Ok I need some help

[tankjunky]

So I tested some things again. SG is slowly going up. Alk leveled off at 4.5 meq/l. . . 12.6dkh.

[uncleof6]

Originally Posted by tmz

I don't know what they are or where they came from or in what context they should be used, if any.
Calcium carbonate which is what corals and other calcifying organisms produce is about 20ppm calcium for every 2.8 dkh(1 meq/l) consumed so it is often necessary to supplement alkalinity in high consumption systems.
Maintaining a range of 7 to 11 dkh(2.5 to 4.0meq/l) with calcium north of 400ppm is all you need.
FWIW, my system runs well with calcium at 550ppm, alkalinity 9.5 and magnesium at 1450ppm at sg of 1.026 fwiw. Bumping alkalinity around to catch up with calcium can be harmful( spiky alkalinity can upset coral calcification activitiy, raise ph and may result in abiotic precipitation of calcium carbonate ,for example) It makes no sense at all to me.
Keeping alkalinity relatively constant within range is what's important.

btw ,many salt mixes carry in calcium in excess of 500 ppm.

Source: "The Reef Aquarium - Volume 3,” by Julian Sprung and Charles Delbeek. As for the comment about giving bad advice: I gave no advice what so ever. It was not asked for in the context of my post, that I am aware of. All due respect to Randy Holmes-Farley, but just as I have not followed Dr. Ron Shimek's work, neither have I followed his.

I see no reason whatsoever to purchase a salt mix that has a calcium content that exceeds natural seawater by
by almost 25%. Hype, hype, and more hype.

J

[porthios]

I see no reason whatsoever to purchase a salt mix that has a calcium content that exceeds natural seawater by almost 25%.

to offset the supplementation that would otherwise be (and often still is) required were the content equal to that found in NSW.

de oppresso liber btw

[uncleof6]

Originally Posted by porthios

I see no reason whatsoever to purchase a salt mix that has a calcium content that exceeds natural seawater by almost 25%.

to offset the supplementation that would otherwise be (and often still is) required were the content equal to that found in NSW.

de oppresso liber btw

Well that certainly is a "reason" however, there is no scientific basis to do this. It is nothing more than a marketing scheme, to get additional sales-- by baffling the consumer with............. very much like another "miracle" type substance, that by analysis is nothing more than silica sand, and silica sand is dirt cheap

Jim

[BeanMachine]

Originally Posted by tankjunky

So I tested some things again. SG is slowly going up. Alk leveled off at 4.5 meq/l. . . 12.6dkh.

I'm enjoying the read.

Your alk is a little high IMO. Where's your calcium at now?

[tankjunky]

calcium went to 410

[uncleof6]

Now I will put a context to my original post. The relationship between calcium and alkalinity, is science, not bucket chemistry.

calcium 410 alkalinity 12.6 dKh.

It is out of balance, alkalinity high in relation to calcium.

Using these figures only, not what they might be today....

Do not dose a balanced supplement. This would only cause the alkalinity to rise, increasing the imbalance. Dose only calcium, or the calcium part of a two part supplement. This will raise the calcium level, but the alkalinity will lower (as it is used up.) Do not raise levels quickly. You have to keep close track of what is going on. A balance will be reached (per chart) and then you can start using a balanced supplement. You can use none to decrease the levels, or more to increase the levels within the range. Once balanced, as long as your magnesium level is > 1200 ppm, (most prefer higher at 1300 + ppm) the balance will be maintained as calcium and alkalinity are used at equal rates. If alkalinity is low in relation to calcium, bring the dkh up slowly, calcium will drop (as it is used up.)

This gives you a firm handle on this aspect of reef chemistry, that can be duplicated any time necessary to correct high or low values.(of either or both) Rather than anywhere in the range as long as calcium is between x and y bucket chemistry approach. In terms of marine systems, bucket chemistry is just bad science. Stability and balance is good science.

Jim

[tmz]

You really need to read the whole chapter 5.pgs 199-245 of the Reef Aquarium Vol 3.(Chapter 4 is helpful as well) and understand it more before suggesting that others raise alkalinity to very high and potentially harmful levels to match relatively common calcium values( in the higher ranges).
.Please stop doing that and claiming it's science. It's a confused out of context interpretation and application.
Reading beyond Sprung and Delbeek and Dr Shimek ( all excellent resources) would be a good idea too if you want to get a handle on basic reef chemsitry .Much of the chemistry in Sprung and Delbeek's work cites Dr Farely,btw.There are also a number of his helpful articles listed at the top of the Reef chemsitry forum as well as a dosing calculator and a breakout of the alkalinity ,calcium and magnesium for most salt mixes which may help you gain a useful level of understanding.

As for hype, many salt mixes happen to have high calcium(>500ppm calcium and magnesium > 1300ppm) which is neither a necessarily good or bad thing
It's not hype. It just is.As such it points out how temerarious it is to push alkalinty up to match calcium as you recommend . Do you actually run a tank this way?

The chart which is on page 207 of the Reef Aquairum Vol 3 ,simply represents what calcium and alkalinity levels would be if they perfectly matched the consumption of alkalinity and calcium in calcium carbonate preciptiation. As such it is reference for calculating supplements .You are misapplying it. It does not imply nor is it a guide to optimal reef tank levels for these two major ions.

Maintaining calcium and alkalinity within recommended ranges is what is needed:

dkh 7 to 11 dkh.

calcium 400 plus.

Either can be a higher but too much of one or the other coupled with high ph may cause precipitation. Keeping magnesium over 1200ppm helps maintain alkalinity and calcium at higher levels.
FWIW my system runs well with good growth an color at 550ppm calcium, 10 dkh and 1450ppm magnesium . if I jumped the alkalinty to match that in an exentsion of the chart .it would take dkh well over 20 which would cause ph to spike , calcium and alkalinity to fall out solution and kill a bunch of things along the way.

[tmz]

[QUOTE=T Man;15970609]I beg to differ, I've been observing sweeper tentacles in leathers for years.

: Well, the links don't work . Which "leathers" have you observed put out stingeres..Never, saw nepthea, sinularia, litpopyton,sacrophyton,capnella or any other coral commonly called a leather put out stingers , nor have I ever seen a reference to this behavior until now. If theydo I'd like to learn more about it. They do shed skin periodicaly which doesn't really look like a stinger but I supposed could be misidentified.In any case ,they all realease toxins. Perhaps you are thinking of a euphyllia or favia which are commonly refered to as lps corals.

[uncleof6]

Originally Posted by tmz

You really need to read the whole chapter 5.pgs 199-245 of the Reef Aquarium Vol 3.(Chapter 4 is helpful as well) and understand it more before suggesting that others raise alkalinity to very high and potentially harmful levels to match relatively common calcium values( in the higher ranges).
.Please stop doing that and claiming it's science. It's a confused out of context interpretation and application.
Reading beyond Sprung and Delbeek and Dr Shimek ( all excellent resources) would be a good idea too if you want to get a handle on basic reef chemsitry .Much of the chemistry in Sprung and Delbeek's work cites Dr Farely,btw.There are also a number of his helpful articles listed at the top of the Reef chemsitry forum as well as a dosing calculator and a breakout of the alkalinity ,calcium and magnesium for most salt mixes which may help you gain a useful level of understanding.

As for hype, many salt mixes happen to have high calcium(>500ppm calcium and magnesium > 1300ppm) which is neither a necessarily good or bad thing
It's not hype. It just is.As such it points out how temerarious it is to push alkalinty up to match calcium as you recommend . Do you actually run a tank this way?

The chart which is on page 207 of the Reef Aquairum Vol 3 ,simply represents what calcium and alkalinity levels would be if they perfectly matched the consumption of alkalinity and calcium in calcium carbonate preciptiation. As such it is reference for calculating supplements .You are misapplying it. It does not imply nor is it a guide to optimal reef tank levels for these two major ions.

Maintaining calcium and alkalinity within recommended ranges is what is needed:

dkh 7 to 11 dkh.

calcium 400 plus.

Either can be a higher but too much of one or the other coupled with high ph may cause precipitation. Keeping magnesium over 1200ppm helps maintain alkalinity and calcium at higher levels.
FWIW my system runs well with good growth an color at 550ppm calcium, 10 dkh and 1450ppm magnesium . if I jumped the alkalinty to match that in an exentsion of the chart .it would take dkh well over 20 which would cause ph to spike , calcium and alkalinity to fall out solution and kill a bunch of things along the way.

Again, read the post. I HAVE NOT RECOMMENDED THAT ALKALINITY BE RAISED TO A VERY HIGH LEVEL OR OUT OF RANGE. Calcium range: 400 - 450 ppm. Per chart this dictates the alkalinity range as: 5.6 - 12.6 dKh. Natural seawater has an alkalinity in the 7 - 8 dKh range. Natural seawater has a calcium level that is about 1.2% by weight of the solids (410 ppm). I have seen a couple different recommendations for dKh levels in saltwater aquraiums, generally 7 - 10 dKH, (sometimes 11 dKh.) This further limits the range of calcium, if you have an interest in maintaining natural proportions. I don't see any reason, to use levels that are out of proportion with, or deviate far from, natural levels. Nature is much smarter than any of us.

You prefer to use calculators and any old number will do, that is fine-- I really don't care. But you are extrapolating the chart out, and creating your own context, so certainly you can accuse me of being confused and out of context.

[tmz]

No need to maintain calcium at levels higher than natural seawater but no harm in it either.If the tank has high calcium there is no need to chase it with alkalinity boosting.If you want to lower it just add enough alkalinity( such as baking soda) slowly to match consumption and hold it at a desired level for your system,generally between 7 and 11 dkh for a period of time. It may take weeks since calcium is used much more slowly than alkalinity.For 20ppm calcium, 1 meq/l or 2.8 dkh of alkalinity will be consumed.

In some cases if you happen to be using a high calcium salt for example, you may not even have to dose calcium very often if at all.

[porthios]

Well that certainly is a "reason" however, there is no scientific basis to do this. It is nothing more than a marketing scheme, to get additional sales-- by baffling the consumer with............. very much like another "miracle" type substance, that by analysis is nothing more than silica sand, and silica sand is dirt cheap

sorry. i wasn't clear. it's not science, just math. given sufficient size and frequency of water changes, you can keep ca/alk/mg at NSW levels using a salt with >NSW levels of the same, letting you avoid additional supplementation methods (ca reactor, two part, kalk, etc..).

i wouldn't run a system that way. i'm just sayin..

[tankjunky]

did a 10 gallon water change today.

Just tested again,

Ca-440
Alk-4meq/4. . .11.2Dkh
Sg-1.024

I have a Mg kit and suplements coming hopefully next week, placed the order last nite

[T Man]

Originally Posted by tmz

: Well, the links don't work . Which "leathers" have you observed put out stingeres..Never, saw nepthea, sinularia, litpopyton,sacrophyton,capnella or any other coral commonly called a leather put out stingers , nor have I ever seen a reference to this behavior until now. If theydo I'd like to learn more about it. They do shed skin periodicaly which doesn't really look like a stinger but I supposed could be misidentified.In any case ,they all realease toxins. Perhaps you are thinking of a euphyllia or favia which are commonly refered to as lps corals.

I don't know why the links don't work, but my observation was of the sacrophyton and sinularia. The biologist in one of the articles was skeptical also until seeing it first hand - I got the info off google under sweeper tentacles coral leathers...it's there.

[tmz]

Ok, thanks for the google search information. On my computer the links you posted just showed up "page not found".I read several of the links on the google search including some of your previously posted links. I found one claimed observation( on pet education)of "fine ill defined sweepers", no photos, from a leather which I surmise may have just been skin shed. By and large all of the write up note sweepers as an aggression mechanism for hard corals which is consistent with my experience and understanding But thanks for the information,it's always worth hearing about new anecdotal observations. Do you have any photos of your observations?

[tankjunky]

Today I noticed a few new polyps on my zoas, one on my luner eclips zoas, two on my raptors rainbow, and one on my pink zoas.

[tankjunky]

Mag was at 1150, Slowly raising up to 1600. This will also kill off whats left of any hair algea too rite