Is a complete list of ingredients available for Balling part C?

Randy Holmes-Farley

Reef Chemist
View Badges
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
76,144
Reaction score
75,343
Location
Massachusetts, United States
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Again, let me just repeat to make this ultra clear. There is no uncertainty whatsoever about the composition of Balling Part C, assuming the folks from Tropic marin are not lying. I have been over this many times with Lou Ekus, and he is ultra clear that it is a high quality seawater ion composition without sodium and chloride. The minor issue of the alk and calcium compotent that I expected wasn't there, isn't by Maimi's testing.


This is an example where Lou and i are discussing how ion balanced ESV B-ionic is compared to TM Balling.

As you know , Randy, I have to disagree. I will give you that a properly designed two part system can very closely approximate the ionic balance achieved by the Balling Method. But I strongly disagree, and feel it is a very misleading statement to say, that the well designed two part system accomplishes "exactly what the Balling Method does in terms of ionic balance"! The ONLY way it could do that is if it contained ALL 70 (let's not argue about that number, I'm rounding off) of the trace elements found in natural sea water. And I don't know if ANY two part system that does that.
 
Last edited:

rtparty

5000 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
5,958
Reaction score
10,165
Location
Utah
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
When they say it contains 70 elements in that description they are likely referring to their complete balling method overall. Not just in part C. Notice they reference the Alk and Calc parts as well in that description. Not 70 elements just in part C. That is how I read it….

Part A and B contain no trace elements. They are sodium bicarbonate and calcium. That’s it.

Lou has explicitly stated Part C contains all 70 trace elements found in NSW. But don’t quote that 70 number. Which is an odd thing to say but so be it.

They are basically taking their Pro Reef salt and not adding the Sodium Chloride part. Which makes sense. Salt mixes are like 80-85% NaCl if memory serves.
 

Mels_Reef

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 29, 2024
Messages
129
Reaction score
89
Location
Ohio
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Part A and B contain no trace elements. They are sodium bicarbonate and calcium. That’s it.

Lou has explicitly stated Part C contains all 70 trace elements found in NSW. But don’t quote that 70 number. Which is an odd thing to say but so be it.

They are basically taking their Pro Reef salt and not adding the Sodium Chloride part. Which makes sense. Salt mixes are like 80-85% NaCl if memory serves.
I think the confusion is a result of the name similarities of the TM products. There is a TM Part A that is basically your alkalinity portion of a two part dosing system and then you have TM Part A-Elements which is trace elements to be added to your Alkalinity “Part A” solution. Part K-Elements is trace elements for the Part B (calcium 2 part portion)
 

rtparty

5000 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
5,958
Reaction score
10,165
Location
Utah
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
I think the confusion is a result of the name similarities of the TM products. There is a TM Part A that is basically your alkalinity portion of a two part dosing system and then you have TM Part A-Elements which is trace elements to be added to your Alkalinity “Part A” solution. Part K-Elements is trace elements for the Part B (calcium 2 part portion)

I’m well aware as I ran my old tank on their Balling system for more than a year.

Their Part C has nothing to do with the new A and K Elements. Hans has talked about renaming the trace element solutions and I agree it should be done because it is confusing for those that don’t know
 

Mels_Reef

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 29, 2024
Messages
129
Reaction score
89
Location
Ohio
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Part A and B contain no trace elements. They are sodium bicarbonate and calcium. That’s it.

Lou has explicitly stated Part C contains all 70 trace elements found in NSW. But don’t quote that 70 number. Which is an odd thing to say but so be it.

They are basically taking their Pro Reef salt and not adding the Sodium Chloride part. Which makes sense. Salt mixes are like 80-85% NaCl if memory serves.
I’m new to the balling trace dosing. So where has Lou said that there are 70 elements in part C? I’d like to read this article

If there are 70 elements in part C, why would there be a need to break up the trace element amounts in part-A essentials and part-K essentials? Why not just put those in part C as well??
 

Randy Holmes-Farley

Reef Chemist
View Badges
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
76,144
Reaction score
75,343
Location
Massachusetts, United States
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I’m new to the balling trace dosing. So where has Lou said that there are 70 elements in part C? I’d like to read this article

If there are 70 elements in part C, why would there be a need to break up the trace element amounts in part-A essentials and part-K essentials? Why not just put those in part C as well??

Part C has an explicit purpose, which is to offset the accumulation of sodium chloride. It is not intended, nor should it ever be used to offset consumption. For that second purpose, folks can use A and K or any other additive system that is added at an appropriate level for their needs.

I thought I posted Lou’s 70 elements comment earlier today, but it doesn’t look like it took. I’ll try again.
 

Mels_Reef

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 29, 2024
Messages
129
Reaction score
89
Location
Ohio
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Part C has an explicit purpose, which is to offset the accumulation of sodium chloride. It is not intended, nor should it ever be used to offset consumption. For that second purpose, folks can use A and K or any other additive system that is added at an appropriate level for their needs.

I thought I posted Lou’s 70 elements comment earlier today, but it doesn’t look like it took. I’ll try again.
Part C is also magnesium and potassium though. So it does offset the consumption of those 2 minerals in a “2 part” dosing system. Am I wrong?
 
OP
OP
AKReefing

AKReefing

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 29, 2023
Messages
667
Reaction score
582
Location
Fairbanks
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
They also clearly claim it leaves a seawater ion ratio when I have discussed with them.

My expectation is that it’s made just like salt mix, without sodium chloride. That seems easy for a salt mix manufacturer.
Ok, please don't mistake my comments and questions as accusatory toward any manufacturer. I'm sure their intent is to produce a quality product. I just don't like operating in the blind. "Trust, but verify."

How many times have we all warned others, or been warned by others, that you should never add something to your tank if you don't test for it? I've seen enough posts where people claimed to get retail SW mixes that end up with crashes due to a bad batch from the manufacturer, either due to settling over time, or just poor quality control.

TM says their sea salt is made "With pharmaceutical grade salts, all 70 trace elements of natural seawater, in the exact proportions found in nature and being free from nitrates, phosphates and other unwanted chemicals." Do they make the same claim with Part C? Not that I can see. The best I can find is that, when mixed in a gallon of RO, the results are "~3,350 ppm Mg; ~980 ppm K". I'd think that TM would advertise the 70 trace elements as an important factor.

If Lou said the 70 trace elements are Part C, why doesn't the Part C label even mention them?
 

Mels_Reef

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 29, 2024
Messages
129
Reaction score
89
Location
Ohio
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Ok, please don't mistake my comments and questions as accusatory toward any manufacturer. I'm sure their intent is to produce a quality product. I just don't like operating in the blind. "Trust, but verify."

How many times have we all warned others, or been warned by others, that you should never add something to your tank if you don't test for it? I've seen enough posts where people claimed to get retail SW mixes that end up with crashes due to a bad batch from the manufacturer, either due to settling over time, or just poor quality control.

TM says their sea salt is made "With pharmaceutical grade salts, all 70 trace elements of natural seawater, in the exact proportions found in nature and being free from nitrates, phosphates and other unwanted chemicals." Do they make the same claim with Part C? Not that I can see. The best I can find is that, when mixed in a gallon of RO, the results are "~3,350 ppm Mg; ~980 ppm K". I'd think that TM would advertise the 70 trace elements as an important factor.

If Lou said the 70 trace elements are Part C, why doesn't the Part C label even mention them?
I don’t read Lou’s comment as saying there are 70 elements in Part C alone. I read his comment as saying there are 70 elements in the complete TM balling method dosing vs standard 2 part dosing.
 

Pod_01

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Jan 10, 2022
Messages
1,435
Reaction score
1,340
Location
Waterloo
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Part C is also magnesium and potassium though. So it does offset the consumption of those 2 minerals in a “2 part” dosing system. Am I wrong?
My understanding is that Part A adds calcium, Part B adds Alk, both add sodium chloride (salt).

Part C adds all the ions required to make sea water and Mg and K are those ions + others… It mixes with the salt that was added from PartA and PartB.
Nothing in Part C is to offset consumption.
 

Mels_Reef

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 29, 2024
Messages
129
Reaction score
89
Location
Ohio
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
My understanding is that Part A adds calcium, Part B adds Alk, both add sodium chloride (salt).

Part C adds all the ions required to make sea water and Mg and K are those ions + others… It mixes with the salt that was added from PartA and PartB.
Nothing in Part C is to offset consumption.
Thats simply not an accurate statement. When I switched my dosing regimen from standard BRS to the hybrid balling method I removed my BRS magnesium solution and replaced it with the TM Part C solution. So, it DOES offset the magnesium consumption in a system. In the process, it also prevents an overdosing of sodium and chloride.
 
OP
OP
AKReefing

AKReefing

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 29, 2023
Messages
667
Reaction score
582
Location
Fairbanks
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I don’t read Lou’s comment as saying there are 70 elements in Part C alone. I read his comment as saying there are 70 elements in the complete TM balling method dosing vs standard 2 part dosing.
"I have been over this many times with Lou Ekus, and he is ultra clear that it is a high quality seawater ion composition without sodium and chloride."

To me, I read it as being seawater without sodium and chloride. If he meant Mg and K only, why call it seawater? Again, no clarity.
 

Randy Holmes-Farley

Reef Chemist
View Badges
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
76,144
Reaction score
75,343
Location
Massachusetts, United States
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Part C is also magnesium and potassium though. So it does offset the consumption of those 2 minerals in a “2 part” dosing system. Am I wrong?

No. Like a salt mix, those are 2 of the three mist abundant ions after sodium and chloride. There is no consumption offset. It is just the salinity correction offset they provide.
 

Pod_01

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Jan 10, 2022
Messages
1,435
Reaction score
1,340
Location
Waterloo
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Thats simply not an accurate statement. When I switched my dosing regimen from standard BRS to the hybrid balling method I removed my BRS magnesium solution and replaced it with the TM Part C solution. So, it DOES offset the magnesium consumption in a system. In the process, it also prevents an overdosing of sodium and chloride.
I believe my statement is correct for TM Original Balling method.

I am not sure what BRS does or did. I suspect the BRS Mg solution was acting like part C. I do not believe BRS develops systems, I believe they copy what Randy and others created.

For my system that has been running for 6+ years I have done zero Mg dosing. I used TM Original Balling method, AFR…

Randy wrote quite few articles on 2/3 part systems:
Another issue is that use of sodium chloride free salt cannot offset ANY consumption of ions, such as magnesium or trace elements, unless it is not actually sodium chloride free salt as both companies claim, and those ions may need to be added in some other fashion.
Hope the link to the article works:

Thread 'How a Two Part Alkalinity and Calcium System Works, and Why it Matters'
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/h...cium-system-works-and-why-it-matters.1044570/

Hopefully Randy can comment if my understanding is incorrect.
 

Randy Holmes-Farley

Reef Chemist
View Badges
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
76,144
Reaction score
75,343
Location
Massachusetts, United States
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
"I have been over this many times with Lou Ekus, and he is ultra clear that it is a high quality seawater ion composition without sodium and chloride."

To me, I read it as being seawater without sodium and chloride. If he meant Mg and K only, why call it seawater? Again, no clarity

It is clear. I feel like I'm beating a dead horse that keeps trying to get up. lol

The magnesium and potassium is NOT the composition. it is just 2 of the 3 most abundant ions (the other being sulfate).

I do know why those two get listed and the other 70 do not. But it is not any indication that only those two are there (which would literally be impossible anyway since it would not be not charge balanced).
 

Miami Reef

10K Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 8, 2017
Messages
13,257
Reaction score
24,908
Location
Miami Beach
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Nothing in Part C is to offset consumption.
Correct. We still need to dose a little magnesium in addition to balling to offset consumption.

I made an article explaining everything needed for making a DIY Balling 3 part, including the extra magnesium step for consumption.

The recipe was made by Randy, but I gathered the info into one thread. :)

 

TOP 10 Trending Threads

IS THERE A FISH THAT YOU SWEAR YOU WILL NEVER OWN AGAIN?

  • Yes! I can think of at least one fish that I will never own again.

    Votes: 121 66.5%
  • No. I like all my fish!

    Votes: 41 22.5%
  • Maybe, but I think would give the fish one more chance.

    Votes: 16 8.8%
  • Other (please explain).

    Votes: 4 2.2%
Back
Top