Bolus dosing

[Miami Reef]

What fear mongering am I falling for?

am I just too illiterate to understand? Are you saying that Mr. Paletta is conspiring with FM to fool us all?

I did not mean to offend you or any reefer.

My comment was in response to this:

If these people really think dosing alkalinity will have different effects in the ocean vs a reef tank, when both contain seawater and are impacted the same way chemically, they need to be called out.

I read other ridiculous claims here, too. Like old tank syndrome. Basically scaring people into thinking their tank will crash if not following their method.


My post was not meant to offend you nor any reefer.


Ps, I’m glad the system works for you.

 

[twentyleagues]

Nobody has personally attacked you. I think the general idea is that Claude uses very complex sounding science as a marketing tool and that most people are not equipped to determine if that science is valid or not. Those people that are capable of speaking to it are brushed off for various reasons.



You observations are fine. Nobody is asking you to prove them, but they are anecdotal and subjective and that goes back to the prior point about marketing and the fact that this is what Claude relies on to refute people questioning his scientific claims.

To that end, even if your observations are verifiable and correct, they do not prove that Claude's explanation of the science is correct, and that is what most of the debate here is. He has laid out numerous very specific scientific claims at both a chemical and biological level that simply don't make sense and is backing by citing people such as yourself who simply say "it works".

He may as well be describing the small gerbil in your wristwatch that keeps perfect time by running on a mini treadmill and having the accuracy of a crystal oscillator because of their magnetic homing ability. You may not believe that this is how your watch works, but plenty of people will....

Wait just a second. I have never fed the gerbil in my watch! What gives?

 

[Miami Reef]

@rtparty

My tank uses 100% ocean water. I guess that means my tank is exempt, right? Or is it the glass cube that changes the rules?

Good to know my tank will live a long time with using any alk additive I want.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I spent a little time just now on some foreign language forums reading what was written about this method, and this thread.

Since many people often do not want to read 78 pages of discussion here, I'll summarize my thoughts again. Folks in any other forum around the world should feel free to take this summary back to their native language forum.

1. I have no doubt that operating a reef tank using the "Bolus" method can grow corals just fine. Bolus dosing of alkalinity and rapid start lighting using metal halides has been done successfully for decades.

2. Anyone saying it grows corals better than some other method should identify what that other method is. This aspect seems very often missing, leaving it unclear what it even means to "work better". I'm sure it works better than some others.

3. Turning lights up faster than usual will cause pH to rise faster than usual and maybe higher. That effect makes it impossible to discern from anyone fully doing "the method" whether bolus dosing itself is impacting pH.

4. It is exactly known and understood how different alkalinity additives impact pH and alkalinity. The fact that seawater is a complex setting does not make it impossible to know these things.

5. Corals like what they like, and we do not always understand all of what they like, which also may vary by organism. Do they respond positively to a sudden increase in alkalinity? I do not know.

6. By the same token, we do know that corals seem to grow faster at both higher alkalinity and higher pH. Anything that is done to boost these things may make them grow faster. Again, the question is compared to what, but higher pH from lighting increases and/or higher alkalinity from a bolus alkalinity dose that peaks at higher alkalinity than spread out dosing may boost coral growth.

7. Many of the FM mechanistic claims are simply incorrect. Trying to provide them may help their cause for many reefers who are convinced, but to those who look deeper, they simply serve to make it clear there is no mechanistic basis for the claims except those mentioned in 3-6. Discussion of invisible crystals of unknown composition, a calculator doing incorrect calculations of alkalinity dosed, and false comments about buffer system failures only serve to make it clear that there is no base of understanding behind the method.

So to summarize,
it is clear there is nothing wrong with doing it,
it is unclear if (and where/when) there are benefits aside from more lighting
there is no basis in science for many of the mechanistic claims

 

[Garf]

I've a question or two. This pic is from the HTU on post #3.

If someone new to two part dosing claimed their Alk was being used twice as fast as calcium, would it have taken so long to resolve?

Did we trust FM to know the basics too much?

Why on earth didn't the super scientist at FM pick this up, even after 18 months of research?

 

[IntrinsicReef]

@rtparty

My tank uses 100% ocean water. I guess that means my tank is exempt, right? Or is it the glass cube that changes the rules?

Good to know my tank will live a long time with using any alk additive I want.

No no. You put the ocean water in a glass box. The rules then change.

 

[IntrinsicReef]

I spent a little time just now on some foreign language forums reading what was written about this method, and this thread.

Since many people often do not want to read 78 pages of discussion here, I'll summarize my thoughts again. Folks in any other forum around the world should feel free to take this summary back to their native language forum.

1. I have no doubt that operating a reef tank using the "Bolus" method can grow corals just fine. Bolus dosing of alkalinity and rapid start lighting using metal halides has been done successfully for decades.

2. Anyone saying it grows corals better than some other method should identify what that other method is. This aspect seems very often missing, leaving it unclear what it even means to "work better". I'm sure it works better than some others.

3. Turning lights up faster than usual will cause pH to rise faster than usual and maybe higher. That effect makes it impossible to discern from anyone fully doing "the method" whether bolus dosing itself is impacting pH.

4. It is exactly known and understood how different alkalinity additives impact pH and alkalinity. The fact that seawater is a complex setting does not make it impossible to know these things.

5. Corals like what they like, and we do not always understand all of what they like, which also may vary by organism. Do they respond positively to a sudden increase in alkalinity? I do not know.

6. By the same token, we do know that corals seem to grow faster at both higher alkalinity and higher pH. Anything that is done to boost these things may make them grow faster. Again, the question is compared to what, but higher pH from lighting increases and/or higher alkalinity from a bolus alkalinity dose that peaks higher to alkalinity than spread out dosing may boost coral growth.

7. Many of the FM mechanistic claims are simply incorrect. Trying to provide them may help their cause for many reefers who are convinced, but to those who look deeper, they simply serve to make it clear there is no mechanistic basis for the claims except those mentioned in 3-6. Discussion of invisible crystals of unknown composition, a calculator doing incorrect calculations of alkalinity dosed, and false comments about buffer system failures only serve to make it clear that there is no base of understanding behind the method.

So to summarize,
it is clear there is nothing wrong with doing it,
it is unclear if (and where/when) there are benefits aside from more lighting
there is no basis in science for many of the mechanistic claims

Maybe make this a "sticky" on the first page if possible.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Maybe make this a "sticky" on the first page if possible.

Good point. I'll see what I can do.

edit: done. I added it to post 2

 

[Miami Reef]

@Randy Holmes-Farley

Thanks for the summary.

I think I read something like this from you (I could be mistaken.) Can you confirm if this statement is accurate?

High pH will lead to increased stony coral growth.

If they can directly consume carbonate, there’s more of that in higher pH.

If they can only consume bicarbonate, then the higher pH will make it easier to release the excess H+.

Is the passage above true for stony corals? I am paraphrasing it from memory. I don’t know if you wrote something like this before.

 

[Sisterlimonpot]

over his head and just talking over Claude's shoulder.

That gave me a visual. Powerful stuff! Haha

 

[Miami Reef]

I found the quote:

The problem with trying to just look at pH effects on calcification to say what they take up is more complicated than just which is present at increasing concentration as pH rises, because there are two different pH effects:

1. If corals take up HCO3-, they must pump out H+, and that is easier as pH rises.

2. if corals take up CO3--, then there is more of it present as pH rises.

Thus, in each case we might observe faster calcification at higher pH, and not know which was the reason.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

@Randy Holmes-Farley

Thanks for the summary.

I think I read something like this from you (I could be mistaken.) Can you confirm if this statement is accurate?

High pH will always lead to increased stony coral growth. If they can directly consume carbonate, there’s more of that in higher pH.

If they can only consume bicarbonate, then the higher pH will make it easier to release the excess H+.

Is the passage above true for stony corals? I am paraphrasing it from memory. I don’t know if you wrote something like this before.

I would not claim that higher pH always leads to faster growth. The few studies there are suggest it often happens, but to claim it always happens in all corals seems unjustified by the data, though it may be true.

The H+ release statement is true, though exactly how that relates to the effect, I’m unsure. It’s also a little tricky what it means on the molecular level. As an analogy, it is harder to throw a baseball 90 feet compared to 20 feet. But if the only machine you have to do it with is a pitching machine that can throw a ball 100 feet every time, does it matter if it is harder or not, when the machine (the H+ transporter)has more than enough capacity any way? It’s a complicated issue.

The carbonate comment is certainly correct.

 

[Garf]

That gave me a visual. Powerful stuff! Haha

I had one of these visuals today. It was Claude clinging to a cliff face with Doug hanging from his wedding tackle.

I would not claim that higher pH always leads to faster growth. The few studies there are suggest it often happens, but to claim it always happens in all corals seems unjustified by the data, though it may be true.

The H+ release statement is true, though exactly how that relates to the effect, I’m unsure. It’s also a little tricky what it means on the molecular level. As an analogy, it is harder to throw a baseball 90 feet compared to 20 feet. But if the only machine you have to do it with is a pitching machine that can throw a ball 100 feet every time, does it matter if it is harder or not, when the machine (the H+ transporter)has more than enough capacity any way? It’s a complicated issue.

The carbonate comment is certainly correct.

I've yet to see any evidence that fast growth equates to a healthy coral. Is it not just as likely that flesh density is an indicator of health?

 

[Miami Reef]

I would not claim that higher pH always leads to faster growth. The few studies there are suggest it often happens, but to claim it always happens in all corals seems unjustified by the data, though it may be true.

The H+ release statement is true, though exactly how that relates to the effect, I’m unsure. It’s also a little tricky what it means on the molecular level. As an analogy, it is harder to throw a baseball 90 feet compared to 20 feet. But if the only machine you have to do it with is a pitching machine that can throw a ball 100 feet every time, does it matter if it is harder or not, when the machine (the H+ transporter)has more than enough capacity any way? It’s a complicated issue.

The carbonate comment is certainly correct.

Thank you. I actually went and removed the absolute before you even responded because it felt wrong. I don’t usually use absolutes.

I remember reading that higher alk and/or pH is less stressful to corals compared to low alk and pH. Is this dependent on the coral species, too?

Edit: and is it true?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I had one of these visuals today. It was Claude clinging to a cliff face with Doug hanging from his wedding tackle.

I've yet to see any evidence that fast growth equates to a healthy coral. Is it not just as likely that flesh density is an indicator of health?

I’m certainly not in a position to say anything useful about pH and health or pH and color, except that one should not assume faster growth means healthier.

 

[areefer01]

I would not claim that higher pH always leads to faster growth. The few studies there are suggest it often happens, but to claim it always happens in all corals seems unjustified by the data, though it may be true.

The H+ release statement is true, though exactly how that relates to the effect, I’m unsure. It’s also a little tricky what it means on the molecular level. As an analogy, it is harder to throw a baseball 90 feet compared to 20 feet. But if the only machine you have to do it with is a pitching machine that can throw a ball 100 feet every time, does it matter if it is harder or not, when the machine (the H+ transporter)has more than enough capacity any way? It’s a complicated issue.

The carbonate comment is certainly correct.

Every time I read higher alk, or higher ph, to obtain faster coral growth I always end up asking myself:

• Does that translate to a healthier coral?
• How does that coral fair in more traditional, or lower alk and ph environments?
• Is the faster grown coral in question more fragile due to the rapid growth?

Yes it can grow faster but does that mean we should? I ask similar questions about ammonia dosing. Oh well.

Edit: I see in post 1,575 you actually touched upon it.... Cart before the horse in my case.
Edit 2: last edit - forgot to say hope your day is well.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Thank you. I actually went and removed the absolute before you even responded because it felt wrong. I don’t usually use absolutes.

I remember reading that higher alk and/or pH is less stressful to corals compared to low alk and pH. Is this dependent on the coral species, too?

It is widely believe among oceanographers that lower pH reduces coral calcification rates and also often stress responses/health. But that is from normal to low pH, and they rarely address higher than normal pH as it is not happening in nature.

I don’t think there much in the way of alk studies by scientists, but hobbyists seem to find higher alk speeds calcification.

Certainly, low alk/pH where skeletons are prone to dissolve would be stressful.

 

[Miami Reef]

I've yet to see any evidence that fast growth equates to a healthy coral.

I remember reading a study where a coral in a study grew faster, but with a more brittle skeleton that made it susceptible to breakage in the real reef, this concluded that growth =/ healthier coral.

I got the study and quote. :)

Increased phosphate concentrations, often characteristic of eutrophic conditions, caused increased coral growth but also a more brittle skeleton. The latter is likely more susceptible to breakage and damage from other destructive forces (e.g., bioerosion) and makes increased coral growth a poor indicator of reef health.

Effects of phosphate on growth and skeletal density in the scleractinian coral Acropora muricata: A controlled experimental approach

Phosphate contamination can negatively affect corals, modifying growth rates, skeletal density, reproduction, mortality, and zooxanthellae. We determi…

www.sciencedirect.com

 

[rtparty]

@rtparty

My tank uses 100% ocean water. I guess that means my tank is exempt, right? Or is it the glass cube that changes the rules?

Good to know my tank will live a long time with using any alk additive I want.

Once the water crosses over the Z axis into the nether dimensions also known as a reef tank, the physics and chemistry completely change. Molecules don't know the difference between up and down, left and right, positive and negative, fish or rock, they simply know they can't behave the same way as they do in the ocean. It might be that they feel boxed in and don't want to express themselves in such a constraining environment.

I am sure the German chemists and biologists know though. They won't publish why, but they know

(this post is purely sarcastic for those that can't pick up on context and tone)

 

[Garf]

I remember reading a study where a coral in a study grew faster, but with a more brittle skeleton that made it susceptible to breakage in the real reef, this concluded that growth =/ healthier coral.

I got the study and quote. :)

Effects of phosphate on growth and skeletal density in the scleractinian coral Acropora muricata: A controlled experimental approach

Phosphate contamination can negatively affect corals, modifying growth rates, skeletal density, reproduction, mortality, and zooxanthellae. We determi…

www.sciencedirect.com

Yeah, I once had a black tubastrea that spawned. Appears it was a "Get me the hell out of here" strategy, as the colony RTN'd straight after. If reefing was simple it would be boring, wouldn't it?