Brightwell Aquatics "Two Thumbs up!!!"

Marc

Member
Hi everyone,

I wanted to share some feedback on Brightwell Aquatics products. First off, my LFS sold me Reef Biofuel Carbon Source promising that my nitates and phosphates will soon diminish. Well that wasn't the case. I have a 500 gallon FOWLR system and have had issues with high nitrate creeping up due to the addition of a few fish. Well my nitrates were 50 ppm and phos was about .002 mgl. So I used the product the LFS prescribed me for 4 months with no results. I said this is odd. I called Brightwell Aquatics and talked to Chris Brightwell who formulates the products and is the owner of Brightwell. He was great!!! He explained to me that I should have been using Nitri bacter 7 instead of the carbon source. He explained how these products work in reeef and fish only systems and more specifically how much should be dosed in my particular system. I told him that my LFS sold me the Biofuel and Chris said that was only for very low nutrient reef systems with limited carbon sources and sent me a sample of his Nitribacter 7 to get me started on the right track. I am glad I talked to him and wish I would have talked to him sooner because I have seen so many supplements on the market that it's to difficult to choose the correct one thats right for your system. So if you are using any Brightwell Aquatics supplements and are not sure if it's the right one for you, always call the company itself first. Not all LFS out there are truly educated on supplements. They just want to make a fast buck!

Marc
 
I'll share my two huge thumbs down, both for Chris, his poor products, and his marketing gimmicks that mislead reefers. :(

They have some terrible products with misleading marketing.

I'm glad you like some of them, but others are not so good. :(
 
Here's my comment from other threads on Brightwell:

Some Brightwell products are likely just fine. Others seem poorly thought out, from a scientific standpoint (although a cynic would say the point is sales, not utility).

Here are some of my thoughts on them:

Liquid reef is like Purple Up or Kent Liquid reactor in that the main ingredient (fine sand) does not dissolve in seawater. I do not recommend it.

Kalk +2 is also poorly thought out. The magnesium in it does not dissolve in limewater. And there is very little present anyway.

Their iodine product claims that iodide is the primary iodine-containing ion in seawater, which is incorrect.

Another Brightwell product that I have a problem with: "elemental". Specifically, I can't imagine anyone choosing this odd mix of things even if it worked as described, which it won't.

You can't link right to it, but it claims to have the useless aragonite, like Liquid Reef, but then goes on to add additional calcium and strontium, and a miniscule amount of magnesium.

If it worked as claimed, it is a very odd and unbalanced mixture of calcium and alkalinity. Since the aragonite won't dissolve, it is basically like a mixture of calcium and strontium, along with a miniscule amount of magnesium and potassium.

What would one use that for? The text says as an add on to other methods to diversify additions? That is a goal???
 
I like his solid Mg product. I don't dose Mg slowly if it needs to be raised and have had no problems increasing it quickly. Quickly meaning 2-3 days. I have also heard of people zoo's changing color while dosing Mg but have never experienced that myself.
 
here's my expanded comment on kalk+2 from another thread:

Unfortunately, it is a very poorly designed product that won't work. It has very little magnesium in it, but even that will precipitate out in limewater...

Really, this is a pitiful product. Not enough magnesium to be useful even if it worked, and it won't work.

It is a marketing gimmick, and one of the many reasons that I do not respect the Brightwell company or its products.

One other comment with respect to the magnesium.

IMO, it is risking being disingenuous to name the product kalk + 2, because normal calcium hydroxide has magnesium in it as an impurity. I expect all Brightwell's product is with respect to magnesium is the natural impurity of magnesium.

I show in the article linked below that bulk supplied calcium oxide and hydroxide have that amount of magnesium or more already in it. So to try to claim it as a plus is misleading, IMO.

Magnesium and Strontium in Limewater
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/dec2003/chem.htm
 
I like his solid Mg product.

Here's my commentary on his solid magnesium product, which may be fine, but CANNOT be what he describes:

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1759839

from it:

43% magnesium by dry weight? I don't think so

Hopefully it is just a typo, but it is repeated in the 430,000 ppm comment.

Pure anhydrous magnesium chloride is 25.53% magnesium by weight.

Pure anhydrous magnesium sulfate is 20.19% magnesium.

He says the product contains just these two, and ends up 43% by weight magnesium.


That said, the product is likely OK, but I have little confidence that he has them at a proper ratio if this simple math gets done wrong.


There is NO PRODUCT that is 43% by weight magnesium that I'd dose to boost magnesium.
 
I have been using Brightwell products for about a year now and I am pretty happy with them. I exclusively use the Magnesion as well as the Calsion. i have never had a problem with these products and my calcium levels are always stable with no precipitation if I accidentally overdose.

Marc
 
Will the Real Reef Chemist please stand up!:wave:

I tend to stick with the guy that does tremendous amounts of work helping people like myself become more educated about what really is going on with their water chemistry and needs. All the while saving us time, money, and sanity without any monetary compensation. For this, I want to Thank You Randy.
 
Thank you Randy. It's refreshing to hear an opinion backed by hard facts.

Can you comment on the MicroBacter7 product, or if not that product specifically, on those types of bacteria additives in general?
 
I tried the MB7 and Biofuel for a month. I dosed as per directions. It did nothing as far to lower my P04. I had 0 nitrates before using.

Only thing that I saw was tissue recession on several of my sps corals. So I stopped dosing. And it appears I have more algae issues than I did. I've noticed a green slime like coating on my rocks and on my tank walls. Glad I stopped when I did.
 
My comment on MB7 is the same for any bacteria product, which I'll copy and paste from another thread:

Bacteria Confusion Regarding Vodka Method.
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1751347


I'm not sure any of them are useful or even have live bacteria in them that will thrive in a reef aquarium doing what we want them to do.

I do not know of any reason to particularly want enzymes.

The bacteria in fresh water and seawater systems are likely different, but I have no idea how they make them, nor whether they mix different cultures.

There's no reason to think that bacteria involved in the nitrogen cycle are the same ones that will thrive under dosing of particular organic carbon sources, such as vodka.


I'm not sure that most of us are saying it does nothing (although it might). The question is whether what it does do (if anything) is valuable. I really do not understand what it would/could do in my aquarium at the moment that would be valuable.

BUT, if you have a cyano problem, I can imagine that adding suitable bacteria might allow one to out compete the cyano, and some folks seem to think that some bacterial additives have helped them in that scenario.
 
Here's another post of mine I'll copy and paste with respect to MB7:

I do not doubt that if one doses appropriate strains of bacteria, that there can be many differences in types of bacteria growing, the biofilms they form, their potential growth rates, the types of organics consumed or their organic consumption efficiency, blah blah blah.

My question is whether adding available hobby products results in a true functional difference that reefers care about.

What do we care about?

IMO, those are:

1. Safety with respect to the organisms we want to keep.
2. An ability to not drive the growth of organisms we do not want (e.g., cyanobacteria in the main tank, ugly biofilms on rocks or glass, etc)
3. The ability to reduce nutrients to a desired level.
4. The ability to do 1, 2, and 3 without excessive cost and labor.

you may add reducing particulate organic matter (detritus) in the tank as a goal if you want that for your system (it is not really a goal of mine).

So does adding bacteria help do any of those? IMO, the question isn't clear that it does, but I'll allow that it may allow an aquarist to attain them more easily, or keep it up longer. I've just not seen clear evidence that it does.

I'd be most inclined to believe that it may help #2, but I wouldn't rate that as a "need" unless a particular reefer encounters that issue.
 
Back
Top