Randy's thoughts on trace elements

[ukgeoff]

A great read, cheers Randy.

Not long ago, I purchased some Tropic Marin A- & K- to supplement my tank, however, I didn't realise the all4reef I already use covered trace element requirements.

Rather than waste the A- & K-, I experimented on my tank and found that by reducing the recommended dose for A- & K- to 1/3 the dose, my tank, along with my regular all4reef dose, has had a noticeable improvement with the added trace elements. My corals are out longer and the tank looks happier.

When I used the A- & K- trace supplements at full strength, the tank didn't like it. Once I found the right amount to add, the difference was quite amazing.

 

[Dorsetsteve]

It may be a separate topic but it’s the flip side of the same coin.

Often we are now seeing people trying very hard to remove non desirable trace elements. The use of GFO or GAC being the primary removal tools, which equally remove desirable traces. Are we effectively robbing Peter to pay Paul, paying to absorb traces only to pay again to add them? Tin in particular seems a common problem with no practical way to remove other than dilution…

 

[Garf]

A great read, cheers Randy.

Not long ago, I purchased some Tropic Marin A- & K- to supplement my tank, however, I didn't realise the all4reef I already use covered trace element requirements.

Rather than waste the A- & K-, I experimented on my tank and found that by reducing the recommended dose for A- & K- to 1/3 the dose, my tank, along with my regular all4reef dose, has had a noticeable improvement with the added trace elements. My corals are out longer and the tank looks happier.

When I used the A- & K- trace supplements at full strength, the tank didn't like it. Once I found the right amount to add, the difference was quite amazing.

Whereas on my tank I've been using A + K for 18 months and ran out a couple of months ago. As I'm a cheapskate I've not replaced it and therefore not continued dosing it and have noticed absolutely no difference. 1.5% daily waterchanges and a bag of sand as only filtration. A wide variety of foods may be important. I also have zero mechanical filtration (apart from a little crud that gets into the bag of sand) and the amount of mulm my tank produces is tiny. I don't know if it's thoroughly recycled or if I've got a nasty surprise in my overflow box (I can't get into it without destroying the thousands of filter feeding mini fan worms that are residing in there).

Edit - I'll stick a basic food analysis here;

Elements in Foods

Thought this might be useful; http://web.archive.org/web/20010720071031/http://www.animalnetwork.com/fish/data/foods.asp Table V Elements or Ions Present Percent of the Sample

algaescrubber.net

 

[ukgeoff]

Whereas on my tank I've been using A + K for 18 months and ran out a couple of months ago. As I'm a cheapskate I've not replaced it and therefore not continued dosing it and have noticed absolutely no difference. 1.5% daily waterchanges and a bag of sand as only filtration. A wide variety of foods may be important. I also have zero mechanical filtration (apart from a little crud that gets into the bag of sand) and the amount of mulm my tank produces is tiny. I don't know if it's thoroughly recycled or if I've got a nasty surprise in my overflow box (I can't get into it without destroying the thousands of filter feeding mini fan worms that are residing in there).

Edit - I'll stick a basic food analysis here;

Elements in Foods

Thought this might be useful; http://web.archive.org/web/20010720071031/http://www.animalnetwork.com/fish/data/foods.asp Table V Elements or Ions Present Percent of the Sample

algaescrubber.net

I also recently changed from monthly water changes to 1.5% daily; it's been a revelation and so much easier!

Regarding my trace dosing of A & K, I noticed my last ICP test result had many of my trace elements very low or not even detectable. I've always used all4reef to supplement my tank, and hopefully, I'm now covering the trace element demand of my tank by adding A and K.

I'll let you know if this is working once I get my next ICP result, but my tank definitely looks better since supplementing A and K at 1/3 the recommended dose. I guess every tank's different though, so what may work for one may not work for the other... the mystery of reef keeping lol.

 

[Fisherman Joe]

I second what you say about silica.

I had a big issue with diatoms a while back. Used a UV light and vacuumed them out constantly for 6 months.

Now I don’t have any and have turned my UV off and lowered the flow a little for my LPS to open up more.

Not to mention a variety of cool sponges and crystal clear water.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

It may be a separate topic but it’s the flip side of the same coin.

Often we are now seeing people trying very hard to remove non desirable trace elements. The use of GFO or GAC being the primary removal tools, which equally remove desirable traces. Are we effectively robbing Peter to pay Paul, paying to absorb traces only to pay again to add them? Tin in particular seems a common problem with no practical way to remove other than dilution…

I agree that there are no individual metal specific binders available to hobbyists, and folks using things like GFO or polyfilter or metasorb or cuprisorb when one thing is high may risk driving desirable trace elements too low.

Manufacturers don't seem to ever mention that concern.

It is true that the higher a concentration is, the more will bind, but that difference is sometimes going to be smaller than the binding differences/preferences between different ions which will vary by many orders of magnitude.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

If there is a way, I am willing to help with this. I was not wanting to heap stuff on you to do...

Not a problem. It does sound like a good idea and I'll work on that next week.

 

[GARRIGA]

I agree that there are no individual metal specific binders available to hobbyists, and folks using things like GFO or polyfilter or metasorb or cuprisorb when one thing is high may risk driving desirable trace elements too low.

Manufacturers don't seem to ever mention that concern.

It is true that the higher a concentration is, the more will bind, but that difference is sometimes going to be smaller than the binding differences/preferences between different ions which will vary by many orders of magnitude.

Perhaps lesser of two evils. Use available to remove desired then ICP might assist identify that still desired.

Called SeaChem and beyond copper and possibly aluminum can’t say what else cuprisorb can remove.

 

[danimal1211]

Since this topic comes up over and over, I thought I give a summary of my current general thoughts on trace elements for reef aquariums.

1. First, a standard definition. Trace elements are those elements in seawater at very low concentration. It does not include the major ions of seawater: calcium, magnesium, alkalinity (carbonate and bicarbonate), sulfate, potassium, bromide, borate, strontium or fluoride, despite the fact that many commercial trace element supplements may contain some of these. The distinction is important in several ways that will become apparent in subsequent parts of this post, but I'll note here that each of the major ions of seawater are present in concentration above 1 ppm, while all of the other inorganic ions in natural seawater combined is less than 1 ppm total.

2. For major ions, the concentration does not vary by location or depth in the oceans. The only significant variation in major ion concentration comes as the salinity changes. Trace elements, however, are different, and can vary considerably by location and depth. Some are surface depleted. Some are depleted deeper down. No single number, for example, can tell you the natural ocean concentration of, say, iron. If one is targeting a “natural” concentration of iron, what number would one choose? The ocean does not tell us a definitive answer.

3. All organisms need a number of trace elements for a wide range of biochemical processes. These include iron, copper, zinc, manganese, vanadium and molybdenum. Some trace elements are purely a toxicity concern, including mercury, lead, and cadmium. Many are needed at one concentration and are toxic at higher concentration (e.g., copper and nickel). Organisms, such as fish, likely get some or all these needed trace elements from foods rather than from the water itself, but many organisms do get them from the water, and all organisms that do not consume particulate foods in some fashion must do so.

4. For organisms that do get their needed trace elements from the water, there is very little experimental evidence on how much is too little and how much is too much and might be toxic for any given organism. There is a fair amount of experimental evidence in reef aquaria about how much of many trace elements in the typical forms found in reef tanks is “adequate” for the organisms, especially corals, but not really what the acceptable range is. Some of the ICP-based trace element methods use this adequateness approach. In general, reefers have found that the acceptable levels of some trace elements can vary a lot more than the acceptable levels of some major ions. Iron, for example, seems to be able to be acceptable over a very wide range of concentrations (certainly more than a factor of 100) and still be adequately available and not toxic.

5. For major ions, the concentration, and perhaps pH, tells you all you need to know about its bioavailability. 420 ppm calcium is equally bioavailable in every reef tank. Many trace elements, however, can exist in a variety of different chemical forms. These differences include different oxidation states, such as ferric (Fe+++) and ferrous (Fe++) iron. They can also include different complexation by organics. Copper, for example, is known to be nearly entirely bound by organics in the ocean, and that binding greatly impacts (reduces relative to the bare ion) its toxicity and bioavailability. Thus, the concentration of a trace element (such as by any type of ICP) may only provide a part of the question of whether there is enough or too much or too little of a trace element present.

6. The oxidation state and the complexation by organics can change rapidly in a reef aquarium. Thus, the form one doses may immediately change to something else when mixed into the water, and may also change as it experiences various treatments, such as ozone, UV, hydrogen peroxide, antioxidants, processing by organisms, etc.

7. The depletion of trace elements arises in several ways, including uptake by organisms (corals, anemones, algae, bacteria, etc.), binding to mineral surfaces (calcium carbonate, GFO, etc.), and through any sort of organic export mechanism (skimming, activated carbon, polymer resin absorbents, and physical filtering of “detritus”). Many reefers assume that fast growing SPS corals are the driving force behind trace element depletion in their aquaria, but IMO there is little evidence of this. When folks use methods such as macroalgae or turf algae to control nutrients, organic carbon dosing to drive bacteria, skimmers and GAC to export organics, or even particulate calcium carbonate dosing to keep the water clear, these may be equally large or larger sinks for trace elements.

8. Some trace elements have been found to rapidly deplete. These include iron and manganese. They can drop from dosed levels to undetectable by typical hobby testing in a few days. A small amount of macroalgae growth can strip a whole tank of manganese. Some can be much slower to deplete (e.g., zinc). If one chooses to just test the waters of trace element dosing, iron and manganese are a good place to start. There are both DIY and commercial products for just these, and many people have found them useful.

9. Folks thinking about consumption of trace elements in reef tanks often think about water changes as the way they are replaced, and it is true that new trace elements come in with water changes. However, there are additional factors that bear on reef husbandry and our interpretation of the usefulness of our actions.

A. Rapidly depleting trace elements cannot ever be maintained at the concentration in the salt mix by water changes alone unless one changes 100% of the water every day. However, some salt mixes may have more than natural levels of some trace elements, and since the acceptable level of a trace element may be well below that present in the salt mix, water changes may be useful in adding trace elements.

B. A widely ignored source of trace elements may actually be the primary way many trace elements get into reef aquaria. Foods are loaded with trace elements, for the same reason that organisms need to take them up: all organisms and hence all foods sources must contain them. For some, the total amount of certain trace elements (such as iron) may be far higher in daily foods than in daily 100% water changes. However, there are no studies that show how well these food-contained trace elements get into and become part of the food chain in a reef tank. Certainly some is lost, but my expectation is that a substantial amount of trace elements do get into the water this way.

10. Many folks dose trace elements to try to replace those lost in the aquarium, and there are many commercial mixes and DIY recipes. Deciding how much of what to dose is a vexing problem that may be best answered by trial and error (which successfully deals with all of the uncertainties described above) but it takes a lot of time and effort. Folks attempt to shortchange that effort, with a number of different methods that try to eliminate some of the uncertainties, and I’ll describe the pros and cons of these below.

A. Some commercial trace element mixes are designed to be used in a volume dosed per day or week methodology. For example: Add 1 ml of solution to each 100 L of aquarium water daily. Certainly the easiest way for the reefkeeper, but they can only be “perfect” for a single type of reef tank. That said, they may be adequate for a reasonably wide range of reef tanks. A beginning reefer might start here with an additive from a company they have confidence in, since the reefkeeper is fully trusting them to get it right, and IMO, not all companies have earned such trust. One might consider experimenting with lower or higher doses over time to better match the actual needs of your aquarium, and might start high or low if there is more or less growth in general in the aquarium relative to an average tank. A new reef tank with few organisms will certainly take up fewer trace elements, and more is not necessarily better.

B. A second approach ties the amount of trace elements added to the calcification rate. Say, to alkalinity demand per day or calcium demand per day. For example: Add 1ml of supplement for every 20ppm of calcium added per 100 liters of aquarium water. The company makes some sort of determination of the amount of trace elements needed per unit of calcification for a typical reef tank. A number of products do this either explicitly (for a trace supplement) or implicitly, such as with a two part or one part alkalinity and calcium method that has extra added trace elements.
The calcification rate would be

In relation to the major ions as a lay person I would ask what constitutes a ‘significant’ variation. I would not that from the couple icps I have done on my tank and those of others, some of those major ions seem to deplete over time and along the lines of JDA’s request it would seem useful to have a better idea of which ions we should focus on.
Just a question, since there is so little variation of these elements, even if certain ones don’t seem to directly be of benefit could their lower or raised presence affect the (pardon my lack of a better term) homeostasis of sensitive organisms?

 

[jda]

it would seem useful to have a better idea of which ions we should focus on.

The big 3 and regular water changes has always been enough. It still is for lot of good tanks.

The long-term advice to only dose what you can test for is also good. This is twofold. First, there are test kits for the manor elements and compounds to worry about... kinda like being preselected. Second, you cannot overdose if you are testing.

There is more nuance than this, but this is a good start.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Just a question, since there is so little variation of these elements, even if certain ones don’t seem to directly be of benefit could their lower or raised presence affect the (pardon my lack of a better term) homeostasis of sensitive organisms?

Which elements are you referring to? I think all the major ions of seawater have some biological roles.

I don't think we have good info on one of the most common variations that we see; the relative chloride to sulfate ratio. Chloride and sulfate cannot just rise and fall much because that impacts salinity, but one can drop and the other rise at the same salinity. And where that acceptable range lies is not at all clear. It is not something scientists care much about since it doesn't vary at all in the ocean itself. Perhaps someone studying some closed body of water might have investigated it. Reef hobbyists have never studied it that I've seen.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Perhaps lesser of two evils. Use available to remove desired then ICP might assist identify that still desired.

Called SeaChem and beyond copper and possibly aluminum can’t say what else cuprisorb can remove.

Brilliant. Sell a product that you don't know what it does.

Scientist: I have a drug that cures disease X.

Marketer: Great!

Scientist: But I'm not sure what else it does.

Marketer: Why does that matter? Folks will buy it to get cured.

Scientists: What if the cure is worse than the disease?

Marketer: No worry. They won't know what did it. They'll probably blame it on BPA or nanoparticles or the GMO modified eggs they ate.

 

[GARRIGA]

Brilliant. Sell a product that you don't know what it does.

Scientist: I have a drug that cures disease X.

Marketer: Great!

Scientist: But I'm not sure what else it does.

Marketer: Why does that matter? Folks will buy it to get cured.

Scientists: What if the cure is worse than the disease?

Marketer: No worry. They won't know what did it. They'll probably blame it on BPA or nanoparticles or the GMO modified eggs they ate.

I get your drift but I kind of misspoke. Their message to me being copper what they tested but I get it. Best test all possible concerns derived from it yet we know that with the pet trade that will never be. Only way that will ever change is Congress and I don’t see them caring about fish for see vs feed.

However, as a community. We could present ICP findings before and after using various products and perhaps build a database. Perhaps one exists yet I know of none. Not something I’d want to take up but day I start sending those out there’s a chance I’ll likely spot some changes and I’ll talk about it.

 

[GuppyHJD]

I agree that there are no individual metal specific binders available to hobbyists, and folks using things like GFO or polyfilter or metasorb or cuprisorb when one thing is high may risk driving desirable trace elements too low.

Manufacturers don't seem to ever mention that concern.

It is true that the higher a concentration is, the more will bind, but that difference is sometimes going to be smaller than the binding differences/preferences between different ions which will vary by many orders of magnitude.

I had a RODI problem and my silicate got high (along with silicate dosing to battle Dinos). I have used GFO to remove the silicates before, but had to dose phosphates to keep them in line. As a friend mentioned to me when I was talking about the chemistry of the tank - "it sounds like you are adjusting the sprocket on your bicycle while riding it".

 

[rtparty]

Brilliant. Sell a product that you don't know what it does.

Scientist: I have a drug that cures disease X.

Marketer: Great!

Scientist: But I'm not sure what else it does.

Marketer: Why does that matter? Folks will buy it to get cured.

Scientists: What if the cure is worse than the disease?

Marketer: No worry. They won't know what did it. They'll probably blame it on BPA or nanoparticles or the GMO modified eggs they ate.

The last 3 years in a nutshell

 

[BeanAnimal]

The last 3 years in a nutshell

No - the tactic was invented with the first salesman...

 

[Koty]

Thanks for summarizing your thoughts on this critical reefing issue.
Considering that we now are aware that PO4 and NO3 depletion is not an efficient way to fight algae, we now may have new means to control algae in our DT based on two facts: 1. Concentrations of real trace elements vary greatly in nature, and the reef inhabitants are adapted to this. 2. All algae types exclusively get trace elements from the water column. Thus, with no water changes, combined with reduced or eliminated trace elements addition, the water column can be depleted from these TEs essential for algae growth. Corals, on the other hand, will get their share of TE from us feeding them.

 

[Doctorgori]

I gave up trace dosing as Red Seas “trace colors” program seemed too much nerd work for the bother…

About the only additions past Ca, Mg & Alk I’ve used and noticed any positive results
- Iodine/Lugols : polyp extension and faster gsp growth
- Seachems Reef Plus ( VERY anecdotal)

in either case no comprehensive notes or scientific methods were employed so I can’t endorse any dosage or methods to back up any claims…

trace additions dont seem to reconcile my way out of water changes

…speaking for myself ( and probably most) …REALLY appreciate the time Randy (and others) take to post here … sincerely

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Thanks for summarizing your thoughts on this critical reefing issue.
Considering that we now are aware that PO4 and NO3 depletion is not an efficient way to fight algae, we now may have new means to control algae in our DT based on two facts: 1. Concentrations of real trace elements vary greatly in nature, and the reef inhabitants are adapted to this. 2. All algae types exclusively get trace elements from the water column. Thus, with no water changes, combined with reduced or eliminated trace elements addition, the water column can be depleted from these TEs essential for algae growth. Corals, on the other hand, will get their share of TE from us feeding them.

It is certainly possible that there is some level of one or more trace elements that limits algae and not corals. Some folks have discussed this in the context of Thames/Richard Ross’ tank which has high nitrate and phosphate and no algae. I do not recall what his thoughts were in this most recently.

@Thales

The problem with the theory is that I do not know how successful we are at providing particulate foods for everything we want to keep, or even if they will all consume such foods.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Considering that we now are aware that PO4 and NO3 depletion is not an efficient way to fight algae,

Limiting food most certainly limits growth. It may not be the only tool, but to say that is not efficient (or does not work) is a stretch.

!. Concentrations of real trace elements vary greatly in nature, and the reef inhabitants are adapted to this.

Do they? Th ocean is fairly stable with regard to chemistry, as far as I know. I could be wrong (ignoring natural or unnatural sources in small localization, like volcanic activity, exposed ore beds, polluted outflow, etc.)

2. All algae types exclusively get trace elements from the water column. Thus, with no water changes, combined with reduced or eliminated trace elements addition, the water column can be depleted from these TEs essential for algae growth. Corals, on the other hand, will get their share of TE from us feeding them.

So strip the water of all trace elements needed for coral? The coral have to live in that water, and I would think their consumption is more continuous, not like feeding a baby 4 times a day. Zooxanthellae is algae and presumably would use/need many of the same trace elements as some, many, or all other alga. It stands to reason (observationally, ignoring science) that when you starve a system with low phosphate and nitrate to starve algae, you are also starving the corals' zooxanthellae.

I think most have found that the balance comes by keeping a healthy amount of food in the water column, but not an excess and removing any excess via mechanical and/or chemical means.

Just food (no pun) for thought.