ICP. Ho.. Huh, What is it goo-ood for? Absolutely….

[mindme]

One answer is that there is a wide latitude in trace element concentration that coral can tolerate which makes ICP testing unnecessary. Said differently, you can be successful with or without ICP testing.
.
This hobby seems to be littered with ideas experts say are musts for success only to be shown later to be not so critical. ICP testing might join this collection of ideas.

It's not critical. I went for over 10 years without.

But the difference is now I don't do water changes, where as previously I did water changes...less often than I should have, and the results showed. Mostly surviving, occasionally growing for a short time period after a water change. But even in the growing times, never the kind of growth I'm getting now, and certainly not the same colors.

And now that I'm using this method without the water changes, which is so much easier, the results are showing there as well. I've had 2 coral deaths in the past 2 years. My issue now is that my corals are starting to grow over each other, because I love encrusting coral.

 

[Billys_reef]

Can you post the results of the test? This way we can see how large the difference is

 

[ReefRxSWFL]

You can certainly grow corals with other methods, I did it for 10 years. But I don't think you'll get the same amount of growth and color with just water changes. I certainly didn't anyway.

And as for not seeing the value. Are you talking about trace elements or testing them?

Do you know why your coral perk up when you do water changes? Because you replenished a small amount of the trace elements in the water. The water change perk goes away after a few days, because the 20% of the elements they get max isn't really cutting it. They survive, grow a little, but they don't thrive.

That perk is full time when you give a crap about low vanadium and high boron levels.

Have you verified scientifically thats why corals perk up? Because marine biologists thatI know can not confirm that.

How do you know its not the nurtient reduction, and now, the corals are sticking out their tongues to catch more nutrients?

How do you know it isnt because of the reduction of organic acids, which dont neutralize with carbonates or bicarbonates?

When you have a doctorate or even a masters, you tend not to base assumptions or beliefs you read on forums, then spit them out as fact.

If you know thats what happens with water changes and trace, and its effects on corals, you should publish so your assertion can be reviewed to verify its accuracy.

Because no one in the scientific community has been able to show what you claim. Good job!

 

[ReefRxSWFL]

Since when is an inkbird a must

After youve had your first heater fail and almost lose or lose a tank, for $30, you learn its a must.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

What's wrong with prime? It works great neutralizing chlorine in tap water for freshwater tanks. Not sure what use it would have in saltwater

The concern is not for chlorine, but for ammonia, nitrite and nitrate claims.

The latter two are most clear it does not work (even Seachem admits on their web site that the only reason they make claims about nitrate is because some users said it worked lol )

here's the more complicated ammonia discussion:

Prime Does Not Remove Ammonia

Last August we discussed data that cast doubt on the ability of Prime to remove ammonia from artificial seawater. https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/does-prime-actually-detoxify-free-ammonia-nh3.849985/ Since then, I continued the search for evidence that Prime removed ammonia from artificial...

www.reef2reef.com

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I have read up on the Moonshiner process. They rely on icp test to maintain their systems with no water changes. How are they successful at the adds they do if the tests are not accurate?
They use icp to add many different elements.
If icp is that inaccurate then how are they getting the results they attribute to their method?
Just wondering as I do not run their method.

No one has EVER proven that corals need trace elements at any given concentration. As long as there is enough for them to get what they need, but not enough to be toxic, that may be all corals care about.

So if you dose lots of different trace elements, regardless of whether you use ICP or not, you may hit that window much better than people who do not dose those same elements.

Thus, moonshiners can be wildly successful without that being evidence that ICP is particularly accurate for any given element.

 

[ReefRxSWFL]

The concern is not for chlorine, but for ammonia, nitrite and nitrate claims.

The latter two are most clear it does not work (even Seachem admits on their web site that the only reason they make claims about nitrate is because some users said it worked lol )

here's the more complicated ammonia discussion:

Prime Does Not Remove Ammonia

Last August we discussed data that cast doubt on the ability of Prime to remove ammonia from artificial seawater. https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/does-prime-actually-detoxify-free-ammonia-nh3.849985/ Since then, I continued the search for evidence that Prime removed ammonia from artificial...

www.reef2reef.com

What I love about RHF.

Talking about reef chemistry is like lighting the Bat Signal. Then he appears, and resolves all chemistry discussions!

If he does it while dressed like a bat, thats his business.

as always ty RHF!

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

It's kind of funny
I have used Prime, Vibrant, Purple Up and a host of other things in a bottle. They worked.
I used Prime to treat the ammonia levels after my live rock shipped in. Vibrant got rid of some bryopsis for me. The Purple up was long ago and I dont remember. I have used Chemiclean a bunch of times.

And then I come down to is this another random rant on the internet.
My experiences with ICP testing don't agree with yours about that either.

So have fun and I wont waste any more of my time here

Just to whittle that list down to what actually supports your point that the internet just rants...

Vibrant is an issue not because of whether it works, but because it is not what it claimed to be. Rants about its contents are not reduced in importance by your experience.

Chemiclean is an issue not because of whether it works, but because it IS what it misleads users about what it is not (erythromycin). Rants about its contents are not reduced in importance by your experience.

Purple Up is (was? not sure if it is still sold) an issue because it makes claims that are untrue. It might boost coralline for reasons unrelated to being a source of dissolved calcium and alkalinity. Rants about its contents are not reduced in importance by your experience.

Maybe these rants are all justified.

 

[WVNed]

Just to whittle that list down to what actually supports your point that the internet just rants...

Vibrant is an issue not because of whether it works, but because it is not what it claimed to be. Rants about its contents are not reduced in importance by your experience.

Chemiclean is an issue not because of whether it works, but because it IS what it misleads users about what it is not (erythromycin). Rants about its contents are not reduced in importance by your experience.

Purple Up is (was? not sure if it is still sold) an issue because it makes claims that are untrue. It might boost coralline for reasons unrelated to being a source of dissolved calcium and alkalinity. Rants about its contents are not reduced in importance by your experience.

Maybe these rants are all justified.

So it doesn't matter if it does what it says it does when I buy it.

Perhaps we just have different priorities.

Continue with your rants while I go do something useful.

 

[ReefRxSWFL]

Just to whittle that list down to what actually supports your point that the internet just rants...

Vibrant is an issue not because of whether it works, but because it is not what it claimed to be. Rants about its contents are not reduced in importance by your experience.

Chemiclean is an issue not because of whether it works, but because it IS what it misleads users about what it is not (erythromycin). Rants about its contents are not reduced in importance by your experience.

Purple Up is (was? not sure if it is still sold) an issue because it makes claims that are untrue. It might boost coralline for reasons unrelated to being a source of dissolved calcium and alkalinity. Rants about its contents are not reduced in importance by your experience.

Maybe these rants are all justified.

I know this is not in the RHF realm of expertise, but I would love to see a scientific research project to identify the percentage of scotomisation in reefing related to products. Where someone sees subjective results that aren't there to justify and defend purchases of products , especially bottled products with claims, and mystery ingredients that dont have data or research to support said claims.

 

[ReefRxSWFL]

So it doesn't matter if it does what it says it does when I buy it.

Perhaps we just have different priorities.

Continue with your rants while I go do something useful.

Go do that. But you're obviously paying attention, because unless Im wrong, you let everyone know you are above this did a mic drop, walk off stage previously

 

[PeterC99]

I did some ICP testing for the sole purpose of checking for things like Al from the bio-bricks, or possibly metals I didnt want in there, not for the nonsense in the results, like “you need vanadium”. But what i did get is confirmation how useless they actually are.

It would be important to get confirmation that the hobby grade kits you use keep you in the ballpark, so, of course, dKh, Ca, Mg, Nitrate, phosphate, maybe iodine, manganese, iron, potassium……

So after that first round, i decided to send that lab 3 tests, but from the same tank, at the same exact time and labeled as 3 different tanks. The results should have been the same, or at least similar, right?

So, i ordered 3 tests from another, did the same thing, and again…. Results should have been the same? Similar?

yeah, both answers are no. How are they getting away with this?

do they have Phd Chemists operating the machine, or just some dude with a liberal arts degree and has a fish tank and started a YouTube channel?

now, i do have experience using a mass-spec, and when I used on samples, the same sample when rechecked, had the same exact results.

Im sure someone is going to say how well ICP does for them, but for me, Shenanigans confirmed.

Can you elaborate more on the variances you received? Was every parameter different and what’s was the size of the variances?

 

[Morpheosz]

This thread has gotten a bit heated and I don't want to add to that friction, but have had a desire to share some recent experience I had with the Triton method and ICP. This is of course an experiment of one and there were various variables at play making it hard to completely nail down the cause and effect.

I setup my new 75 at the end of the year so it is now 6 months old. I set it up with the Triton method just because it was something new since the last time I had a tank (20 years ago) and I was curious to see how it worked. I had been dosing the Core 7 elements and testing Alk on nearly a daily basis. I also tested phosphates nearly daily as well as they were subject to depletion pretty quickly so I setup a doser with Neophos as well to keep them from bottoming out (.01-.05 typically). Everything was going swimmingly up until the 3 month mark. No ugly phase, coralline exploded from the get go, lots of frags doing well and growing.

The one issue I had around the 3-4 month mark was all of the sudden I lost half a dozen SPS frags, that were growing, over the course of a few weeks (tissue receded to nothing) and I had a variety of euphyllia that weren't looking awesome overall: some looking ok, some not so great, a few really struggling. At the time, the one pest I had was some bryopsis so I opted to try a run of fluconazole. It appeared to do a good job eliminating the bryopsis without making anything else better or worse. What's noteworthy about that is that at the end of that treatment, per instructions, I did a 30% water change. This was my first water change since I was doing the Triton method.

Immediately post water change, all of the euphyllia that were doing poor to ok bounced back to looking great. Other corals that appeared to be doing great, reached new levels of extension and overall vitality in appearance.

The reason I post this here is just to share that I had done 2 ICP tests along the way of those initial 4 months that showed that everything was right on track, no issues whatsoever. I'm not suggesting they were wrong necessarily, but I hypothesize that there was something else that the corals were either lacking or suffering from that wasn't in the test that the water change helped to remedy. Ever since I've started doing 10% weekly and all of the corals continue to flourish.

All this is a bit anecdotal, but just sharing my experience. I'm likely going to move to 2 part when my current batch of Core7 runs out and stick with the water changes as it seems to be working much better in my situation than Triton / ICP.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

So it doesn't matter if it does what it says it does when I buy it.

Perhaps we just have different priorities.

Continue with your rants while I go do something useful.

Yes, different priorities apparently. I will always rant against products and companies that mislead reefers.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I know this is not in the RHF realm of expertise, but I would love to see a scientific research project to identify the percentage of scotomisation in reefing related to products.

Wow, you don’t see that word ever day. I had to look it up. Might have been a word banned by REEF2REEF. lol

I agree it would be interesting.

 

[92Miata]

I have read up on the Moonshiner process. They rely on icp test to maintain their systems with no water changes. How are they successful at the adds they do if the tests are not accurate?

Is there proof they are?

Nobody does blind tests with controls in this industry - so there's no real good way to tell if moonshiners ICP based testing is really any better than just dosing whatever the bottle says. People love their methods and systems.

There's testimonials, sure - but testimonials are prone to placebo effect and unconscious biases.

 

[ReefRxSWFL]

This thread has gotten a bit heated and I don't want to add to that friction, but have had a desire to share some recent experience I had with the Triton method and ICP. This is of course an experiment of one and there were various variables at play making it hard to completely nail down the cause and effect.

I setup my new 75 at the end of the year so it is now 6 months old. I set it up with the Triton method just because it was something new since the last time I had a tank (20 years ago) and I was curious to see how it worked. I had been dosing the Core 7 elements and testing Alk on nearly a daily basis. I also tested phosphates nearly daily as well as they were subject to depletion pretty quickly so I setup a doser with Neophos as well to keep them from bottoming out (.01-.05 typically). Everything was going swimmingly up until the 3 month mark. No ugly phase, coralline exploded from the get go, lots of frags doing well and growing.

The one issue I had around the 3-4 month mark was all of the sudden I lost half a dozen SPS frags, that were growing, over the course of a few weeks (tissue receded to nothing) and I had a variety of euphyllia that weren't looking awesome overall: some looking ok, some not so great, a few really struggling. At the time, the one pest I had was some bryopsis so I opted to try a run of fluconazole. It appeared to do a good job eliminating the bryopsis without making anything else better or worse. What's noteworthy about that is that at the end of that treatment, per instructions, I did a 30% water change. This was my first water change since I was doing the Triton method.

Immediately post water change, all of the euphyllia that were doing poor to ok bounced back to looking great. Other corals that appeared to be doing great, reached new levels of extension and overall vitality in appearance.

The reason I post this here is just to share that I had done 2 ICP tests along the way of those initial 4 months that showed that everything was right on track, no issues whatsoever. I'm not suggesting they were wrong necessarily, but I hypothesize that there was something else that the corals were either lacking or suffering from that wasn't in the test that the water change helped to remedy. Ever since I've started doing 10% weekly and all of the corals continue to flourish.

All this is a bit anecdotal, but just sharing my experience. I'm likely going to move to 2 part when my current batch of Core7 runs out and stick with the water changes as it seems to be working much better in my situation than Triton / ICP.

My assumption is with good husbandry, I'm sure you will be just as successful with any version of 2 part you choose.

My beef with ICP outside the variability i found, is there is no acrual research that shows what value most of those elements have. I realize they base it on natural seawater, but two major points that are not disputable:



1) there is nothing natural about our reef tanks, so to assume natural sea water is the answer to a completely un-natural ecosystem is a claim based on assumption, not scientific data or research

2) Most of those elements in “natural seawater” or ICP results has any evidence based data showing they have value to any reef inhabitants.

I would like to see invesment in real research to get answers to what benefits and what does not. Not someone buying a bottle of Reef Magic, that claims rainbows will shoot out your tanks, then says “my tank looks better”.

 

[X-37B]

Is there proof they are?

Nobody does blind tests with controls in this industry - so there's no real good way to tell if moonshiners ICP based testing is really any better than just dosing whatever the bottle says. People love their methods and systems.

There's testimonials, sure - but testimonials are prone to placebo effect and unconscious biases.

I suppose all their customers are the only proof they need. They use ati only and say others are not accurate or test for enough elements.
I am just pondering the question as they have a large following.
I have no interest in using their method but am interested as to why so many follow their lead.
If you talk to people that use their system they will argue that theirs is the best and brings the most color.
I do not have the time or patience to argue with the know it all reefers. But thats just me.

 

[X-37B]

No one has EVER proven that corals need trace elements at any given concentration. As long as there is enough for them to get what they need, but not enough to be toxic, that may be all corals care about.

So if you dose lots of different trace elements, regardless of whether you use ICP or not, you may hit that window much better than people who do not dose those same elements.

Thus, moonshiners can be wildly successful without that being evidence that ICP is particularly accurate for any given element.

Thanks! That makes more sense to me. I am just not a fan of adding elements that are not proven usefull.

 

[ReefRxSWFL]

This thread has gotten a bit heated and I don't want to add to that friction, but have had a desire to share some recent experience I had with the Triton method and ICP. This is of course an experiment of one and there were various variables at play making it hard to completely nail down the cause and effect.

I setup my new 75 at the end of the year so it is now 6 months old. I set it up with the Triton method just because it was something new since the last time I had a tank (20 years ago) and I was curious to see how it worked. I had been dosing the Core 7 elements and testing Alk on nearly a daily basis. I also tested phosphates nearly daily as well as they were subject to depletion pretty quickly so I setup a doser with Neophos as well to keep them from bottoming out (.01-.05 typically). Everything was going swimmingly up until the 3 month mark. No ugly phase, coralline exploded from the get go, lots of frags doing well and growing.

The one issue I had around the 3-4 month mark was all of the sudden I lost half a dozen SPS frags, that were growing, over the course of a few weeks (tissue receded to nothing) and I had a variety of euphyllia that weren't looking awesome overall: some looking ok, some not so great, a few really struggling. At the time, the one pest I had was some bryopsis so I opted to try a run of fluconazole. It appeared to do a good job eliminating the bryopsis without making anything else better or worse. What's noteworthy about that is that at the end of that treatment, per instructions, I did a 30% water change. This was my first water change since I was doing the Triton method.

Immediately post water change, all of the euphyllia that were doing poor to ok bounced back to looking great. Other corals that appeared to be doing great, reached new levels of extension and overall vitality in appearance.

The reason I post this here is just to share that I had done 2 ICP tests along the way of those initial 4 months that showed that everything was right on track, no issues whatsoever. I'm not suggesting they were wrong necessarily, but I hypothesize that there was something else that the corals were either lacking or suffering from that wasn't in the test that the water change helped to remedy. Ever since I've started doing 10% weekly and all of the corals continue to flourish.

All this is a bit anecdotal, but just sharing my experience. I'm likely going to move to 2 part when my current batch of Core7 runs out and stick with the water changes as it seems to be working much better in my situation than Triton / ICP.

This isnt heated. No one has even brought up lighting, quarantine or an Apex yet.