Calcium Reactor vs. Two-part System
- Thread starter Rovert
- Start date
- Status
I have used both methods and prefer the reactor. It isn't for everyone and in my case the reactor is easier. I had problems with my alk getting out of balance while dosing and getting things back in balance drove me nuts. The reactor solved that problem and my corals have showed the benefit of the tank stability.
Both methods have their pro's and con's and in the end you have to decide which is right for you. Expense should not be an issue, what is a better solution for you and your corals should be the ultimate deciding factor. I am confident that my tank would not be as healthy and growing as well if it were not for my reactor. Equipment is not a band aid, it is a way to help with the daily requirements of the system as a whole. I have noticed that the majority of the TOTM's are very much propped up by equipment and I do believe there is a reason for this...stability that allows a tank to mature and grow. You can achieve this by hand or let some properly set up and adapted equipment help. I prefer a little help.
I do need to take some new pics but these are recent, TOTM material it is not but it is healthy and growing nicely. I have always believed that a picture speaks volumes that words cannot.
End shot.
FTS
The tank is approaching 16 months in the current equipment configuration and most of the corals began as frags about an inch long and most were added in Dec. of 2006. It has a long ways to go but I will continue to let the reactor handle the alk, calcium and mag demands.
Both methods have their pro's and con's and in the end you have to decide which is right for you. Expense should not be an issue, what is a better solution for you and your corals should be the ultimate deciding factor. I am confident that my tank would not be as healthy and growing as well if it were not for my reactor. Equipment is not a band aid, it is a way to help with the daily requirements of the system as a whole. I have noticed that the majority of the TOTM's are very much propped up by equipment and I do believe there is a reason for this...stability that allows a tank to mature and grow. You can achieve this by hand or let some properly set up and adapted equipment help. I prefer a little help.
I do need to take some new pics but these are recent, TOTM material it is not but it is healthy and growing nicely. I have always believed that a picture speaks volumes that words cannot.
End shot.
FTS
The tank is approaching 16 months in the current equipment configuration and most of the corals began as frags about an inch long and most were added in Dec. of 2006. It has a long ways to go but I will continue to let the reactor handle the alk, calcium and mag demands.
davidryder
Claris or Elliot?
I don't think you're on the fence at all. I think you have decided long before your initial post and have been adamantly arguing your decision ever since - however coy and polite it may be.
It appears that no objective conclusion has been made. Those whom have 2-part systems argue they are the best and the same can be said about reactors. However this thread has made it somewhat clear that 2-part is cheaper, easier, and maybe even more popular. It also seems that there are more cases of reactors causing trouble than 2-part systems.
It has been mentioned before and yet to be addressed, but it appears that your mind has long been made up :dance:
Thread of the month!!!! :lol:
Rovert
Premium Member
An interesting, albeit incorrect, assumption. And you know what they say about ASSumptions, no matter how coy or polite your response.<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10241694#post10241694 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by davidryder
I don't think you're on the fence at all. I think you have decided long before your initial post and have been adamantly arguing your decision ever since - however coy and polite it may be.
It appears that no objective conclusion has been made. Those whom have 2-part systems argue they are the best and the same can be said about reactors. However this thread has made it somewhat clear that 2-part is cheaper, easier, and maybe even more popular. It also seems that there are more cases of reactors causing trouble than 2-part systems.
It has been mentioned before and yet to be addressed, but it appears that your mind has long been made up :dance:
Thread of the month!!!! :lol:
I'd have liked nothing better than to save myself hundreds of dollars in up-front cost that I don't really have right now, and go with a 2 part system, if I thought it was more suitable for me. However discussion of the various aspects of the two strategies has led me to believe that a reactor is not only the more convenient method for me, but also to my mind more closely replicates the natural balance of what's found in nature.
I also don't see the substantiation for your comments about 2 part being easier, and I very much question your idea that it's cheaper over the course of years.
It would have been great to see some empirical evidence that compares the chemical analyses of the two different additives, but also comparing two identical systems side-by-side using both shstems to see the 'live' practical results.
Anyway, as the saying goes; 'ya pays yer money, 'ya makes yer choice.' It can truly be said that conclusions are in the eye of the beholder.
Last edited:
If you do decide to go with the calcium reactor...use the GenX or other coral skeleton based large media. I used ARM for a year and wasn't impressed with it. It can cake, small grains can clog the effluent valve and if the ph gets too low in the reactor it can turn to mush. Definitely use a ph controller. One thing I do is drip effluent into a 1" tube that holds the ph probe and the effluent runs out the top. The dripping of the effluent helps out gas the co2 and is an easy visual check of the effluent drip rate. As someone else mentioned here, try and drip the effluent where the chaeto is as this will also help it grow by taking advantage of the co2.
ThomasinKind
New member
Two Articles
Two Articles
Two articles worth noting:
How to Select a Calcium and Alkalinity Supplementation Scheme
An Improved Do-It-Yourself Two Part Calcium and Alkalinity Supplement System
These should be useful. At this time, I don't have a good article for calcium reactors. If anyone does please post it.
-Thomas
Two Articles
Two articles worth noting:
How to Select a Calcium and Alkalinity Supplementation Scheme
An Improved Do-It-Yourself Two Part Calcium and Alkalinity Supplement System
These should be useful. At this time, I don't have a good article for calcium reactors. If anyone does please post it.
-Thomas
This is my favorite.
http://home.comcast.net/~jdieck1/reactor.html
This one is very informative.
http://www.petsforum.com/personal/trevor-jones/tuningcaco3reactor.html
http://home.comcast.net/~jdieck1/reactor.html
This one is very informative.
http://www.petsforum.com/personal/trevor-jones/tuningcaco3reactor.html
pjpeels
Premium Member
Threads like this help advance the hobby. Ideas get thrown around and we come up new solutions. Equipment gets more efficient, improved upon as a result. Criticisms to a particular system today may be non-issues in the future as a result of our constant brainstorming.
Thanks to the contributors. This is a helpful Thread.
Thanks to the contributors. This is a helpful Thread.
Whalehead9
New member
Just an issue to think about cost, I had a bubble counter fail on my reactor knocking the check vale off line and flooded the area around the tank. If it were carpet it would cost a lot more but it was tile fortunately. Also in three years I have had to either replace the Ehiem(twice) pump completely or find shafts(Once) for it due to malfunctions in feed pump causing the reactor to fill with CO2 and dry running pumps.
Also factor in refilling the CO2, bottle. As a regular cost.
I have used both methods for my tanks and other tanks that I maintain, and both have worked well in keeping animals thriving. In any one choice in the end is what you feel comfortable with.
Also factor in refilling the CO2, bottle. As a regular cost.
I have used both methods for my tanks and other tanks that I maintain, and both have worked well in keeping animals thriving. In any one choice in the end is what you feel comfortable with.
I dosed two part and kalk wasser for years. I started using a calcium reactor six months ago. I was surprised at how little co2 is needed to maintain effluent ph at 6.7(the recommended level)as well a the relatively small amount of effluent recommended. I have a 400g integrated system with heavy load of sps ,lps leathers etc. Eventhough I run the reactor slowly, it is still a challenge to manage the additional co2 it brings to the system. In a smaller system it would be very easy to overdose co2 and create serious problems including dangerously low ph. I have contiued to dose kalk water at night to offset the low ph of the calcium reactor. I also run two small opposite photo period refugia with plenty of chaetomorpha and som culerpa. I use the reactor because I was somewhat concerned about the potential for chloride buildup with continued heavy use of calcium chloride in the two part and because the kalkwater dosing was not enough and again heavy use of thie kwater method could lead to balance issues vis a vie magnesium, For me the calcium reactor is a good addition now that I am able to maintain ph. For a smaller system as a stand alone method for calcium and alkalinity I don't think I could recommend it,given the likelyhood of co2 and ph problems.
One aspect nobody has mentioned is the chemical make-up of the reactor media itself.
All a reactor does is dissolve the media, which contains numerous trace elements, some of which I'm sure the significance in a closed system hasn't been discovered yet.
Why wouldn't you want to add dissolved organic material, instead of using a two-part?
With that method, it's easy to overlook the little additions, which could prove crucial to the livestock.
All a reactor does is dissolve the media, which contains numerous trace elements, some of which I'm sure the significance in a closed system hasn't been discovered yet.
Why wouldn't you want to add dissolved organic material, instead of using a two-part?
With that method, it's easy to overlook the little additions, which could prove crucial to the livestock.
chileguy, that aspect was actually brought up by Rovert on page 3 in his 06/07/2007 11:41 AM post. It's a point I've considered as well. An analogy can be taken from gardening, where applying a basic fertilizer having appropriate macronutrient ratios of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium would be the equivalent of dosing 2-part. But with plants there are other important nutrients (Fe, Cu, Bo, Mg, Co, Ca, etc.) that are also necessary, and I've wondered if there are reefkeeping equivalents of those that are dissolved and dosed by Ca reactor media but are not present in 2-part dosing. The answer here has been "those micronutrients are replenished by water changes", which may be true, but then in that case it takes away from the idea of a 'stable tank', and the micronutrients are doing a boom and bust thing instead of being kept constant. I would think a Ca reactor may help keep micronutrients at a more constant level...
rleechb
New member
Well, let's say you don't do water changes, then do you really think the addition of those micronutrients is going to accurately replicate those levels found in nature? I'd assume using a reactor could then have negative effects: couldn't using a reactor spike those micronutrients to a level not tolerated by our corals?
I'm not suggesting that water changes should ever be stopped (and I don't think you are either; I think you're just trying to illustrate your point). I'm saying that it's possible the micronutrients are being kept at a more 'stable' level due to them being continuously introduced via a Ca reactor.
Also, if such micronutrients are being 'over-introduced' by Ca reactors, then even frequent water changes could not keep them from becoming more and more concentrated in our tanks to unhealthy levels. This obviously isn't the case due to the relatively long history that Ca reactors have.
Also, if such micronutrients are being 'over-introduced' by Ca reactors, then even frequent water changes could not keep them from becoming more and more concentrated in our tanks to unhealthy levels. This obviously isn't the case due to the relatively long history that Ca reactors have.
As I undertand it most of the media is made from coral skeleton and other natural products. I am a least as confident of it's relative purity as I am of salt mixes which are after all man made. As for not doing water changes, I don't think that can work long term. Depetion of trace elements as well as major elements is invetible and coral will soon be deprived of necessary elements for their health and survival processes.. An old addage in biology is that closed systems die. I don't mean to imply that we can replicate nature in aquariums. At best we can attempt to manage those elements we know of and contrinue to learn more . A cubic meter of water on the barrier reef gets a one million gallon water change per day.Obviously something we can't do but not a reason to forego efforts to manage our own little somewhat balanced system.
- Status
Similar threads
