So, how essential are halogenes and trace elements?

[Chepre01]

Hello guys,
did my first ICP recently (having problems with Cyanos since a while) where mostly some halogenes and trace elements are out of range.
Some of them I ve never heard or read anywhere til now.
I mean, how important/essential are these parameters really?
Should I leave it like that or try to get them also withing recommended range?

n.d = not detectable

what testing ideal range


Fluroid 0,67 0,90 – 1,60
Iod (total) 0,018 0,055 –0,080



Bromid: Fluroid 103,3 34 –83
Fluroid: Iod 37,2 11 – 29
Total Phosphat : Nitrat 260 90 – 110 (already opened a separate thread)



Zink n.d. 3 – 8
Vanadium n.d. 2 – 10
Copper 0,99 2 – 6
Nickel 1,89 3 – 6
Chrom n.d 0,05 – 2,3
Cobalt n.d 0,02 – 1,90
Barium 68,2 5 - 50

 

[blaxsun]

If you have a small to medium-sized tank, regular water changes (10% every week to two weeks) will typically replace most of your trace elements. There are also various supplements (Aquaforest, Nyos, Red Sea, etc.) you can use to supplement as needed.

How important are they? In a FOWLR - not at all. With mainly soft and LPS corals, somewhat important. With a lot of LPS and SPS probably fairly important. This is in terms of maintaining and optimizing coral health, growth, etc.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I think I’d treat F- supplementation as experimental.

I’m not convinced that iodide is as useful as many claim, and I stopped dosing it after years of doing so, but many folks are convinced it helps their corals.

 

[Viking_Reefing]

There’s definitely some benefit of having no them in their proper ranges but I’m far from convinced that they are as important as people make them out to be. I mean, we have great tanks full of acros two decades ago and we didn’t do much of any trace element supplementation except for water changes.

I think that the main issue with ICP tests (apart from the fact that they are, generally, highly inaccurate) is that they give people way to much data without the knowledge to properly interpret and act on the information.

 

[Pod_01]

I mean, how important/essential are these parameters really?

Just opinion, but if your corals are growing well and all looks perfect than keep the ICP results for future reference.

On the other hand if things are not perfect and corals are not growing I would start with adjusting water parameters first.
From my experience Fluoride and Iodine I would get in range. They do seem to help the overall tank, not sure if there is specific benefit to a particular coral but when in range the my tank runs better. Next I would increase Zinc, again when in range I don’t have issues with Dino’s etc…
After adjustment of those 3 you can consider using some trace supplement like Tropic Marin A and K. Even if ICP shows n.d. you know they are added and the system is using them in some way. Also at that time you can adjust the dose based on ICP and your observations of the reef.

Good luck,

 

[Court_Appointed_Hypeman]

I think I’d treat F- supplementation as experimental.

I’m not convinced that iodide is as useful as many claim, and I stopped dosing it after years of doing so, but many folks are convinced it helps their corals.

Do you think its possible to design an experiment around coral health and iodide? I feel like a trial with 20 tanks with and 20 tanks without still wouldn't be able to account for enough if the variables in the microbiome and chemisty, and still won't tell us about the mechanism at play, which is probably the part that matters.

How would we even begin to try to determine the method of action?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Do you think its possible to design an experiment around coral health and iodide? I feel like a trial with 20 tanks with and 20 tanks without still wouldn't be able to account for enough if the variables in the microbiome and chemisty, and still won't tell us about the mechanism at play, which is probably the part that matters.

How would we even begin to try to determine the method of action?

The problem with such tests is they are slow and expensive, even though they are relatively easy to design. I did such a test with macroalgae growth and iodine. But corals are much harder.

 

[Chepre01]

And is it possible that a lack of halogenes/trace elements cause algae growth/cyano growth?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

And is it possible that a lack of halogenes/trace elements cause algae growth/cyano growth?

Not likely. They need the same trace elements too.

That said, some halogens are used by algae to make molecules that make the algae less palatable to some herbivores.

This article has an extensive discussion:

Halogenated Compounds from Marine Algae

Marine algae produce a cocktail of halogenated metabolites with potential commercial value. Structures exhibited by these compounds go from acyclic entities with a linear chain to complex polycyclic molecules. Their medical and pharmaceutical application ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

and this:

The natural production of organobromine compounds - Environmental Science and Pollution Research

Organobromine chemicals are produced naturally by an array of biological and other chemical processes in our environment. Some of these compounds are identical to man-made organobromine compounds, such as methyl bromide, bromoform, and bromophenols, but many others are entirely new moleclar...

link.springer.com

Organobromine compounds are produced naturally by marine creatures (sponges, corals, sea slugs, tunicates, sea fans) and seaweed, plants, fungi, lichen, algae, bacteria, microbes, and some mammals. Many of these organobromine compounds are used in chemical defense, to facilitate food gathering, or as hormones.