Reef Moonshiners V All for Reef

[Hans-Werner]

Oceamo ICP revealed numerous deficiencies. I haven’t noticed any significant coral health problems. There is lab evidence of deficiencies that may or may not be relevant. I haven’t tried to replace them yet. I plan to do so at some point to see if it truly makes a noticeable difference.

I’ll find the ICP result from Oceamo and display the elements AFR is missing. This actually may be very useful information for you Hans and others who use AFR as their primary source of elements. The test may be broadly useful for others as it comes from results of a mixed reef without water changes.

(I want to send a sample of newly mixed saltwater (I have aqua forest on hand) to see if the new saltwater replaces the deficient elements, but I haven’t yet because the test is pricey and my corals are growing)

Oceamo, so it was a ICP-MS?

Most ICP-OES labs give high recommended concentrations for some trace metals to get into the range they can measure. Here the perspective of us a an additive manufacturer and the labs differs. They require to find the trace element while we say, regular dosing is sufficient, no matter whether the ICP-OES lab finds it.

For iron, manganese and likely cobalt in my eyes it doesn't make much sense to look at the lower concentrations because there are big swings with high concentrations after addition and steep drops between additions. These are typical examples for our approach "regular additions are sufficient".

 

[FishLvR]

There is more formeldahyde in a pear than most fish meds.

I'm using TM trace A and K and adding the two missing elements separate. Just started, curious to see if this will be just as good as separate dosing.

 

[Koty]

I use the TM three-part fortified with the A and K elements. This November, it will be 4 years without a water change. I have a high bioload of about 40 types of corals and quite a few fish and many critters that, although uninvited, turned into an efficient CUC. Corals are growing, SPS faster than LPS, as expected, although I aim for stability rather than fast growth. IMO, the Moonshiners is in most cases an overkill and an expensive and tedious one.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

There is more formeldahyde in a pear than most fish meds.

I'm using TM trace A and K and adding the two missing elements separate. Just started, curious to see if this will be just as good as separate dosing.

Which two additional?

 

[Sdoutreefer]

Throwing in my $.02...

I use RM. I used AFR for months with my tank and couldn't get good color. Since using RM, my corals finally pop and look very healthy. For what it's worth, I'm running Radions, XR30-G4.

 

[FishLvR]

There is more formeldahyde in a pear than most fish meds.

I'm using TM trace A and K and adding the two missing elements separate. Just started, curious to see if this will be just as good as separate dosing.

Which two additional?

I'm going off what TM says is in the two components. Of course we have no idea the concentrations. I will have to rely on ICP testing.

The only two minerals missing from TM's trace components is rubidium and potassium. So I bought the suggested Potassion $15 and AF Rubidium for $6. I will dose as suggested by the respected companies. All other elements I was "low" on according to moonshiners are in the two TM componets.

I'm calling this the poor man's moonshine method. TM's trace is so affordable and the other two elements will last the year in my tank.

I can't wrap my head around why he sells massive bottles of minerals and elements that no one will ever use all of. Why not make much smaller bottles like AF so you don't have to spend $500 upfront. I know they don't go bad but seriously?

 

[areefer01]

I'm going off what TM says is in the two components. Of course we have no idea the concentrations. I will have to rely on ICP testing.

The only two minerals missing from TM's trace components is rubidium and potassium. So I bought the suggested Potassion $15 and AF Rubidium for $6. I will dose as suggested by the respected companies. All other elements I was "low" on according to moonshiners are in the two TM componets.

I'm calling this the poor man's moonshine method. TM's trace is so affordable and the other two elements will last the year in my tank.

I can't wrap my head around why he sells massive bottles of minerals and elements that no one will ever use all of. Why not make much smaller bottles like AF so you don't have to spend $500 upfront. I know they don't go bad but seriously?

I did a ICP test of my. last dive trip in Fiji and potassium was 415.2 for NSW. My ICP test on June 26 was 444.6 and back in April it was 433.10. ATI does not report on Rubidium so can't comment other than maybe it is marketed as a color enhancer, pop?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I'm going off what TM says is in the two components. Of course we have no idea the concentrations. I will have to rely on ICP testing.

The only two minerals missing from TM's trace components is rubidium and potassium. So I bought the suggested Potassion $15 and AF Rubidium for $6. I will dose as suggested by the respected companies. All other elements I was "low" on according to moonshiners are in the two TM componets.

I'm calling this the poor man's moonshine method. TM's trace is so affordable and the other two elements will last the year in my tank.

I can't wrap my head around why he sells massive bottles of minerals and elements that no one will ever use all of. Why not make much smaller bottles like AF so you don't have to spend $500 upfront. I know they don't go bad but seriously?

Rubidium. I’ll just note that it plays no known required role in any known organism on earth.

I’m glad AFR has no potassium since it does not deplete at all in many aquaria, such as my old one. But if you see it dropping, it’s a fine thing to add. :)

 

[FishLvR]

I'm going off what TM says is in the two components. Of course we have no idea the concentrations. I will have to rely on ICP testing.

The only two minerals missing from TM's trace components is rubidium and potassium. So I bought the suggested Potassion $15 and AF Rubidium for $6. I will dose as suggested by the respected companies. All other elements I was "low" on according to moonshiners are in the two TM componets.

I'm calling this the poor man's moonshine method. TM's trace is so affordable and the other two elements will last the year in my tank.

I can't wrap my head around why he sells massive bottles of minerals and elements that no one will ever use all of. Why not make much smaller bottles like AF so you don't have to spend $500 upfront. I know they don't go bad but seriously?

Rubidium. I’ll just note that it plays no known required role in any known organism on earth.

I’m glad AFR has no potassium since it does not deplete at all in many aquaria, such as my old one. But if you see it dropping, it’s a fine thing to add. :)

Just going off the calculator. Also curiosity. But $20 is $20...but 45 bucks for a bottle of rubidium that's crazy. And sort of red flag.

 

[BryanM]

fwiw, I'm an AFR user. I couldn't wrap my head around RM.

 

[FishLvR]

fwiw, I'm an AFR user. I couldn't wrap my head around RM.

Well the minerals and elements are insane. An all in one is much more feasible because as randy says some of these elements should not need to be ever added. Let's see how this plays out for me though.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

FWIW, I have nothing against the concept of testing and dosing, as used by RM and other companies with two provisos:

1. The element has been shown in some fashion to be useful.

2. The target levels of the dosed elements have a clear rationale.

On the second point, there’s a lot of ways to go about it, but I do not know what has actually been done to justify targets.

Natural levels is kind of vague since trace elements vary by location and depth, but even so, there are some limitations.

1. Natural levels may be more than is actually needed.

2. Natural levels may be below what might be an optimum level (think alkalinity, how many folks target levels in the 6’s?).

3. The whole concept ignores chemical form which can greatly impact bioavailability and toxicity. For example, no one thinks the bioavailability and toxicity of different N forms are the same (N2, ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, cyanide, amino acids, urea, TNT, nitrous oxide, etc). Why assume it is true for other elements?

 

[areefer01]

2. Natural levels may be below what might be an optimum level (think alkalinity, how many folks target levels in the 6’s?).

I am not understanding this line item and its relationship to the word used, natural. It very well could be that I am either reading too much into it or just not understanding. Wouldn't natural levels be optimum in a healthy reef?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

. Wouldn't natural levels be optimum in a healthy reef?

I don’t know. But I would not assume that ocean levels are optimal (if there even was a single level that was accepted as natural).

Do you keep alkalinity at 6.5 dKH? If not, why not?

 

[areefer01]

I don’t know. But I would not assume that ocean levels are optimal (if there even was a single level that was accepted as natural).

Do you keep alkalinity at 6.5 dKH? If not, why not?

Not a challenge to you, it was just a question. Apologies if it came across that way. I was actually asking about line item 2 as it mentioned alkalinity. I had posted somewhere here an ATI ICP result set from a dive trip I was on in Fiji and alkalinity came back at 6.85. I don't know why salt manufactures push higher values or why hobbyist chase them but I was just curious on the ocean level and optimal comment. I do not claim to know why it is what it is but I can say the reefs are very healthy in that location. Of course know that my exercise is just for fun and nothing professionally done as it relates to ICP vendor (ATI) or my safety stop collection methods...

As to your question do I keep my alkalinity at 6.5? No, I do not. Why? I keep it somewhat close to what a new batch of saltwater reports in case I have an emergency. No other reason. My last alk test at noon today reported 8.09. Max 8.19, mean 7.87 over the last 7 days. I am pretty sure that my tank wouldn't care one way or the other if I am being honest though.

Again this was not one of those types of posts other than I read alkalinity and ocean level is all.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Not a challenge to you, it was just a question. Apologies if it came across that way. I was actually asking about line item 2 as it mentioned alkalinity. I had posted somewhere here an ATI ICP result set from a dive trip I was on in Fiji and alkalinity came back at 6.85. I don't know why salt manufactures push higher values or why hobbyist chase them but I was just curious on the ocean level and optimal comment. I do not claim to know why it is what it is but I can say the reefs are very healthy in that location. Of course know that my exercise is just for fun and nothing professionally done as it relates to ICP vendor (ATI) or my safety stop collection methods...

As to your question do I keep my alkalinity at 6.5? No, I do not. Why? I keep it somewhat close to what a new batch of saltwater reports in case I have an emergency. No other reason. My last alk test at noon today reported 8.09. Max 8.19, mean 7.87 over the last 7 days. I am pretty sure that my tank wouldn't care one way or the other if I am being honest though.

Again this was not one of those types of posts other than I read alkalinity and ocean level is all.

I didn’t take anything bad from your question. I just wouldn’t assume that just because corals thrive in the ocean, that different values might not be better even in the ocean, and more importantly, in a reef tank that cannot mimic other important attributes of the ocean.

Corals in the ocean thrive under most circumstances. If some elements they needed were able to be obtained by spending less energy to do so, might that not help them use that energy to, say, fend off pathogenic bacteria or deal with other stressors? I just don’t assume natural levels are optimal, even if they are adequate.

Many organisms in the ocean work hard to get enough iron. If we provide 10x or 100x or 10000x as much iron, that might be a plus if iron does not have adverse effects at those levels.

 

[FishLvR]

I am going to assume natural 6dkh is fine because the sheer volume. In a small aquarium, hell 1,000 gallons next to the ocean, 6dkh would be hell.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I am going to assume natural 6dkh is fine because the sheer volume. In a small aquarium, hell 1,000 gallons next to the ocean, 6dkh would be hell.

I don’t see how volume matters. A coral cannot know what is happening 5 feet away. All it knows is what is in the water touching it. :)

 

[cba191]

Is there a Balling for Dummies thread to give idiots like me an idea?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Is there a Balling for Dummies thread to give idiots like me an idea?

Are you wanting to literally know about two/three part systems such as Balling? That’s not what this thread is about.

But I discuss two part systems here:

https://www.reef2reef.com/ams/how-a...-calcium-system-works-and-why-it-matters.958/