SPS care for advanced aquarists

[szathmary]

Hi Everybody,

I would like to open a discussion and share my point of view related to 3 very interesting topics:

1. advanced liquid balling
2. return of the refugium
3. how sea urchins can replace siporax

The longest and the most complicated is the advanced liquid balling so I start with that. Please forgive me for my poor English.

THE ADVANCED LIQUID BALLING

Introduction

The Advanced Liquid Balling (ALB) consist of 2 things:

1. A liquid version of the "œNaCl free salt" component of the original Hans Werner Balling recipe with a reliable and predictable composition.
2. A liquid trace element "œpatch" of the entire Balling Method which replaces certain trace elements based on the unique consumption of the tank.

For me this is the ultimate way of micro, macro and trace element management, and now I tell you why:

I guess most of you are familiar with the very original Balling method designed by a German chemist Hans Werner Balling. Very briefly it is a method which enables us to maintain very stable calcium and carbonate levels. The two main components of the Balling method are: 1.) calcium chloride powder and 2.) sodium bicarbonate powder which is dissolved separately before dosing.

The problem with this two liquid compounds is that chloride ion part of the calcium chloride and the sodium ion part of the sodium bicarbonate forms sodium chloride aka salt aka NaCl in our aquarium. This extra salt raises salinity but in an unbalanced way since the NaCl alone lacks the rest of the sea salt components (e.g potassium, strontium, etc.) which represent app. 14,5% of all the ingredients. E.g in my 63G (240L) tank I have to replace 0,5G (2L) aquarium water weekly with RO/DI to compensate the rise of the salinity level.

So Hans Werner Balling came up with the concept of the NaCl free salt, which has "œall" the sea salt components except the NaCl. If this NaCl free salt is dissolved and dosed in the right ratio with calcium chloride and sodium bicarbonate together it complements the "œby-product" NaCl and forms "œperfect seawater". This is still raising salinity but at least in a so called ionically balanced way. It is almost like water change but its volume is very low like 0,5-1% on a weekly basis.

The problem with the NaCl free salt powder is similar to the problem which we have with the artificial sea salts: their composition is extremely unreliable. Mixing powders is very difficult and even if manufactures have some tricks they are in trouble when the job is to add trace amounts of elements to the salts. And even if each box of salt was done separately - which is not the case - you should always dissolve them all at once since vibration (e.g due to transportation) may push down or pull up certain elements in the mix.

But how is this a problem? The good news is that this issue probably does not concern you. It is a problem for those who want to provide delicate SPS corals with a very stable environment. If you want to build your house (your tank) onto a reliable base you want to avoid such unpredictability which is guaranteed by any powder form of salts including artificial sea salts as well as NaCl free Balling salts. (This is why changing water is counterproductive, but this is another topic"¦)

The solution for unpredictability is the liquid version of the Balling. The difference between the powder and the liquid form of NaCl free salt (or the other Balling components) is that the outcome of the production - basically the product we buy - is not a powder but a liquid. Liquid trace mixes requires advanced chemical designing to avoid degradation and/or precipitation of the different elements but if it is done well the composition of the mix is very reliable and repeatable which is key in mass production.

As far as I know, today 2 companies are producing liquid balling mixes: ATI and Triton (both are German)

Tailor-made trace element patch

So now we have liquid balling, but how will it become "œadvanced"?

First of all, the sorrow fact is that even though the NaCl free salt component of Balling has a lot of macro/micro (e.g potassium, magnesium, etc) and trace elements (e.g zinc, iodine, etc.) it is not able to replace significant deficit of elements as long as the consumptions is continuous. (In the same time, if it used well, it is neither able to rise the elements above NSW so at least we can not overdose anything.)

So Balling - even if it is a liquid - can not be the main solution for replacing elements except calcium and carbonate.

And this is where "œpatching" comes in and makes the balling to be "œadvanced"

"œPatching" is the process by which we evaluate and compensate the micro, macro and trace element consumption of our tank. This requires us:

1. to perform frequent ICP tests
2. to do some basic mathematics
3. to prepare a tailor made liquid trace mix which can be dosed in small increments (e.g hourly)

As far as I know there are at least 4 companies doing affordable ICP tests for hobby aquarists: Triton (the guys who made this whole ICP testing available for us, so big respect!) and the others who started similar services later: ATI, Reefanalytics, Faunamarin.

But why do we need this complicated process to dose trace elements when there are so many trace element mixies on the market and we can also perform water changes? Again, this may not concern you . But If you are an experienced aquarist who is stuck in terms of "œcolors tweaking" you will find the following paragraphs very interesting. So there are several reasons:

1. Let's assume that the artificial salt mixes are perfect and reliable in terms of their composition (so they always have NSW level of elements whenever we use them). Even in this ideal case and even with a 10% weekly water change we are not able to replenish the elements. E.g if you have 5 ppm of something while the NSW level is 10 ppm 10% water change will only pull up the level to 5,5 ppm. In case you have 9 ppm the same 10% will only pull it up to 9,1 ppm and there is no way to reach 10 ppm except if you do a 100% water change.
2. Let's still assume that the artificial salt mixes are reliable but they have above NSW level of certain elements. This would enable us to reach the NSW level in case that particular element is being continuously consumed (e.g Ca, or Mg) but if not, it leads to accumulation.
3. But artificial salts are not reliable! E.g I used to use Tropic Marin Pro - which is supposed to be good - and sometimes it had 1350 ppm Mg sometimes it had 1100. Sometimes it had 350 ppm potassium, sometimes it was about 400 ppm... and these are not even the trace elements.
4. So the other option is to use trace element mixes. But how "œthe hell" do any of the manufacturers know when they mix 10-15 elements into one which of those elements will be actually used in our tanks when each tank is individual? Maybe you are lucky and the mix you choose is balancing out your manganese consumption very well and you start seeing improvement but it's very likely that in the same time it may add too much e.g zinc into your water which will start causing trouble one day. (Maybe you are extremely lucky and the zinc accumulation will be offset by the weekly 10% water change"¦)

So for me there is no other way than to test my water and react consciously.

But before you start sending water samples to one of these companies you need to establish a very rigid maintenance routine because - as far as I noticed - everything you change has an impact on what you measure at the end:

1. Salinity should be exactly the same when you take the samples (Salinity is an underestimated water parameter so people tend to measure it with cheap Chinese refractometers. Buy a good conductivity meter! It will enable you to validate your RO/DI quality as well)
2. Between the tests you should not tweak your technical equipment especially not the light or the skimmer. Both may have a significant impact on the trace element consumption. I do not say you are not allowed to upgrade them, but try to avoid such finetuning where every week you increase or decrease their performance.
3. Follow a very rigid maintenance routine concerning chemical absorbents such as GAC, GFO, etc. Do not change their volume, their brand, their flow rate, and not even the date when you replace them. Chemical absorbents are one of the biggest consumers of trace elements! (Unfortunately"¦)
4. Do not does anything (except what you would dose as part of your daily routine) before taking the sample.
5. Maintain very stable level of Ca, Kh with using liquid balling solutions.

How to measure the consumption

At the beginning you need at least 2 test results. The first will be the "œstarting point" the second will start showing you consumption/accumulation trends. Accumulation is a complex issue so I do not plan to discuss it further here. So let's assume that you only see consumption trends.

When you start playing with the numbers from your reports you will have the following - mainly mathematical challenges:

1. The test report is a snapshot of your tank at that moment when you take the sample. Depending on where you live it may take app. 5-20 (or even more) days to get the report of your analysis. So when you calculate consumption you have to take into consideration the time which has elapsed between taking a sample and getting the corresponding report.
2. You will find obvious trends where a value is gradually and continuously decreasing from test to test.
3. You may find fluctuations.
4. And you may find that a value was 0 in your previous test and still 0 at your current test even if you tried to fix it.

Ok, so let's see some examples:

Example 1 (normal trend)

1. You send your very first sample on 01.01.2017. You get the result 15 days later on 15.01.2017. It says that your strontium is 4 ppm as opposed to the NSW 8 ppm.
2. To fix your 4 ppm strontium you have to dose let's say 100 ml of a specific strontium product.
3. The next time you send your water on 01.02.2017 and you get back your result 20 days later showing that your strontium is 6 ppm.
4. Now you know that between 01.01.2017 and 01.02.2017 your strontium dropped by 2 ppm (It started with 4 than you dosed strontium which raised it with +4 and at the end you got 6 so it is 4+4-6=2) Since there were 31 days between the 2 samples your daily consumption is 2/31= 0,065 ppm.
5. The first step now is to set back the NSW level. The second sample was taken on 01.02.2017 but the test was performed 20 days later so on top of the recommended dosage you have to count the consumption for at least 20 days (assuming that you try to set back NSW on the same day when you got the result otherwise it is even more) So if 50 ml strontium was needed to pull the 6 ppm to 8 ppm you would still need to add 20x0,065= 1,3 ppm (to compensate the consumption for the extra 20 days) which is 50/2x1,3 = 32,5 ml.
6. From then on you have to add 0,065 ppm daily which requires you to dose 50/2x0,065= 1,625 ml. (50/2 is based on the assumption that 50 ml from your strontium mix will raise your tank with 2 ppm) I will discuss it later how to dose this easily with a dosing pump.

Example 2 (fluctuation or overdosing)

1. Let's assume that after the previous example you keep dosing 0,065 ppm strontium daily.
2. You send a new sample on 01.04.2017 and 15 days later the result shows 9 ppm instead of 8 ppm. So the consumption of your strontium is not yet consistent and you overdosed strontium.
3. You know that on 20.02.2017 you very likely set the NSW 8 ppm, so the problem is that in the next 39 days (between 20.02.217 and 01.04.2017) your consumption was not 0,065 ppm daily but less.
4. So far you dosed 39x0,065= 2,535 ppm out of which 1 ppm was above NSW (not consumed as expected) so you would have been needed only 1,535 ppm. This requires you to change the daily dosage to be 1,535/39= 0,039 ppm.
5. Since this 9 ppm strontium represents your level on 01.04.2017 but you kept dosing 0,065 ppm for another 15 days daily while you were waiting for the test result out of which only 0,039 was consumed your real strontium value is at 9+0,065x15-0,039x15= 9,4 ppm (as opposed to the 9 came out from your test report)
6. In order to reset the NSW value you have to stop dosing for a couple of days (weeks). The way how it can be calculated is: (9,4-8)/0,039 = 36 days.

Example 3 (the 0,0 value issue)

1. Let's assume that your very first test shows 0,0 nickel and you are recommended to dose 5 ml of nickel to set it back to the NSW value.
2. When you do the next test the value will be 0,0 again so you have no idea what the consumption is but you know that it is very likely higher that the amount which set it back to NSW (5 ml).
3. So this is when you need to start doing experiments. Unfortunately the 0,0 can be a value when the consumption of the tank is exactly 5 ml but it can also be when the consumption is 25 ml and you have a serious deficit. So just doubling the amount is not smart because it can easily lead to a 200% excess value within a month which can do serious trouble in case of elements like nickel.
4. So it is better if you start raising your dosage gradually with let's say +10% between each test hoping that one day you reach a real value which is different from 0,0 and it enables you to calculate a consumption trend.

Concerning the frequency of testing (as far as my experiences suggest):

1. It should not be less than 25-30 days otherwise the consumption will be too tiny and any natural fluctuations in the system can give you misleading information.
2. It should be at least 2x more than you turn-over speed. If you receive your test result within 20-25 days you are not recommended to send the samples in every 30 days but 45-50 so that the new dosage you put in place has time to produce some measurable result.
3. Later, when you start knowing your system, one test every 2-3 month will be enough to double check your dosing. However when you change something which can influence your trace consumption e.g. lot of new corals, or new filtration method you are suggested to start doing more frequent tests again.

Since I get my test result within 8-9 days I was able to perform a new test every 30 days for about 4 months to design my own trace element patch for my liquid balling.

Maybe one day me or another fellow reefkeeper will set up an MS Excel which does all this calculations I used above.

How to prepare the trace element patch

As a preface to this chapter I have to tell you that I'm not very good at chemistry. So maybe everything here is completely false however in my case it is working pretty well since at least 5-6 months.

To make your own trace element cocktail you can either use Triton's or ATI's single trace elements or you can buy your trace elements from online reagent stores. (E.g NaBr to replace bromine)

Once you know that e.g your strontium consumption is 0,065 ppm per day and you know that from the product you are supposed to dose this value represents e.g 1,625 ml or e.g 0,15 g you can start building your mixture.

To avoid degradation and/or precipitation of elements - which may not be an issue at all but since I'm not a chemist I do not know for sure - I decided that I will never mix more than what my system would consume within 7 days and I will always dilute my mix in at least a 1:19 ratio with RO/DI water.

The following list will sound crazy, but it really represents my weekly consumptions of element compensated by the trace elements of Triton in my 63G (240 net liter) tank:

• Li: 2,6 ml/week
• Br: 0,15 g/week (here I use NaBr and not Triton)
• K: 11 ml/week
• F: 6 ml/week
• B: 7,5 ml/week
• Sr: 18 ml/week
• Ni: 3 ml/week
• Mn: 7 ml/week
• Zn: 0,3 ml/week
• I: 3,1 ml/week

This is altogether 58,5 ml so based on the 1:19 dilution rule I should add 1111,5 ml RO/DI water but I add roughly 1200 ml which enables me to dose 180 ml of the mix on a daily basis divided into 24 portions by my dosing pump.

Time consumption and complexity

I used to be a Zeovit user. So what I can tell you is that this is still much less complicated and time consuming than dosing 5-6-7 different magic potions every day based on pure guesswork.

After every test it takes app. 15-20 minutes to recalculate my dosage, and it never takes more than 15 minutes weekly to mix my patch cocktail.

I hope I was clear and useful.
When I will have time again I will write my thought about the 2 remaining topics:

1. return of the refugium
2. how sea urchins can replaces siporax

And finally some top downs

1. Photos were taken under 4000K LED wiht iPhone SE
2. Photos are slightly manipulated in Photoshop: I added some blue and some saturation and sharpness filter
3. I would love to have more rare and mind-blowing SPS corals but in Hungary (where I live) we have very limited sources

 

[bif24701]

Sub'd. I'm very interested to hear more. I always thought there had to be a "better way" for keeping SPS micro/macro nutrients in check. This is it.


Aaron

 

[SCARYBO]

sub'd

 

[btb72]

Why are your rocks so white? Looks brand new.

 

[szathmary]

Why are your rocks so white? Looks brand new.

Your question urges me to work out the details for the 3. point "œhow sea urchins can replace siporax".

So yes, the answer for your question is that I have sea urchins!

HOW SEA URCHINS CAN REPLACE SIPORAX

As far as I see now, urchins might be a key to a well performing reef tank due to 2 reasons:

1. One of the challenges with SPS corals is that if you want to build a natural environment for them (so not anything twisted like Zeovit) you need to promote the performance of zooxanthellae (not their density, but their ability to produce sugars). Zooxanthellae has very similar preferences to other algae so the closer you go to NSW level trace elements like e.g manganese the more algae growth you will notice on live rock. This is where sea urchins (especially short spined species like Tuxedo) will help you a lot.
2. The other very frequent problem is that with time - even in ULNS environment - the surface of the live rock gets "œdirty". We all know that live rock is supposed to be the main place for bacterial activity including nitrification. But we tend to forget that what makes the live rock or even the reef ceramic to be a good place for bacteria is their porosity. Unfortunately in a mature aquarium detritus, coralline algae, and other "web like" algae can close the little pores on the surface of the live rock so that it becomes less and less efficient. This is again a good job for sea urchins. As they are chewing our rocks for algae they unintentionally reopen the pores and create fresh space for bacteria.

I see people buying cheap siporax from e-bay. I have no clue whether the original or their copycats are leaching any nasty stuff into the water but if the goal is to maintain strong bacterial population it may be worth to test 1 sea urchin per 25G (100L) before any investments into a new filtration method.

I have like +15 years of experience related of reefkeeping and I have just discovered sea urchins recently. I always considered them as something completely useless as long as I do not have algae problems, but now I see a new potential in their natural behavior.

 

[bif24701]

How do you deal with the problems of keeping them: like bulldozing things over?

I have a Marinepure block and it is amazing, never clogs, never will. I don't disagree about LR though. Very underrate how good rock filters water. I use Pulkain, very porous. I use large size rocks that and deep in those large rocks I'm sure good things are happening. You will never achieve the same benefits with "reef saver" or "base of rock". I like way grows on my rock and some day may consider an urchin but my micro faun graze on my rock at night and keep it maintained. Copepods working in the rock restore this porosity and keep the detritus out. Put a turkey baster to my rock and you get sand, that's it.

However coraline will cover this rock someday and permanently clog the pores unless removed. Maybe keeping one in my 180, will do enough to clean the rock without sterilizing it.


Aaron

 

[JB NY]

The following list will sound crazy, but it really represents my weekly consumptions of element compensated by the trace elements of Triton in my 63G (240 net liter) tank:

• Li: 2,6 ml/week
• Br: 0,15 g/week (here I use NaBr and not Triton)
• K: 11 ml/week
• F: 6 ml/week
• B: 7,5 ml/week
• Sr: 18 ml/week
• Ni: 3 ml/week
• Mn: 7 ml/week
• Zn: 0,3 ml/week
• I: 3,1 ml/week

This is altogether 58,5 ml so based on the 1:19 dilution rule I should add 1111,5 ml RO/DI water but I add roughly 1200 ml which enables me to dose 180 ml of the mix on a daily basis divided into 24 portions by my dosing pump.

Would you be able to translate your dosage into ppm or mg/l per day/week? I think it would be more helpful for people to see the actual consumption that is going on. This would allow those who do not have the means to use ICP tests regularly to at least see what other tanks heavy with SPS are consuming and could possibly make a safe solution of their own to dose.

So in my tank I have found that a few of the elements that you dose I am either already hitting the targets I want without extra dosing, or I do not want to dose. LI, Br, F, B, K in my tank are at levels I do not wish to raise. Ni I have decided against dosing. Right now the elements I do dose are Zn, Mn, I, and Sr

Sr: 0.035 ppm daily (right now I dose very 2 weeks, but this is my daily use)
Zn: 0.0008 ppm daily
Mn: 0.0006 ppm daily
I: 0.0107 ppm per day

Using siporax will help bring down Nitrates, but will not help to reduce phosphate, it will also release silicates into the system which may or may not be something desirable.

 

[bif24701]

Would you be able to translate your dosage into ppm or mg/l per day/week? I think it would be more helpful for people to see the actual consumption that is going on. This would allow those who do not have the means to use ICP tests regularly to at least see what other tanks heavy with SPS are consuming and could possibly make a safe solution of their own to dose.



So in my tank I have found that a few of the elements that you dose I am either already hitting the targets I want without extra dosing, or I do not want to dose. LI, Br, F, B, K in my tank are at levels I do not wish to raise. Ni I have decided against dosing. Right now the elements I do dose are Zn, Mn, I, and Sr



Sr: 0.035 ppm daily (right now I dose very 2 weeks, but this is my daily use)

Zn: 0.0008 ppm daily

Mn: 0.0006 ppm daily

I: 0.0107 ppm per day



Using siporax will help bring down Nitrates, but will not help to reduce phosphate, it will also release silicates into the system which may or may not be something desirable.

Isn't Siporax basically glass? So it's inert and I can't really see it leaching much of anything at all.

If you add a carbon source, even a small amount it can uptake phosphates also.


Aaron

 

[JB NY]

Isn't Siporax basically glass? So it's inert and I can't really see it leaching much of anything at all.

If you add a carbon source, even a small amount it can uptake phosphates also.


Aaron

I can't find where I was told that. But I remember it as people who were using siporax were finding elevated silicate levels in their tank. Not sure if it matters.

Yes you can use a carbon source, just have to be careful which one you use. A few people I know in Germany who have used the stuff for years told me that vinegar ended up clogging the pours of the media, but switching to Vodka elevated the problem.

 

[bif24701]

I can't find where I was told that. But I remember it as people who were using siporax were finding elevated silicate levels in their tank. Not sure if it matters.



Yes you can use a carbon source, just have to be careful which one you use. A few people I know in Germany who have used the stuff for years told me that vinegar ended up clogging the pours of the media, but switching to Vodka elevated the problem.

Possibly dust from the siporax would show silica when tested through some testing methods. However even the dust would be inert and non reactive.

Excess carbon dosing creates a bacteria film to develop over surfaces, the more that is dosed thicker it will get. That film could be seen as clogging when actually that film is performing exactly what you want. I find dosing a small amount you don't get the thick coating but still increase performance and phosphate uptake.


Aaron

 

[slavetonet]

Interesting... Will be keen to keep my eyes out on this.
I dose similar but mix into ALK and CAL.

 

[szathmary]

How do you deal with the problems of keeping them: like bulldozing things over?

I just glue them on the rock. I also buy small sea urchins and when they get big I bring them back to the LFS and buy a smaller one again.

I have a Marinepure block and it is amazing, never clogs, never will. I don't disagree about LR though. Very underrate how good rock filters water. I use Pulkain, very porous. I use large size rocks that and deep in those large rocks I'm sure good things are happening. You will never achieve the same benefits with "reef saver" or "base of rock". I like way grows on my rock and some day may consider an urchin but my micro faun graze on my rock at night and keep it maintained. Copepods working in the rock restore this porosity and keep the detritus out. Put a turkey baster to my rock and you get sand, that's it.

I would never suggest to anybody to give up what is working, since almost anything can work if the tank adopts to it well. I googled this Marinepure block and it looks like a big piece of high quality LR - as far as its porosity. In my tank I have good amount of LR so I do not need any extra in my sump.

I agree that turkey blasting is needed occasionally anyway and that copepods can do some of the cleaning job as long as you have left any On the other hand my LR was about 2 years old when I started being worried about the too much "œstuff" on its surface. When I studied images or videos about shallow water coral reefs (You can google it) I always saw "œwhite" base rock as opposed to my greenish-reddish-pinkish. In nature parrot fish keep the reefs clean but sea urchins do a very similar job.

Would you be able to translate your dosage into ppm or mg/l per day/week?

These are my daily consumption in ppm (mg/l) and ppb (µg/l)

Mg 1,36 ppm/day
K 0,51 ppm/day
Br 0,07 ppm/day
B 0,018 ppm/day
Sr 0,086 ppm/day

Li 0,77 ppb/day
Ni 1,00 ppb/day
Zi 0,179 ppb/day
Mn 0,72 ppb/day
I 9,2 ppb/day

But I do not recommend to anybody to follow this dosage. It is the "œold-school" way which I'm trying to wipe-out from people's mind. I think at least 50-60% of my dosage is determined by my filtration and my light so its relation to the amount of SPS is not obvious.

 

[szathmary]

Since carbon dosing was mentioned I have to write down quickly the third and probably the most divisive idea I have:

RETURN OF THE REFUGIUM
AKA THE "œSWEET SEA WATER" CONCEPT

Concerning refugiums the "œTriton Method" put the seed into mind. I was using Triton's ICP analysis anyway so the topic was always in front of my eyes except they haven't found a way to explain it to me well.

But then I have found these 2 very interesting scientific studies which altogether has opened my eyes up:

1. http://www.int-res.com/articles/ab_oa/b010p131.pdf
2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1218179/pdf/9078264.pdf

What do they suggest?

1. Algae seems to release carbohydrates, especially glucose (a form of sugar)
2. Corals, including SPS corals seem to be able to use glucose to synthesize at least 14 out of the 17 studied amino acids including all the 8 essential amino acids.

I think if you combine these 2 discoveries you will see how we, SPS fanatics could use refugiums, or at least how algae refugium is more than just a tool to control NO3 and PO4.

How can we take advantage of sugars in the water?

1. I assume that most people - just like I used to - think that the nutrient export provided by the algae refugium is strictly related and also very limited by the growth capacity of the algae species. If you recall the suggestion by the first study you will immediately see more potential in the algae: I think that the glucose released by the algae is used as an organic carbon source by bacteria as well, just like in the Vodka or in the Zeovit methods. I believe that this is much better than any manual carbon dosing. Why? Because it is naturally controlled. The big risk with manual carbon dosing is that you do not know when to stop before it is too late. I think now that the way how algae refugium participates in the nutrient export is not just through the direct consumption of nitrogen and phosphorus (via growth) but also as a facilitator of the bacterial activity. As long as nutrients are high algae is thriving well so it also provides the bacteria with good amount of organic carbon. But once nitrogen is getting very low bio-activity of the algae goes down so its organic carbon release as well.
2. If it is true that SPS corals are able to use the sugars released by the algae the refugium can be a big step forward in feeding these animals on top of the food contribution of the zooxanthellae.

So I started experimenting with refugium about a year ago. Unintentionally, I made the following discoveries:

1. I think that refugium is about size. Not necessarily in metric volume but in footprint for sure. Algae need light, so depth is counterproductive, and since algae has a key role in both feeding our corals and controlling bacterial activity we need to have a lot. If the "glucose" theory is really working it is very likely happening in the nano-molar end of the scale so a handful of Chaeto will not make any difference in a tank.
2. Triton always suggests that the biodiversity of the refugium - in terms of different algae species - is important from the nutrient consumption point of view but I also think - as the first algae study revealed for me - that it is important from the "exudate" composition point of view as well. Not glucose is the only carbohydrate which is released by algae, and on top of carbohydrates they release proteins as well. It is very likely that the different algae species release different mix of these organic matters.

SUMMARY

Basically all the 3 topics I have talked about here are part of 1 bigger system:

1. Better micro, macro and trace element management encourages better algae growth and also enables SPS corals to reach their beauty (in case lack of certain trace elements were the bottleneck)
2. Better algae growth (in both refugium and in the display tank) releases sugars which can be used by bacteria and corals
3. Sea urchins eliminate the extra algae grow from the display tank while provide better environment for the bacteria (which is encouraged to grow by the algae in the refugium)

 

[Big E]

Good info...........my thoughts though to date are that some of those ICP test results can be about as accurate/inconsistent as some of the salt mixes.

And really, which is inconsistent the tests or the salt mixes? Only an independent lab can prove which it is. If your using the hobby dedicated commercial ICP tests at our disposal to make this conclusion it's hardly fact.

I'm especailly talking about Mn and Zinc...........other element tests I've seen have been inconsistent.

I'm interested to follow this over time to see which elements are really important to Sps and which really don't matter...........right now, I think there's a lot of conjecture happening based on limited info.

It's good more companies are getting involved in testing............more info more accurate conclusions.

Imo, the refugium/algae filters knocks all this out of whack..........they suck up a lot of trace elements, so you really don't know if the corals need them, if the elements are getting used up by the corals, ect.

Honestly, your posts read like a big infomercial.........not trying to be harsh but it's reality right now till we get more data points and proof over time.

 

[maxwell]

szathmary
Can you please post photo's of the corals without any tweaking and not being photo shopped, the reason i ask is after a couple of issues with my tank i recently had a ICP test as i wanted to bring my corals back to there former glory. I am not a triton or AF user my system consists of the items listed below

tank- 54'' x 30''x 30''
sump - dsb,MM,syporax,cheato
kz skimmer , pellet reactor
small carbon reactor,2 gfo reactors
calc reactor
I had lost my lights and calc reactor and whilst awaiting for spares and using temp equipment my corals lost colour and ilost a couple of colonies.
So all equip repaired and back on track i started with an ICP test and followed their recommendations first with strontium,boron and iodine (all triton products used).I then went to consider all the fine additions not being an expert on the chemistry side i went with tritons coral system which has produced some of the best colour and growth in my tank. After reading your write up i may be able to improve on this so look forward in following your thread.The reason for your pics were to compare results and see if i need to add the missing link if there is one.

Bill

 

[JB NY]

Good info...........my thoughts though to date are that some of those ICP test results can be about as accurate/inconsistent as some of the salt mixes.

And really, which is inconsistent the tests or the salt mixes? Only an independent lab can prove which it is. If your using the hobby dedicated commercial ICP tests at our disposal to make this conclusion it's hardly fact.

I'm especailly talking about Mn and Zinc...........other element tests I've seen have been inconsistent.

I'm interested to follow this over time to see which elements are really important to Sps and which really don't matter...........right now, I think there's a lot of conjecture happening based on limited info.

It's good more companies are getting involved in testing............more info more accurate conclusions.

Imo, the refugium/algae filters knocks all this out of whack..........they suck up a lot of trace elements, so you really don't know if the corals need them, if the elements are getting used up by the corals, ect.

Honestly, your posts read like a big infomercial.........not trying to be harsh but it's reality right now till we get more data points and proof over time.

I think there are many way to keep a successful tank. Keeping nitrates and phosphate at the proper levels is a main goal of almost all these methods. From there it is about getting the proper trace elements to corals, for this forum specifically SPS. I am less concerned about N, P and the other big 3 alk/Ca/Mg as there are pretty easy to hit whatever the targets the reefer aims for.

I think we are in agreement that getting to know what the most important elements are for SPS would be great. To that I have been trying to come up with a mix of elements to dose and some amount that seem to work. I would love for some other to try and see what kind of results they get as well. The goal is to get the dosing of elements out of the hands of companies selling us magic in a bottle and into the hands of hobbyist with a real understanding of what we are doing and why it is working. The elements I am currently using in my SPS tank are, Sr, Mn, Zn, and I.

 

[shih87]

Your question urges me to work out the details for the 3. point “how sea urchins can replace siporax”.

So yes, the answer for your question is that I have sea urchins!

HOW SEA URCHINS CAN REPLACE SIPORAX

As far as I see now, urchins might be a key to a well performing reef tank due to 2 reasons:

1. One of the challenges with SPS corals is that if you want to build a natural environment for them (so not anything twisted like Zeovit) you need to promote the performance of zooxanthellae (not their density, but their ability to produce sugars). Zooxanthellae has very similar preferences to other algae so the closer you go to NSW level trace elements like e.g manganese the more algae growth you will notice on live rock. This is where sea urchins (especially short spined species like Tuxedo) will help you a lot.
2. The other very frequent problem is that with time - even in ULNS environment - the surface of the live rock gets “dirty”. We all know that live rock is supposed to be the main place for bacterial activity including nitrification. But we tend to forget that what makes the live rock or even the reef ceramic to be a good place for bacteria is their porosity. Unfortunately in a mature aquarium detritus, coralline algae, and other "web like" algae can close the little pores on the surface of the live rock so that it becomes less and less efficient. This is again a good job for sea urchins. As they are chewing our rocks for algae they unintentionally reopen the pores and create fresh space for bacteria.

I see people buying cheap siporax from e-bay. I have no clue whether the original or their copycats are leaching any nasty stuff into the water but if the goal is to maintain strong bacterial population it may be worth to test 1 sea urchin per 25G (100L) before any investments into a new filtration method.

I have like +15 years of experience related of reefkeeping and I have just discovered sea urchins recently. I always considered them as something completely useless as long as I do not have algae problems, but now I see a new potential in their natural behavior.

Sea Urchins is one of the way we used in Taiwan to cure live rock since it is so cheap here and we notice it work well. I recently add 10+ sea urchins in tank to clean my algae problem plus to cure my live rock in some degree. It work perfectly from my view, the only disadvantage is its knock down new coral easy, but it won't hurt after a week that coral grow its base to rock.

Your topic here is very interested and contain rick, thank you.

 

[JB NY]

I've used urchins many times, mostly to help with coraline growth. I think they can be effective for algae control but only when there are not a lot of corals. They tend to need a bit of room the graze and a densely packed SPS tank is tough for them to clean IME.

 

[szathmary]

Hi Ed,

You are right. Things has to be confirmed by many more data. What I'm trying to do here is to find fellow aquarists who would not mind to try what I'm doing so that we can share ideas and experiences

Good info...........my thoughts though to date are that some of those ICP test results can be about as accurate/inconsistent as some of the salt mixes.

And really, which is inconsistent the tests or the salt mixes? Only an independent lab can prove which it is. If your using the hobby dedicated commercial ICP tests at our disposal to make this conclusion it's hardly fact.

Everything I wrote is based on my own personal experience. So far I have got 8 tests done (each at Triton) and so far every decision I made based on the test results were justified by the next test. And I think the goal is not to chase and exact value but to try to keep the parameters consistent and within a tolerated range. I think ICP so far the best tool as opposed to other techniques based on "œdose 2 drops of this - who knows what - which will make your corals blue". I spent tooo much money on those"¦ + the corals I lost.

Concerning the salts I can say the same. Its is my experience that values are fluctuating a lot. And if a company like Tropic Marin can not guarantee me Ca, Mg, Kh, and K values how can I trust them for the rest. And I do not say that you can not build beautiful tanks with performing frequent water changes. It's my mistake for sure, but I always failed.

I'm especailly talking about Mn and Zinc...........other element tests I've seen have been inconsistent.

Yes, there is that famous "œskeptical reefkeeping" article. We need articles like this to challenge the ICP companies!

Before ICP, I did not know for sure whether I was dosing Mn or Zn at all when I was dosing certain products. Now I know and even the amount. When I dose Mn or Zn they show up on the test reports, and if I dose more, the report shows more. Maybe the value itself is completely wrong, but at least it is always wrong at the same way.

I'm interested to follow this over time to see which elements are really important to Sps and which really don't matter...........right now, I think there's a lot of conjecture happening based on limited info.

This summer I looked at some scientific papers about how trace elements may contribute to enzymatic processes. It is crazy complicated. And there are so called cofactors as well, when a combination of 2 elements matter like FeMoco (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FeMoco) which might be a trigger of Cyano. While it may take 5-10-20 years for scientist to determine whether Mn or Zn is more important for corals I'm pretty fine to give them both now, so that it is more likely that I will have something.

Imo, the refugium/algae filters knocks all this out of whack..........they suck up a lot of trace elements, so you really don't know if the corals need them, if the elements are getting used up by the corals, ect.

I tried the simple Berlin System, Zeovit, and finally Sangokai. I think there must be something related to the algae which is worth for me to invest into their trace element consumption. Its not a big deal. Both Zevit and Sangokia additives costed me more than the trace elements, especially if you buy raw ingredients.

Honestly, your posts read like a big infomercial.........not trying to be harsh but it's reality right now till we get more data points and proof over time.

This will require more people to play with these theories.

 

[szathmary]

Can you please post photo's of the corals without any tweaking and not being photo shopped

Hi Bill,
you should not evaluate my theories based on the photos I attached. I attached the photos to show that I have a reason to talk about these topics. The problem with coral photos is that everything can manipulate them. First the light, then the image processor of the camera, and finally the screen you are watching. E.g on my laptop the photos really look like real but on my phone they look over saturated. So forget them. If these theories make sense for you than you should follow my practices.