Let me know your thoughts.
This is an honest question that needs to be asked. There’s been many times I’ve heard, I wouldn’t dose X element, because “it has no known biological role” or “no known positive biological role.” Lets exclude elements like Bismuth or Aluminum, and focus on elements that are actually dosed by many folks like Barium, Moly, Rubidium, etc.
Here’s the question:
What do you say to companies like Red Sea or other organizations that have done extensive research, that identified 31 trace and minor elements that help make up the skeleton and soft tissue of corals? Should we declare these elements trivial.? Are they not needed for proper growth or coloration of corals, because we can’t provide peer reviewed data. I can’t easily accept this notion when I see my system sucking down many of these elements. Something is obviously using them and using a lot of them. It’s nothing personal, but I’ll need more convincing than somebody
saying there’s “no known biological role.”
Let’s consider that bacteria/microorganisms alone consume many of these elements. That’s enough to call them beneficial in my book. If Bacteria/microorganisms utilize these elements, and the population multiplies, this is an excellent food source for corals, but also provides stability to the system. Please correct me if I’m wrong. It’s similar to when I dose organic carbon, I literally see the corals put out more PE and colors. Why? Because they’re consuming the bacteria population that’s loaded with many elements including nitrogen and phosphorus, and it’s quite obvious they like it.
Thoughts?
This is an honest question that needs to be asked. There’s been many times I’ve heard, I wouldn’t dose X element, because “it has no known biological role” or “no known positive biological role.” Lets exclude elements like Bismuth or Aluminum, and focus on elements that are actually dosed by many folks like Barium, Moly, Rubidium, etc.
Here’s the question:
What do you say to companies like Red Sea or other organizations that have done extensive research, that identified 31 trace and minor elements that help make up the skeleton and soft tissue of corals? Should we declare these elements trivial.? Are they not needed for proper growth or coloration of corals, because we can’t provide peer reviewed data. I can’t easily accept this notion when I see my system sucking down many of these elements. Something is obviously using them and using a lot of them. It’s nothing personal, but I’ll need more convincing than somebody
saying there’s “no known biological role.”
Let’s consider that bacteria/microorganisms alone consume many of these elements. That’s enough to call them beneficial in my book. If Bacteria/microorganisms utilize these elements, and the population multiplies, this is an excellent food source for corals, but also provides stability to the system. Please correct me if I’m wrong. It’s similar to when I dose organic carbon, I literally see the corals put out more PE and colors. Why? Because they’re consuming the bacteria population that’s loaded with many elements including nitrogen and phosphorus, and it’s quite obvious they like it.
Thoughts?
Last edited: