Do higher parameters = super FAST growth? | BRStv Investigates

What's your target Alk range?

  • 7 - 8 dKH

    Votes: 246 22.0%
  • 8 - 9 dKH

    Votes: 597 53.5%
  • 9 - 10 dKH

    Votes: 185 16.6%
  • 10 - 11 dKH

    Votes: 57 5.1%
  • 11 - 12 dKH

    Votes: 26 2.3%
  • Higher or lower? (Share with us!)

    Votes: 5 0.4%

  • Total voters
    1,116

MnFish1

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
7,197
Reaction score
8,046
I’m not criticizing you friend, I just think you missed the point of their comment. Potato head clarified pretty articulately, so I’ll just defer to their response.
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
 

Potatohead

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Aug 3, 2017
Messages
1,332
Reaction score
1,673
Location
Vancouver
Read the post I replied to - and it might make more sense.

FO_Reef said:
I’m aware of that. The poster was responding to a question about why alk was being consumed at 6x the rate, when growth was not increased by 6x.

This is what they said: 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.


So in other words you have taken several posts - and combined them together - and criticised me.. But - this was what the reply was based on....

Uhh yeah, I have read it - Because I typed it.
 

Potatohead

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Aug 3, 2017
Messages
1,332
Reaction score
1,673
Location
Vancouver
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

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

Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
54
Reaction score
67
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
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
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...
 

serwobow

Member
View Badges
Joined
May 15, 2019
Messages
46
Reaction score
30
This is not correct IMHO - there can be a control - but its expensive/time consuming/difficult to do properly - and might not be needed. ONE type of control would to replicate this experiment 3 times as you mentioned. The other one would be to use smaller volumes - and use fewer types of corals. But - again - I liked the video. To me - standing back - looking at the pictures - I see some differences - but not compelling. And - it could be within the random variation between 2 corals. For example I bought 2 Goniopora - same shop - sitting next to other... One went in the tank - and died - one sitting next to it live 3 years and grew from a ping pong ball to a softball size - same conditions, etc.... Thats why a control is needed
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

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
7,197
Reaction score
8,046
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...
 

Ryanbrs

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
616
Reaction score
1,970
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...
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:

Ryanbrs

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
616
Reaction score
1,970
With the way it’s been setup, it will be anecdotal and have a lot more weight put on it by hobbyists. This is worse if the conclusion ends up being wrong.
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 :)

 

MnFish1

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
7,197
Reaction score
8,046
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.

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 :)
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

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
616
Reaction score
1,970
I am pretty certain that 99.9% of reefers would come to the same conclusion.
 

Hans-Werner

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Aug 24, 2016
Messages
628
Reaction score
642
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!
 

Will you watch revhtree on the LIVE #askBRStv show?

  • Yes I'll tune in live at 1:30pm est!

    Votes: 102 34.1%
  • No I'll have to catch the rerun!

    Votes: 164 54.8%
  • Neither, I choose to make revhtree sad...

    Votes: 33 11.0%

Online statistics

Members online
1,713
Guests online
3,912
Total visitors
5,625
Top Shelf Aquatics
JASON FOX SIGNATURE CORALS
Top