What brands of alkalinity, calcium, and magnesium are you using?

[hawkinsrgk]

I don't get it either???? Magnesium Chloride is Magnesium Chloride is Magnesium Chloride. I'm curious as well....what's the issue???

I responded in Jim's post. Basically the issue is that the mag chloride sticks together and it is hard to put it in a gallon jug

Dow flake does not do this but leaves residue in the bottom

 

[Clarke]

ME Coral Ca & alk Pharmaceutical grade good stuff.

 

[Peanut]

anyone using C-Balance?

 

[Clarke]

Me Coral Pharmaceutical Brand

 

[blank]

Aquaforest

 

[domination2580]

I am currently using the Red Sea liquids. It seems expensive in the long run. I will probably switch to BRS when I run out of Red Sea.

Hey, you can but the powder form amd make a stock solution which is almost 3 gallons worth of alk. I just made a list with charts for dosing the stock solution.

 

[bigrazzer]

brs

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

This is Lou Ekus from Tropic Marin. I feel compelled to add an entry to this thread. My apologies for the “commercial” sound of my entry. It is not meant primarily as such.

It is very interesting to me that this discussion is so active with no mention of the difference between the so called “three part systems” for dosing Ca and alkalinity that include only Mg in the part three or Mg plus a few trace elements and the true three part Balling Method. It is important to note that the standard two part methods increase the percentage of sodium chloride in the water column in relation to the rest of the components of sea water. This is not resolved by just adding Mg. When using a two-part additive, where the part A is calcium chloride and the part B is sodium carbonate/bicarbonate, it is necessary to offset/balance the residual sodium chloride created by the part A and B with the addition of complete sodium chloride free sea salt mixture. This mixture consists of all components of sea water, minus the calcium and alkalinity, not just Mg and a trace element or two. This method is what is known as the Balling Method. Here is a link to a video explanation:



The addition of supplemental Mg is done separately, as well as any supplementary trace element addition. The ionic imbalance created by the two part or (or three part with the part 3 being only Mg) must be addressed and has not been part of this discussion. That is the reason for my post.

There are a few products in the marketplace that will supplement calcium and alkalinity without this ionic imbalance of the residual sodium chloride created. Tropic Marin makes some of them, but this entry is not a sales pitch. But if you are using a part A and B that is calcium chloride and sodium carbonate/bicarbonate, there is nothing you can do to prevent the formation of “left over” sodium chloride after the calcium and carbonates are consumed. That sodium chloride creates the imbalance if it is not offset by the addition of the sodium chloride free sea salt I have mentioned.

In the spirit of full disclosure, Hans-Werner Balling, the originator of the Balling Method was hired by Tropic Marin in 2001. He is currently the Head of R&D and Product Management in the Tropic Marin lab in Germany. Tropic Marin is the only company in the world that makes “Balling” salts in his exact formula under his supervision.

IMO, this is a misleading post.

First, a good commercial two part such as B-ionic can accomplish EXACTLY what the Balling method does, but they put the chemicals into one of the two parts rather than requiring a sodium chloride free salt mix. There is no accumulation of sodium chloride when using B-ionic. One need only monitor salinity, which reefers do anyway. We have disucssed this in detail before.

My simple DIY as sold by BRS also does not accumulate sodium chloride, by, YES, adding magnesium chloride and sulfate in the specified amount. I agree that it does not necessarily add all minor and trace elements in sufficient amounts to maintain NSW levels of all ions, so if you go that route, you may find you want to keep track of elements such as potassium or dose trace elements.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

After years of using a Calcium Reactor I finally moved on. The only proper methods I know... Hans Werner's Balling Method or Claude Schumacher's Fauna Marin Balling Light. Went with the latter.

It is no more proper or desirable than a well designed two part. They accomplish exactly the same thing.

 

[wowkingjames]

Thanks for the info.

 

[Oberst Oswald]

BRS

 

[Lou Ekus]

IMO, this is a misleading post.

First, a good commercial two part such as B-ionic can accomplish EXACTLY what the Balling method does, but they put the chemicals into one of the two parts rather than requiring a sodium chloride free salt mix. There is no accumulation of sodium chloride when using B-ionic. One need only monitor salinity, which reefers do anyway. We have discussed this in detail before.

My simple DIY as sold by BRS also does not accumulate sodium chloride, by, YES, adding magnesium chloride and sulfate in the specified amount. I agree that it does not necessarily add all minor and trace elements in sufficient amounts to maintain NSW levels of all ions, so if you go that route, you may find you want to keep track of elements such as potassium or dose trace elements.

Once again, Randy, you and I will just have to agree to disagree. In my opinion, your post is the one that is misleading. “A good commercial two part” Ca/Alk additives, that include "some" of the 70 trace elements found in natural sea water, only balances out part of the ionic imbalance created depending on how many trace elements they include. You CAN NOT deny the fact that the part A and part B leave a residual amount of sodium chloride that has to be balanced out with the remaining salt water elements. You CAN argue that the remaining imbalance is not enough to cause any issues. But to say that they do “EXACTLY” what the Balling Method does is misleading and in my opinion incorrect.

Once again the Balling Method is being misrepresented here and the explanation of its place in reef keeping is being glossed over. I find it hard to understand why this is so well understood in Europe and so swept under the carpet anemone here in the US. Please don't misunderstand my stance: you can certainly argue that the imbalance that is left over after a less than complete attempt is made to compensate for extra left over sodium chloride resulting from a part A and B supplementation, is not enough to make a difference. What you can't argue, is that the imbalance exists as a result of that addition if the compensatory trace elements added are not the FULL extent of what is found in clean natural sea water.

I will leave this argument where it is, as it probably should be a whole other thread. But I don't agree about my post being misleading in any way if you look at the chemistry of the addition. And that, Randy, is something that you are usually very good at.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Once again, Randy, you and I will just have to agree to disagree. In my opinion, your post is the one that is misleading. “A good commercial two part” Ca/Alk additives, that include "some" of the 70 trace elements found in natural sea water, only balances out part of the ionic imbalance created depending on how many trace elements they include. You CAN NOT deny the fact that the part A and part B leave a residual amount of sodium chloride that has to be balanced out with the remaining salt water elements. You CAN argue that the remaining imbalance is not enough to cause any issues. But to say that they do “EXACTLY” what the Balling Method does is misleading and in my opinion incorrect.

Once again the Balling Method is being misrepresented here and the explanation of its place in reef keeping is being glossed over. I find it hard to understand why this is so well understood in Europe and so swept under the carpet anemone here in the US. Please don't misunderstand my stance: you can certainly argue that the imbalance that is left over after a less than complete attempt is made to compensate for extra left over sodium chloride resulting from a part A and B supplementation, is not enough to make a difference. What you can't argue, is that the imbalance exists as a result of that addition if the compensatory trace elements added are not the FULL extent of what is found in clean natural sea water.

I will leave this argument where it is, as it probably should be a whole other thread. But I don't agree about my post being misleading in any way if you look at the chemistry of the addition. And that, Randy, is something that you are usually very good at.

NO, you are pushing a product and blasting others without any apparent understanding of the chemistry involved. This is not an opinion that can be disagreed with or not as you choose. It is simple chemistry fact. I don't see how you can disagree on simplistic chemistry issues. Perhaps you need to sit down with Hans and ask him if it is not possible make a two part that exactly balances to natural seawater ratios. In other words, what component of your sodium chloride free salt CANNOT be mixed into one or both parts of a two part? If he says some cannot, then I'd want to hear exactly what component of seawater cannot be put into a two part and why.

In simple terms, why do you believe that one cannot make a two part that does what B-ionic claims, which is to leave a seawater ratio of ions?

We could argue about whether yours does what it claims or B-ionic does what it claims by seeing an exact chemical analysis, but without that, you simply cannot give ANY reason that I have ever heard that a two part cannot accomplish what is claimed. Or if you can, I'd appreciate hearing it.

 

[srad750c]

Aquaforest Component 1,2,3. 100 ml every other day.
SeaChem Marine buffer in top off water, 2 tsp/5 gals of RO/DI water

Ca - 425 - 450ppm
dKH - 9.1
Mg - 1500 - 1600, won't go lower

 

[JimWelsh]

Once again, Randy, you and I will just have to agree to disagree. In my opinion, your post is the one that is misleading. “A good commercial two part” Ca/Alk additives, that include "some" of the 70 trace elements found in natural sea water, only balances out part of the ionic imbalance created depending on how many trace elements they include. You CAN NOT deny the fact that the part A and part B leave a residual amount of sodium chloride that has to be balanced out with the remaining salt water elements. You CAN argue that the remaining imbalance is not enough to cause any issues. But to say that they do “EXACTLY” what the Balling Method does is misleading and in my opinion incorrect.

Once again the Balling Method is being misrepresented here and the explanation of its place in reef keeping is being glossed over. I find it hard to understand why this is so well understood in Europe and so swept under the carpet anemone here in the US. Please don't misunderstand my stance: you can certainly argue that the imbalance that is left over after a less than complete attempt is made to compensate for extra left over sodium chloride resulting from a part A and B supplementation, is not enough to make a difference. What you can't argue, is that the imbalance exists as a result of that addition if the compensatory trace elements added are not the FULL extent of what is found in clean natural sea water.

I will leave this argument where it is, as it probably should be a whole other thread. But I don't agree about my post being misleading in any way if you look at the chemistry of the addition. And that, Randy, is something that you are usually very good at.

I want to call BS on the oft-cited "70 trace elements found in natural sea water" argument. Are you actually trying to claim that the Balling method "EXACTLY" addresses the imbalance to "the FULL extent of what is found in clean natural sea water" including those of the "70 trace elements" that are radioactive heavy metals? Never mind that the concentrations of most, if not all, elements in natural ocean water varies significantly with location and depth. How does the Balling method address ensuring EXACTLY the NSW level of, say, uranium? How about mercury? Are they adding just the right amount of mercury to ensure NSW levels? How about gold?

I suggest that if you are going to claim that all the "70 trace elements found in natural sea water" are being addressed in any meaningful way regarding any salt or supplement, that questions such as the ones I'm raising need to be addressed, or the claim should be withdrawn.

 

[Lou Ekus]

@Randy Holmes-Farley

This is EXACTLY why I ALWAYS hesitate to make entries directly on your Reef2Reef forums.

If you read my post carefully, you will see that I DID NOT say that "it cannot be done" in a two part system. What I said was that current good commercial two part systems do not compensate totally for the ionic imbalance. That they compensate for "some" of the trace elements in that imbalance. If the product just says that it includes all the "important" or "necessary" or "essential" trace elements, then it is making assumptions about which ones are important and not including all 70. I am NOT "blasting" other products. I am trying to have a discussion about the chemistry of a certain approach. I don't believe there is ANY two part on the market currently that states that it includes all 70 trace elements found in natural sea water. I also don't know of anyone who has the capacity at home to test and add the correct amount of all 70 trace elements to make up the difference.

Also, I am not "pushing a product", I am stating the advantages of a known and proven system. You, then, come back at me a twisted version of what I said, stating that it is not proven by the simple chemistry. I don't have anything against ANY of the companies making two part systems. And I don't have anything against the people that use them. In fact, I visit many tanks that use the two part method and do very well. But the chemistry of the interaction is what proves my point, not my opinion.

As I have stated in my earlier post... If you want to have the opinion that the resulting ionic imbalance is so small that it is not important enough to worry about, I will be happy to leave the argument there and respect your opinion. That is a totally valid opinion. NO PROBLEM. But to state that the chemistry of currently available two part methods completely addresses the ionic imbalance created by the addition of calcium chloride and sodium bicarbonate is just not true to the actual chemistry of the resulting interaction. You know that, and attacking me for pointing it out is not helpful to aquarists reading this thread.

@JimWelsh, I don't have a full current trace analysis of sea water in front of me and I am not a chemist. However, I don't believe that uranium, radioactive or otherwise, is included in the list of trace elements in clean natural sea water in current analysis. Also, there are certainly variations in relation to these 70 trace elements in various ocean depths and locations. That being said, there is always a currently accepted analysis, that changes slightly from time to time, that lists the relative concentrations of the 70 trace elements that are accepted as the traces found in clean natural sea water. There are certainly companies that work very hard to address the very small concentrations of all of these. "Exactly" addressing the issue is relative to how small a parameter can be measured. But saying it is all BS is not correct either. And yes, both Gold and Mercury are listed and guaranteed on our salt package.

I will not take any of these attacks personally as I know how hard it is for forums like this to accept any input or information from anyone associated with a manufacturer. That being said, if it always turns into a brawl then the aquarists following the forum loose out. For that reason, I tried to ad some information that was being left out of this discussion. I will go back to trying to restrict my forum entries and just read along as usual since even REEF2REEF staff seem to dislike entries from manufacturers.

 

[Rob_I]

Seachem Fusion 1 and Fusion 2 via Neptune Systems DOS.

 

[Szilard Revesz]

I use fauna marine bailing.works great.

 

[JimWelsh]

[USER=18853]@JimWelsh, I don't have a full current trace analysis of sea water in front of me and I am not a chemist. However, I don't believe that uranium, radioactive or otherwise, is included in the list of trace elements in clean natural sea water in current analysis. Also, there are certainly variations in relation to these 70 trace elements in various ocean depths and locations. That being said, there is always a currently accepted analysis, that changes slightly from time to time, that lists the relative concentrations of the 70 trace elements that are accepted as the traces found in clean natural sea water. There are certainly companies that work very hard to address the very small concentrations of all of these. "Exactly" addressing the issue is relative to how small a parameter can be measured. But saying it is all BS is not correct either. And yes, both Gold and Mercury are listed and guaranteed on our salt package.[/USER]

Full current trace analysis is available here: http://www.mbari.org/science/upper-...roup/periodic-table-of-elements-in-the-ocean/

You fall back on the "I'm not a chemist" cop-out, but still quote things that you cannot support, as though you have some justification for citing the oft-repeated "70 trace elements" meme. As far as I am aware, uranium IS in the list, and I challenge you to specify which isotope of uranium is NOT radioactive. Since you continue to cite the "70 trace elements" meme, then please back up your assertion with a list of which 70 elements you are talking about, and how each of them is regulated, listed and guaranteed in "our salt package". That last quoted phrase seems to indicate that you are a representative of some salt manufacturer -- please specify which salt product you are claiming to represent.

I still call BS on the "70 trace elements" marketing hype that is so often used, because you cannot reasonably justify the ability to control the concentration of that many elements with sufficient precision and accuracy to match NSW levels, regardless of which geographical location and/or depth in the ocean is chosen as the standard against which your salt is to be compared. Many of the "70 trace elements" (of which several are not at all "trace") are also present in even reagent-grade salts in quantities greater than NSW levels such that assertions that your salt does not contain significantly greater concentrations than NSW are simply not credible.

If you wish to be reasonable, and to restrict your consideration to the much smaller number of elements that are relevant to discuss than the ridiculously inflated number of "70", then perhaps I might relax my skepticism a bit. But, as long as you continue to trot out the "70 trace elements" BS over and over again, then I will continue to call BS on you until you provide the extraordinary evidence that is required to support such an extraordinary claim.

 

[Lou Ekus]

Full current trace analysis is available here: http://www.mbari.org/science/upper-...roup/periodic-table-of-elements-in-the-ocean/

You fall back on the "I'm not a chemist" cop-out, but still quote things that you cannot support, as though you have some justification for citing the oft-repeated "70 trace elements" meme. As far as I am aware, uranium IS in the list, and I challenge you to specify which isotope of uranium is NOT radioactive. Since you continue to cite the "70 trace elements" meme, then please back up your assertion with a list of which 70 elements you are talking about, and how each of them is regulated, listed and guaranteed in "our salt package". That last quoted phrase seems to indicate that you are a representative of some salt manufacturer -- please specify which salt product you are claiming to represent.

I still call BS on the "70 trace elements" marketing hype that is so often used, because you cannot reasonably justify the ability to control the concentration of that many elements with sufficient precision and accuracy to match NSW levels, regardless of which geographical location and/or depth in the ocean is chosen as the standard against which your salt is to be compared. Many of the "70 trace elements" (of which several are not at all "trace") are also present in even reagent-grade salts in quantities greater than NSW levels such that assertions that your salt does not contain significantly greater concentrations than NSW are simply not credible.

If you wish to be reasonable, and to restrict your consideration to the much smaller number of elements that are relevant to discuss than the ridiculously inflated number of "70", then perhaps I might relax my skepticism a bit. But, as long as you continue to trot out the "70 trace elements" BS over and over again, then I will continue to call BS on you until you provide the extraordinary evidence that is required to support such an extraordinary claim.

I apologize for not being more specific about company representation. Jim, my wife and I have been the North American office for Tropic Marin for the last 20 years. My statement about not being a chemist is not a "cop out" but a qualifier. I was merely making sure that my comments were taken in context. I will try to get more specific information about the sources and claims of the "70 trace element meme" that you are so critical of, from my scientists in our lab in Germany. My job is to spread the information they supply me with. Hence the "not a chemist" statement. I'll see what I can do in the way of getting that info. For right now, I try to never get in the argument of an absent member. And until I know more, I wouldn't want to make any speculative statements.