Tropic Marin All-For-Reef: Any downsides to it?

[areefer01]

Some two parts systems claim to add extra trace elements to offset consumption. ATI essentials Pro seems to fit that description.

Some two parts add just enough trace elements to offset the salinity impacts and trace element lowering when you adjust salinity back down. ESV B-ionic, TLF C-Balance, and Tropic Marin Balling or a DIY two part (using Balling Part C) fit this description.

Some two parts do not intentionally add trace elements, though some come as impurities in the main components.

IMO, if one is not going to dose trace elements separately (by ICP/dose/repeat) then it is at least second best to not tie the trace element dosing to the calcium and alk dosing, since they are not really tied together in terms of consumption.
To make the point clearer: there is no reason to think trace elements put into a product like AFR or ATI two part will be at an appropriate level for any given reef tank since the demand for calcium and alk is driven heavily by hard corals and perhaps clams, but the demand for trace elements is not (unless it is an SPS heavy tank with little in the way of macroalgae, microalgae, anemones, soft corals, bacterial driven processes such as organic carbon dosing, etc.,etc.).

Thank you for the detailed reply. I think the area of interest for me is around the talking point of appropriate level(s), what those are, do we need to care, and where did they come from.

Just because I had the data available I took a look to see what the trace element history is of my system. The results are via ATI ICP. I do not dose or adjust based on the results. It has just been a curiosity thing that hasn't stopped yet. Never the less hope your day is well.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Thank you for the detailed reply. I think the area of interest for me is around the talking point of appropriate level(s), what those are, do we need to care, and where did they come from.

Just because I had the data available I took a look to see what the trace element history is of my system. The results are via ATI ICP. I do not dose or adjust based on the results. It has just been a curiosity thing that hasn't stopped yet. Never the less hope your day is well.

There’s not much useful info on exactly what concentration range of which chemical form of which trace elements are optimal for any of the organisms we keep.

That said, all of those zeros suggest that your tank may benefit from a trace element supplement, and trying something like tropic Marin A and K would be a good experiment.

 

[areefer01]

There’s not much useful info on exactly what concentration range of which chemical form of which trace elements are optimal for any of the organisms we keep.

I agree.

That said, all of those zeros suggest that your tank may benefit from a trace element supplement, and trying something like tropic Marin A and K would be a good experiment.

That is the interesting part as I'm already using TM AFR. This is of course assuming ATI ICP measures or reports correctly. The fact the history shows a trend I'm assuming at least they are consistent as is my display using or not using them as they are zero.

 

[Hans-Werner]

To make the point clearer: there is no reason to think trace elements put into a product like AFR or ATI two part will be at an appropriate level for any given reef tank since the demand for calcium and alk is driven heavily by hard corals and perhaps clams, but the demand for trace elements is not

This is speculative und finally it doesn't matter.

My original calculation published in 1995/1996 were based on trace element (mainly trace metal/transition metal) concentrations in calcareous skeletons of corals and coralline algae. Whenever calcium carbonate skeletons are formed, this sink is approximately balanced by the trace elements added with calcium and alkalinity with this formula.

It doesn't matter which kind of sink drives the demand for trace elements. With the trace elements added to All-For-Reef trace metals are in balance with calcium and alkalinity for calcification processes.

If every source is in balance with its corresponding sink, everything is balanced. If for example the macronutrients added also provide the trace elements necessary for the target organism (i. e. f/2 medium for algae), they are balanced. If a fish food also provides the trace elements necessary for fish metabolism and growth, it is balanced. If it is a good fish food that provides exactly what the fish and subsequent users (growing on the nutrients excreted by the fish) need, there is neither a deficit nor an accumulation of any essential trace elements.

So finally for most essential trace elements it doesn't really matter if a specific sink is the main sink, it is only important it is balanced.

However, experience from almost three decades has shown that in most reef tanks calcification seems an important sink for a number of essential trace metals and supplementation in certain ratios to calcium and alkalinity makes a difference. I do not know of any ICP analysis that is proofing this assumption wrong.

Maybe the iodine supplementation is still low or a little bit high for some tanks, but this may be the case with other kinds of regular additions based on some other assumptions also. I think it is at least as good as a fixed dosage per gallon per week or per day, likely better. It is no problem to add some extra iodine if some analysis shows this may be closer to the real consumption. I think for most tanks it works quite well the way it is, and it is unbeatably easy.

 

[Hans-Werner]

The fact the history shows a trend I'm assuming at least they are consistent as is my display using or not using them as they are zero.

"Zero" actually means "below detection limit" of their ICP-OES, which is absolutely normal for most transition metals since so they are in reefs. It is only important there is a balanced supply the corals and other organisms can make use of. It is not important if the concetrations exceed the detection limits of some ICP-OES. The corals and other organisms don't care about the detections limits of a specific ICP-OES of a certain lab ...

 

[christwendt]

This is speculative und finally it doesn't matter.

My original calculation published in 1995/1996 were based on trace element (mainly trace metal/transition metal) concentrations in calcareous skeletons of corals and coralline algae. Whenever calcium carbonate skeletons are formed, this sink is approximately balanced by the trace elements added with calcium and alkalinity with this formula.

It doesn't matter which kind of sink drives the demand for trace elements. With the trace elements added to All-For-Reef trace metals are in balance with calcium and alkalinity for calcification processes.

If every source is in balance with its corresponding sink, everything is balanced. If for example the macronutrients added also provide the trace elements necessary for the target organism (i. e. f/2 medium for algae), they are balanced. If a fish food also provides the trace elements necessary for fish metabolism and growth, it is balanced. If it is a good fish food that provides exactly what the fish and subsequent users (growing on the nutrients excreted by the fish) need, there is neither a deficit nor an accumulation of any essential trace elements.

So finally for most essential trace elements it doesn't really matter if a specific sink is the main sink, it is only important it is balanced.

However, experience from almost three decades has shown that in most reef tanks calcification seems an important sink for a number of essential trace metals and supplementation in certain ratios to calcium and alkalinity makes a difference. I do not know of any ICP analysis that is proofing this assumption wrong.

Maybe the iodine supplementation is still low or a little bit high for some tanks, but this may be the case with other kinds of regular additions based on some other assumptions also. I think it is at least as good as a fixed dosage per gallon per week or per day, likely better. It is no problem to add some extra iodine if some analysis shows this may be closer to the real consumption. I think for most tanks it works quite well the way it is, and it is unbeatably easy.

All for reef is an amazing product. I will add that iodine was indeed low and almost actually completely zero when I only dosed all for reef and did not do water changes. I know this from ICP through reef moonshiners. After one year of using all for reef with constant ICP, iodine was the only real flaw I have observed. This is huge and I recommend all for reef to everyone. I currently use all for reef with reef moonshiners but that is a different story. Other essential trace elements that people may dose on the side like potassium have been within recommended levels. Great product and you are spot on in the iodine sense. I now add daily drops of iodine and test via ICP to know my exact level.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

It doesn't matter which kind of sink drives the demand for trace elements. With the trace elements added to All-For-Reef trace metals are in balance with calcium and alkalinity for calcification processes.

This hypothesis seems clearly incorrect to me.

We have loads and loads of reefers here who have reef tanks where the demand for trace elements is partly/mostly/entirely driven by organisms that do not calcify.

How could it possibly be the case that a product designed perfectly for supplying trace elements for hard corals based on calcification rates will be optimal for a tank where those do not dominate? In a low calcification tank, you would hardly be adding any trace elements.

Yes, trace elements come with foods. But many trace elements are lost in the process of going from foods to the next generation of organisms, and thus a tank with zero calcification certainly has demand for trace elements. Some precipitate, some bind to organics and are skimmed or bound to GAC or get exported on detritus, some convert into largely unusable forms,

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

"Zero" actually means "below detection limit" of their ICP-OES, which is absolutely normal for most transition metals since so they are in reefs. It is only important there is a balanced supply the corals and other organisms can make use of. It is not important if the concetrations exceed the detection limits of some ICP-OES. The corals and other organisms don't care about the detections limits of a specific ICP-OES of a certain lab ...

While I agree the we have little to no useful info on exactly what levels of trace metals are optimal, if is not true that many ICP detection limits are below natural levels, especially with more and more labs now using ICP-MS.

 

[Hans-Werner]

While I agree the we have little to no useful info on exactly what levels of trace metals are optimal, if is not true that many ICP detection limits are below natural levels, especially with more and more labs now using ICP-MS.

I know only of Oceamo who at the moment uses ICP-MS, maybe there are others too.

Oceamo usually shows numbers for most essential trace elements, for example here or here. The table of @areefer01 shows some zeros. To my knowledge ATI still uses ICP-OES. They get very low numbers with ICP-OES also, but not quite as low as Oceamo with ICP-MS.

I thought we both are referring to the zeros in areefer01's table.

This hypothesis seems clearly incorrect to me.

Please read my hypothesis again. All-For-Reef supplies the trace elements consumed in calcification. This is the approach and its claim.

Ok, iodine, selenite and vanadium, so most elements of the A- Elements, are added more "freely", according to an empirical approach.

Nevertheless All-For-Reef is a successful product, although it seems not to add enough trace elements for tanks with more heavy algae growth or soft coral growth.

What is the alternative? The usual approach was "do not add what you can't test for". I guess "add what you know is consumed" was the better approach of both alternatives.

 

[areefer01]

Thank you Randy, Hans, for taking the time to reply. Please know up front that my questions are not to cause trouble. My replies or follow up question(s) was trying to understand a few of the comments around cost or trace element aspect.

The only reason why I posted the ATI ICP results is because I was curious as the conversation unfolded and had the data readily available. I may have a report from Oceamo as well but would need to find it.

I have been using AFR now for a couple years and do not see any downsides to it. It is true also that I've used ESV 2 part prior to AFR and did not see any downsides to it. I switched because I liked the single solution.

 

[Hans-Werner]

Please know up front that my questions are not to cause trouble.

I see no trouble, I am just explaining my approach. Everything is good in my eyes.

If Randy doesn't feel offended by my replies everything seems fine. If he does I apologize and put it down to my language skills.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Nevertheless All-For-Reef is a successful product, although it seems not to add enough trace elements for tanks with more heavy algae growth or soft coral growth.

What is the alternative? The usual approach was "do not add what you can't test for". I guess "add what you know is consumed" was the better approach of both alternatives.

The statement above is my point exactly. Aside from dosing based on testing, there is no perfect method for trace element supplementation, but even your own trace element product (A and K) suggest dosing based on time and tank volume, not calcification rates:

"We recommend using Tropic Marin® K+ Elements (part 1: essential catatonic trace elements) and Tropic Marin® A- Elements (part 2: essential anionic trace elements) to ensure a complete supply of trace elements.

Add 1 ml of trace elements (each solution) to each 100 l of aquarium water. The trace element solution must not come into direct contact with the animals."

"

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Thank you Randy, Hans, for taking the time to reply. Please know up front that my questions are not to cause trouble. My replies or follow up question(s) was trying to understand a few of the comments around cost or trace element aspect.

The purpose of a forum, as opposed to a blog or an article, is to hash out complexities. It is always good to debate ideas as the best rise to the top.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I thought we both are referring to the zeros in areefer01's table.

We were. I don't know which company he used, but a number are now starting to use ICP-MS, such as icp analysis dot com (fwiw, not my favorite).

About ICP Analysis for Saltwater Aquariums

So, why should you do ICP-Mass Spec analysis? What will it do for you and your corals? How it Works ICP-Mass Spec is not the most commonly used method in the aquarium world. The instrument we use is usually used to do testing to comply with the EPA regulations in environmental issues, so its...

www.icp-analysis.com

 

[Hans-Werner]

Aside from dosing based on testing, there is no perfect method for trace element supplementation, but even your own trace element product (A and K) suggest dosing based on time and tank volume, not calcification rates:

Yes, true, but we give a formula for mixing with Original Balling: 50 ml K+ Elements per Liter solution Orignal Balling Part A (Ca) and 50 ml of A- Elements per Liter of Original Balling Part B (KH/Alk).

At the time we brought the products in the early 2000s the market was a bit against dosing "heavy metals" like copper. Especially Ron Shimek and the US market were very sensitive. So we did not offer together what originally belonged together. Already in my publication in 1996 I calculated it for mixing into the Balling solutions (which weren't named then, just calcium chloride and sodium bicarbonate solution). The dosing you critizise was a makeshift.