Moonshiners method feedback

[Reefahholic]

Spoiler alert….they won’t read identical and have even varied drastically when others have done this exact thing.

Which ICP analyses?

For iodine, I have found the test procedure developed by @thatmanMIKEson , @taricha and @Dan P to be very helpful.

You should check it out if you want an iodine test to use between ICP runs.

AN ACCURATE AND PRECISE METHOD FOR MEASURING IODINE

ABOUT THE ARTICLE: The article describes an accurate and precise method and it's development, for measuring the level of Iodine in a saltwater aquarium. It is a follow-up to an article written in 2021. The current article describes an improved method but using the same basic ideas as the 2021...

www.reef2reef.com

I saw that a while back. Great data in there.

 

[Reefahholic]

…. you can also grow corals using Phoenix tap water, cool white tubes, Instant Ocean and weekly water changes

Add: if we are going to “make reefing great again” we need to focus on lowering cost and quit worrying about water quality

I will pull my last three stages now. Lol.

Well it is summertime and they city starts putting all that extra crap in the water, maybe I should wait to October. Hehe.

 

[Reefahholic]

Look, I apologize…I’ve jumped ahead of myself. Please forgive me. Let us now go back to the basics before we get too deep. Hehe

Dr.
@Hans-Werner do you approve of this hydrometer.?

 

[Doctorgori]

I dunno what trace element matters and what doesn’t but its hard to argue replicating any environmental variable or trace element a organism has adapted to for eons…. (proven or not)

That said I simply ICP: test 1x-2x yr and if its something I can buy, test for and pronounce, then I buy it and adjust….

I’d bet many tanks successfully use the RM but I’m not 100% sold its easier or cheaper than a few big 25% H2O changes even for big systems (and I HATE water changes)
TBH .I am thinking about it after reading this thread, but all those dang bottles….

 

[reef_ranch]

Our club in Houston actually did one of the best interviews with Jason Fox back in 2017. His method is pretty simple for sure. He does large water changes and runs fairly lower intensity light. His systems are old and established.

I heard his interview with Reefbum where he described that method. Works well and is super simple if you don’t mind the water changes. And I’m sure his water has no rubidium at all.

 

[Reefahholic]

Let’s look at this pic collage I just made. Top is OES…bottom is MS. Anybody notice anything particular for several elements? This is not a complete list, but I think some of you may get the idea. Going to bed, I’ll be back later.

 

[IKD]

Just a reminder of the OP’s first question

“For those of you that Shine do you like it? How long, what other methods have you used.
Pro cons”

Let’s keep responses to what you’ve actually used and like/dislike about it per the request and not criticize methods only read about.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Just a reminder of the OP’s first question

“For those of you that Shine do you like it? How long, what other methods have you used.
Pro cons”

Let’s keep responses to what you’ve actually used and like/dislike about it per the request and not criticize methods only read about.

That was a question he asked, and I encourage anyone who can specifically answer it, to do so.

In the end, however, what the OP asked is not in control of any many page thread which is read and learned from by many people besides the OP.

Note that he also said:

" I need to decide if I want to try the moonshine method, something else, or keep doing water changes.,"

To that end, I encourage anyone with knowledge to comment on specific aspects of the method, such as whether ICP works to accomplish what moonshiners tries to have it do, or whether each and every product they suggest dosing is desirable, and at what level.

One definitely does not need to have used something to understand and comment appropriately on it.

 

[Coinzmans Reef]

As far as the accuracy of ICP tests, I note my parameter's the day of the test and compare them to the ICP. There is no way for the average reefer to get 100% accuracy from almost any test we run, I plus or minus my results in relation to the ICP and this gives me my daily dosing schedule for the big three, the Shine is used based off ICP only. I also check prior ICP against the current test to check for things that would seem out of the ordinary.

When I calibrate my Trident I use the calibration fluid and than test the calibration fluid to see if there are any major differences. Usually the trident is fairly close and never really off more +/- that would make me want to test again.

Even if my numbers are off I have a buffer zone and a range I keep that is close enough for my tanks. The first sign of trouble is usually broadcast by my corals polyp extensions.

We all chase numbers to varying degrees. My Apex, Trident and ICP tests afford laziness on my part, but this allows me to enjoy the tank more.

 

[eg8r210]

Just a reminder of the OP’s first question

“For those of you that Shine do you like it? How long, what other methods have you used.
Pro cons”

Let’s keep responses to what you’ve actually used and like/dislike about it per the request and not criticize methods only read about.

I love RM. I have been using it for a little over a year and to be honest the biggest difference in my tank between using it and not is that I have nicer coloration and a LOT more polyp extension. My other methods were weekly 20% water changes, and at one time I tried to follow the AquaForest method.

Why I prefer RM, well simply because I hate water changes. So if another method required a regular water change, well then I consider it worse than RM. I hate everything about water changes, including having to either go buy the water, or make the water at home. Making the water at home sucks even more if you have your own RODI unit and have to keep up with all of that crap also. . I also enjoy having back the space in my garage that was previously used to store the water station and all the junk that goes with it.

What I don't like about RM, dosing all the dailies every day. I don't care what each one does, I just follow the book and do what it says. I am no scientist/chemist/"guy who did a ton of research to start his own method" so I don't care. Much like my car, I am no mechanic so I just follow what the mechanic tells me to do also.

Why does RHF have such a problem with barium?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Why does RHF have such a problem with barium?

lol

You should be glad when I and others take a hard line on claims, or else supplements would be claiming that including every element known in the periodic table leads to the best colors, best poly extension, and a great and happy life free from disease and hardship and filled with riches of all kinds, and, incidentally, immortality!

That's what comes from using the scientific method. When barium has been studied by lots of scientists in lots of settings, and no biological use is ever found, it takes a real experiment to make any plausible claim otherwise.

Has any reefer thinking it is useful ever seen or performed an actual experiment with it?

By the way, its not just barium.

 

[hunterallen40]

Has any reefer thinking it is useful ever seen or performed an actual experiment with it?

I honestly have no idea if it's useful, and would love to perform an experiment on it. I have two systems: a frag tank that lives in my basement, is 50 gallons or so, runs MH and is super acro oriented. Very shallow low-boy system, and is fishless (so I dose ammonium chloride + sodium phosphate). Then I have my display, which is completely different... My display has LED's, is a mixed reef with sand, and has fish. They both, however, run the reef moonshiner method.

Given the massive differences between these two systems, I hesitate to think I could draw any good conclusions... But is there something I could do with these two that would give some information that could either show that the barium dosing is not really doing anything, or could show that it is?

One interesting thing that the moonshiner method does for barium is the so-called "barium sponge effect": if barium is less than 8 ug / L, the target concentration is 30 ug / L. Otherwise, it is 15 ug / L. The claim here is that the corals uptake barium very quickly if you go from say 6 ug / L to 15, so you need to buffer all the way to 30 ug / L for that correction cycle in order to allow the corals to build up that buffer.

I've definitely seen this first hand in both of the systems I have on the moonshiner method, but of course cannot be sure that the barium is going to the corals. In your opinion / in your experience, could the barium be precipitating in some way that could explain this observation?

By the way, its not just barium.

I think some general experiments would do us all some good here. It would certainly be nice to at least be able to point to an experiment for these claims for all trace elements, as there are very few I've been able to dig up.

 

[Oldreefer44]

IMO, the issue would be to isolate the tested element from all other influences such as light, flow etc; and then to quantify the parameters of what "better" is.

 

[ctopherl]

FYI, my suggestion is at least experiment with not dosing elements that have no known biological role in any organism, despite being recommended by the proponents of this method.

This suggestion makes complete sense on paper, but do you have any suggestions for how us chemistry noobies can figure out which dosing elements "have no known biological role in any organism"?

Edit - I found the answer about halfway through the thread. Randy suggestions googling "biological role of <element>" and finding (hopefully) some reputable/scientific source to tell you whether or not it actually does anything.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I honestly have no idea if it's useful, and would love to perform an experiment on it. I have two systems: a frag tank that lives in my basement, is 50 gallons or so, runs MH and is super acro oriented. Very shallow low-boy system, and is fishless (so I dose ammonium chloride + sodium phosphate). Then I have my display, which is completely different... My display has LED's, is a mixed reef with sand, and has fish. They both, however, run the reef moonshiner method.

Given the massive differences between these two systems, I hesitate to think I could draw any good conclusions... But is there something I could do with these two that would give some information that could either show that the barium dosing is not really doing anything, or could show that it is?

One interesting thing that the moonshiner method does for barium is the so-called "barium sponge effect": if barium is less than 8 ug / L, the target concentration is 30 ug / L. Otherwise, it is 15 ug / L. The claim here is that the corals uptake barium very quickly if you go from say 6 ug / L to 15, so you need to buffer all the way to 30 ug / L for that correction cycle in order to allow the corals to build up that buffer.

I've definitely seen this first hand in both of the systems I have on the moonshiner method, but of course cannot be sure that the barium is going to the corals. In your opinion / in your experience, could the barium be precipitating in some way that could explain this observation?



I think some general experiments would do us all some good here. It would certainly be nice to at least be able to point to an experiment for these claims for all trace elements, as there are very few I've been able to dig up.

Barium looks like calcium, only bigger. Like magnesium and strontium which also look like calcium, they all get incorporated into calcium carbonate in place of some calcium. That happens whether it is biological or abiotic precipitation.

The higher the concentration of any of these other ions, the more they drive themselves into calcium carbonate. Twice the concentration of any of these ions would be expected to roughly drive twice the amount into the calcium carbonate. So it makes sense that raising the level causes faster consumption.

Lots of studies on these processes have been performed because scientists hope to use old shells and skeletons to say something about ancient seawater compositions and temperatures.

Here’s a study that may be of interest for the ways that barium is incorporated:

Incorporation of Mg2+, Sr2+, Ba2+ and Zn2+ into aragonite and comparison with calcite - Journal of Mathematical Chemistry

We have investigated the presence of foreign ions into the bulk structure and the external surfaces of aragonite using periodic ab-initio methods. Four cations isovalent to Ca2+ were studied: Mg2+, Sr2+, Ba2+ and Zn2+. The calculations were performed at structures (bulk, surface) that contain...

link.springer.com

From it:

Four cations isovalent to Ca2+ were studied: Mg2+, Sr2+, Ba2+ and Zn2+. The calculations were performed at structures (bulk, surface) that contain four and eight CaCO3 units. Our results, at the Hartree-Fock level, show that the incorporation of those ions into aragonite depends strongly on their size. Mg2+ and Zn2+, due to their smaller size, can substitute Ca2+ ions in the crystal lattice while the incorporation of Sr2+and Ba2+ into aragonite is energetically less favoured. Examination of the [011], [110] and [001] surfaces of aragonite revealed that the surface incorporation reduces the energetic cost for the larger ions. These systems provide challenging examples for most shape analysis methods applied in Mathematical Chemistry.

 

[IKD]

To that end, I encourage anyone with knowledge to comment on specific aspects of the method, such as whether ICP works to accomplish what moonshiners tries to have it do, or whether each and every product they suggest dosing is desirable, and at what level.

This is certainly worth discussing but the method is working well enough to give positive results for users with whatever testing being used. I’m no RM zealot as I’ve said before and have only been using it a month but have seen enough anecdotal feedback from others to give it a try. I have looked for ‘RM crashed my tank’ type feedback and haven’t found claims to the affect, which is usually easy to come by on the internet. So maybe people are wasting money on dosing unnecessary things but if that’s the worst affect, I can live with that for now.

One definitely does not need to have used something to understand and comment appropriately on it.

Yup, it’s just not what was asked for but certainly can’t stop public commentary. This isn’t a Red Sea forum after all LOL.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

So maybe people are wasting money on dosing unnecessary things but if that’s the worst affect, I can live with that for now.

You are right, the drawbacks are wasted time and money.

Before Moonshiners came about (or at least before they became a company and were mentioned here), in 2018, I started a thread on what I would consider my optimal method.

I still agree with what I wrote, and it’s only a little different than moonshine

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

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 dosing timer rather than ATO) and a two part (if needed; maybe also pH limited to pH 8.55 or less). I'd like a continuous alk monitor, and if Mindstream or Seneye comes on line with reliable data, I'd monitor ammonia 24/7 and in different system locations (main tank, exit from refugium, etc.) for interests sake.

I would do substantial and repetitive ICP testing of the water to guide dosing and exporting.

There are some ions I would dose essentially independent of measurement because I don't think measurement is particularly useful for them (e.g., iron because it is typically below detection limits; silicate because it depletes so fast).

There are a bunch of ions that I do not consider important at the levels reefers typically have (e.g., lithium, maybe barium, I'd need to think through this list) and I would make no substantial effort to control those either by export or by dosing.

I would likely experiment on the tank over time to re-verify for myself that my longstanding opinions on certain chemicals are not particularly useful if dosed to maintain natural levels, despite the fact that many reefers do. If they showed a positive effect, I'd rethink dosing them. These include iodide and strontium. I'd certainly continue dosing them if they appeared useful to my system.

There are a whole bunch of biologically active trace elements that I'd likely measure and dose which I did not in the past, but which previously tested low in my system (e.g., molybdenum) and I'd likely dose these to roughly NSW levels. I might experiment on these in a variety of ways (e.g., allowing one to go undosed for a long time and then restart and see if anything apparently changed).

I'd probably do automatic water changes, but again, might also experiment on the amount, from none to a couple of percent a day.

As to other "methods", I'd likely do some or most of these that I partly copied from another post:
Ato
Temperature control (temp controller to kick on heaters or cooling system)
Skimmer (for aeration if nothing else)
Rodi unit with inline tds
Nutrient export (macroalgae, gfo, organic carbon dosing, GAC, maybe experiment with organic resins like Purigen)
Might try LED lights to save electricity, but I'm not yet convinced I'd like the look

 

[hunterallen40]

Barium looks like calcium, only bigger. Like magnesium and strontium which also look like calcium, they all get incorporated into calcium carbonate in place of some calcium. That happens whether it is biological or abiotic precipitation.

The higher the concentration of any of these other ions, the more they drive themselves into calcium carbonate. Twice the concentration of any of these ions would be expected to roughly drive twice the amount into the calcium carbonate. So it makes sense that raising the level causes faster consumption.

Lots of studies on these processes have been performed because scientists hope to use old shells and skeletons to say something about ancient seawater compositions and temperatures.

Here’s a study that may be of interest fir the ways that barium us incorporated:

Incorporation of Mg2+, Sr2+, Ba2+ and Zn2+ into aragonite and comparison with calcite - Journal of Mathematical Chemistry

We have investigated the presence of foreign ions into the bulk structure and the external surfaces of aragonite using periodic ab-initio methods. Four cations isovalent to Ca2+ were studied: Mg2+, Sr2+, Ba2+ and Zn2+. The calculations were performed at structures (bulk, surface) that contain...

link.springer.com

From ut:

Four cations isovalent to Ca2+ were studied: Mg2+, Sr2+, Ba2+ and Zn2+. The calculations were performed at structures (bulk, surface) that contain four and eight CaCO3 units. Our results, at the Hartree-Fock level, show that the incorporation of those ions into aragonite depends strongly on their size. Mg2+ and Zn2+, due to their smaller size, can substitute Ca2+ ions in the crystal lattice while the incorporation of Sr2+and Ba2+ into aragonite is energetically less favoured. Examination of the [011], [110] and [001] surfaces of aragonite revealed that the surface incorporation reduces the energetic cost for the larger ions. These systems provide challenging examples for most shape analysis methods applied in Mathematical Chemistry.

Awesome! Thank you for the detailed response. I'll definitely give that a read!

That certainly seems to make sense, and I've heard that mentioned (probably by you) about Strontium as well.

 

[jda]

Why are people so concerned with having ocean-level values for some things, but not others. Gotta have ocean level barium amounts, but also going to have 100x the ocean level of nitrate? Sure, the reasons start to come, but they totally contradict each other.

Send off the same water to 3 ICP companies and see how they turn out - MS, OES, AES... I don't care. Always has been more questions than answers. Until these get better, and can tell me what forms elements are in instead of total counts, then I don't have much use.

 

[jda]

There are 20 million tons of gold in the world's oceans. Only about 244 tons have been collected by man. Now that I posted this, be on the lookout for a gold supplement for your reef and Au to show up in your ICP test soon.

Just a quick Google search says that gold salts appear to reduce tissue inflammation among other things. Gotta help corals, right?