Whats better Calcium reactor or dosing?

[mr&mrsfish]

About nine months ago, I made the switch from ten years of calcium reactors and kalk reactors to all two part. For those of us with newer homes and high indoor CO2, calcium reactors just don't work well. The pH is always extremely low and you have to run high alkalinity to make up for it.

I'm seeing better growth and coloration since the switch. My pH is on average 0.3 higher at slightly lower alkalinity.

Regarding the whole cost issue, I certainly agree dosing is more expensive on larger systems especially if high quality pumps are used. I will spend about $200 per year on chemicals whereas I used to spend ~$100 per year on CaCO3 and CO2. Is the additional $100 per year significant in the grand scheme of things? For reference, I spend annually > $2,000 on electricity, $400 on bulbs, $400 on salt, etc. I'm not sure the cost difference would be a significant part of any reefers budget including large systems like mine.

I agree the CaCO3 supplied by reactor media is more "natural" and provides all the necessary elements in the correct proportions. However, how many of us insist on purchasing actual saltwater instead of the synthetic salts produced from some of the same chemicals used in 2-part? I just complete water changes to re-establish the trace elements missing from the 2-part. These are the same trace elements that were put there originally by my "un-natural" synthetic sea salt :thumbsup:.

 

[chefzif]

I dose and have great results, It all depends I think on the individuals experience and if you have started with a reactor you will probably stay with a reactor! I started with two part and dosing with a Lieter Meter III and all peramiters are in check so why change unless you incure a bad experience!

 

[chefzif]

If we worry about cost on dosing or reactor I feel it is time to get out! Do what works for you!

 

[MrSandman]

Some of you are saying that water changes will replenish your trace elements. So are you saying that trace elements are used up at a slower rate than calcium and alk? Because my goal would be to maintain stability which would also mean replenishing trace elements as they are used up. I'm just concerned that the water changes would result in spikes and dips of the levels of trace elements if that is your sole means of replenishment. Or is all this talk just splitting hairs?
This becomes even more critical if you perform water changes on an irregular basis which I am unfortunately guilty of.

 

[jimroth]

I did a back of the envelop calculation the other day on this. For about $125 one can make about 50 gal of 2 part. These 50 gallons, according to Randy at 1 ml a gallon per day for heavy SPS load, would last you ~3 years on a 200 gallon tank.

Seems like I'm spending more than that. I use a bit more than that, at least of Alk solution, more like 15ml/hr or 360ml/day. I've been buying from BRS and the shipping is pricey since it's heavy. You also need the Magnesium solution although not nearly as much, I add 20oz after I finish every gallon.

I'm considering switching to Driveway Heat or DowFlake for the Ca part.

 

[zaheda]

It all boils down to what works for you. Both methods have proven to work and keep the tank within the parametres and stable.

 

[Dustin1300]

MrSandMan, once I have my two part dialed in it is rock solid on my alk, calcium, and mag. Every once in a great while I'll bump it up a mL or 2 to help with additional consumption in the tank.

 

[Mr. Right]

I don’t have personal experience w/ a reactor but I can tell you I’ve seen great tanks with them; but I have also seen great tanks that dose. Personally I dose. I’ve used Kalk through my ATO in the past, but my calcium was lower that I preffer, but it was consistent. In that time I did notice more growth than my two part. The downside was my corals seem to brown out and the Kalk was the only variable in that matter. Anywho, I read that getting the reactor dialed in can be a PITA but once it is you are golden. I also hear that Dkh/PH levels are on the lower end of the spectrum w/ a reactor but that’s neither here nor there. I think it would be wise for a more demanding tank to maintain consistent levels either through a reactor or dosing. If you were to dose that would require a pump & timer/controller to do small amounts throughout the day; and with that said, the costs seem to get high (like a reactor) so, in short, I guess it would be preference. Arguments can be made about the trace elements (which I think the reactor is the victor in that sense) but consistant WC’s can assist with that as well. Leonado has a post that could assist with your dosing http://www.leonardosreef.com/guide-to-balling/ if you choose to go that route. He has also used a reactor in the past.

 

[wmilas]

I run my fairly large system (1k gallons) with kalk and 2 part. The argument that 2 part is any more time intensive than a reactor is complete hogwash. I have 5 gallon buckets of saturated alk and calcium with dosers on each. Dosers run timed 4 times daily off my aquacontroller. Kalk runs with a reactor. All fresh topoff flows through it. I go through about 2 cups of kalk powder a week.. maybe slightly less. I load in about 6-8 cups and top it off monthly.

I top off my alk and calcium buckets when needed. Probably every 6 weeks. I mix a fresh 4 gallon batch and dump it in. With a stir stick of pvc takes my all of 90 seconds to mix up a batch of later.

If you buy your alk and calcium from BRS in 5 gallon buckets, its no more expensive, even on a large system, than a calcium reactor.

My ph with the above systems stay rock stable between 8.1 and 8.2.

I don't run a Calcium reactor any more because of ph fluctuations, and I couldn't keep alk stable. My system, for whatever reason, uses more alk than calcium. I run at 8.45 dkh and 425 ppm calcium. This resulted in me having to manually dose alk which was a pita.

I now test alk and calcium once a week, and rarely, bump or reduce the timings the next week to nudge my tank back into alignment.

As for the trace elements, I don't believe it unless I can test for it. I test for stront, iron, iodine, mag and a few others. I change 65 gallons of water a week. With both methods I see no discernible difference in what I can test for. Both ways, I still add iodine and a bit of iron to stay stable, and sometimes a little silica. Water changes keep my mag and stront topped off alone. Unless someone can prove to me that a certain ion is depleted via a test kit, I don'tsubscribe to the "trace elements are depleted" argument.

 

[Chet.84]

I have never used a Ca Reactor so cannot compare the two. However, dosing is so easy I cannot really imagine wanting to switch. I test my tank twice weekly generally to see if my demand has changed and to make sure everything is stable (not because I have to, but because it makes me feel better). If needed I add another couple of minutes to my dosing timers to keep up with demand. I split my dosing periods into two sessions to even out fluxuations. Once every month and half I mix up fresh jugs of BRS 2part, and I give them a shake every now and then when I am in the cabinet for something to keep them stirred. This is on a 120, so perhaps if the tank were bigger I would want to add a third dosing period to spread it out more. I dont really see how a reactor would simplify things, as I would still test just as often for personal peace of mind and the maintanence on dosing is so easy.

Just my experience

would have to agree. i use the same and also have not used a cal reactor but 2 part dosing is so simple and pretty much maintenance free i think ill stick with the 2 part dosing