Bryopsis, Kent Tech M and carbon?

[otrlynn]

Main question: does carbon pull Tech M out of the system? I have not been running carbon for several weeks, but I'd like to put some back online for a couple of days, without causing the mag levels to drop.

What is the consensus on the how high to raise the mag to (hopefully) cause the bryopsis to die off?

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Carbon does not remove any magnesium from the water. It may pull out certain impurities that may be in Tech M, which may be the ones that give the bryopsis effect, but since we do not know what that is, one cannot say with any certainty whether GAC binds it or not.

[otrlynn]

Thanks Randy! I am in a quandry now... From what I have read, it may be likely that the "impurities" in Kent M are what often has the desired effect on bryopsis--expecially since it seems like other brands of mag do not have the same effect on bryopsis.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Yes, that is likely.

[reefkeeper2]

You would think that by now Kent would have determined what the agent is that kills the bryopsis and would be marketing their "Kent Bryopsis Solution"

[MedRed]

Originally Posted by reefkeeper2

You would think that by now Kent would have determined what the agent is that kills the bryopsis and would be marketing their "Kent Bryopsis Solution"

They are smart for not doing it. As of right now, everyone has to by Kent Tech M. Depending on the size of tank, that can be a lot of Tech M ($) to raise the mg to the desired level and maintain it. If they identify and market the impurity, then other companies will know what it is and be able to compete with it.

[agruetz]

I am currently testing this treatment as I have this issue. Currently I am running everything as normal. If no effect I will start removing things, like carbon etc... Only been about 6 hours above 1600 so far no change.

[AcroporAddict]

Originally Posted by agruetz

I am currently testing this treatment as I have this issue. Currently I am running everything as normal. If no effect I will start removing things, like carbon etc... Only been about 6 hours above 1600 so far no change.

Don't expect any overnight changes. I took my Magnesium to 1800 with Tech M and kept it there for 2 weeks.

[belljim]

Originally Posted by AcroporAddict

Don't expect any overnight changes. I took my Magnesium to 1800 with Tech M and kept it there for 2 weeks.

did it work?

[mysterybox]

it worked for him, but not for me....


I used Kent Tech M for the second time for 59 days and wound up at 2200....the bryopsis looked horrible, but did not completely die....


I wound up using the H2O2 method....except for a few tufts here and there that I kill with Kalk & H2O2, it has worked awesome!
by the way, you cannot use carbon while dosing Kent tech m mag.....

[belljim]

thanks, ive got a mild problem but i know how quick this stuff propigates. what is the other method you mentioned?

[mysterybox]

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/sh....php?t=2082359

[tmz]

Ralph did you dose it to the peroxide to the tank or treat it out of the water. Details would be helpful in terms of what you did with success.

[mysterybox]

actually, I think page 10 I denoted all!

However, a little detail here:

I had the profanity removed tank with too many sps colonies and so forth. But alas, I was soooo done, over done. Last option.

I decided to do the tank in 1/3 at a time, 7 days apart.

I also had preteated, bleached, dead live rock ready to go as needed...


I took 1/3 of tank, treated with H202, and replaced with pretreated as I could. Then, the next section, etc. The last section that I did was the over flow.

[TucanSam007]

Kent tech M worked for me in the past. Luckily never had it back since. I think what ever impurities in it really nailed it down then the last remaining bit was wiped out by snails and use of carbon dosing.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

FWIW, one can't give a final magnesium concentration target if it is an impurity in Tech M that is active, because tanks start at such different magnesium levels and it presumably is the rise that is important, not the final value.

[AcroporAddict]

Originally Posted by Randy Holmes-Farley

FWIW, one can't give a final magnesium concentration target if it is an impurity in Tech M that is active, because tanks start at such different magnesium levels and it presumably is the rise that is important, not the final value.

Randy,

Not to argue with you, but the magnesium concentration you are at with Tech M is also an indirect indicator of the trace element concentration in the Tech M that is killing the Bryopsis. I would think the concentration of the impurity (trace element) and the exposure time to that trace concentration could be just as important as the rise in the trace concentration. As the actual element in the Tech M killing the Bryopsis is unknown, the magnesium levels obtained using Tech M would seem to be the best method to have some type of quantitative treatment protocol.

Mysterybox is a friend of mine from our local reef club, so I have no doubt as to his experience, but Tech M killed all my bryopsis. My method was to use Tech M as the sole means to raise the Magnesium levels from whatever concentration it was initially, take the magnesium level up to 1800, then maintain it there with Tech M for a period of two weeks.

Anecdotally, from all the threads I have read, etc., many of the cases where folks use Tech M, but fail, is related to not using Tech M as the sole method to raise the Mag levels of the tank. Instead, they use Mag sulfate or your 2 part formula to raise the mag. levels, then add Tech M when mag levels get to 1600 or so, thereby reducing the concentration and exposure time of the bryopsis to the trace in the Tech M that kills it.

Alternatively, some folks use Tech M solely to raise mag levels, but don't maintain the 1600-1800 magnesium levels in their tank for long enough for a complete kill of the bryopsis.

Regardless of initial magnesium concentrations, the success stories you read about have folks using Tech M to get to mag levels of 1600-1800 and they have a two week period of time they keep it at those levels. Many of my local reef club members have used this protocol with success.

This is, of course, not written in stone. I'm sure trace levels can vary in Tech M according to the batch, and there may be some Bryopsis species that react differently to Tech M than others.

The original Tech M labels listed 24 different trace elements. I've always suspected is was copper, since copper is used as a FW algaecide in ponds, but that is just my personal opinion.

For readers of this thread, here is the list of ionic trace elements in Tech M:

Deionized water containing the following elements (as ions): magnesium, chlorine, sulfur, calcium, potassium, bromine, strontium, boron, fluorine, lithium, rubidium, iodine, iron, molybdenum, zinc, nickel, copper, manganese, vanadium, cesium, cobalt, tungsten, selenium, and chromium.

Also, I am sure there are other ways to kill bryopsis than Tech M, like the H2O2 method Mysterybox used. Tech M is a fairly user friendly, but expensive way to do it, with most folks using it successfully.

Dave

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Originally Posted by AcroporAddict

Randy,

Not to argue with you, but the magnesium concentration you are at with Tech M is also an indirect indicator of the trace element concentration in the Tech M that is killing the Bryopsis. I would think the concentration of the impurity (trace element) and the exposure time to that trace concentration could be just as important as the rise in the trace concentration. As the actual element in the Tech M killing the Bryopsis is unknown, the magnesium levels obtained using Tech M would seem to be the best method to have some type of quantitative treatment protocol.

Think of it this way.

Some salt mixes start at 1200 ppm magnesium. Some start at 1600 ppm.

If you used the former and went to an 1800 ppm target, you'd be adding the equivalent of 600 ppm. With the latter, that is only 200 ppm added. So you are adding 3 times as much Tech M with the former.

That is why I said a boost to magnesium (like "300 ppm") would be the thing to give as a target, not the final value.

[otrlynn]

Dave did you or the people you know that had success with this method, suspend the use of carbon in a filter or reactor while dosing the Kent Tech M? And thanks to you and all who responded!

[tmz]

Randy's point makes perfect sense to me ; more Tech M equals more of whatever is killing the bryopsis ,if the assumptions about an unique impurity and the efficacy of Tech M as a bryopsis control are correct. and those are big "ifs".

While this thread was not intended by the OP to be a discussion on the Tech M approach generally ,. the testimonial for it offered in post#17 takes us there.

Personally I'm dubious about the whole process. Evidence for it hasn't gone beyond testimonials and those cases where it doesn't erradicate the bryopsis are dismissed as errors in applications or other variables in teh aquarium.

I doubt Kent can tell you the amounts of trace elements in the product much less from batch to batch; nor do they sell this product as a bryopsis control.

Even if I assume for the sake of argument that an impurity that only harms bryopsis is present ( a large and likely incorrect assumption assumption) ; how constant would it be from batch to batch.?

I've used Tech M to supplement magnesium in the past when I had bryopsis issues abut 5 years ago without any discernible effect.

The whole idea of overdosing magnesium in pursuit of some unidentified impurity toxic to bryopsis, while hoping the ethal element is there at some level of consistency and won't harm any other living thing does not appeal to me.

Keeping PO4 low will cause bryopsis to wane,ime. Sometimes it takes time( weeks to months) for rock leaching PO4 to exhaust though.


I

[cromedogg33]

In my personal experience in a total volume of about 240g it was not the final number of "xxxx mag" it is the actual increase of the amount.

If you decide "1800" is the magic number and your tank is already at 1600, then increasing it 200 I don't feel will do anything to kill the bryopsis.

My tank was hovering around 1400 when I started. After talking with others from start-finish numbers it appears to need almost a 30% increase as a rough estimate.

Essentially meaning if you are at 1000mg at the start, I personally feel if you head towards 1400 you should see Tech-M start to work.

It's not the MG that's killing the bryopsis....it's the impurity.

[AcroporAddict]

Originally Posted by tmz

Randy's point makes perfect sense to me ; more Tech M equals more of whatever is killing the bryopsis ,if the assumptions about an unique impurity and the efficacy of Tech M as a bryopsis control are correct. and those are big "ifs".

While this thread was not intended by the OP to be a discussion on the Tech M approach generally ,. the testimonial for it offered in post#17 takes us there.

Personally I'm dubious about the whole process. Evidence for it hasn't gone beyond testimonials and those cases where it doesn't erradicate the bryopsis are dismissed as errors in applications or other variables in teh aquarium.

You certainly will not find anything but anecdotal evidence for using Tech M to control bryospis. But you will find a lot of testimonials saying it does work. Based on that reasoning, then, you should doubt the use of Interceptor for Redbugs, as there are only testimonials to support that as well. Some unsuccessful use of Tech M to control bryopsis may be user error, but there could also be Bryopsis species more resistant to whatever trace is killing Bryopsis in those that did have success with it, like myself.

Hundreds have used Tech M to control Bryopsis. Just because there are not scientific studies showing the specifics of why, does not mean it does not work. Many commonly used remedies for pest control in the aquarium have involved using some product for something other than what it was intended.

Interceptor for redbugs, Tech M for Bryopsis, in FW tanks, SeaChem Flourish Excel to control Black Beard Algae (BBA), Fluke Tabs to eliminate GSP, Xenia, and Blue Clove Polyps that have become plagues in Reef Tanks, even Kalk paste on Aiptasia, all used based on other's anecdotal observation. They work, scientifically proven or not.

You will probably find that when the first systemic treatment for AEFWs comes about, it will probably come from the Reef Hobbyist Community, and it will develop based on anecdotal observation, not scientific studies, and it will come from someone using a product for other than it's intended purpose, just like the use of Tech M for Bryopsis came about.

Originally Posted by tmz

I doubt Kent can tell you the amounts of trace elements in the product much less from batch to batch; nor do they sell this product as a bryopsis control.

Correct. If Kent sold Tech M as an algaecide, they would have a host of EPA and other Government regulations to comply with. Tech M for Bryopsis, like Interceptor for Redbugs, is a use at your own risk type scenario, as it would be using anything for a non specified purpose.

Originally Posted by tmz

Even if I assume for the sake of argument that an impurity that only harms bryopsis is present ( a large and likely incorrect assumption assumption) ; how constant would it be from batch to batch.?

I've used Tech M to supplement magnesium in the past when I had bryopsis issues abut 5 years ago without any discernible effect.

The whole idea of overdosing magnesium in pursuit of some unidentified impurity toxic to bryopsis, while hoping the ethal element is there at some level of consistency and won't harm any other living thing does not appeal to me.

Keeping PO4 low will cause bryopsis to wane,ime. Sometimes it takes time( weeks to months) for rock leaching PO4 to exhaust though.

The concentration of the trace that kills Bryopsis in Tech M certainly could vary from batch to batch. I was not arguing that point. That may where some of the unsuccessful attempts to use it for Bryopsis come from.

Anyone's personal preference to use or not use a product for whatever purpose is a choice, but the only supporting evidence being anecdotal observation/testimonials does not mean a particular method does not work. Sometimes, that is all we have in this hobby.

[AcroporAddict]

Originally Posted by cromedogg33

In my personal experience in a total volume of about 240g it was not the final number of "xxxx mag" it is the actual increase of the amount.

If you decide "1800" is the magic number and your tank is already at 1600, then increasing it 200 I don't feel will do anything to kill the bryopsis.

My tank was hovering around 1400 when I started. After talking with others from start-finish numbers it appears to need almost a 30% increase as a rough estimate.

Essentially meaning if you are at 1000mg at the start, I personally feel if you head towards 1400 you should see Tech-M start to work.

It's not the MG that's killing the bryopsis....it's the impurity.

So if your tank was hovering at 1400, then a 30% increase over 1400 would put you at 1820.

Most folks in my local club that have had success using Tech M for Bryopsis have raised their mag levels to 1600-1800 and kept it there for two weeks. I used the upper end of the range just to be sure.

Using an 1800 mag level as a benchmark is not written in stone. People have had success at lower ranges. But it seems that higher magnesium levels in a reef are not a huge risk to corals or fish short term. At 1800 all I had happen, besides the death of all the bryopsis in my 400 gallon system, was a slight lightening of some montiporas that quickly recovered, and some sedated acting Turbo snails. Didn't lose anything else, so the collateral damage for me was minimal.

[Allmost]

Just a FYI, we DO know the active ingredient of Interceptor. and it was made to kill worms in dogs .... doctors and vets made interceptor to do what is does.

kalk on aiptasia and other examples all have scientific background and proof as well

[cromedogg33]

Originally Posted by AcroporAddict

So if your tank was hovering at 1400, then a 30% increase over 1400 would put you at 1820.

Most folks in my local club that have had success using Tech M for Bryopsis have raised their mag levels to 1600-1800 and kept it there for two weeks. I used the upper end of the range just to be sure.

Using an 1800 mag level as a benchmark is not written in stone. People have had success at lower ranges. But it seems that higher magnesium levels in a reef are not a huge risk to corals or fish short term. At 1800 all I had happen, besides the death of all the bryopsis in my 400 gallon system, was a slight lightening of some montiporas that quickly recovered, and some sedated acting Turbo snails. Didn't lose anything else, so the collateral damage for me was minimal.

I believe the reason the 1800 mag level is even discussed is because it's a general figure that is going to be an obvious increase for most normally run tanks.

I believe most cases that didn't work with Tech-M revolve soley around user error. Being either, misidentifcation or not using enough tech-m or long enough. I was baffled by the amounts I went through and began feeling like I was performing water changes with magnesium coming out a 25$ 1 gallon bottles.