Dosing Rubidium

[Lasse]

There have been some post claiming that dosing Rubidium can have some benefits - especially for zoanthids, mushrooms, softies and LPS. I´m interested to know how many that really dose this and the experiences of it - bad, none or good

Please describe your experiences in the thread. I´m not out for any scientistic result - just to know the subjective assessment of dosage rubidium from people who have done it

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I haven't ever tried dosing it, and think it highly unlikely that an element with no known beneficial role will have benefits.

I also cannot ever recall hearing of someone dosing it by itself and reporting the results.

 

[DaneGer21]

Never heard of the stuff, let alone in the reefing community

 

[Lasse]

@PSXerholic any comments?

Sincerely Lasse

 

[PSXerholic]

@PSXerholic any comments?

Sincerely Lasse

You will not find anything available in public scientific research papers!
You will not get supporting confirmation from scientists that would do support the effect of a natural trace, present in nature, but almost depleted in many many tanks.
Scientists do have the job to speak about something when it's repeatedly proven, that's the nature of how this works, so don't be mad with them ;-)

You will not see it for purchase other than in the Reef Moonshiner Program or as minor ingredient in some of the Industry leading supplements. Hint hint.

So, it has shown in certain cases immense effect on health, growth and coloration of many soft corals when supplement not as part of the remaining Moonshiner elements. However that may be because of the fact that the Rubidium has been brought up from depletion levels simply to natural levels!
I have not seen more positive effects if increased further than 0.2-0.3ppm in tanks. Subject to testing and discussion.
It has repeatedly shown positive effects individually or in combination with the other traces, hence enough evidence for the RM User community to trust the effect and continue the supplementation.
It may be the effect of the Rubidium directly on the Zoox, the bacteria biology or the coral host itself. All unknown!
Personally I completely assume it is the effect on the symbiotic algae.

And this is not because this is a selling product, there are other products such as Tin, Silver, Copper as individual products that did not make it to the Sales-Room simply because their effects as part of the method couldn't even convince me yet.
So it's not because it's driven by money, people who know me, know that ;-)

Ask the question in this thread where people started to discuss the Reef Moonshiner method in general here on R2R.

Reef moonshiners program

I did a search in the forums and ran across a few threads where it is mentioned, but no real discussion. So who all is using the reef moonshiners program/dosing elements on their tanks? Who is having success with it? I'd love to discuss this further as it has me a little intrigued.

www.reef2reef.com

 

[PSXerholic]

You will not find anything available in public scientific research papers!
You will not get supporting confirmation from scientists that would do support the effect of a natural trace, present in nature, but almost depleted in many many tanks.
Scientists do have the job to speak about something when it's repeatedly proven, that's the nature of how this works, so don't be mad with them ;-)

You will not see it for purchase other than in the Reef Moonshiner Program or as minor ingredient in some of the Industry leading supplements. Hint hint.

So, it has shown in certain cases immense effect on health, growth and coloration of many soft corals when supplement not as part of the remaining Moonshiner elements. However that may be because of the fact that the Rubidium has been brought up from depletion levels simply to natural levels!
I have not seen more positive effects if increased further than 0.2-0.3ppm in tanks. Subject to testing and discussion.
It has repeatedly shown positive effects individually or in combination with the other traces, hence enough evidence for the RM User community to trust the effect and continue the supplementation.
It may be the effect of the Rubidium directly on the Zoox, the bacteria biology or the coral host itself. All unknown!
Personally I completely assume it is the effect on the symbiotic algae.

And this is not because this is a selling product, there are other products such as Tin, Silver, Copper as individual products that did not make it to the Sales-Room simply because their effects as part of the method couldn't even convince me yet.
So it's not because it's driven by money, people who know me, know that ;-)

Ask the question in this thread where people started to discuss the Reef Moonshiner method in general here on R2R.

Reef moonshiners program

I did a search in the forums and ran across a few threads where it is mentioned, but no real discussion. So who all is using the reef moonshiners program/dosing elements on their tanks? Who is having success with it? I'd love to discuss this further as it has me a little intrigued.

www.reef2reef.com

@Lasse , when you see this picture, do you see the fact that soft corals and dominating SPS can't get along in a single tank system??????

heck no, that's a myth from the past as you see.

And there are barely any fish in there too, right?
So a thriving tank system need tons of fish, right, ;-) Another myth!!!!

Heard too many times "This is impossible and can't be done........"

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

You will not find anything available in public scientific research papers!
You will not get supporting confirmation from scientists that would do support the effect of a natural trace, present in nature, but almost depleted in many many tanks.
Scientists do have the job to speak about something when it's repeatedly proven, that's the nature of how this works, so don't be mad with them ;-)

You will not see it for purchase other than in the Reef Moonshiner Program or as minor ingredient in some of the Industry leading supplements. Hint hint.

So, it has shown in certain cases immense effect on health, growth and coloration of many soft corals when supplement not as part of the remaining Moonshiner elements. However that may be because of the fact that the Rubidium has been brought up from depletion levels simply to natural levels!
I have not seen more positive effects if increased further than 0.2-0.3ppm in tanks. Subject to testing and discussion.
It has repeatedly shown positive effects individually or in combination with the other traces, hence enough evidence for the RM User community to trust the effect and continue the supplementation.
It may be the effect of the Rubidium directly on the Zoox, the bacteria biology or the coral host itself. All unknown!
Personally I completely assume it is the effect on the symbiotic algae.

And this is not because this is a selling product, there are other products such as Tin, Silver, Copper as individual products that did not make it to the Sales-Room simply because their effects as part of the method couldn't even convince me yet.
So it's not because it's driven by money, people who know me, know that ;-)

Ask the question in this thread where people started to discuss the Reef Moonshiner method in general here on R2R.

You made a similarly outlandish statement about barium when I said that it too has no known biological role and is, IMO, extremely unlikely to be beneficial.

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

I guess you enjoy being a contrarian. lol

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

@Lasse , when you see this picture, do you see the fact that soft corals and dominating SPS can't get along in a single tank system??????

heck no, that's a myth from the past as you see.

And there are barely any fish in there too, right?
So a thriving tank system need tons of fish, right, ;-) Another myth!!!!

Heard too many times "This is impossible and can't be done........"

Bear in mind that those are opinions, none of which I have ever expressed, nor are they the opinions of the scientific community.

Myth busting reefers is easy.

Proving the general scientific community is wrong about the biological role of strange materials is far harder, and making such claims is more the thing of late night television commercials.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

It has repeatedly shown positive effects individually or in combination with the other traces, hence enough evidence for the RM User community to trust the effect and continue the supplementation.
It may be the effect of the Rubidium directly on the Zoox, the bacteria biology or the coral host itself. All unknown!
Personally I completely assume it is the effect on the symbiotic algae.

Personally I completely assume that if there is any effect other than poisoning the organisms, that it is likely from "combination with the other traces,".

 

[PSXerholic]

You made a similarly outlandish statement about barium when I said that it too has no known biological role and is, IMO, extremely unlikely to be beneficial.

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

I guess you enjoy being a contrarian. lol

Yes Sir! And I still have that on my list! I like to get your opinion on a few things as known active expert, even I know you will still be saying that is has no known biological role ;-)

 

[PSXerholic]

Bear in mind that those are opinions, none of which I have ever expressed, nor are they the opinions of the scientific community.

Myth busting reefers is easy.

Proving the general scientific community is wrong about the biological role of strange materials is far harder, and making such claims is more the thing of late night television commercials.

Randy, none of these statements were related to you personally! I have no reason to make you upset, so many times you did help me and others with sharing your knowledge and being a helpful hand.
It's just that most people asking questions to the scientific community, will not realize how the typical scientist works. Not a known biological role, can mean anything, however most folks understand this statement as that there is no effect, which is not really the statement.

 

[PSXerholic]

Personally I completely assume that if there is any effect other than poisoning the organisms, that it is likely from "combination with the other traces,".

Well, the brief "observation" I made mutliple times now, lead truly to the fact that there are positive effects on many organisms. Well, if you look at the common ICP test (not considering the arguments on the technology and tolerances) then I found that Rubidium is very low bit mostly not detectable in most tanks. The beauty with individual elements on hand is that it's possible to play with the individual elements. I was very surprised to hear now in numerous cases that dosing the Rubidium only, did show the same positive effects on Zoa, Shooms and Torches and LPS.

An overdosing to 1,8mg/L did not show negative or more positive effects, also reported by a few other users that tried to increase Rubidium into the 0.5ppm range.

All of this has not been logged, listed or kept records of! Just mentioning this upfront, simply because I don't have the time to study and record this in a more scientific way and method :-(

 

[User]

I think you seem to be slightly misinterpreting the scientific method also.

I mean no offense, but it is literally impossible to properly scientifically prove the beneficial role of one element in such a chaotic complicated system. Where’s your control group? Where are the repeats?

a single tank dosed ‘moonshiner’ style compared to a different tank set up ‘normally’- EVERYTHING you do to compare them will be subjective since there are so many variables at play

I’m all for people trying new things or dosing this or that in there tank. It’s their tank, go for it! But if you show a picture and say it dose rubidium, look at the colours, science can’t explain it!”- that’s just a little disingenuous.

It’s a pretty tank, it gets rubidium. Why feel the need to bring science into it when there is literally no testable way to prove your point. It’s almost akin to a straw man argument and using ‘scientists’ as a punching bag because ‘they say it’s impossible’

just my 2 cents

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Randy, none of these statements were related to you personally! I have no reason to make you upset, so many times you did help me and others with sharing your knowledge and being a helpful hand.
It's just that most people asking questions to the scientific community, will not realize how the typical scientist works. Not a known biological role, can mean anything, however most folks understand this statement as that there is no effect, which is not really the statement.

I'm not upset. I'm looking forward to the discussion.

 

[PSXerholic]

I'm not upset. I'm looking forward to the discussion.

Me too! I'm unsure if that is the right article since I don't have a valid subscription anymore to this one:
"Comparative determinations of trace and minor elements in coral aragonite by ion microprobe analysis, with preliminary results from Phuket, southern Thailand"

That was (MAYBE) on of the publicaitons where I found interesting data for Barium and Rubidium.
You may have the "Grand-Access" rights here ;-)

What I read (or better understood) was basically that there were some indications that the symbiotic algae likely need the Rubidium as part of their metabolism and the hosts symbiotic bacteria in the tissue for certain biological processes to support certain cell reproduction processes, as you can imagine these articles do not end in final conclusions, and only mentioning the posssibilities as usual. This need a dedicated research.

 

[PSXerholic]

Me too! I'm unsure if that is the right article since I don't have a valid subscription anymore to this one:
"Comparative determinations of trace and minor elements in coral aragonite by ion microprobe analysis, with preliminary results from Phuket, southern Thailand"

That was (MAYBE) on of the publicaitons where I found interesting data for Barium and Rubidium.
You may have the "Grand-Access" rights here ;-)

What I read (or better understood) was basically that there were some indications that the symbiotic algae likely need the Rubidium as part of their metabolism and the hosts symbiotic bacteria in the tissue for certain biological processes to support certain cell reproduction processes, as you can imagine these articles do not end in final conclusions, and only mentioning the posssibilities as usual. This need a dedicated research.

Then these:

"Phylogenetic survey of metabolically active microbial communities associated with the deep-sea coral Lophelia pertusa from the Apulian plateau, Central Mediterranean Sea"

This is one of my favorites, should be still free for download:
"COMMUNITY ANALYSIS OF CORAL MUCUS-ASSOCIATED BACTERIA AND IMPACT OF TEMPERATURE AND CO2 CHANGES ON THEM"

"Chemical composition of corals in Saudi Red Sea CoastComposition chimique des coraux de la Côte de Mer Rouge en Arabic Saoudite"

Other readers :
(Un)fortunately there are copyright laws and regulations in place that do protect the scientific research from unauthorized publication, citing etc. Many don't even know that, and think everything is available for free sharing these days.

 

[PSXerholic]

I think you seem to be slightly misinterpreting the scientific method also.

I mean no offense, but it is literally impossible to properly scientifically prove the beneficial role of one element in such a chaotic complicated system. Where’s your control group? Where are the repeats?

a single tank dosed ‘moonshiner’ style compared to a different tank set up ‘normally’- EVERYTHING you do to compare them will be subjective since there are so many variables at play

I’m all for people trying new things or dosing this or that in there tank. It’s their tank, go for it! But if you show a picture and say it dose rubidium, look at the colours, science can’t explain it!”- that’s just a little disingenuous.

It’s a pretty tank, it gets rubidium. Why feel the need to bring science into it when there is literally no testable way to prove your point. It’s almost akin to a straw man argument and using ‘scientists’ as a punching bag because ‘they say it’s impossible’

just my 2 cents

Exactly what I was saying! Outsiders won't believe it anyways, and as mentioned, I can't spent the time to prove the world something ;-)
It's when the same effects appears in a very short time by just doing one and the same thing in multiple systems that are so dynamic in their nature, then these observations catch attention. That's how a "Reporting" starts.

 

[purp]

This would not be hard to experimentally verify, at all. Several tanks, same conditions, vary the rubidium dosing. Since you are the one making the assertion (and have a financial interest in people buying into your supplements and program), then the burden is on you to prove your theory.

I read the paper you listed earlier (Allison, 1996), and there is absolutely nothing in there that indicated that rubidium was in any way important to the function and growth of these coral. It merely listed the potential presence of Rb in coral using an extremely sensitive analytical method and different distributions in coral species throughout a relatively tight geographic area. Furthermore, in the abstract they note that the analysis of Rb may have been subject to interference and was not demonstrably real. Rubidium wasn't listed in the summary at all. It was so inconsequential (and again potentially not real) that they called it out initially in the abstract, and didn't talk about it in the summary. That should tell you something.

If you want my opinion, you know that most people are a) not going to read the papers you post and b) don't have sufficient chemistry or biology education to refute your assertions. You are using this knowledge to sell people products that are not based on anything other than feelings. I'm not saying I know better, but I do know that in my cursory reading that i am 0% convinced that with current data, that Rb is biologically imperative to coral growth.

To note, Rb is generally in associated with clay minerals, as it is an easy replacement ionically for several other elements in aluminosilicate minerals. If I was a betting man, I would put just as much money on the Rb being an inclusion from suspended clay minerals in the water column being assimilated into the surface of any coral as I would that they needed Rb to function biologically.

 

[User]

This would not be hard to experimentally verify, at all. Several tanks, same conditions, vary the rubidium dosing. Since you are the one making the assertion (and have a financial interest in people buying into your supplements and program), then the burden is on you to prove your theory.

I read the paper you listed earlier (Allison, 1996), and there is absolutely nothing in there that indicated that rubidium was in any way important to the function and growth of these coral. It merely listed the potential presence of Rb in coral using an extremely sensitive analytical method and different distributions in coral species throughout a relatively tight geographic area. Furthermore, in the abstract they note that the analysis of Rb may have been subject to interference and was not demonstrably real. Rubidium wasn't listed in the summary at all. It was so inconsequential (and again potentially not real) that they called it out initially in the abstract, and didn't talk about it in the summary. That should tell you something.

If you want my opinion, you know that most people are a) not going to read the papers you post and b) don't have sufficient chemistry or biology education to refute your assertions. You are using this knowledge to sell people products that are not based on anything other than feelings. I'm not saying I know better, but I do know that in my cursory reading that i am 0% convinced that with current data, that Rb is biologically imperative to coral growth.

To note, Rb is generally in associated with clay minerals, as it is an easy replacement ionically for several other elements in aluminosilicate minerals. If I was a betting man, I would put just as much money on the Rb being an inclusion from suspended clay minerals in the water column being assimilated into the surface of any coral as I would that they needed Rb to function biologically.

“This would not be hard to experimentally verify, at all. Several tanks, same conditions, vary the rubidium dosing”

I disagree. It’s a literal impossibility to faithfully replicate two tanks to the degree that would be required to see any differences.
Even two matching lights- aren’t truly matching . A 5% mismatch in spectrum could lead to a change later attributed to Rb dosing. Two power heads, positioned 2 degrees differently and 3% different in power, will produce different eddy currents.
Two heaters that have a slightly different construction may have a heating delta of a minute, but that could lead to localized differences in temp stability that could be a factor at the level of zooxanthellae

A system this complex is not experimentally tractable, which is why we rely on anecdotal evidence and perception.

it bothers me that the word ‘science’ was even mentioned in this thread, and that scientific articles are being shared when practically no one that reads them will have the ability to decipher them. Feels like an appeal to authority fallacy to gain validity

 

[purp]

I think all those factors could be mitigated by someone who is reasonably forward thinking and handy...