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

[X-37B]

You know the saying, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Even before I headed down the RM method, my motto was some trace elements are better than none but less is better than more

Agree. We have talked before. I run DSR EZ trace and have for 6 years now. Still may give MS a go some day. I may setup another nano for it as I dont want to fix whats not broke, lol.
Looking forward to watching your new build come together.

 

[92Miata]

The difference is large enough that you can visually see the differences.

If there is an issue with the method, it's the costs. However thus far outside the initial investment($400+), it's been coming in around the price of water changes when I average it out over months.

If anyone thinks trace elements aren't a big deal, make the same mistake I did when I started my 180g, don't do a water change for 3 months and don't add trace elements because you think they'll last a long time and aren't that important.

They'll get depleted and your coral will brown and suffer. Then without doing a water change, just add in trace elements. You'll see the coral suddenly bounce back and thrive in less than 2 weeks, most of them within days.

After that, you'll never question the need for trace elements.

See the difference from what? Are you running side-by-side parameter matched tanks where you follow Moonshiners method with ICPs in one tank, and dose trace by bottle directions in the other?

The question is not whether or not trace elements are needed - or course corals need trace amounts of certain elements - the question is whether the specifics of Moonshiner's attempt to precisely dose trace using inaccurate ICP results works better than dosing trace without ICP testing.

"My tank looks better now" isn't a validation of this hypothesis. This thread is about the value of ICP tests.

 

[mindme]

See the difference from what? Are you running side-by-side parameter matched tanks where you follow Moonshiners method with ICPs in one tank, and dose trace by bottle directions in the other?

The question is not whether or not trace elements are needed - or course corals need trace amounts of certain elements - the question is whether the specifics of Moonshiner's attempt to precisely dose trace using inaccurate ICP results works better than dosing trace without ICP testing.

"My tank looks better now" isn't a validation of this hypothesis. This thread is about the value of ICP tests.

How do you know how much to dose if you don't know what your current levels are?

It's funny because the rule use to be - don't dose anything you can't test for. Now for some reason, that's under attack.

If you don't want to run the moonshiners method....then don't run it. It doesn't make a difference to me. I'm just tired of hearing people make claims about these things that are just extremely untrue.

And I think the scientific method stuff is a cop out. Sure, I'd love to see more science about this stuff. But science is based on observations and it doesn't take a scientist to see differences in those observations. Do I know exactly why or what element is working for what coral? Not a clue. Do I care? Absolutely not.

 

[92Miata]

How do you know how much to dose if you don't know what your current levels are?

It's funny because the rule use to be - don't dose anything you can't test for. Now for some reason, that's under attack.

If you don't want to run the moonshiners method....then don't run it. It doesn't make a difference to me. I'm just tired of hearing people make claims about these things that are just extremely untrue.

And I think the scientific method stuff is a cop out. Sure, I'd love to see more science about this stuff. But science is based on observations and it doesn't take a scientist to see differences in those observations. Do I know exactly why or what element is working for what coral? Not a clue. Do I care? Absolutely not.

Can you point out what claim is untrue?

Again, the question is not about whether trace elements are necessary - the question is whether ICP tests are necessary to dose trace.


"How do you know how much to dose if you don't know what your current levels are?"

The retort to this is "How do you know how much to dose when you don't actually know what safe levels are, and your tests aren't actually accurate?".


Bad data is worse than no data.

 

[Chris Spaulding]

I to have been running the RM method for a year now. I do not run an ICP every month any more but on about a 3 month basis.What RM has done for me is help me understand the the overall relationship of elements and their trends for my tank. Is it right for every one,nope only you can decide for your self. Is it the only way? Nope. Is it snake oil? IMO Nope.
I do know that now that my system is where it is at I have no fear for adding any coral to the system.

 

[mindme]

Can you point out what claim is untrue?

Again, the question is not about whether trace elements are necessary - the question is whether ICP tests are necessary to dose trace.


"How do you know how much to dose if you don't know what your current levels are?"

The retort to this is "How do you know how much to dose when you don't actually know what safe levels are, and your tests aren't actually accurate?".


Bad data is worse than no data.

What do you mean the tests aren't actually accurate? They are as accurate as any other tests you do. All tests have a margin of error.

It's not bad data at all. The OP made claims and didn't post a single result of the tests. We literally have no clue how different the numbers are, and if they fall within the margins of error.

Does it really matter if your calcium reading is 430 or 450? Or is it more about maintaining a level within certain ranges? The correct answer is within ranges and trying to keep it as stable as possible. So does it matter if my Barium is a little off due to margin of error? No.

What does matter is if I go blindly dosing the element without a clue how much is in the tank.

 

[dvgyfresh]

Can you point out what claim is untrue?

Again, the question is not about whether trace elements are necessary - the question is whether ICP tests are necessary to dose trace.


"How do you know how much to dose if you don't know what your current levels are?"

The retort to this is "How do you know how much to dose when you don't actually know what safe levels are, and your tests aren't actually accurate?".


Bad data is worse than no data.

Well “safe levels” are usually represented by NSW levels from the ocean and ICP does tell you if your over / under those levels. That said I don’t send in ICP tests and run my own moonshiners method with no water changes. I just dose cal / alk / mg and Kent marine essential elements. I use the eye test which will probly get a lot of flak lol

 

[ReefRxSWFL]

Yeah man, everything I do in my tank is verified scientifically.

Meanwhile, you made this thread which is anything but scientific.

Oh, ya got me. Go do something important with the other guy. This threads not for you, but we appreciate your valuable contribution

 

[mindme]

Oh, ya got me. Go do something important with the other guy. This threads not for you, but we appreciate your valuable contribution

Post the results.

You made this thread, made the claims, provide nothing to back up your claims, then demand scientific results from anyone who disputes your claims.

You don't get to decide what threads people participate in, sorry.

 

[ReefRxSWFL]

What do you mean the tests aren't actually accurate? They are as accurate as any other tests you do. All tests have a margin of error.

It's not bad data at all. The OP made claims and didn't post a single result of the tests. We literally have no clue how different the numbers are, and if they fall within the margins of error.

Does it really matter if your calcium reading is 430 or 450? Or is it more about maintaining a level within certain ranges? The correct answer is within ranges and trying to keep it as stable as possible. So does it matter if my Barium is a little off due to margin of error? No.

What does matter is if I go blindly dosing the element without a clue how much is in the tank.

Well, back when i worked for Merck, in QC, we had mass specs, and they were over 99% accurate all the time. But yes, thats not 100%. So I have first hand experience using a mass spec.

Next time you test, just send 2 samples from the same tank , and see what comes back. Then you can know your correct or not.

I just know for a fact, that the margin of error on a mass spec is way less than 1%, if the user knows what they are doing, and calibrate the machine correctly at the manufacturers recommended frequency.

 

[ReefRxSWFL]

Post the results.

You made this thread, made the claims, provide nothing to back up your claims, then demand scientific results from anyone who disputes your claims.

You don't get to decide what threads people participate in, sorry.

And you’re not my mother, so i can just ignore your invaluable comments. Its mind over matter. I don't mind, bc you don't matter.

 

[mindme]

Well, back when i worked for Merck, in QC, we had mass specs, and they were over 99% accurate all the time. But yes, thats not 100%. So I have first hand experience using a mass spec.

Next time you test, just send 2 samples from the same tank , and see what comes back. Then you can know your correct or not.

I just know for a fact, that the margin of error on a mass spec is way less than 1%, if the user knows what they are doing, and calibrate the machine correctly at the manufacturers recommended frequency.

Post the results so people can see. It's that easy.

 

[mindme]

And you’re not my mother, so i can just ignore your invaluable comments. Its mind over matter. I don't mind, bc you don't matter.

Sure, and if that is what you really believed you wouldn't need to tell me.

 

[92Miata]

What do you mean the tests aren't actually accurate? They are as accurate as any other tests you do. All tests have a margin of error.

It's not bad data at all. The OP made claims and didn't post a single result of the tests. We literally have no clue how different the numbers are, and if they fall within the margins of error.

Does it really matter if your calcium reading is 430 or 450? Or is it more about maintaining a level within certain ranges? The correct answer is within ranges and trying to keep it as stable as possible. So does it matter if my Barium is a little off due to margin of error? No.

What does matter is if I go blindly dosing the element without a clue how much is in the tank.

Have you read the thread you're responding to? This is a serious question.


Not only are ICP test results all over the place - they don't distinguish between usable and unusable forms. They are absolutely not "as accurate as any other tests".

What does matter is if I go blindly dosing the element without a clue how much is in the tank.

It matters because you literally just argued that it was vital to know, and that no one should dose something without testing.

Do you want me to post you a screenshot of you arguing that?

 

[mindme]

Have you read the thread you're responding to? This is a serious question.


Not only are ICP test results all over the place - they don't distinguish between usable and unusable forms. They are absolutely not "as accurate as any other tests".



It matters because you literally just argued that it was vital to know.

Where are the results from the test the OP did. Because if they are in this thread, then yes I have missed them.

What tests do you feel are more accurate?

 

[mindme]

It matters because you literally just argued that it was vital to know, and that no one should dose something without testing.

If you don't understand the difference between something needing to be exact and something needing to be within a certain range, then I'm just not sure what to say.

I mean the fact I dose some elements only 1 time a month in itself says that the levels of that element over the course of the month are changing. What I don't want to do is dose that element to the point it becomes toxic, or not dose enough so that it's constantly bottomed out.

I don't know where this "exact 100% accurate" need comes from, other than you and a few others seem to be taking things to an extreme to argue.

 

[92Miata]

Where are the results from the test the OP did. Because if they are in this thread, then yes I have missed them.

What tests do you feel are more accurate?

More accurate than some random, non-certified pop-up lab, testing things with no distinction between whether they're organic or inorganic? With no distinction in whether or not they're even soluble?

Pretty much all of them.

If you don't understand the difference between something needing to be exact and something needing to be within a certain range, then I'm just not sure what to say.

But your ICP doesn't tell you that - because it has no way to tell whether things are organic, inorganic, or even soluble - something that targeted chemical tests can.

And you absolutely can hit the same sort of ballpark without testing. That's literally what the directions on the bottle are for.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

How long has it been since you had a reef tank? Have you actually ever tried any of the methods you dismiss?

Let's see the results of the RHF method.

lol

I posted a thread a while back on what I thought was a dream methodology. It is fairly similar to moonshiners that you claim I’m dismissing. So don’t be so quick to criticize my ideas without understanding them. I actually do not think I posted anything other than some issues that relate to imperfect testing capability and imperfect knowledge of what corals actually require, and how one might be successful even in spite of both facts.

Thus is the thread:

Randy's Dream Methodology

What husbandry would I do in a dream tank? (some of this may look familiar as some was posted elsewhere in other threads) In terms of water chemistry maintenance, I'd maintain calcium and alkalinity with limewater/kalkwasser (maybe pH limited to pH 8.55 or less to prevent overdose; probably on...

www.reef2reef.com

you can see my tank description, methods, and pictures here:

Randy's Tank Description

In this thread, I thought I'd document my tank and the variety of methods I use on it. It has been set up since 1995, but it moved from a 90 to a 120 at one point, got broken down and the rocks scrubbed at another, and rock has been added to it a couple of times. As can be seen from the...

www.reef2reef.com

Here’s a picture of my tank from the thread:

 

[mindme]

More accurate than some random, non-certified pop-up lab, testing things with no distinction between whether they're organic or inorganic? With no distinction in whether or not they're even soluble?

Pretty much all of them.

Ok, so name some of them. Sounds like you should have no trouble. I would be happy to change to a more accurate test.

But your ICP doesn't tell you that - because it has no way to tell whether things are organic, inorganic, or even soluble - something that targeted chemical tests can.

And you absolutely can hit the same sort of ballpark without testing. That's literally what the directions on the bottle are for.

The things you mention are taken into account. The reason some elements are dosed monthly and some are dosed daily has to do with their life cycle and how long they last before being converted into something else, etc.

I didn't create the method, so I don't know about all the elements etc. But I dose seachem iodide. I was following the directions on the bottle until recently, and my iodine was always low. Now based on the MS method I'm dosing it daily and dosing more of it. I dose 16 drops of it a day, and my levels come back in good range.

I think the bigger question is if all the elements I'm dosing are having an effect rather than if the way I'm basing my dosing amounts is correct. Maybe it's just 1 or 2 elements that really matter, I don't know.

 

[mindme]

lol

I posted a thread a while back on what I thought was a dream methodology. It is fairly similar to moonshiners that you claim I’m dismissing. So don’t be so quick to criticize my ideas without understanding them. I actually do not think I posted anything other than some issues that relate to imperfect testing capability and imperfect knowledge of what corals actually require, and how one might be successful even in spite of both facts.

Thus is the thread:

Randy's Dream Methodology

What husbandry would I do in a dream tank? (some of this may look familiar as some was posted elsewhere in other threads) In terms of water chemistry maintenance, I'd maintain calcium and alkalinity with limewater/kalkwasser (maybe pH limited to pH 8.55 or less to prevent overdose; probably on...

www.reef2reef.com

you can see my tank description, methods, and pictures here:

Randy's Tank Description

In this thread, I thought I'd document my tank and the variety of methods I use on it. It has been set up since 1995, but it moved from a 90 to a 120 at one point, got broken down and the rocks scrubbed at another, and rock has been added to it a couple of times. As can be seen from the...

www.reef2reef.com

Here’s a picture of my tank from the thread:

Seemed like you were making a broad dismissal.

Also, I would say that not all the elements are for coral. Microbes and other stuff use them as well, and I'm guessing it would have an effect on that side of the tank as well. Yet, I have no idea how that stuff would all interact.

I'll be the first to say I have no idea if all the elements really matter, or how they matter. All I can says is that i'm happy with the results and that it's working for whatever reason. Most of the elements are really cheap to dose. I don't see the harm in spending $1 a month to keep an element I don't understand near natural sea water levels.