Barium?

[Spare time]

Red Sea calcium+ includes calcium, strontium, and barium. I am curious of anyone knows of what role the barium is supposed to play in calcification.

 

[xxkenny90xx]

I could be mistaken here but I don't believe it has any "proven" benefits

 

[Spare time]

I could be mistaken here but I don't believe it has any "proven" benefits

Thats my guess but I'm wondering what the guesses are

 

[xxkenny90xx]

Well like I said I could be mistaken on it being barium (I don't think i am) but I recall @Randy Holmes-Farley arguing with somebody who was selling a barium based additive and claiming amazing benefits and randy was saying that there are no proven benefits

 

[vetteguy53081]

Barium is an element that helps promote skeletal growth in corals, alongside the 3 Major elements: calcium, magnesium, and bicarbonate. Barium elements are targeted for supplementation when there are signs of depletion - in reference to the levels of natural sea water . Often these are measured in ICP test to assure it is not elevated

 

[xxkenny90xx]

Barium is an element that helps promote skeletal growth in corals, alongside the 3 Major elements: calcium, magnesium, and bicarbonate. Barium elements are targeted for supplementation when there are signs of depletion - in reference to the levels of natural sea water . Often these are measured in ICP test to assure it is not elevated

Comparison: Fauna Marine ICP Analysis vs. ATI-OES ICP Analysis

I have done the ATI test twice, a common issue with the RODI test is false levels of PO4 and NO3. Lots and lots of folks on here have had the same issue. I am not talking high values, just values. Because I expected zero. Did you take your sample from a storage container? My RODI results were...

www.reef2reef.com

This is what I was referring too. It was randy arguing against some of the additives the reef moonshiners program was pushing

 

[vetteguy53081]

Comparison: Fauna Marine ICP Analysis vs. ATI-OES ICP Analysis

I have done the ATI test twice, a common issue with the RODI test is false levels of PO4 and NO3. Lots and lots of folks on here have had the same issue. I am not talking high values, just values. Because I expected zero. Did you take your sample from a storage container? My RODI results were...

www.reef2reef.com

This is what I was referring too. It was randy arguing against some of the additives the reef moonshiners program was pushing

I have the moonshiners set and Barium is one of the elements

 

[xxkenny90xx]

I have the moonshiners set and Barium is one of the elements

Yes it is one of their elements, along with Rubidium. Both elements that randy has compared to something from a late night infomercial and even questioned if elevating them is poisoning your reef. As our resident "reef chemist" I take his opinions pretty seriously...

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I don’t think it has any positive or negative benefits, regardless of level, unless someone massively overdosed it.

 

[Spare time]

I may continue with the red sea calcium then as I don't want to have to test strontium separately, unless anyone else knows of a strontium+calcium additive in one bottle.

 

[Dr. Jim]

My line of thinking has always been: If an element is present in the sea then there is a very good chance it is playing a role in the health of marine organisms. We may not know what that role is all the time, but every element is probably, or may be, important. It may be prudent to duplicate seawater's constituents the best we can.... just in case.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

My line of thinking has always been: If an element is present in the sea then there is a very good chance it is playing a role in the health of marine organisms. We may not know what that role is all the time, but every element is probably, or may be, important. It may be prudent to duplicate seawater's constituents the best we can.... just in case.

I disagree, but it is impossible to prove a negative.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I may continue with the red sea calcium then as I don't want to have to test strontium separately, unless anyone else knows of a strontium+calcium additive in one bottle.

There are many products that have them together, although I do not consider strontium dosing useful.

 

[Silent]

I may continue with the red sea calcium then as I don't want to have to test strontium separately, unless anyone else knows of a strontium+calcium additive in one bottle.

Caribsea Purple up and Kent Marine Purple Tech both contain calcium and strontium. They are marketed to increase coralline algae.

 

[Jdubyo]

My line of thinking has always been: If an element is present in the sea then there is a very good chance it is playing a role in the health of marine organisms. We may not know what that role is all the time, but every element is probably, or may be, important. It may be prudent to duplicate seawater's constituents the best we can.... just in case.

I am not saying this is incorrect, and there is plenty of evidence that emulating natural sea water can create a successful home reef aquarium. But I have always wondered why we would try to recreate “natural” sea water? There is nothing “natural” about what we do. We have a box of water in our homes filled with animals that depend on us to provide their life support. Who’s to say that there isn’t something better than an ocean for our corals? From the way the worlds pollution is headed, I would say there is a very good chance of this being true.

All in all, I would say if there is no way to prove whether something is beneficial or detrimental at this time, then why worry about it at all? If it is something that is significant to the health and well-being of our tank inhabitants, I hope we would have made some connections to it by now.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Caribsea Purple up and Kent Marine Purple Tech both contain calcium and strontium. They are marketed to increase coralline algae.

FWIW, the fine aragonite in them is sand that will not dissolve at normal reef aquarium conditions.

 

[anit77]

My line of thinking has always been: If an element is present in the sea then there is a very good chance it is playing a role in the health of marine organisms. We may not know what that role is all the time, but every element is probably, or may be, important. It may be prudent to duplicate seawater's constituents the best we can.... just in case.

I disagree, but it is impossible to prove a negative.

I'd have to say I'm with Randy here. There are lots of elements that weren't in the sea 200yrs ago that are now because of us. How's one to know the differences?

 

[Dr. Jim]

Who’s to say that there isn’t something better than an ocean for our corals? From the way the worlds pollution is headed, I would say there is a very good chance of this being true.

I'd have to say I'm with Randy here. There are lots of elements that weren't in the sea 200yrs ago that are now because of us. How's one to know the differences?

We are not talking about pollution or man-made changes to the ocean but rather the naturally-occurring elements that have been in the sea for eons. It is possible that their concentrations have changed but for the most part, we can probably assume that all the major elements present today have always been present.

Nobody can prove that all the elements in aquarium saltwater are essential or can say what they all "do".....but it would be hard to prove that any of them are harmful if kept at natural seawater levels. For these reasons, I believe it is safe to have this philosophy:

"It is better to have them and not need them rather than need them and not have them."

-Philosopher Jim

 

[anit77]

"It is better to have them and not need them rather than need them and not have them."

-Philosopher Jim

That kinda goes with, "Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six"