Do higher parameters = super FAST growth? | BRStv Investigates

Discussion in 'Bulk Reef Supply' started by randyBRS, Jun 7, 2019.

?
  1. 7 - 8 dKH

    246 vote(s)
    22.1%
  2. 8 - 9 dKH

    596 vote(s)
    53.6%
  3. 9 - 10 dKH

    183 vote(s)
    16.5%
  4. 10 - 11 dKH

    56 vote(s)
    5.0%
  5. 11 - 12 dKH

    26 vote(s)
    2.3%
  6. Higher or lower? (Share with us!)

    5 vote(s)
    0.4%
  1. MnFish1

    MnFish1 Valuable Member R2R Supporter Partner Member 2019 Build Thread Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,887
    Likes Received:
    6,094
    Sorry I dont get it - I wasn't talking about BRS's video - I was responding to a specific question:
    I don't know if Randy Holmes-Farley is reading this thread, but I do recall him mentioning before that it takes more alkalinity dosing to maintain higher dkh levels in the tank. I'm not smart enough to know why! lol
    This was my reply:
    because Alkalinity is what dKh is a measurement of .... In other words - to increase the dKH - you have to dose more alkalinity.


    Dont know how to go further from here on this specific subject
     

  2. Potatohead

    Potatohead Valuable Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2017
    Messages:
    1,215
    Likes Received:
    1,462
    Location:
    Vancouver

    Uhh yeah, I have read it - Because I typed it.
     
    FO_Reef likes this.
  3. Potatohead

    Potatohead Valuable Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2017
    Messages:
    1,215
    Likes Received:
    1,462
    Location:
    Vancouver

    Yes but I think you misunderstood what we were talking about. We're not talking about dosing more to increase alkalinity, that's obvious. What we're saying is that if you have two tanks, one run at 12 dkh and the other at 8, even if they both consume .5 dkh per day, it takes a lot more alkalinity dosing to maintain the tank at 12 than it does to maintain the one at eight. What I'm saying is I don't know the chemistry as to why that is.
     
    FO_Reef likes this.
  4. FO_Reef

    FO_Reef Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2019
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    66
    I already said I’m aware that you were responding to potatohead’s comment. I’m saying you misinterpreted their comment, and responded with basic knowledge which isn’t relevant to their question...
     
    Potatohead likes this.
  5. serwobow

    serwobow Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2019
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    20
    Your goniopora example is a good one. I agree with you that random variation should be considered. Coral shock too. Usually there are control conditions for experiments, for example, one might use an unmanipulated condition as a control. Here, the 'unmanipulated' control condition could be a third set of frags kept in the original tank, whatever that was. Perhaps the unmanipulated frags would have grown the fastest. What would have been our conclusion if that had been the result? I think we might have concluded something different than what most people are concluding here. Design and implementation of these types of experiments is challenging and clearly expensive. I appreciate the effort that Randy and Ryan went to do this and their other experiments, and I hope they continue to do them. To their credit, they are also cautious about interpreting their results.
     
    MnFish1 likes this.
  6. MnFish1

    MnFish1 Valuable Member R2R Supporter Partner Member 2019 Build Thread Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,887
    Likes Received:
    6,094
    Forgetting all of the static.... I agree - the videos seemed to show that higher values caused higher growth....


    But - was it higher MG? CA? or alk?

    no one knows... TO to the experiment properly these would all be controlled for....... instead it was all 3....... Am I criticizing BRS? no....

    I love BRS.... As said before - its nearly impossible to do these types of experiments. That said - the major (I think) company doing these things is saying does increasing xxxxxxxx cause increased growth..... here - I would say - I dont know. See 10 years ago - a person saying I disagree would not be considered an 'insult'. in 2019 it results in multiple comments suggesting that it is...
     
  7. Ryanbrs

    Ryanbrs Well-Known Member R2R Supporter Platinum Sponsor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2016
    Messages:
    611
    Likes Received:
    1,898
    Yeah, just do the best we can with the resources provided. The only real goal is progress. The reason we tested three elements together is to mimic what reefers are actually doing. Those parameters are essentially blue bucket vs black bucket red sea. That said I don't think many people think the ~10% added calcium is the direct cause. Almost everyone would likely point at the 50% increased alkalinity. We could test that but would mean not testing something else.

    Between staff, space and equipment this is incredibly time-consuming and expensive. More importantly, there are only so many tanks and each test normally requires 5-12 months. Meaning we can only find out one to two new insights with each set of tanks. Easy to see why very few people have been motivated to do this previously :)
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2019
    Potatohead and MnFish1 like this.
  8. Ryanbrs

    Ryanbrs Well-Known Member R2R Supporter Platinum Sponsor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2016
    Messages:
    611
    Likes Received:
    1,898
    Just for reference, the real experiment was the one below. What are doing now is just attempting to document some visual results over time. The only goal is to provide some data and information. We do share our conclusions but the data can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Just doing the best we can with the resources and time available, I can only hope there is value in there somewhere :)

     
  9. MnFish1

    MnFish1 Valuable Member R2R Supporter Partner Member 2019 Build Thread Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,887
    Likes Received:
    6,094
    And you guys do the best possible.... So thanks for everyone... My guess - its Alk thats the key - but - I haven't done studies.
     
    Ryanbrs likes this.
  10. Ryanbrs

    Ryanbrs Well-Known Member R2R Supporter Platinum Sponsor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2016
    Messages:
    611
    Likes Received:
    1,898
    I am pretty certain that 99.9% of reefers would come to the same conclusion.
     
    MnFish1 likes this.
  11. Hans-Werner

    Hans-Werner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2016
    Messages:
    586
    Likes Received:
    574
    Thank you for doing this experiments! I like your experiments very much because they are always very skilled!

    This time just a few cases of anecdotal experiences.

    In more than 25 years of doing Balling now of course I have done similar experiments several times but always with a different outcome. Always when I increased the supply of all 3 solutions to get over 8 or 9 °dKH the corals showed signs of distress (retracted polyps, STN from the base) and the growth in fact seemed reduced. I have to add I always had very low phosphate concentrations around 0.01 or 0.02 ppm.

    I know the reef tank guy of a public aquarium in Germany who invented (at least for our region of the world as far as I know) the coral rubble/CO2 reactor with short curcuited internal water circulation and published it in 1994. They had a 20.000 liter tank with 12 °dKH and enormous growth of a Acroproa sp.. They had to take it down because it was heavily infested with Anemonia manjano. He had difficulties to replicate his experiences after setting the tank up again. In the first run that they had to take down later he connected fish tanks with a high nutrient load to the reef tank but I don't know his approach with the renewed setup.

    Another guy had good Acropora growth in his tank with a coral rubble/CO2 reactor. Later he tried to achieve low phosphate concentrations using phosphate adsorber, and high alkalinities (in fact only around 9 °dKH) for good growth together at the same time. He had problems that just as fast as the corals grew on top they died back from below leaving naked skeleton on the underside of the corals.

    What I just want to say: It is not quite as easy as it may seem and to judge your results without knowing the phosphate concentrations is difficult. Most of the phosphate corals incorporate is incorporated into the skeleton and there into the organic matrix initiating the skeletal growth. Enforcing rapid skeletal growth by high Ca and KH concentrations will deplete phosphate very fast and may drive the corals into phosphate limitation.

    I think the problem is maybe just a little bit more complex but it is. Experiments controlling or at least measuring the phosphate concentrations would be really great!
     
    Turtlesteve and MnFish1 like this.
Draft saved Draft deleted