes they do make many claims and the only evidence is look at our farm. They are just vague on what exactly is dosed at the farm. I would be shocked if they use all of their bottles…

Somewhat unrelated/ related question Randy. When dosing or correcting F value, is it better to dose into sump, display or is it better to add it to ATO so it gets added slowly over few days?

I doubt it matters, but going slow is always the most conservative approach. The reason I doubt it matters is that it’s not evident that corals do anything to actively take it up.

Some corals are known to actively get rid of it since it is toxic. I’ve seen no mention of any coral taking it up.

Yeast, fungi, plants, and some ocean-dwelling animals like corals and sponges also possess fluoride exporters that belong to a third molecular family known as FEX

The link between ancient microbial fluoride resistance mechanisms and bioengineering organofluorine degradation or synthesis

Fluorinated organic chemicals, such as per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS) and fluorinated pesticides, are both broadly useful and unusually long-lived. To combat problems related to the accumulation of these compounds, microbial PFAS and ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[teaktoc]

Anyone see a clear effect of any sort in a reef tank when starting or stopping dosing of just fluoride and nothing else?

Would a tissue composition and F concentration per unit analysis not be an equally sound approach? Many would like to see a full profile of core elements showing such results along with a photo catalogue over a month-month and year-year study. We could finally have some guidance.

 

[ReeferZ1227]

In my case, perhaps its not a matter of uptake, but a presence of, or lack of presence, that could impact PE. Im not sure the science is out on PE being an indicator of health to boot.

Im not a fan of the claims from any of the methodologies, but If I perform an ICP, and can get some of those values off of 0, or any of them closer to NSW or slightly elevated, i cant fathom a negative, other than extra effort, reliance on margin of error of testing, and potential for OD. so far results have been positive, but not dramatic.

This is why half my daily dkh uptake is AFR, perhaps my total numbers are low but at least im trickling some replenishment of various depleted sea water components back in, which seems like a sensible approach.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Would a tissue composition and F concentration per unit analysis not be an equally sound approach? Many would like to see a full profile of core elements showing such results along with a photo catalogue over a month-month and year-year study. We could finally have some guidance.

Corals and other marine organisms are well known to take up all sorts of elements that have no value to them. Think mercury for the poster child.

All organisms depositing calcium carbonate from seawater will have fluoride in it. It gets into calcium carbonate without any organism directing it to do so.

 

[Righteous]

I think you’d have to do something more like a controlled experiment where several cuts from a colony are placed in aquariums where the fluoride level is varied with everything else controlled. Then to BeanAnimals suggestion, a photographic setup where cameras aren’t moved and lighting is controlled as much as possible for photographic evidence. Then perhaps weight of each frag before and after a set time to see if there are growth differences.

 

[rtparty]

Couple things to point out or at least observe…

How does one account for “better” polyp extension in tanks with no fluoride dosing and/or low fluoride?

Anyone who saw my 250 right before tear down would always talk about the amazing polyp extension and wanted to know “my secret.” I didn’t/don’t have one. I didn’t do/dose anything because it made polyps come out more.

There was a recent article released by one of the bigger names in the hobby (can’t remember who) where they talked about polyp extension being an absolutely horrible and misleading way to decide if a coral is healthy. Maybe someone reading can link it or at least remind me who was talking about it.

I have done many ICP tests and correction doses for fluoride over the almost 3 years of running RM. I never saw anything positive from it. Only the one anecdotal negative event which I’ve already laid out

 

[Righteous]

Couple things to point out or at least observe…

How does one account for “better” polyp extension in tanks with no fluoride dosing and/or low fluoride?

Anyone who saw my 250 right before tear down would always talk about the amazing polyp extension and wanted to know “my secret.” I didn’t/don’t have one. I didn’t do/dose anything because it made polyps come out more.

There was a recent article released by one of the bigger names in the hobby (can’t remember who) where they talked about polyp extension being an absolutely horrible and misleading way to decide if a coral is healthy. Maybe someone reading can link it or at least remind me who was talking about it.

I have done many ICP tests and correction doses for fluoride over the almost 3 years of running RM. I never saw anything positive from it. Only the one anecdotal negative event which I’ve already laid out

I don’t know the person or article, but yes it’s not an indicator of coral health in general. In the wild acropora usual doesn’t extend polyps during the day to avoid predation, and typically extend them at night when food wells up to eat.

I think fish that nip even once in a while or different feeding schedules have the most effect on extension.

 

[ReeferZ1227]

I don’t know the person or article, but yes it’s not an indicator of coral health in general. In the wild acropora usual doesn’t extend polyps during the day to avoid predation, and typically extend them at night when food wells up to eat.

I think fish that nip even once in a while or different feeding schedules have the most effect on extension.

I have a blue hippo that bounces around from acro to acro all day. I think just taking slime coat and not actually damaging coral. Regardless, still have PE, moreso now. Additionally, sick or unhealthy coral lose PE. Not to say all coral without PE are sickly, and coral with are exempt from TN or other ailments.

Regardless, a tank full of fluffy milli and tenuis looks better than not.

The notion that elevating various components to NSW even if theyre only briefly available, and leaving them depleted/neglected is somehow a better choice is a bit ridiculous IMO, not that that argument is being made, but the attitude towards "dont worry about it ineffective" is wrong direction IMO.

 

[areefer01]

FWIW i have monitored a few specific items via ICP and they have actually fallen inline with expectations based on dosing. The alternative is complete blindness, and no progress towards even anecdotal observations nor healthier, faster growing coral. Theres plenty of reefers that already do that by default, no need to proclaim it.

I wonder how we reefed prior to ICP testing.

 

[ReeferZ1227]

I wonder how we reefed prior to ICP testing.

alot of trial and error which is no longer necessary. Thank god we dont reef that way anymore.

 

[areefer01]

alot of trial and error which is no longer necessary. Thank god we dont reef that way anymore.

Or maybe today social media and market speak make it more difficult? Leading new hobbyist to believe A, B, or Z is necessary to be successful?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

alot of trial and error which is no longer necessary. Thank god we dont reef that way anymore.

I’ve not seen evidence that exact levels of most trace elements matter much. The range from needed to beginning to be toxic is obviously extremely wide for some trace elements, allowing products dosed in mL per gallon per day to succeed.

 

[BeanAnimal]

alot of trial and error which is no longer necessary. Thank god we dont reef that way anymore.

??
This is the stuff that drives me bananas.
For every poster child tank that uses ICP to adjust parameters, I can find a run of the mill. "Yeah dump two part in" or "I run a CA reactor and kalk" system where minimal testing is done, some with water changes, some without that looks just as good or better.

Thank god we don't need ICP to reef if you ask me.

 

[ReeferZ1227]

??
This is the stuff that drives me bananas.
For every poster child tank that uses ICP to adjust parameters, I can find a run of the mill. "Yeah dump two part in" or "I run a CA reactor and kalk" system where minimal testing is done, some with water changes, some without.

Thank god we don't need ICP to reef if you ask me.

Never said you do. The challenge in this hobby isnt getting things to grow its keeping it alive. Plenty of those "just add kalk" talking about their crash a few years in, or full of thin , anemic, brittle branched LPS and SPS.

Plenty of KISS softie tanks that are scared of acros because "theyre too hard". Im not stating you need ICP. Personally, Im trying to squeek every bit of fast, healthy, colorful coral growth that I can, without major $ losses, in a densely packed tank that consumes alot of components out of the water.

Alot of the components of seawater are cheaply made and precisely dosed, arguably more efficient and effective for me to do an ICP and make trace and other additives, dose with precision, identify trends and lack of consumption and take corrective action as needed than buy salt and go at it blind with significantly less data points.

Any argument counter to the above, is one of less informed decision making, and higher risk, not that it cant be effective.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Any argument counter to the above, is one of less informed decision making, and higher risk, not that it cant be effective.

Only if you believe that your decision making tools are accurate and the guidance that they provide is needed and correct. Moreover, for all of the cost, complexity and trouble, even if there is an "advantage" is it worth the trouble or a diminished return on investment (time or money)?

There are many ways to accomplish a task and we each have different expectations and goals. Statements like "Thank god we dont reef that way anymore." may apply to you, but making the leap to other people being "less informed" or "taking higher risk" is not supported by the facts or evidence.

 

[ReeferZ1227]

Only if you believe that your decision making tools are accurate and the guidance that they provide is needed and correct. Moreover, for all of the cost, complexity and trouble, even if there is an "advantage" is it worth the trouble or a diminished return on investment (time or money)?

There are many ways to accomplish a task and we each have different expectations and goals. Statements like "Thank god we dont reef that way anymore." may apply to you, but making the leap to other people being "less informed" or "taking higher risk" is not supported by the facts or evidence.

What other rationale could there be that salt water closer to NSW values is not a better choice than seawater with various depleted components?

I dont need highly precise measurements. Its like nitrates and phosphates, anything but 0 is the goal.

Obviously theres nuances with things like manganese and iron, that are quickly consumed, but if im adding x amount per day, over 30 days, i know that at some point my tank recieved x amount more than your 2 part tank. In the aggregate that could be the difference of the boomer"sometimes SPS just RTN" and "yeah i have a healthy system with no deaths and highly adaptable coral for people buying frags, and having success with my frags."

Beneficial? Maybe. Slightly more work? Yes. Logical that its better to do it than not? Undoubtedly.

 

[Righteous]

The notion that elevating various components to NSW even if theyre only briefly available, and leaving them depleted/neglected is somehow a better choice is a bit ridiculous IMO, not that that argument is being made, but the attitude towards "dont worry about it ineffective" is wrong direction IMO

I kind of started this whole recent thread, because I experienced possible positive changes in Acropora going from low to NSW levels and wanted to see if there was new information and research especially now that there’s easy access to ICP for many years.

What other rationale could there be that salt water closer to NSW values is not a better choice than seawater with various depleted components?

The rationale is that as blanket advice; it could cause people to do more harm than good. I would say generally that maintaining NSW levels is probably the ideal just from an evolutionary standpoint, and is what I strive for. However doing that, even with ICP can be trickier than it seems. I’ve done ICP month to month to follow changes. I’m guessing that’s more than most people do. Even so, it’s really easy to overshoot and undershoot things, on top of things changing in your tank for unknown reasons causing changes in usage of elements.

I’ve thought for a while that reef advice needs to come with some sort of disclaimer. Like this is Level 1 advice. This is level 10 advice. Don’t follow level 10 unless you really are willing to take the time, research, effort. Of course then a hobbyist 6 months in will say “I can handle level 10!” So yeah, people keeping $400 Acros frags, and wanting to attain certain colors and experiment with things after many years in the hobby, is a lot different than a softie or even all LPS tank or someone just getting started. One size doesn’t fit all

But given that the advice gets picked up across the board sometimes even at level 1 feeding, especially with something like flouride, which is don’t forget a halogen like chlorine; consistent overdosing might cause more harm than letting it drop. So there’s an argument not to dose it to be made and to keep things simple.

Thank god we don't need ICP to reef if you ask me.

We definitely don’t need it. But more information is always better than less in my opinion. It is of course what you do with that information. And at least ICP does bring the focus a little more to science rather than “magic potion”, so overall I think it’s been a benefit from where things were.


And most important I don’t think we should be tearing each other down for choices we make on how we want to reef. It’s a hobby and each of us gets something different from it. Some people want to have beautiful fish and coral to look at without much fuss. Others of us are nerds and want to spend time analyzing all the little details. No one is wrong for their approach.

 

[ReeferZ1227]

I kind of started this whole recent thread, because I experienced possible positive changes in Acropora going from low to NSW levels and wanted to see if there was new information and research especially now that there’s easy access to ICP for many years.



The rationale is that as blanket advice; it could cause people to do more harm than good. I would say generally that maintaining NSW levels is probably the ideal just from an evolutionary standpoint, and is what I strive for. However doing that, even with ICP can be trickier than it seems. I’ve done ICP month to month to follow changes. I’m guessing that’s more than most people do. Even so, it’s really easy to overshoot and undershoot things, on top of things changing in your tank for unknown reasons causing changes in usage of elements.

I’ve thought for a while that reef advice needs to come with some sort of disclaimer. Like this is Level 1 advice. This is level 10 advice. Don’t follow level 10 unless you really are willing to take the time, research, effort. Of course then a hobbyist 6 months in will say “I can handle level 10!” So yeah, people keeping $400 Acros frags, and wanting to attain certain colors and experiment with things after many years in the hobby, is a lot different than a softie or even all LPS tank or someone just getting started. One size doesn’t fit all

But given that the advice gets picked up across the board sometimes even at level 1 feeding, especially with something like flouride, which is don’t forget a halogen like chlorine; consistent overdosing might cause more harm than letting it drop. So there’s an argument not to dose it to be made and to keep things simple.



We definitely don’t need it. But more information is always better than less in my opinion. It is of course what you do with that information. And at least ICP does bring the focus a little more to science rather than “magic potion”, so overall I think it’s been a benefit from where things were.


And most important I don’t think we should be tearing each other down for choices we make on how we want to reef. It’s a hobby and each of us gets something different from it. Some people want to have beautiful fish and coral to look at without much fuss. Others of us are nerds and want to spend time analyzing all the little details. No one is wrong for their approach.

Agree. The place im coming from is, how do we keep a successful tank, successful long term?

Not paying attention to heavy metal contaminants via ICP is a major loss of information and poor guidance, archaic, dinosaur, wives tale thinking, IMO.

Aside from that, i am unsure if elevated above NSW per RM or zeo makes sense, i do use their targets for a few of the components i.e. iodine and flourine. Ive found better growth, better color, less death, and overall significantly better results doing ICP and corrective doses, so ill keep doing that.

Whats more important is if youve kept a healthy SPS tank of modest water volume and watched it get packed full of milli and tenuis, your coral ill suffer with all of the consumption and not enough replenishment. Can some tanks thrive in those conditions? Sure. Would they do equally as good or potentially better with moderate supplementation? Why wouldnt they?

Its such a wierd argument to be against replenishment With how complex the system is. Perhaps the trace benefits the bacteria which benefits the coral.... so many potential scenarios and experiments. At least were not using reverse undergravel filters and deep sand beds anymore, and can cycle tanks relatively overnight. Talk about unnecessary, counterproductive work of the "days before ICP".

 

[BeanAnimal]

What other rationale could there be that salt water closer to NSW values is not a better choice than seawater with various depleted components?

What definitive evidence is that that SSW doses to appear to be NSW is ideal for captive reefs?

What definitive proof is there that the trace elements you measure with ICP are in the same form or made available by trace dosing?

What definitive proof is there of all of these trace elements that more than a few provide a beneficial functions.

What is "better" because many of the captive reef corals that we prize don't look anything like that on an active reef.

What is to say that some of the trace elements in the ocean are not good for coral and we are better off with a subset?

Plants grow in dirt, the same plants can grow in a hydroponic system with a subset of what is in that dirt, etc.

All rhetorical.

Your position is opinion based and rooted in the faith that the tests are accurate and the results meaningful and needed to have a successful tanks, or better success on average than without. You are passive aggressive with the point. You pose it and then dither a bit to make it sound like you have an open mind.

Beneficial? Maybe. Slightly more work? Yes. Logical that its better to do it than not? Undoubtedly.

....The place im coming from is, how do we keep a successful tank, successful long term?

It depends on how you define, work, cost benefit and goals. Logical? Maybe to you for what you believe... so no, not undoubtedly. Many people keep successful tanks long term. I am on 20+ years here. Success when wanted, mediocrity when laziness takes over.

In the kindest way, I am not interest in a back and forth with you or derailing this thread. I don't agree with your position and am not interested in wandering down a meandering path of pedantic arguments based on feelings. If you feel that ICP gives you an advantage and that I or others that don't rely on it are illogical... so be it.

 

[Righteous]

Lets keep the post on topic please. It’s a poll to post if you’ve dosed fluoride and what effect it’s had if any.