Clarity on Tropic Marin Part C

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

But does it have magnesium?

Part C is mostly magnesium and sulfate by weight (since they are the two biggest ions by weight in seawater that are not sodium or chloride).

But it is not intended as a magnesium supplement (or any other ion supplement). Using Balling Parts A, B, and C are like adding calcium and alkalinity, and doing a small water change.


Carbocalcium does not contain magnesium. All For Reef, which is calcium formate plus other things, does.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

What is the difference between Tropic Marin BioMagnesium and Tropic Marin Part C. My assumption is they are both Magnesium salts with trace elements. Perhaps Biomagnesium does not have trace elemetns?

I do not believe that Biomagnesium is intended to accomplish anything except supplement magnesium.

Part C is not intended to supplement magnesium, but to keep the sodium and chloride from sodium carbonate/bicarbonate and calcium chloride from slowly rising and effectively pushing down everything else (when salinity is maintained).

Thus, there are certainly times when it may be appropriate to use both at the same time to accomplish slightly different goals. They are not interchangeable or mutually exclusive.

 

[Koigula]

I do not believe that Biomagnesium is intended to accomplish anything except supplement magnesium.

Part C is not intended to supplement magnesium, but to keep the sodium and chloride from sodium carbonate/bicarbonate and calcium chloride from slowly rising and effectively pushing down everything else (when salinity is maintained).

Thus, there are certainly times when it may be appropriate to use both at the same time to accomplish slightly different goals. They are not interchangeable or mutually exclusive.

Part C is described as sodium free salt mix so should primary be Magnesium Salts, but also the complex mixture of minor salts. This would explain why it is used for only maintaining balance, which it does quite well after few years of use. A larger system might be better served long term with 3 part like this.

I suspect BioMagnesium has additional elements but a bit of a mystery. I am hoping Tropic Marin can confirm this is the case.

My interest in All FOR REEF formulation is primarily simplicity. Alkalinity and alcium demands are rarely 1:1 and would need tuning, likely adding more soda ash. In my case 100 cc Soda Ash solution (BRS recipe) increase alkalinity 5 ppm and is as much as I ever adjust.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Part C is described as sodium free salt mix so should primary be Magnesium Salts, but also the complex mixture of minor salts.

I suspect BioMagnesium has additional elements but a bit of a mystery. I am hoping Tropic Marin can confirm this is the case. A larger system might be better served long term with 3 part.

Yes, I know exactly what Part C is. It's not a secret recipe. It is easily calculated what is in it. The vast majority is magnesium and sulfate, but it certainly has potassium, boron, and a large array of minor and trace elements. At least if you believe they way Tropic Martin describes it as being accurate.

Biomagneisum claims nothing else and I'd be surprised it it has anything else without claiming a benefit from it (except random impurities), but certainly, Lou can validate this expectation or not.

 

[Hans-Werner]

Our Tropic Marin Bio-Magnesium is a mix of magnesium chloride and magnesium sulfate in the same ratios as in natural seawater (ratio of chloride and sulfate ions).

Besides this it contains some other major, minor and trace elements and a small amount of sodium bicarbonate. This is more an empirical formula to compensate best for magnesium related consumption in an average tank with some coralline algal growth.

Without the little extras for example the alkalinity might slowly drop.

 

[Superlightman]

If understand all this topic right ,part C is just designed for the ionic balance, even if it has trace elements in it.It not has enough for the needs of the corals, and we still need to dose trace elements separately.

Ok I understand this, but does it not in someway still benefit with these minerals, even in a small way to the corals? I'm thinking about all small trace elements that comes with salts and that we never dose? Because ,once all these traces are in the water, even if it not contains sufficient amounts of the main elements, I think corals can take it?! I not think the corals are saying for themselves that , ''hey wait this I can not take because it comes from the wrong dosing box'' but they will take everything that is available even if it was not intended for them?
So if I say that part C is not intend to supplement trace elements but that in very small amounts it could in some cases still contribute to it for all the small traces, I am right?


Question, why are we trying to keep the ionic balance in our tank if we say the gravity just increase slowly and that most of the traces elements that we not need to supplemented are unuseful? Would it not make sense to just dose the elements we need and just do water change when the gravity increase too much? What is the point of keep this ionic balance, does it really bring a benefit to the aquarium?

Did some of you compared this method to other that doesn't have the part C , did you really get more benefit from using the part C?

 

[Benji240287]

The volume of Part C that you want to use is dependent on the volumes of Parts A & B, NOT the amount of Mg that needs to be supplemented. ONE MORE TIME... The major, minor and trace elements in the Balling Part C are ONLY there to ionically balance the left over NaCl created by the Parts A&B. Even though Part C has Mg and trace elements in it. Part C DOES NOT do anything to "supplement" or "make up" for used or consumed Mg and trace elements. And it should not be used in that way. When using the true Balling 3 part method, you still need to supplement Mg and trace elements separately. The volume of the Part C, that you are adding, should be equal to whatever is the lower volume of the Parts A&B. That way you are assured of

Hello Lou Ekus, I have a question that i'm pretty sure a lot of people have had : why the volume of Part C should be equal to whatever is the lower volume of the Parts A&B ? Thanks you in advance. Regards

 

[Lou Ekus]

Hello Lou Ekus, I have a question that i'm pretty sure a lot of people have had : why the volume of Part C should be equal to whatever is the lower volume of the Parts A&B ? Thanks you in advance. Regards

That is my approach for a few reasons. First, it is easy to calculate and know how much to use. Secondly, in most of the systems I work with, the amount of Ca consumed is less than the amount of alkalinity consumed. Since there are lots of things that can take alkalinity out of the system without a corresponding amount of alkalinity (not resulting in left over sodium chloride) , then we can assume that the amount of Ca is corresponding to the amount of calcification and the resulting amount of residual sodium chloride left over. That would translate to the amount of Part C needed. In this way we can always be sure we are pretty close to the correct dosage.

I hope this makes some sense. It's not a perfect equation. And it is not meant to be a hard a fast rule. But it is the best guideline I have been able to come up with. And it always seems to work very well.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

If understand all this topic right ,part C is just designed for the ionic balance, even if it has trace elements in it.It not has enough for the needs of the corals, and we still need to dose trace elements separately.

Ok I understand this, but does it not in someway still benefit with these minerals, even in a small way to the corals? I'm thinking about all small trace elements that comes with salts and that we never dose? Because ,once all these traces are in the water, even if it not contains sufficient amounts of the main elements, I think corals can take it?! I not think the corals are saying for themselves that , ''hey wait this I can not take because it comes from the wrong dosing box'' but they will take everything that is available even if it was not intended for them?
So if I say that part C is not intend to supplement trace elements but that in very small amounts it could in some cases still contribute to it for all the small traces, I am right?


Question, why are we trying to keep the ionic balance in our tank if we say the gravity just increase slowly and that most of the traces elements that we not need to supplemented are unuseful? Would it not make sense to just dose the elements we need and just do water change when the gravity increase too much? What is the point of keep this ionic balance, does it really bring a benefit to the aquarium?

Did some of you compared this method to other that doesn't have the part C , did you really get more benefit from using the part C?

Of course it’s a potential benefit to maintain ions at NSW levels, and a trace element supplement is not appropriate for ions like potassium, sulfate, etc.

How important it is depends on whether and how much you change water, and how much calcium and alk you are dosing.

 

[ReefRxSWFL]

Sorry that I am only seeing this now.

Water changes will correct only a portion of the ionic imbalance created by the parts A and B. For instance, if you do a 15% water change, every 2 weeks, you will correct 15% of the imbalance on that day, every two weeks. This is not enough of a correction in my opinion.

The Balling Part C corrects all of that imbalance on a daily basis.

As far as what would be needed to be added to the Tropic Marin Balling Part C to make complete sea salt? You would have to add the appropriate amount of NaCl, along with the proper amounts of calcium and carbonates. None of those are in the Part C. Part C does contain Mg and all 70 trace elements found in natural sea water.

If it contains all 70 trace elements, why do you also need to dose A &K trace supplements?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

If it contains all 70 trace elements, why do you also need to dose A &K trace supplements?

Because it is neither intended for, nor is it suitable for supplementing to replace ions lost to organism uptake (or precipitation). It has way too much of some things (e.g., sulfate) and not enough of other (e.g., iron and manganese).

You could ask the same question about a salt mix, but a salt mix is also not suitable as a trace element supplement because it is not designed for that purpose and has way too much of some things.

 

[Dennis Cartier]

Ah, now I get it. I was stumped why the BRS Hybrid balling Method used both Part C and the A- & K+ trace elements added to the 2 part. The Part C is just for balancing the 2 part, and the added traces are to account for the growth. It always seemed like they were doubling up the traces, but I see now why that is.

 

[ReefRxSWFL]

Because it is neither intended for, nor is it suitable for supplementing to replace ions lost to organism uptake (or precipitation). It has way too much of some things (e.g., sulfate) and not enough of other (e.g., iron and manganese).

You could ask the same question about a salt mix, but a salt mix is also not suitable as a trace element supplement because it is not designed for that purpose and has way too much of some things.

I just don't get the point of that part C. Somehow my tanks have been surviving on Kalk, Ca, Alk, Mg and water changes for the last 20+ years, and more recently dosing nitrate, phosphate and trace when someone finally listed what was in it. The “stabilization of ions” sounds like shenanigans to me.

Fortunately, Ive rarely fallen into the FOMO trap where something from a bottle or a gadget was going to fix everything in my tank.

Light it, pump it, heat it, skim it, clean it, test it, dose it (with what you can measure at least twice a month)and enjoy it.

 

[Benji240287]

That is my approach for a few reasons. First, it is easy to calculate and know how much to use. Secondly, in most of the systems I work with, the amount of Ca consumed is less than the amount of alkalinity consumed. Since there are lots of things that can take alkalinity out of the system without a corresponding amount of alkalinity (not resulting in left over sodium chloride) , then we can assume that the amount of Ca is corresponding to the amount of calcification and the resulting amount of residual sodium chloride left over. That would translate to the amount of Part C needed. In this way we can always be sure we are pretty close to the correct dosage.

I hope this makes some sense. It's not a perfect equation. And it is not meant to be a hard a fast rule. But it is the best guideline I have been able to come up with. And it always seems to work very well.

Thank you for your explanation.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I just don't get the point of that part C. Somehow my tanks have been surviving on Kalk, Ca, Alk, Mg and water changes for the last 20+ years, and more recently dosing nitrate, phosphate and trace when someone finally listed what was in it. The “stabilization of ions” sounds like shenanigans to me.

Fortunately, Ive rarely fallen into the FOMO trap where something from a bottle or a gadget was going to fix everything in my tank.

Light it, pump it, heat it, skim it, clean it, test it, dose it (with what you can measure at least twice a month)and enjoy it.

It is not shenanigans. It is absolutely and perfectly sound and simple chemistry.

Kalkwasser does not need or benefit from Part C. Never use part C if you only use kalkwasser.

You must be using calcium chloride and sodium hydroxide/carbonate/bicarbonate to benefit.

Here's the need:

When you supplement calcium chloride and sodium carbonate, and you use up calcium carbonate, you are left with sodium and chloride. It steadily accumulates by a clearly known amount.

Assuming you maintain salinity at a fixed level, you will need to keep adding some fresh water to bring the salinity back to normal.

Each time you do that, EVERYTHING drops in concentration. Potassium, bromide, sulfate, iron, etc.

The Part C has exactly those things added back, keeping them from dropping over time.

I go through a more detailed discussion and show more details here:

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-02/rhf/index.php

for example:

After one year of adding 8 ppm of calcium and the accompanying 0.4 meq/L (1.1 dKH) of alkalinity per day (41 mL of both parts per day or 4 gallons of both parts per year in a 50-gallon aquarium, including the effect of the magnesium sulfate solution, 2440 mL/year), the following residue (Table 3) would remain after calcification and adjustment for salinity (there is roughly a 29% rise in salinity over a year using this addition rate without water changes):

 

[DeeBee]

@Lou Ekus Hi Lou. Would there be any detrimental effects from dosing part C weekly instead of daily (based on the week’s alkalinity consumption)?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

@Lou Ekus Hi Lou. Would there be any detrimental effects from dosing part C weekly instead of daily (based on the week’s alkalinity consumption)?

I'm not Lou, but the answer is that it is certainly Ok to add it weekly as opposed to daily, assuming you still add the proper weeks amount. Nothing that it replaces is going to change much in 1 week.

 

[DeeBee]

I'm not Lou, but the answer is that it is certainly Ok to add it weekly as opposed to daily, assuming you still add the proper weeks amount. Nothing that it replaces is going to change much in 1 week.

Thank you Randy.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Thank you Randy.

You're welcome.

Happy reefing.