Randy's thoughts on trace elements

[Pod_01]

I try to dose 5mL of Tropic Marin K+ to

Out of curiosity, why only TM K+ and not the TM A-?

 

[GuppyHJD]

Randy,
Thank you. I have tried A, B, C with mixed results.
10C " I’m also wary of some of these methods that suggest dosing of chemicals not known by science to play any role in any known organisms. If using such a method, I’d either leave these out, or at least experiment by not dosing them and see if anything is different in my aquarium." Has me wondering - what elements are some scientific basis for adding to our tanks? Florine/Floride is one element that I have seen very different answers from different ICP labs.
Thank you

 

[Miami Reef]

Out of curiosity, why only TM K+ and not the TM A-?

Because A- has lithium and bromine, which my tank already has enough of (via ICP). I don’t really find the trace elements in A- particularly useful anyway IMO. I honestly see A- as a bottle of impurities lol.

I am much more interested in dosing copper, manganese, iron, zinc, etc. Those seem to deplete much more rapidly in aquariums, and I have a tendency to believe algae (and zooxanthella) benefit more from the trace elements in K+ than the ones in A-.

I can totally be wrong. I don’t have this trace element thing figured out.

 

[spsick]

Randy, thanks for your ongoing contributions to our hobby. I don’t know where we would be as as a whole understanding real reef chemistry vs product claims without you!

For a data point on the topic, I have been dosing Tropic Marin A- and K+ elements at 80ml/gallon (lowest recommended dose) of Randy’s 2 part and TM Part C for 2 years now and all of my Triton ICP have come back really good with the exception of strontium being consistently low and requiring additional dosing. I do 15% weekly water changes via constant AWC.

This is on a 75g tank very densely filled with sps. Point being that trace element additions can be useful but proceed with caution in situations where the ratio of coral tissue to water is low.

 

[Righteous]

7. The depletion of trace elements arises in several ways, including uptake by organisms (corals, anemones, algae, bacteria, etc.), binding to mineral surfaces (calcium carbonate, GFO, etc.), and through any sort of organic export mechanism (skimming, activated carbon, polymer resin absorbents, and physical filtering of “detritus”). Many reefers assume that fast growing SPS corals are the driving force behind trace element depletion in their aquaria, but IMO there is little evidence of this. When folks use methods such as macroalgae or turf algae to control nutrients, organic carbon dosing to drive bacteria, skimmers and GAC to export organics, or even particulate calcium carbonate dosing to keep the water clear, these may be equally large or larger sinks for trace elements.

This is such an important point. And it also makes clear why each tank can have such different requirements, such that blanket “I added this and it was amazing” isn’t helpful because there are too many variables.

If we think about the fact that a typical reef tank is growing and exporting both algae and skimmate with high loads of bacteria and other microorganism, my instinct is that a lot of traces are not going to the corals directly, making the situation even more complicated. My gut instinct is if we add up all the biomass we throw out vs the growth of our corals, the trash is the larger amount.

Making matters more complex, there are situations where dosing trace elements which were previously limiting encourage nuisance organisms, as seems to be the case with dinoflagellates that might be trace limited. On the flip side, some microorganisms that are trace limited may actually be beneficial organisms that coral feed on, thereby delivering trace minerals not through water but through indirect feeding.

Everyone’s tank, just like our guts, can have very different microbiomes.

So what I take Randy’s overarching message to us as… it’s complicated!

But that’s the beauty of reef keeping. It’s an intersection of husbandry, experience, and science. Our observations and experiments with our tanks can drive a scientific understanding of what’s happening, but it is after all a very complex artificial biome in a glass box. As we get better, and acquire more tools like ICP, we’ll deepen our understanding, but in some ways we’re all just starting.

And most importantly when going down the element dosing rabbit hole.. 1) be inquisitive. 2) be incredulous with fantastic claims, and 3) be okay with the fact that your tank is unique and you’ll have to experiment.

 

[coralbeauties]

So my question is will using a ca reactor in my systems actually be replenishing these consumed elements the live corals are using? Are these trace elements absorbed and stored in the skeleton of the corals and are released as my reactor melts the media?
thanks
Jeff

 

[Mark Gray]

Since this topic comes up over and over, I thought I give a summary of my current general thoughts on trace elements for reef aquariums.

1. First, a standard definition. Trace elements are those elements in seawater at very low concentration. It does not include the major ions of seawater: calcium, magnesium, alkalinity (carbonate and bicarbonate), sulfate, potassium, bromide, borate, strontium or fluoride, despite the fact that many commercial trace element supplements may contain some of these. The distinction is important in several ways that will become apparent in subsequent parts of this post, but I'll note here that each of the major ions of seawater are present in concentration above 1 ppm, while all of the other inorganic ions in natural seawater combined is less than 1 ppm total.

2. For major ions, the concentration does not vary by location or depth in the oceans. The only significant variation in major ion concentration comes as the salinity changes. Trace elements, however, are different, and can vary considerably by location and depth. Some are surface depleted. Some are depleted deeper down. No single number, for example, can tell you the natural ocean concentration of, say, iron. If one is targeting a “natural” concentration of iron, what number would one choose? The ocean does not tell us a definitive answer.

3. All organisms need a number of trace elements for a wide range of biochemical processes. These include iron, copper, zinc, manganese, vanadium and molybdenum. Some trace elements are purely a toxicity concern, including mercury, lead, and cadmium. Many are needed at one concentration and are toxic at higher concentration (e.g., copper and nickel). Organisms, such as fish, likely get some or all these needed trace elements from foods rather than from the water itself, but many organisms do get them from the water, and all organisms that do not consume particulate foods in some fashion must do so.

4. For organisms that do get their needed trace elements from the water, there is very little experimental evidence on how much is too little and how much is too much and might be toxic for any given organism. There is a fair amount of experimental evidence in reef aquaria about how much of many trace elements in the typical forms found in reef tanks is “adequate” for the organisms, especially corals, but not really what the acceptable range is. Some of the ICP-based trace element methods use this adequateness approach. In general, reefers have found that the acceptable levels of some trace elements can vary a lot more than the acceptable levels of some major ions. Iron, for example, seems to be able to be acceptable over a very wide range of concentrations (certainly more than a factor of 100) and still be adequately available and not toxic.

5. For major ions, the concentration, and perhaps pH, tells you all you need to know about its bioavailability. 420 ppm calcium is equally bioavailable in every reef tank. Many trace elements, however, can exist in a variety of different chemical forms. These differences include different oxidation states, such as ferric (Fe+++) and ferrous (Fe++) iron. They can also include different complexation by organics. Copper, for example, is known to be nearly entirely bound by organics in the ocean, and that binding greatly impacts (reduces relative to the bare ion) its toxicity and bioavailability. Thus, the concentration of a trace element (such as by any type of ICP) may only provide a part of the question of whether there is enough or too much or too little of a trace element present.

6. The oxidation state and the complexation by organics can change rapidly in a reef aquarium. Thus, the form one doses may immediately change to something else when mixed into the water, and may also change as it experiences various treatments, such as ozone, UV, hydrogen peroxide, antioxidants, processing by organisms, etc.

7. The depletion of trace elements arises in several ways, including uptake by organisms (corals, anemones, algae, bacteria, etc.), binding to mineral surfaces (calcium carbonate, GFO, etc.), and through any sort of organic export mechanism (skimming, activated carbon, polymer resin absorbents, and physical filtering of “detritus”). Many reefers assume that fast growing SPS corals are the driving force behind trace element depletion in their aquaria, but IMO there is little evidence of this. When folks use methods such as macroalgae or turf algae to control nutrients, organic carbon dosing to drive bacteria, skimmers and GAC to export organics, or even particulate calcium carbonate dosing to keep the water clear, these may be equally large or larger sinks for trace elements.

8. Some trace elements have been found to rapidly deplete. These include iron and manganese. They can drop from dosed levels to undetectable by typical hobby testing in a few days. A small amount of macroalgae growth can strip a whole tank of manganese. Some can be much slower to deplete (e.g., zinc). If one chooses to just test the waters of trace element dosing, iron and manganese are a good place to start. There are both DIY and commercial products for just these, and many people have found them useful.

9. Folks thinking about consumption of trace elements in reef tanks often think about water changes as the way they are replaced, and it is true that new trace elements come in with water changes. However, there are additional factors that bear on reef husbandry and our interpretation of the usefulness of our actions.

A. Rapidly depleting trace elements cannot ever be maintained at the concentration in the salt mix by water changes alone unless one changes 100% of the water every day. However, some salt mixes may have more than natural levels of some trace elements, and since the acceptable level of a trace element may be well below that present in the salt mix, water changes may be useful in adding trace elements.

B. A widely ignored source of trace elements may actually be the primary way many trace elements get into reef aquaria. Foods are loaded with trace elements, for the same reason that organisms need to take them up: all organisms and hence all foods sources must contain them. For some, the total amount of certain trace elements (such as iron) may be far higher in daily foods than in daily 100% water changes. However, there are no studies that show how well these food-contained trace elements get into and become part of the food chain in a reef tank. Certainly some is lost, but my expectation is that a substantial amount of trace elements do get into the water this way.

10. Many folks dose trace elements to try to replace those lost in the aquarium, and there are many commercial mixes and DIY recipes. Deciding how much of what to dose is a vexing problem that may be best answered by trial and error (which successfully deals with all of the uncertainties described above) but it takes a lot of time and effort. Folks attempt to shortchange that effort, with a number of different methods that try to eliminate some of the uncertainties, and I’ll describe the pros and cons of these below.

A. Some commercial trace element mixes are designed to be used in a volume dosed per day or week methodology. For example: Add 1 ml of solution to each 100 L of aquarium water daily. Certainly the easiest way for the reefkeeper, but they can only be “perfect” for a single type of reef tank. That said, they may be adequate for a reasonably wide range of reef tanks. A beginning reefer might start here with an additive from a company they have confidence in, since the reefkeeper is fully trusting them to get it right, and IMO, not all companies have earned such trust. One might consider experimenting with lower or higher doses over time to better match the actual needs of your aquarium, and might start high or low if there is more or less growth in general in the aquarium relative to an average tank. A new reef tank with few organisms will certainly take up fewer trace elements, and more is not necessarily better.

B. A second approach ties the amount of trace elements added to the calcification rate. Say, to alkalinity demand per day or calcium demand per day. For example: Add 1ml of supplement for every 20ppm of calcium added per 100 liters of aquarium water. The company makes some sort of determination of the amount of trace elements needed per unit of calcification for a typical reef tank. A number of products do this either explicitly (for a trace supplement) or implicitly, such as with a two part or one part alkalinity and calcium method that has extra added trace elements.
The calcification rate would be a reasonable approach if the tank has about the same consumption characteristics as the tank the product was designed for, but what if it doesn’t? An entirely soft coral tank with a macroalgae refugium and organic carbon dosing may consume more trace elements than a hard coral tank that uses none of these methods. Yet the hard coral tank has far higher calcification and hence is getting more trace elements. This method likely works out for many tanks, but if your tank deviates from a typical mixed tank that the product was likely designed for, it may be a suboptimal way to dose. Again, trust of the company also comes into play. If the method is a stand-alone trace element mix, one might experiment with doses as described in A.

C. A third approach involves testing of the concentrations of many trace elements by ICP (the only way generally available to reefers to test trace elements at low concentrations) and dosing each element measured to bring it back into a desirable range. This method is more expensive and labor intensive than A or B, but is clearly better, in my opinion, without being perfect. The issues include the accuracy of the ICP measurement (may be partly determined by the company and their protocols, partly by the exact type of ICP used, and partly by what happens to the sample between your tank and the plasma itself. Freezing, bacterial growth in the sample tube, binding to the tube sides, any sort of filtration or centrifugation, or lack thereof, at the company may all play a role in the accuracy. Additionally, the issues of chemical speciation (e.g., ferrous vs ferric iron) and complexation by organics is not resolved by ICP. Finally, desirable ranges are often determined by one or more people that may or may not have the same focus (color vs growth, different organisms considered, etc.). I’m also wary of some of these methods that suggest dosing of chemicals not known by science to play any role in any known organisms. If using such a method, I’d either leave these out, or at least experiment by not dosing them and see if anything is different in my aquarium.

11. Do not believe the hype that some commercial products claim about their product boosting specific colors or that specific elements are tied to boosting such colors. Such claims are, in my opinion derived by marketing people and are not based in reef keeping reality. Corals certainly will grow faster and may or may not be more colorful if getting all the trace elements they need, compared to being limited by one or more trace elements, but don’t look to trace elements to take a healthy coral and suddenly make the color pop.

12. Finally, I suggest that silicate dosing can be desirable for many reef aquaria. Yes, that may spur diatoms, but they are no more to be feared in most instances than the green algae they may replace on the glass, and the silicate can allow better growth of sponges that need silicate in the water. While not used by any corals, it may also help prevent dinoflagellate infestations by allowing diatoms to cover bare surfaces and outcompete the dinos.

There is, of course, far more to trace elements than described here, and I have not really intended this as a cookbook directive, but rather to help folks gain a wider appreciation of what the trace element world of reefing currently comprises.

Happy Reefing!

Thank you really good article

 

[Pod_01]

So my question is will using a ca reactor in my systems actually be replenishing these consumed elements the live corals are using? Are these trace elements absorbed and stored in the skeleton of the corals and are released as my reactor melts the media?
thanks
Jeff

If using real coral rubble/ coral skeleton it will release trace elements that went into building the skeleton. You will not get those used by soft tissue.

That is my understanding so some extra additions might be necessary or not.

 

[Whiterabbitrage]

Since this topic comes up over and over, I thought I give a summary of my current general thoughts on trace elements for reef aquariums.

1. First, a standard definition. Trace elements are those elements in seawater at very low concentration. It does not include the major ions of seawater: calcium, magnesium, alkalinity (carbonate and bicarbonate), sulfate, potassium, bromide, borate, strontium or fluoride, despite the fact that many commercial trace element supplements may contain some of these. The distinction is important in several ways that will become apparent in subsequent parts of this post, but I'll note here that each of the major ions of seawater are present in concentration above 1 ppm, while all of the other inorganic ions in natural seawater combined is less than 1 ppm total.

2. For major ions, the concentration does not vary by location or depth in the oceans. The only significant variation in major ion concentration comes as the salinity changes. Trace elements, however, are different, and can vary considerably by location and depth. Some are surface depleted. Some are depleted deeper down. No single number, for example, can tell you the natural ocean concentration of, say, iron. If one is targeting a “natural” concentration of iron, what number would one choose? The ocean does not tell us a definitive answer.

3. All organisms need a number of trace elements for a wide range of biochemical processes. These include iron, copper, zinc, manganese, vanadium and molybdenum. Some trace elements are purely a toxicity concern, including mercury, lead, and cadmium. Many are needed at one concentration and are toxic at higher concentration (e.g., copper and nickel). Organisms, such as fish, likely get some or all these needed trace elements from foods rather than from the water itself, but many organisms do get them from the water, and all organisms that do not consume particulate foods in some fashion must do so.

4. For organisms that do get their needed trace elements from the water, there is very little experimental evidence on how much is too little and how much is too much and might be toxic for any given organism. There is a fair amount of experimental evidence in reef aquaria about how much of many trace elements in the typical forms found in reef tanks is “adequate” for the organisms, especially corals, but not really what the acceptable range is. Some of the ICP-based trace element methods use this adequateness approach. In general, reefers have found that the acceptable levels of some trace elements can vary a lot more than the acceptable levels of some major ions. Iron, for example, seems to be able to be acceptable over a very wide range of concentrations (certainly more than a factor of 100) and still be adequately available and not toxic.

5. For major ions, the concentration, and perhaps pH, tells you all you need to know about its bioavailability. 420 ppm calcium is equally bioavailable in every reef tank. Many trace elements, however, can exist in a variety of different chemical forms. These differences include different oxidation states, such as ferric (Fe+++) and ferrous (Fe++) iron. They can also include different complexation by organics. Copper, for example, is known to be nearly entirely bound by organics in the ocean, and that binding greatly impacts (reduces relative to the bare ion) its toxicity and bioavailability. Thus, the concentration of a trace element (such as by any type of ICP) may only provide a part of the question of whether there is enough or too much or too little of a trace element present.

6. The oxidation state and the complexation by organics can change rapidly in a reef aquarium. Thus, the form one doses may immediately change to something else when mixed into the water, and may also change as it experiences various treatments, such as ozone, UV, hydrogen peroxide, antioxidants, processing by organisms, etc.

7. The depletion of trace elements arises in several ways, including uptake by organisms (corals, anemones, algae, bacteria, etc.), binding to mineral surfaces (calcium carbonate, GFO, etc.), and through any sort of organic export mechanism (skimming, activated carbon, polymer resin absorbents, and physical filtering of “detritus”). Many reefers assume that fast growing SPS corals are the driving force behind trace element depletion in their aquaria, but IMO there is little evidence of this. When folks use methods such as macroalgae or turf algae to control nutrients, organic carbon dosing to drive bacteria, skimmers and GAC to export organics, or even particulate calcium carbonate dosing to keep the water clear, these may be equally large or larger sinks for trace elements.

8. Some trace elements have been found to rapidly deplete. These include iron and manganese. They can drop from dosed levels to undetectable by typical hobby testing in a few days. A small amount of macroalgae growth can strip a whole tank of manganese. Some can be much slower to deplete (e.g., zinc). If one chooses to just test the waters of trace element dosing, iron and manganese are a good place to start. There are both DIY and commercial products for just these, and many people have found them useful.

9. Folks thinking about consumption of trace elements in reef tanks often think about water changes as the way they are replaced, and it is true that new trace elements come in with water changes. However, there are additional factors that bear on reef husbandry and our interpretation of the usefulness of our actions.

A. Rapidly depleting trace elements cannot ever be maintained at the concentration in the salt mix by water changes alone unless one changes 100% of the water every day. However, some salt mixes may have more than natural levels of some trace elements, and since the acceptable level of a trace element may be well below that present in the salt mix, water changes may be useful in adding trace elements.

B. A widely ignored source of trace elements may actually be the primary way many trace elements get into reef aquaria. Foods are loaded with trace elements, for the same reason that organisms need to take them up: all organisms and hence all foods sources must contain them. For some, the total amount of certain trace elements (such as iron) may be far higher in daily foods than in daily 100% water changes. However, there are no studies that show how well these food-contained trace elements get into and become part of the food chain in a reef tank. Certainly some is lost, but my expectation is that a substantial amount of trace elements do get into the water this way.

10. Many folks dose trace elements to try to replace those lost in the aquarium, and there are many commercial mixes and DIY recipes. Deciding how much of what to dose is a vexing problem that may be best answered by trial and error (which successfully deals with all of the uncertainties described above) but it takes a lot of time and effort. Folks attempt to shortchange that effort, with a number of different methods that try to eliminate some of the uncertainties, and I’ll describe the pros and cons of these below.

A. Some commercial trace element mixes are designed to be used in a volume dosed per day or week methodology. For example: Add 1 ml of solution to each 100 L of aquarium water daily. Certainly the easiest way for the reefkeeper, but they can only be “perfect” for a single type of reef tank. That said, they may be adequate for a reasonably wide range of reef tanks. A beginning reefer might start here with an additive from a company they have confidence in, since the reefkeeper is fully trusting them to get it right, and IMO, not all companies have earned such trust. One might consider experimenting with lower or higher doses over time to better match the actual needs of your aquarium, and might start high or low if there is more or less growth in general in the aquarium relative to an average tank. A new reef tank with few organisms will certainly take up fewer trace elements, and more is not necessarily better.

B. A second approach ties the amount of trace elements added to the calcification rate. Say, to alkalinity demand per day or calcium demand per day. For example: Add 1ml of supplement for every 20ppm of calcium added per 100 liters of aquarium water. The company makes some sort of determination of the amount of trace elements needed per unit of calcification for a typical reef tank. A number of products do this either explicitly (for a trace supplement) or implicitly, such as with a two part or one part alkalinity and calcium method that has extra added trace elements.
The calcification rate would be a reasonable approach if the tank has about the same consumption characteristics as the tank the product was designed for, but what if it doesn’t? An entirely soft coral tank with a macroalgae refugium and organic carbon dosing may consume more trace elements than a hard coral tank that uses none of these methods. Yet the hard coral tank has far higher calcification and hence is getting more trace elements. This method likely works out for many tanks, but if your tank deviates from a typical mixed tank that the product was likely designed for, it may be a suboptimal way to dose. Again, trust of the company also comes into play. If the method is a stand-alone trace element mix, one might experiment with doses as described in A.

C. A third approach involves testing of the concentrations of many trace elements by ICP (the only way generally available to reefers to test trace elements at low concentrations) and dosing each element measured to bring it back into a desirable range. This method is more expensive and labor intensive than A or B, but is clearly better, in my opinion, without being perfect. The issues include the accuracy of the ICP measurement (may be partly determined by the company and their protocols, partly by the exact type of ICP used, and partly by what happens to the sample between your tank and the plasma itself. Freezing, bacterial growth in the sample tube, binding to the tube sides, any sort of filtration or centrifugation, or lack thereof, at the company may all play a role in the accuracy. Additionally, the issues of chemical speciation (e.g., ferrous vs ferric iron) and complexation by organics is not resolved by ICP. Finally, desirable ranges are often determined by one or more people that may or may not have the same focus (color vs growth, different organisms considered, etc.). I’m also wary of some of these methods that suggest dosing of chemicals not known by science to play any role in any known organisms. If using such a method, I’d either leave these out, or at least experiment by not dosing them and see if anything is different in my aquarium.

11. Do not believe the hype that some commercial products claim about their product boosting specific colors or that specific elements are tied to boosting such colors. Such claims are, in my opinion derived by marketing people and are not based in reef keeping reality. Corals certainly will grow faster and may or may not be more colorful if getting all the trace elements they need, compared to being limited by one or more trace elements, but don’t look to trace elements to take a healthy coral and suddenly make the color pop.

12. Finally, I suggest that silicate dosing can be desirable for many reef aquaria. Yes, that may spur diatoms, but they are no more to be feared in most instances than the green algae they may replace on the glass, and the silicate can allow better growth of sponges that need silicate in the water. While not used by any corals, it may also help prevent dinoflagellate infestations by allowing diatoms to cover bare surfaces and outcompete the dinos.

There is, of course, far more to trace elements than described here, and I have not really intended this as a cookbook directive, but rather to help folks gain a wider appreciation of what the trace element world of reefing currently comprises.

Happy Reefing!

Thank you Randy!

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Randy,
Thank you. I have tried A, B, C with mixed results.
10C " I’m also wary of some of these methods that suggest dosing of chemicals not known by science to play any role in any known organisms. If using such a method, I’d either leave these out, or at least experiment by not dosing them and see if anything is different in my aquarium." Has me wondering - what elements are some scientific basis for adding to our tanks? Florine/Floride is one element that I have seen very different answers from different ICP labs.
Thank you

Unfortunately there is a lot of misinformation on some trace elements that circulates in the reefing world.

There's a clear list of trace elements needed by many/most organisms, then there are some that are used by fewer and fewer organisms, and some that have no known natural utility.

There are, of course, many with no known use, such as mercury and uranium.

Unfortunately, the reefing world has been permeated with what I consider to be many false ideas on the need for certain elements which scientists do not recognize in any known organism. Some ICP companies have picked up on this and push folks to maintain these elements (IMO). On the list of not required but pushed elements are lithium, barium, and rubidium.

Fluorine is a complicated question that has not been answered, IMO. It has some biological implications, but I do not believe that maintaining levels in a reef aquarium has convincing evidence of utility. That said, it also doesn't hurt to do so.

This paper discusses halogens, including fluorine, in macroalgae and microalgae:

Halogens in Seaweeds: Biological and Environmental Significance

Many marine algae are strong accumulators of halogens. Commercial iodine production started by burning seaweeds in the 19th century. The high iodine content of certain seaweeds has potential pharmaceutical and nutritional applications. While the metabolism of iodine in brown algae is linked to...

www.mdpi.com

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

So my question is will using a ca reactor in my systems actually be replenishing these consumed elements the live corals are using? Are these trace elements absorbed and stored in the skeleton of the corals and are released as my reactor melts the media?
thanks
Jeff

As pod notes, it adds those elements in the skeletons and not those in tissue (and not any exported by other means, such as precipitation, skimmed out, etc.).

The relative importance of these two types of incorporation will, of course, depend on how much of each happens in a given tank, but I would never make the assumption that A CaCO3/CO2 reactor alone provides the trace element needs of an aquarium.

 

[Dburr1014]

Whats the difference? Color? Growth?

I started dosing it cause I have a bunch of shrimps who molt obviously and I saw people always seem to be low on icp. Anywho for some weird reason my sps started getting crazy polyp extension and just much more fuzzier overall in just one week of dosing it. I’ve had some for close to a year with normal pe during the day that are reaching For the stars now, all day and night lol..

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

If we think about the fact that a typical reef tank is growing and exporting both algae and skimmate with high loads of bacteria and other microorganism, my instinct is that a lot of traces are not going to the corals directly, making the situation even more complicated. My gut instinct is if we add up all the biomass we throw out vs the growth of our corals, the trash is the larger amount.

I agree. There are a lot of trace elements in this:

Photo by @hart24601

QUESTION OF THE DAY - Saltwater tumbleweed: what is your experience with Chaeto?

Saltwater tumbleweed: what is your experience with Chaeto? Whether in a refugium or an algae reactor, Cheatomorpha (often referred to a Chaeto) is a tool that reef keepers use to improve the water quality in their tanks. What is your experience with Cheato? Have you grown it? Did you grow it in...

www.reef2reef.com

 

[GARRIGA]

Wish you would cut it down with a concussion at the end, I.e . I makes sense to dose trace elements or in general just feed the fish

I've always believed it was feed the fish and from studying decomposition it seems everything added is returned through mineralization of mulm and why I crave to retain it and decompose it. Problem is that's becoming a wild goose chase as it appears it might take decades. I'm not fortunate as Paul B to have such an old tank and being later in age. I can't wait that long to prove my theory. Perhaps advanced oxidation can help break it down but I don't know. Perhaps Randy or one of our many who are in or were in waste management or other fields of science.

Gotta be a way to accelerate decades and mineralization returns minerals such as calcium and magnesium, too. Yeah. That stuff we build monster contraptions containing old dead skeletons fed co2 at very specific intervals then scrubbed by media to remove excess co2 so our pH doesn't plummet or supported by dosing contraptions an astronaut would fear and all because we toss vs process. Think about how much money we literally throw away down the drain tossing fish waste. Farmers consider this stuff gold. We think it is gross. We might be too skeemish

All this based on my readings and no clue otherwise. I'm in strategic planning. Not marine waste management but know this.

Ocean has no skimmers. That surface foam at the beach. Where do people think it goes. Yet skimmers remove trace.

Oceans have no carbon I know of and that removes trace. Ozone applied properly resolves the major reason we run it. That awful yellow water.

No socks. All decomposes where it's at.

Ocean can only account for so much dilution and sequestering. I think that's a word. End of day. Nature does it's own house cleaning and all though we don't have rock rivers to dissolve their trace into our waters. Our food likely contains some of it and our motto is throw it all out vs just finding science to reuse it. I love fish crap. So should every other reefer because that I don't need to toss means more time doing other things such fishing and I'm not talking about in my own tank.

Still seeking a solution to coral warfare yet leaning perhaps just perhaps oxidation our hero but I don't know. I'm just a strategist playing with chemicals trying to keep life in a box with the least contraptions, dosing or water changes. Before I forget. Good thing I have vodka. It helps solve some of my waste. Waiting on another drunk to one day spill something else accidentally into their tank (how I envision carbon dosing came to be but I'm sure it was all based on science yet my theory more entertaining) and discover the ultimate mulm accelerator.

Mulm might just be our savior to solving the old age but now testable new age... to trace or not to trace.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Ocean has no skimmers. That surface foam at the beach. Where do people think it goes. Yet skimmers remove trace.

There are loads and loads of papers on the geochemical cycling of most any element in seawater, as well as organics.

A lot of inorganic elements pile up on the bottom in precipitated sediments, and those layers can get hundreds of feet thick, ultimately returning the the surface in sedimentary layers such as the white cliffs of dover.

White Cliffs of Dover

www.dovermuseum.co.uk

"Around seventy million years ago this part of Britain was submerged by a shallow sea. The sea bottom was made of a white mud formed from the fragments of coccoliths, which were the skeletons of tiny algae which floated in the surface waters of the sea. This mud was later to become the chalk. "

 

[GARRIGA]

There are loads and loads of papers on the geochemical cycling of most any element in seawater, as well as organics.

A lot of inorganic elements pile up on the bottom in precipitated sediments, and those layers can get hundreds of feet thick, ultimately returning the the surface in sedimentary layers such as the white cliffs of dover.

White Cliffs of Dover

www.dovermuseum.co.uk

"Around seventy million years ago this part of Britain was submerged by a shallow sea. The sea bottom was made of a white mud formed from the fragments of coccoliths, which were the skeletons of tiny algae which floated in the surface waters of the sea. This mud was later to become the chalk. "

I'm referencing the idea that foam at the beach takes waste away. Isn't what you mention sequestration? Which under proper conditions continue to decompose and release what is hidden within? My holy grail being the release within the mulm captured in my box vs tossing it. Although that which collects in our sumps and canisters a form of sequestration since I believe it is in it's present form inert. How I understand it and could be wrong.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I'm referencing the idea that foam at the beach takes waste away. Isn't what you mention sequestration? Which under proper conditions continue to decompose and release what is hidden within? My holy grail being the release within the mulm captured in my box vs tossing it. Although that which collects in our sumps and canisters a form of sequestration since I believe it is in it's present form inert. How I understand it and could be wrong.

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you are equating between a skimmer on a reef tank, which is a huge effect on the overall system (exporting organics and inorganics bound to the organics and in the water phase), and foam on a beach, which is a very, very minor contributor to the overall system which no oceanography would even bother to quantify.

But in a related vein, inorganics will bind to organic detritus that settle to the bottom and in that location is decomposed further. Some of that decomposition is released back to the water, and some is ultimately buried and not returned for a long time, if ever. Purely inorganic detritus (like a shell of a diatom) also settle out in the same way.

 

[GARRIGA]

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you are equating between a skimmer on a reef tank, which is a huge effect on the overall system (exporting organics and inorganics bound to the organics and in the water phase), and foam on a beach, which is a very, very minor contributor to the overall system which no oceanography would even bother to quantify.

But in a related vein, inorganics will bind to organic detritus that settle to the bottom and in that location is decomposed further. Some of that decomposition is released back to the water, and some is ultimately buried and not returned for a long time, if ever. Purely inorganic detritus (like a shell of a diatom) also settle out in the same way.

Just referencing the fact many equate skimmers to foam seen on the beach. Most presented argument I've heard of why we need to use it.

I get you on the efficiency of the skimmer to export contaminants but my premise being that it also exports trace as you mentioned in your bullet points. I'm seeking a solution of least involvement to keep trace within. Not saying skimmers don't work but that they work too good and my belief is let it decompose as it will eventually return everything within, including trace.

Long ago only option to manage ammonia were water changes. That and nitrites were solved with understanding of biological media and it's role in fish keeping. Then we learned how plants could resolve nitrates and phosphates. Something I studied in the 70s. Just theory. No practice. I was too young. Now we have carbon dosing and GFO. In other words, we've found a way to resolve many concerns that in the past required throwing good with some bad away and replacing with good. Now we are discussing trace and based on my research, it seems some of that can be resolved by mineralization and why I mentioned that and coral warfare as my final sort of frontier. Hoping oxidation helps solve that. No clue but it's a path I'm researching.

Would you agree with me that organic detritus contains trace or am I misinterpreting the science? That's my relevance to this topic.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Just referencing the fact many equate skimmers to foam seen on the beach. Most presented argument I've heard of why we need to use it.

IMO, it's an illogical argument of why we need it, but it is an argument that it is a natural process , just scaled up in importance.

I don't really know of a good way to remove organics that does not take out the trace elements bound to it.

Certainly, the organic matter in seawater and reef tank water (both particulate and dissolved) will contain many bound trace elements.

 

[GARRIGA]

IMO, it's an illogical argument of why we need it, but it is an argument that it is a natural process , just scaled up in importance.

I don't really know of a good way to remove organics that does not take out the trace elements bound to it.

Certainly, the organic matter in seawater and reef tank water (both particulate and dissolved) will contain many bound trace elements.

Specifically why I seek a method to process organics and release all it's contents vs exporting it. Could oxidation solve that? Why you'll see me asking many questions about ozone and hydrogen peroxide combined with UV. Seeking a way to put it all together or understand why it won't work.

In the process of designing my main build and how I solve these issues affect it.