ok here is a question I have, specially for Dave as you are more updated on this.
the tanks that have bryopsis, and it is solved using tech M, do they start off with normal range MG concentration ? or lower than normal ?
could it be that DROP in MG is causing its growth ?
I had it in one of my tanks I think about 6 months ago, for a short period, tested everything,mg was at 1050, raised it to 1300 and bryopsis was gone the day after [it started dying and my tangs started eating it] just wondering if this is the case with others or not. I didnt put this case as "treated by tech M" as I think low MG was causing it.
I can only speak for my system at the time I treated with Tech M. My magensium level was usually in the 1250-1350 range, maintained by Randy's 2 part, when I introduced bryopsis in my system via a chalice coral. I asked about the algae, and the LFS owner told me it was no big deal.
I did not know what bryopsis was then, but quickly learned about it after it started to spread. Did a lot of research and started seeing Tech M pop up as a way to get rid of it.
So my mag levels were OK when I got Bryopsis, and I tested then with a Salifert Mag test kit.
On a side note, I saw a couple trends regarding succcess and failure reports with Tech M: some folks that reported no succcess with Tech M used mag chloride or mag sulfate or a combination to raise mag levels initially, then used Tech M the last part of the way. Also, some folks tried to deal with the bryopsis by raising Mag levels using only mag sulfate and/or mag chloride without using Tech M at all. Those reporting success used Tech M as the sole source for increasing their mag levels. These trends told me that there was something in the Tech M that was killing the bryopsis other than the magnesium, because if it was the magnesium doing it we would not need Tech M, as the only mag source in it is mag sulfate (I don't think it has mag chloride in it). Also, the reports of success with Tech M also showed folks used the 1600-1800 range and kept it there for a period of time, with those reporting bryopsis returning not using a long exposure time. This told me that a certain length of exposure was also needed for successful killing of the bryopsis, aside from whateve concentration level of the effective trace was needed. So as this all was anecdotal, I used 1800 as my target and a two week exposure time at that level, which were the upper limits of what folks that were successful were using, just to be sure. I felt comfortable doing this, as higher than normal magnesium levels for a short duration didn't appear to be a threat to corals or fish.
But aside from any trace variations from Tech M batch to batch, adequate length of exposure to the trace appeared to be as important as any other factor, which brought about my first post in this thread. I believe you need an adequate concentration of the trace, but you also need a certain
minimum exposure period of the bryopsis to that trace in Tech M to kill, rather than just reduce the amount of bryopsis in the system, then have it return later. Similar to how you need a certain exposure time with Interceptor to kill Redbugs in a system, which seems to be 8 hours for a single Interceptor treatment.
So it is not just raise your magnesium levels using Tech M by 30% over what it is normally. There seems to be a minimum exposure time required as well. Again, based on ancdotal observations of Tech M users. All we have at this point, but it seems to be true based on my use of it and others successful or unsuccessful use of it.
There is also the chance that one could buy Tech M that has a low amount of the effective trace as well, or maybe one species of bryopsis is more resistant than another. I have read posts saying they did all the things I mentioned when I was successful with it, and they still could not get rid of it. Ralph's experience illustrates that quite well.
But taken as a whole, there are far more reports of successful use of Tech M than unsuccesssful use of Tech M. I was lucky in that I found Tech M for $17.99 a gallon when I treated, so it didn't break the bank to try it. I think I used about 3 gallons to treat my then 450 net gallon system.
