Randy's point makes perfect sense to me ; more Tech M equals more of whatever is killing the bryopsis ,if the assumptions about an unique impurity and the efficacy of Tech M as a bryopsis control are correct. and those are big "ifs".
While this thread was not intended by the OP to be a discussion on the Tech M approach generally ,. the testimonial for it offered in post#17 takes us there.
Personally I'm dubious about the whole process. Evidence for it hasn't gone beyond testimonials and those cases where it doesn't erradicate the bryopsis are dismissed as errors in applications or other variables in teh aquarium.
You certainly will not find anything but anecdotal evidence for using Tech M to control bryospis. But you will find a lot of testimonials saying it does work. Based on that reasoning, then, you should doubt the use of Interceptor for Redbugs, as there are only testimonials to support that as well. Some unsuccessful use of Tech M to control bryopsis may be user error, but there could also be Bryopsis species more resistant to whatever trace is killing Bryopsis in those that did have success with it, like myself.
Hundreds have used Tech M to control Bryopsis. Just because there are not scientific studies showing the specifics of why, does not mean it does not work. Many commonly used remedies for pest control in the aquarium have involved using some product for something other than what it was intended.
Interceptor for redbugs, Tech M for Bryopsis, in FW tanks, SeaChem Flourish Excel to control Black Beard Algae (BBA), Fluke Tabs to eliminate GSP, Xenia, and Blue Clove Polyps that have become plagues in Reef Tanks, even Kalk paste on Aiptasia, all used based on other's anecdotal observation. They work, scientifically proven or not.
You will probably find that when the first systemic treatment for AEFWs comes about, it will probably come from the Reef Hobbyist Community, and it will develop based on anecdotal observation, not scientific studies, and it will come from someone using a product for other than it's intended purpose, just like the use of Tech M for Bryopsis came about.
I doubt Kent can tell you the amounts of trace elements in the product much less from batch to batch; nor do they sell this product as a bryopsis control.
Correct. If Kent sold Tech M as an algaecide, they would have a host of EPA and other Government regulations to comply with. Tech M for Bryopsis, like Interceptor for Redbugs, is a use at your own risk type scenario, as it would be using anything for a non specified purpose.
Even if I assume for the sake of argument that an impurity that only harms bryopsis is present ( a large and likely incorrect assumption assumption) ; how constant would it be from batch to batch.?
I've used Tech M to supplement magnesium in the past when I had bryopsis issues abut 5 years ago without any discernible effect.
The whole idea of overdosing magnesium in pursuit of some unidentified impurity toxic to bryopsis, while hoping the ethal element is there at some level of consistency and won't harm any other living thing does not appeal to me.
Keeping PO4 low will cause bryopsis to wane,ime. Sometimes it takes time( weeks to months) for rock leaching PO4 to exhaust though.
The concentration of the trace that kills Bryopsis in Tech M certainly could vary from batch to batch. I was not arguing that point. That may where some of the unsuccessful attempts to use it for Bryopsis come from.
Anyone's personal preference to use or not use a product for whatever purpose is a choice, but the only supporting evidence being anecdotal observation/testimonials does not mean a particular method does not work. Sometimes, that is all we have in this hobby.
