Calcium Confused Noob

[Swarf]

After hours and hours of reading, I am still very confused over what it the best method for maintaining calcium levels for the tank I am planning, 210 gal display, about 250 gallons total. I know a big part of the equation is how much calcium will be used by the tank inhabitants. I don't plan on having a lot of stony corals, so I guess calcium usage will be pretty moderate.

So many options!

1. Pre-made additives. Expensive, have to dose every day, which is very unappealing.

2. Mix your own additives. Dr. Randy's two part or three part solutions seem popular. Less expensive than pre-made, but still constantly dosing.

1.a., 2.a. Use option 1. or 2. but use a reservoir, and dosing pump, or something similar. Mixing batches sounds a lot better than daily dosing.

The fact that calcium levels, alkalinity, pH and who knows what else are all effected by any kind of reactor just makes thing more confusing.

3. Calcium reactor. Great for raising calcium levels. Might not raise alkalinity enough unless you use expensive media like Rowalith C+. Initially expensive. May be overkill for tanks not using a lot of calcium. Residual CO2 lowers pH of effluent. And, there are so many different manufacturers/designs it gives me a migraine, some are finicky to keep on track, some claim to use less CO2, some eat pumps every year.

4. Kalk reactor. Effective. High pH effluent.

5. Then I see where people are using both a calcium reactor, and a kalk reactor. Certainly the most expensive way to go, but is this the most effective, best setup?

I guess if there were a completely straightforward answer I wouldn't be asking, but after countless hours of trying to educate myself I am still very confused. Experienced reefers point me in the right direction.

Chuck

 

[bertoni]

There isn't any one answer. Each tank is different, and different people are willing to spend varying amounts on automation. Calcium reactors will supply both alkalinity and calcium, though, in any case. The more expensive media might be more phosphate-free or the like, but any calcium carbonate media will supply calcium and carbonate.

You could start with a 2-part and work from there. You'll soon get an idea of the work involved.

 

[rodgod20]

with your size of a tank....I would go CA reactor

 

[WaterKeeper]

I like the KW reactor as it is inherently simple. As long as the KW fines are allowed to settle before dosing the supernatant the system works fine. Even though Randy came up with his two and three part additives he used the KW reactor on his own tank.

 

[Swarf]

Thanks Jonathan,
Initially I planned on using 2-part (3-part) at first then seeing if I wanted to switch to a calcium reactor later. But, then looking at the prices of the presumably more reliable dosing pumps (because I really don't want to be measuring and adding stuff by hand every day) I started thinking why shouldn't I just skip that step and invest that money in a calcium reactor.

Personally I would lean more towards automation, as long as it didn't take constant fiddling, over saving some money.

Do you think a decent calcium reactor would fulfill my needs?

Thanks,
Chuck

 

[bertoni]

Calcium reactors are more automated, but they do require tinkering. I'm not sure that automated 2-part is any more or less maintenance than a calcium reactor. Hard to say. Can you fit two large reservoirs into your system? If not, the calcium reactor is likely more handy.

 

[bertoni]

Oops, meant to add that the dosing pump can also be used as a part of a good autotopoff system, and autotopoff I recommend highly.

 

[Swarf]

One vote calcium reactor, and one vote kalk reactor before I even have time to reply to Jonathan. Thanks for the replies.

Tom, do you think just using a kalk reactor with an osmolator ATO would fill all my needs? Can you over dose with a kalk reactor?

Chuck

 

[Swarf]

Jonathan,
I am definitely setting up an autotopoff system, an osmolator, but Tunze says not to run kalkwasser through the pump, unless you want to replace it regularly. I'm setting up two 55 gal reservoirs for RODI and saltwater. If I have to add another reservoir that won't be a problem.

Chuck

 

[bertoni]

Well, hard to say, then. My guess is that if I recommend one, you'll find the other a bit more convenient over time. You'd need two reservoirs for the 2-part, since the separate parts cannot be combined, though.

 

[WaterKeeper]

Chuck,

The Ca reactors are great but as Jonathan points out require at least some tinkering to insure proper functions. They are more complex to as they require a CO₂ feeding and measuring unit. Some also use pH controllers. To me all maintenance items.

Now the KW reactor is nothing more than a fancy stirrer in which you place hydrated lime and mix it up. After it settles, you feed the supernatant to your tank. All that requires is a pump with a timer and maybe a high level safety shutoff. None of these require much in the way of routine maintenance.

JMO

 

[Swarf]

All great information.

So, potentially all of the methods are capable of maintaining correct calcium levels, correct? Is it more of a personal choice, rather than one method being vastly superior than the others?

I like the simplicity of the kalk reactor, but most systems I've seen pass all their topoff water through the reactor. Is there no danger in this, is there no possibility of dosing too much kalkwasser? One system I saw had two solenoid valves and added either straight RODI water as topoff, or passed the topoff water through a kalk reactor based upon pH, but there seemed to be debate over whether pH was a good factor to base that decision on.

I appreciate Waterkeeper's argument that calcium reactors are inherently more complicated than kalk reactors, so probably more prone to failure. But, if I were to get high quality components can't calcium reactors run with minimal fiddling.

Jeez, this is making my head hurt, thanks for the hand holding, noobs occasionally need some.

 

[bertoni]

Well, for tanks with large calcium demands, a kalk reactor often can't keep up with demand. Calcium reactors and two-parts are more potent, in that respect. The calcium reactors all require some fiddling, for various reasons.

 

[WaterKeeper]

I'm more inclined to have the reactor pump to the topoff unit. Why? Well, if water flows through the reactor it can carry solid calcium hydroxide into the tank. Now, calcium hydroxide is self limiting in its solubility. Less than 2 grams will dissolve in a liter of water. However, if a bunch of the solid stuff reaches the main tank there are all sorts of liters available and each can dissolve 2 grams of lime. That will really boost your alkalinity big, big time and probably your pH to around 12.

As Martha would say, "Not a good thingy".

 

[Swarf]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9593490#post9593490 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by WaterKeeper
I'm more inclined to have the reactor pump to the topoff unit.

Tom,
I'm being dense here, just let me make sure I understand what you are saying.

RO water to kalk reactor.
Kalkwasser out of reactor to topoff reservoir.
Kalkwasser out of reservoir to sump controlled by osmolator.

If that is the correct sequence then there are still some issues right?

1. Osmolator pump doesn't like kalkwasser. Use a better (more expensive) dosing pump.

2. All topoff water will be kalkwasser. If the pH starts getting too high it would be wise to have a bypass or separate topoff reservoir, so you could add plain RO water instead of kalkwasser to make up for evaporation.

3. I was planning on automatically making batches of RODI water, a 55 gal barrel full per cycle. Would this volume of water all at one time surpass the ability of the reactor?

If you are using a pH controller to decide whether to add kalkwasser, or straight RODI, then you are adding a level of complexity.

And we haven't even touched on magnesium yet. My brain is overloaded.

Chuck

 

[bertoni]

Everyone wants to make it complicated. At this point, I'd suggest getting the calcium reactor. It's a common approach, and there's no point in driving yourself insane just yet. The credit card bills will do that soon enough.

 

[rafa316]

I am trying to understan about calcium but it is just going above my head.
If I use http://www.drsfostersmith.com/Product/Prod_Display.cfm?pcatid=4737&Ntt=calcium%20reactor&Ntk=All&Ntx=mode+matchallpartial&Np=1&N=2004&Nty=1
to maintain my levels and test often would everything be ok?

 

[bertoni]

C Balance is fine. Over time, you might want to find a cheaper solution, but I think starting there is a good idea.

 

[Swarf]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9599673#post9599673 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bertoni
Everyone wants to make it complicated. At this point, I'd suggest getting the calcium reactor. It's a common approach, and there's no point in driving yourself insane just yet. The credit card bills will do that soon enough.

Jonathan,
I never imagined switching from a FOWLR tank to a reef tank would take so much time, research, money. I don't think it is worth driving myself crazy over, but figuring out something for calcium maintenance will be my last major equipment purchase before I start putting all the bits together. I'm leaning towards a calcium reactor, but that is just me, hopefully I will be happy with that decision a year or two from now.

Thanks for weighing in, seems like there are a few different ways to 'skin the cat' in this instance.

Cheers,
Chuck

 

[bertoni]

Good luck! I think you'll be happy with your reef tank, however it gets its calcium.