Are all traces important?

JonasRoman

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 6, 2015
Messages
1,132
Reaction score
357
Location
Sweden
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
This is a common subject, that doesnt hurt to always bring up to discussion as we today have analyses that give us a lot of information. With information it comes a responsibility to deal with it in a proper way.
Just because there exists an element in water, or just because a coral absorb it, or incorporate into its skeletons, doesn't mean they need it. Its like the air, it contains a lot of stuff we dont need. The minerals exists because of stones, limes, sediments in water that release its traces. You can actually say the opposite "Despite that this traces exists, the coral is healthy"!, because coral has adapted to its environment. With this said, ofcourse not all traces are unnecessary. We know they are needed for enyme systems, but we also know to support that its enormous small amounts to be needed, and as long as its not 0.0000 its very likely its sufficient. Another aspect of this is: Its more or less impossible to in a scientific way proof that "this" traces "do that". We have too many confounders in such a complex system and its not possible like in other research fileds, isolate and make the comparing groups equal.
So, how do we narrow this subjet then? One way, is to just mimic nature. Its still not sure that the coral need all traces you dose, it could still be that "despite the traces the coral is healthy", but there is at least no harm doing that. But also then remember, if you really shall reach a natural sea water in all aspects, its a lot of efforts, time and money, where probably most of them are wasted.
So, for me personaly , I have choosen an easy and pragmatic way, first of all based on experience that I have achieved keeping a lot of "difficult" species without chasing NSW levels on everything, but also the knowledge of lack of evidence. SO I use ICP to in first place assure I have no toxic levels (because THAT we know is harmfull), and thus like "0" values on many traces, and second: check those few (and if needed spot dose) I think is unquestionably important for the coral (I, Sr, Si maybe, F maybe).

I practical terms I change water quite often with a salt I know is close to sea water (I prefer red Sea), and by that in an easy and reasonable cheap way "go to" normality. Also as a bonus export bad things. And besides that ofcourse dose and have close attention to the major building elements, as those are ofcourse unquestionably important (Ca, Mg, KH).

So, with information there comes responsibility, and for me a "0" value on a traces I know can be toxic, and do not know its beneficiary, is a good value for me, and for me never leads to a dosage.

Jonas
 

BryanM

7500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Jun 27, 2024
Messages
8,184
Reaction score
10,105
Location
Morgan Hill
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Well, I’d just say with regular water changes mostly the answer is no, since you’re replacing them anyway.

I’m not a water change guy, so the answer is more yes for me.
 
OP
OP
JonasRoman

JonasRoman

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 6, 2015
Messages
1,132
Reaction score
357
Location
Sweden
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Well, I’d just say with regular water changes mostly the answer is no, since you’re replacing them anyway.

I’m not a water change guy, so the answer is more yes for me.
I think you misundestood the main subject a little. Question is not how to replace (water change or manual add), but more the core question, if its imporant at all to spot all traces? As I said, we do not know so much about their effects, and its impossible to study that, but what we know is that they are toxic in too high levels. So, do we spend unnecessary money and time to spot all traces? I am quite sure we do. But this is just empirical evidence and if you want to be safe, you have to spend a lot of money and time on spot all traces, AND at same time take the risk of overdosing=hazardous. Is it worth it? Thats the main question.

Sincerely
Jonas
 

D'sreef

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Aug 10, 2025
Messages
929
Reaction score
2,899
Location
Parrish, AL
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I would argue it is really dependant the type of system you are going for. SPS, LPs, softies require more diligence than a Fowlr tank, but an anemone tank would be something in the middle of that spectrum. Then Mangrove tanks or planted lagoon tanks are a completely different animal compared to macro tanks. Everything listed above requires slightly different parameters. Though it may be true stoney corals it's probably more important to test for manganese, cobalt, or strontium as they rely on this for their skeletons, it could be argued that in a softie tank nitrates and phosphate are more important to test for, and in a FOWLR I only ever had an ammonia alert badge. I've never been a fan of chasing numbers unless I am chasing an issue. Much like everything in this hobby it is kinda up to the person's preference.
 

TOP 10 Trending Threads

Back
Top
Home
Post thread…
Market
What's new