Clarity on Tropic Marin Part C

[User1]

I apologize, but there is no exact list of the components and concentrations of the Balling Part C. That would, of course, be a proprietary piece of information. What I can tell you, is the we use the most current research on ocean water analysis and create that Part C from the remaining components of sea water, aside from the ones we mentioned being in the Parts A and B.

When I read this the first thing that came to my mind was location of the research or body of water? Just how my brain is wired I guess. Never the less it makes sense, your answer being proprietary.

 

[Doctorgori]

I highly doubt you'll find an answer like this to beat a salt mix on cost. I'm chasing this down to make sure I understand what I'm putting in my tank, not because it's cheaper than salt mix.
For your ponies, I would think your best answer is a big UV sterilizer and massive nutrient export (refugium/macroalgae and skimming) would be the best answers to cut down on salt mix costs.

Theres not going to be cheaper salt water mix than a big volume manufacturer can provide. Like IO. Making it yourself is not going to save money unless quality is a low priority.

Yeah Dan of Seahorse Source fame has educated us that bbs need lower bacterial levels if gut loaded as feed for seahorse fry ..that means H2O changes per every 12hrs while gut loading = lots of AFSW ... I use epsom + rock salt but that doesn’t cut it for phyto also ... just looking for a cheap if low quality mix even cheazier than Kent or IO ...
appreciate the education...truly

 

[Doctorgori]

Many of us don't dose magnesium chloride/sulfate at all, since our tanks don't use it in substantial amounts, we use a seawater mix that has elevated magnesium levels (over natural seawater), and our water change schedule is sufficient to maintain the magnesium concentration at or above NSW.

However, many simply manually dose a magnesium chloride/sulfate solution on an as-needed basis. Since magnesium is consumed much more slowly than calcium and alkalinity, additions of the magnesium solution are much less frequent - perhaps once a week.

I dose the part c with Randy’s recipe #2 ....in my low demand tank the mg still drops for whatever reason

Makes sense, and precisely what I'd expect. I wonder if the elements taken up by the livestock (corals) is balanced across all those trace elements, perhaps we'd end up over-concentrating those trace elements?

I've been thinking I may use Mg as the regulator here (when I start using these reagents). My thought is to start with the 3-part as prescribed, keeping my Ca and Alk at the target, but if Mg raises/lowers over time, I'll adjust the part C accordingly...does that sound reasonable?

I’m using BRS dosers and just following BRS instructions...they got a vid on using part c with their 2part

 

[User1]

Not to hijack this thread but I was reading about your All-For-Reef product. That sounds like an amazing product and a single dose solution. Is it possible or can you say if you are working on either a larger packaging solution or a way to bring the price down at all? Or, is this product designed for smaller tanks?

I was just running some basic math to see what it could run me on a 210 gallon tank and me personally it isn't an option. With two in college I'm a starving parent Just kidding, I'm no starving but I do need to be somewhat reasonable with my hobby. That is my fault not anyone else.

Great product though. Glad I found the thread to do some reading on your product line!

 

[CaptainOver]

I dose the part c with Randy’s recipe #2 ....in my low demand tank the mg still drops for whatever reason


I’m using BRS dosers and just following BRS instructions...they got a vid on using part c with their 2part

How many scoops do you use when using it with BRS A&B? The box says 4 scoops per gallon, but I saw the BRS dosing video shows 7.5 scoops...

 

[burningbaal]

Not to hijack this thread but I was reading about your All-For-Reef product. That sounds like an amazing product and a single dose solution. Is it possible or can you say if you are working on either a larger packaging solution or a way to bring the price down at all? Or, is this product designed for smaller tanks?

I was just running some basic math to see what it could run me on a 210 gallon tank and me personally it isn't an option. With two in college I'm a starving parent Just kidding, I'm no starving but I do need to be somewhat reasonable with my hobby. That is my fault not anyone else.

Great product though. Glad I found the thread to do some reading on your product line!

My understanding is that they're expecting mostly just nano reefs. It's a good answer when dosing small amounts because the cost isn't such an issue and the hassle of running 2-4 dosing pumps on a nano doesn't seem worth it to many people. I mean, sure...you could use it on a 210, but the cost would get out of hand...I think most people in that volume range aren't even willing to pay for 2-part and go to calcium reactors to save monthly...

 

[User1]

My understanding is that they're expecting mostly just nano reefs. It's a good answer when dosing small amounts because the cost isn't such an issue and the hassle of running 2-4 dosing pumps on a nano doesn't seem worth it to many people. I mean, sure...you could use it on a 210, but the cost would get out of hand...I think most people in that volume range aren't even willing to pay for 2-part and go to calcium reactors to save monthly...

Thanks for the information. The more I read about it the more I really like the product. Seems to pack a lot into a single dose.

Oh well, maybe something down the road or as you said - nano / small tank only. One of the things you need to consider in larger tanks, right? I remember last year when I was setting up my 210 gallon upgrade and it came time to mixing salt. I bought a bag. Didn't think twice that while that normally worked for my 40 breeder I was very much short when it came time to make up water The little things get me every time!

 

[Doctorgori]

How many scoops do you use when using it with BRS A&B? The box says 4 scoops per gallon, but I saw the BRS dosing video shows 7.5 scoops...

I wanna say it was whatever the vid says ... my 210 is using so little now that the refill was a few months ago

 

[Lou Ekus]

Makes sense, and precisely what I'd expect. I wonder if the elements taken up by the livestock (corals) is balanced across all those trace elements, perhaps we'd end up over-concentrating those trace elements?

I've been thinking I may use Mg as the regulator here (when I start using these reagents). My thought is to start with the 3-part as prescribed, keeping my Ca and Alk at the target, but if Mg raises/lowers over time, I'll adjust the part C accordingly...does that sound reasonable?

The volume of Part C that you want to use is dependent on the volumes of Parts A & B, NOT the amount of Mg that needs to be supplemented. ONE MORE TIME... The major, minor and trace elements in the Balling Part C are ONLY there to ionically balance the left over NaCl created by the Parts A&B. Even though Part C has Mg and trace elements in it. Part C DOES NOT do anything to "supplement" or "make up" for used or consumed Mg and trace elements. And it should not be used in that way. When using the true Balling 3 part method, you still need to supplement Mg and trace elements separately. The volume of the Part C, that you are adding, should be equal to whatever is the lower volume of the Parts A&B. That way you are assured of

 

[Lou Ekus]

@Randy Holmes-Farley If you see this post, can you email me, please at [email protected]. Or, when you have a chance, please give me a call in the office at 413-367-0101. I have a quick thing I'd love to discuss with you. Thanks!

 

[burningbaal]

Thank you @Lou Ekus !

 

[dhof]

The volume of Part C that you want to use is dependent on the volumes of Parts A & B, NOT the amount of Mg that needs to be supplemented. ONE MORE TIME... The major, minor and trace elements in the Balling Part C are ONLY there to ionically balance the left over NaCl created by the Parts A&B. Even though Part C has Mg and trace elements in it. Part C DOES NOT do anything to "supplement" or "make up" for used or consumed Mg and trace elements. And it should not be used in that way. When using the true Balling 3 part method, you still need to supplement Mg and trace elements separately. The volume of the Part C, that you are adding, should be equal to whatever is the lower volume of the Parts A&B. That way you are assured of

I don't pretend to understand the chemistry here, but I've recently switched away from dosing all 4 separate Red Sea Trace colors, to using TM Balling Part C. I am using BRS Soda Ash and BRS Calcium for the first 2 parts.

I do understand that TM Part C does not supplement or make up for used or consumed Mg, and I think the forum/videos/etc is pretty clear about it not being an adequate Mg supplementation plan. I do plan on using the BRS 2 part adjustment Mg whenever appropriate.

But from reading a bunch of posts on this board, watching the TM videos, and even BRS has a video which mentions it, I did get the impression that using TM Part C use would be an appropriate way to ensure trace element supply is maintained in-tact. My perception, at least, is that TM part C provides the trace element supplementation to my tank, and potentially even helps to balance out the NaCl thing (which seems debatable whether this is really necessary, but my opinion is that it can't really hurt anything).

So, my motivation in moving to TM Part C was purely to supplement Trace element levels in a simple and reliable way (single dosing head). But then Lou writes "Part C DOES NOT do anything to "supplement" or "make up" for used or consumed Mg and trace elements". I think I understand the Mg part of this sentence, but I'm not sure the trace part really correlates with the information out there currently (or, should I say mis-information?)

I really hope TM C is supposed to supplement trace elements, because if they are going through the hassle of adding something like 70 trace elements into TM Part C, just so it will balance the NaCl, it seems like a lot of work for a theoretical benefit....

 

[burningbaal]

I don't pretend to understand the chemistry here, but I've recently switched away from dosing all 4 separate Red Sea Trace colors, to using TM Balling Part C. I am using BRS Soda Ash and BRS Calcium for the first 2 parts.

I do understand that TM Part C does not supplement or make up for used or consumed Mg, and I think the forum/videos/etc is pretty clear about it not being an adequate Mg supplementation plan. I do plan on using the BRS 2 part adjustment Mg whenever appropriate.

But from reading a bunch of posts on this board, watching the TM videos, and even BRS has a video which mentions it, I did get the impression that using TM Part C use would be an appropriate way to ensure trace element supply is maintained in-tact. My perception, at least, is that TM part C provides the trace element supplementation to my tank, and potentially even helps to balance out the NaCl thing (which seems debatable whether this is really necessary, but my opinion is that it can't really hurt anything).

So, my motivation in moving to TM Part C was purely to supplement Trace element levels in a simple and reliable way (single dosing head). But then Lou writes "Part C DOES NOT do anything to "supplement" or "make up" for used or consumed Mg and trace elements". I think I understand the Mg part of this sentence, but I'm not sure the trace part really correlates with the information out there currently (or, should I say mis-information?)

I really hope TM C is supposed to supplement trace elements, because if they are going through the hassle of adding something like 70 trace elements into TM Part C, just so it will balance the NaCl, it seems like a lot of work for a theoretical benefit....

I think the confusion is that the answer is "sort of yes and sort of no".
As Lou says in the now famous video, if you only dosed A and B, you'd end up with an excess of Na and Cl because parts A and B have those (to make a Ca and all solution), but aren't being consumed by the corals, so they build up.
Part C *also* adds the other things found in seawater at a coordinating concentration so the relative concentrations of all the salts are maintained. However, these additives are much more concentrated than seawater (that's why it's different than doing a water change). So eventually (it presumably takes a very long time), the salinity of the reef will go up. This is easily fixed by just pulling a little tank water out and letting the ATO top up, and by using part C, we make sure the relative concentrations stay correct.

If you only used part A and B, the salinity would also go up, and when you correct that, you'd have a diminished concentration of all the things that are in part C.

This diminished concentration of other things (the "trace" elements) is two fold when your only using A and B.
1. The reef is consuming some of them, but they aren't being supplemented (part A is CaCl and part B is NaCO3, nothing else going in)
2. The parts A and B added Can and CO3 to compensate for coral consumption, and as a byproduct you got increased Na and Cl, then because you kept the salinity at the steady position, you've diluted the trace elements.

Let's pretend like the first part of this reduces your trace concentration by 10% (preposterous, consumption won't be consistent across all trace elements, that's why Triton has you measure them all) and the second piece diluted them by 10% (totally fabricated example with little connection to reality).

Here's the point:
If you're only doing parts A and B, you're short 20% on the trace elements. Sidenote: doing a 20% water change brings that to a 16% shortage.
If you also do part C, you're only 10% short (and a 20% water change gets you to 8%).

Please note these 10% examples are completely fake, in reality, the reduction of trace from consumption is probably pretty variable, some elements may be 50% consumed and others 0%... This is why everyone advises careful testing (ICP, IC) and specific dosing. And it probably takes a very long time, even in a fast-growing SPS dominant tank, to have the solution (#2 above) make a 10% difference.

And if Lou or Randy correct me, you should probably believe them

 

[dhof]

I think the confusion is that the answer is "sort of yes and sort of no".
As Lou says in the now famous video, if you only dosed A and B, you'd end up with an excess of Na and Cl because parts A and B have those (to make a Ca and all solution), but aren't being consumed by the corals, so they build up.
Part C *also* adds the other things found in seawater at a coordinating concentration so the relative concentrations of all the salts are maintained. However, these additives are much more concentrated than seawater (that's why it's different than doing a water change). So eventually (it presumably takes a very long time), the salinity of the reef will go up. This is easily fixed by just pulling a little tank water out and letting the ATO top up, and by using part C, we make sure the relative concentrations stay correct.

If you only used part A and B, the salinity would also go up, and when you correct that, you'd have a diminished concentration of all the things that are in part C.

This diminished concentration of other things (the "trace" elements) is two fold when your only using A and B.
1. The reef is consuming some of them, but they aren't being supplemented (part A is CaCl and part B is NaCO3, nothing else going in)
2. The parts A and B added Can and CO3 to compensate for coral consumption, and as a byproduct you got increased Na and Cl, then because you kept the salinity at the steady position, you've diluted the trace elements.

Let's pretend like the first part of this reduces your trace concentration by 10% (preposterous, consumption won't be consistent across all trace elements, that's why Triton has you measure them all) and the second piece diluted them by 10% (totally fabricated example with little connection to reality).

Here's the point:
If you're only doing parts A and B, you're short 20% on the trace elements. Sidenote: doing a 20% water change brings that to a 16% shortage.
If you also do part C, you're only 10% short (and a 20% water change gets you to 8%).

Please note these 10% examples are completely fake, in reality, the reduction of trace from consumption is probably pretty variable, some elements may be 50% consumed and others 0%... This is why everyone advises careful testing (ICP, IC) and specific dosing. And it probably takes a very long time, even in a fast-growing SPS dominant tank, to have the solution (#2 above) make a 10% difference.

And if Lou or Randy correct me, you should probably believe them

Thanks for this. I’m connecting with the concept you lay out here and I’ll read it about 10 more times before I truly grasp it all. It sort of made good sense on read #1, so that’s very positive! LOL!

Trying to really connect with your explanation in simplified terms, is this right?:

1. Dosing (Part A) + (Part B) = Trace Element depletion of "X"
2. Dosing (Part A) + (Part B) + (TMballingC) = Trace Element depletion of "Y"

If the above is correct, I think you are saying that "Y" is less of a depletion than "X" (i.e. better). But also that "Y" but does not completely result in "No trace element reduction" (i.e. does not achieve zero depletion)

I guess the next question might be: Is any trace element dosing method closer to "zero depletion" than "Y" is? For example would dosing the 4 Red Sea Trace Colors be significantly outperforming the trace element reduction in "Y"? I'd assume other systems also result in some form of depletion similar to the depletion in "Y", but is there any one that gets us closer than "Y" is to "zero depletion"?

 

[burningbaal]

You're connecting, so feel good

The reality is that the real consumption of the reef ("y" as you call it) is too unpredictable and uneven to give any meaningful guide. Do to your corals, lighting, flow, your reef may consume an lot of strontium and very little potassium (totally made up), no magical bottle will account for that.
The various trace elements additives take a guess at common consumption rates, but may leave you high in potassium and/or low in strontium (in this example).

Your can either accept one of the guesses, or test it (ICP/IC) and dose the specific things.

Part C isn't particularly related, it might merely take a little of the burden boff incidentally, but probably only slightly

 

[LadyTang2]

Can someone tell me if I have the following correct which is my understanding.....
Salinity rises slowly over time when using balling A, B, and C because just like with nabicarb and cacl excess nacl is left over the difference being that with balling that excess is balanced with mag /trace so the proper ratios are maintained. Either way your salinity will rise eventually and again the difference being that with balling that excess salinity is in the proper ratio.

I also believe some people confuse salinity to mean just a [nacl] increase whereas salinity is really all the salts, BUT do the devices we use like refractometers to measure salinity really measure them all salts or do they only detect some?

 

[burningbaal]

Can someone tell me if I have the following correct which is my understanding.....
Salinity rises slowly over time when using balling A, B, and C because just like with nabicarb and cacl excess nacl is left over the difference being that with balling that excess is balanced with mag /trace so the proper ratios are maintained. Either way your salinity will rise eventually and again the difference being that with balling that excess salinity is in the proper ratio.

I also believe some people confuse salinity to mean just a [nacl] increase whereas salinity is really all the salts, BUT do the devices we use like refractometers to measure salinity really measure them all salts or do they only detect some?

Your refractometer is fine for everything. It's measuring the way light is bent in the interface of the water and the glass, any solute impacts this refraction (bending)
Similarly a hydrometer is measuring the density, which will also reflect the other salts just fine.

Technically a probe could measure different salts differently because they are slightly different in conductivity, but I'd bet $50 it's not significant enough to be measured by our equipment.

 

[LadyTang2]

Your refractometer is fine for everything. It's measuring the way light is bent in the interface of the water and the glass, any solute impacts this refraction (bending)
Similarly a hydrometer is measuring the density, which will also reflect the other salts just fine.

Technically a probe could measure different salts differently because they are slightly different in conductivity, but I'd bet $50 it's not significant enough to be measured by our equipment.

Thanks burning, and did I get the top paragraph correct?

And just out of curiosity, what do you use for ca and alk?

 

[burningbaal]

Thanks burning, and did I get the top paragraph correct?

And just out of curiosity, what do you use for ca and alk?

yep, the first paragraph is spot on for my understanding. I have a tiny nano tank, so water changes mostly maintain my parameters right now, though I do add some DIY CaCl, DIY liquid soda ash and BW Magnesion to my new salt water as its mixing. I plan to switch to balling A/B/C when my Ca and alk consumption get higher

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I don't pretend to understand the chemistry here, but I've recently switched away from dosing all 4 separate Red Sea Trace colors, to using TM Balling Part C. I am using BRS Soda Ash and BRS Calcium for the first 2 parts.

I do understand that TM Part C does not supplement or make up for used or consumed Mg, and I think the forum/videos/etc is pretty clear about it not being an adequate Mg supplementation plan. I do plan on using the BRS 2 part adjustment Mg whenever appropriate.

But from reading a bunch of posts on this board, watching the TM videos, and even BRS has a video which mentions it, I did get the impression that using TM Part C use would be an appropriate way to ensure trace element supply is maintained in-tact. My perception, at least, is that TM part C provides the trace element supplementation to my tank, and potentially even helps to balance out the NaCl thing (which seems debatable whether this is really necessary, but my opinion is that it can't really hurt anything).

So, my motivation in moving to TM Part C was purely to supplement Trace element levels in a simple and reliable way (single dosing head). But then Lou writes "Part C DOES NOT do anything to "supplement" or "make up" for used or consumed Mg and trace elements". I think I understand the Mg part of this sentence, but I'm not sure the trace part really correlates with the information out there currently (or, should I say mis-information?)

I really hope TM C is supposed to supplement trace elements, because if they are going through the hassle of adding something like 70 trace elements into TM Part C, just so it will balance the NaCl, it seems like a lot of work for a theoretical benefit....

The way to think of it is NOT as a supplement. It makes the end result exactly the same as doing a very small water change. Very small.