Dosing Rubidium

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I'm asking how this can work and if we really needs the other traces elements??

We certainly need them, but may not need to supplement them because all trace elements come in with foods. Perhaps that is enough in many cases.

 

[Superlightman]

We certainly need them, but may not need to supplement them because all trace elements come in with foods. Perhaps that is enough in many cases.

Glenn from dsr says that he use only proven elements in his methods and that you not need something else?I'm a bit skeptical but his tanks seems to work very well

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Glenn from dsr says that he use only proven elements in his methods and that you not need something else?I'm a bit skeptical but his tanks seems to work very well

Well, I think he means he only needs to keep track of certain things. Some people keep track of nothing, but that obviously doesn't mean nothing is needed.

The list of elements needed by the organisms in a reef tank is long. Dozens of elements. There is no debate on that.

But many of these may not need supplementation because foods and other processes we do bring them in.

 

[14 foot reef]

This has been a very educating thread, thanks to all the contributors here !!!

 

[Superlightman]

Well, I think he means he only needs to keep track of certain things. Some people keep track of nothing, but that obviously doesn't mean nothing is needed.

The list of elements needed by the organisms in a reef tank is long. Dozens of elements. There is no debate on that.

But many of these may not need supplementation because foods and other processes we do bring them in.

Mm not sure the foods brings all because for me for example in the icp I always lack of vanadium,zinc and nickel, something seems to use a lot of it.
Do you have this list if the needed organism or article I can read about this topic?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Mm not sure the foods brings all because for me for example in the icp I always lack of vanadium,zinc and nickel, something seems to use a lot of it.
Do you have this list if the needed organism or article I can read about this topic?

Food does bring in all trace elements needed, but it may not bring enough of any given one to satisfy the various sinks (both biological and abiotic such as precipitation) in any given reef tank.

Even a single algae needs a wide array of trace elements.

Here's an analysis of caulerpa (table 2) as an example of what feeding a macroalgae to a reef tank might add:

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-12/rs/feature/index.php

You can read more about needed trace elements in general by marine organisms here:

https://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/MorelMilliganSaito_TOG_35066.pdf

 

[mindme]

Just started the moonshiners method recently and I dosed the rubidium, so this thread caught my eye.

No idea if it will help or not, but 12 years ago people acted like trace minerals weren't a big deal. Most of what people said 12 years ago has turned out to be false.

I understand that it could be just that the element is inadvertently bound up in the skeleton, but it's something that depletes for some reason. And the way I see it, there is more to our tanks biology than just the coral. And the fact that it can be used to replace something that has known biological effects to me also suggest that it has a biological effect, even if that other element is present which may or may not have it trigger. Other organisms could be using it, who knows.

I'm fine for now dosing it along with the other trace elements I know are useful. I don't know which elements helped, but I have noticed that my zoa's are looking better than ever in just the past week. And a favia that I've had for over a year that has only been surviving and not growing has started showing signs of improvement. Sadly, it may be too little too late for that coral, as an encrusting LPS has been growing well this entire time and has started growing over it. And lately, it has been extra hungry as it's feeders are out almost all the time, rather than just when I feed.

Dosing trace elements is not new to me, I am switching over from the tropic marine a/k element with the BRS tri-balling method. I did however take a month off and did a series of water changes before starting the method.

Main things I dosed:

Boron 153.31 ml 1 day
Fluoride/Flourine 53.00 ml for 3 days
Rubidium 75.71 ml for 2 days, then 0.83 ml daily
Barium 48.60 ml for 4 days
Molybdenum 22.71 ml for 5 days
Zinc 1.26 ml for 3 days

Daily:
Manganese 0.76 ml
Chromium/Chrome 0.15 ml
Cobalt 0.15 ml
Iron 0.07 ml
Iodide: 6 drops seachem

I was dosing Iodide already, but at the bottles recommended dose weekly. I expect more minerals will get dosed in the future, some of my elements were already high from previous dosing. But these were the elements I dosed and again, the zoa's for sure look better than the old method. I don't know which one.

Edit: Also, I think I should clarify about the zoas. Most of the zoas/palys have been doing decently well, the palys too well to the point where I dislike them. Learned a lesson about buying zoas online, they may come small and look small, but some of them are just palys that grow long stalks and kill the smaller stuff. But anyway, my smaller polyp zoas have seemed to struggle. I've had 2 for about 6 months now and each of them has only produced 1 additional head. 2 polyps now is 3. Meanwhile other palys have taken out and are overgrowing other small zoas.

Those are the ones I've noticed the biggest difference in. They are extended out like never before. No new heads yet, but I expect them to start a growth spurt soon if they keep opening up this large.

 

[ddc0715]

I prefer real life reefers experiences vs a written document by a scientific mind..... for example, if a degree holding professional says that carrots are bad for you. yet people who eat them show no ill effects. so, who’s right? as degree holding individual, i can say that not all scientists or other professionals graduated with STRAIGHT A's.. they can error as well. i choose to believe the results from real world users. if the masses that eat carrots are still alive then I will believe their argument, before i buy into the opinion of a degree holding person...seems to me the users of it are pro-rubidium. I’m not trying to insult anyone’s knowledge base. risk assessments are part of my profession and I have yet to see real proof that its bad (just opinions based on conclusions of very little research). I always think of the Armageddon movie quote when I’m listening to professionals collaborate with confidence in their voice-----


"I know the president's chief scientific advisor; we were at MIT together. And, in a situation like this, you-you really don't wanna take the advice from a man who got a C- in astrophysics"

just my two cents..

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I prefer real life reefers experiences vs a written document by a scientific mind..... for example, if a degree holding professional says that carrots are bad for you. yet people who eat them show no ill effects. so, who’s right? as degree holding individual, i can say that not all scientists or other professionals graduated with STRAIGHT A's.. they can error as well. i choose to believe the results from real world users. if the masses that eat carrots are still alive then I will believe their argument, before i buy into the opinion of a degree holding person...seems to me the users of it are pro-rubidium. I’m not trying to insult anyone’s knowledge base. risk assessments are part of my profession and I have yet to see real proof that its bad (just opinions based on conclusions of very little research). I always think of the Armageddon movie quote when I’m listening to professionals collaborate with confidence in their voice-----


"I know the president's chief scientific advisor; we were at MIT together. And, in a situation like this, you-you really don't wanna take the advice from a man who got a C- in astrophysics"

just my two cents..

Does this post have a point related to rubidium?
Do you think real reefers think it useful or not?
What scientific mind are we talking about and what conclusion did that mind make that you do not believe?

It sounds like your post may have been more appropriate here:

Reefers may over-rely on personal experience to accept or reject truth

OK, I know that's a provocative title, but hear me out. From many, many discussions I have had with reefers over the past 25 years, it is clear to me that many folks easily accept ideas that mesh with their experience, and strongly reject those that do not. Unfortunately, this reliance on...

www.reef2reef.com

 

[ddc0715]

i did not read all 8-9 pages but yes it about rubidium.
seems people are on the fence about its usfulness. if its not of any use, or of very little use, or not needed in a reef tank then why does seachem have it as part of thier trace element.. seachem trace includes this element. so is that company wrong on its determination which found it useful? and if they are wrong then why is it in their products... srry if this has been asked already.

 

[TokenReefer]

I'd imagine, not knowing it's exact usefulness some effort is made to simply mimic natural seawater where it is present... Good question though.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

if its not of any use, or of very little use, or not needed in a reef tank then why does seachem have it as part of thier trace element.. seachem trace includes this element. so is that company wrong on its determination which found it useful? and if they are wrong then why is it in their products... srry if this has been asked already.

Seachem clearly lacks understanding of some of their own products and makes blatant false statements in describing them. To use the fact that Seachem includes it in a mixed additive is less than convincing that it has value.

There is nothing wrong or mistaken by including it, particularly as a marketing ploy. Smart, perhaps, even if it is useless.

Still, if you think Seachem is smarter than all the scientists who have studied it in detail for decades and found no organism that requires it, then by all means support them and buy the product.

 

[Lasse]

After 2.5 years dosing Rb to natural concentrations - I can´t see any effects that I can directly and solely link to the rubidium dosing. The LPS that start to be better after the Rb dosing is today dead and the others is like they use to be. My stony corals are rather "hard" and compact - but the reason for this i unknown and probably it is depended of many factors - as you can see in my last ICP-MS test - i´m rather on track with most

Sincerely Lasse

 

[ddc0715]

i dont like thier produts either.lol

but manufactors rep was not the point i was trying to make. my bad. im about to start dosing this so this is my reason for wanting to know more in pointing out debable topics. i latched on to NOT USEFUL SO that sparked my intrest.

Sea Water Complex Korallen-Zucht has it.​

ATI NANO ESSENTIALS has it

AquaLife Reef Trace has it j​

just to name a few.again just wondering why its include if not proven useful..

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

i dont like thier produts either.lol

but manufactors rep was not the point i was trying to make. my bad. im about to start dosing this so this is my reason for wanting to know more in pointing out debable topics. i latched on to NOT USEFUL SO that sparked my intrest.

Sea Water Complex Korallen-Zucht has it.​

ATI NANO ESSENTIALS has it

AquaLife Reef Trace has it j​

just to name a few.again just wondering why its include if not proven useful..

My expectation is that companies add NSW ingredients to try to match natural seawater components , as opposed to due to demonstrated benefit of each individual component.

I do that myself in my diy recipes for things like magnesium supplements, without any evidence of how important it is or is not to match natural seawater ratios of the other ingredients such as chloride and sulfate.

 

[Stigigemla]

A few years ago a lot of reefers wanted to have the natural sea water levels of every component in the water.
Some manufacturers even listed every element they had in their salt in order to convince their customers that the more components it had the better it would be.
And reefers told that a substance is missing in salt A but is in salt B so I use B. It could just be an inert thing but if you are a nerd you go in details. And then it is easy to bury onself in things that does not matter at all.

Now we also know that natural values is not so good in aquariums. We have much more uptake of substances from corals and in stones and sand so natural values can deplete before noon and then be too high after the night.
So now most reefers try to have a safety margin nowadays so all essential substances are available 24/7.

 

[Superlightman]

My expectation is that companies add NSW ingredients to try to match natural seawater components , as opposed to due to demonstrated benefit of each individual component.

I do that myself in my diy recipes for things like magnesium supplements, without any evidence of how important it is or is not to match natural seawater ratios of the other ingredients such as chloride and sulfate.

This is probably true for most of them but for Korallenzucht and Sangokai for example not, they are known for add just products from which they saw positives results in their Testing. Unfortunately, both keep secret why they add this or these products in their mixtures.

 

[Superlightman]

this is what is written in the moonshiner method:
Rubidium is not a mandatory element to be dosed in the beginning, however it has shown to be extremely beneficial to mixed reefs that also include Torches, Zoa, and exotic Shrooms and other Soft corals. The experience is from trials is that Bounces and Shrooms and Zoa are reproducing much quicker and more than without the supplementation of Rubidium.