Bryopsis, Kent Tech M and carbon?

[brandon429]

We haven't got a full tank shot of the problem yet it might be possible to not have to dose the whole tank. A huge number of 'bryopsis on my frag' is nothing but a spot kill with no follow up, until the next re import!

[AcroporAddict]

Originally Posted by 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

Yes, but that really has nothing to do with Tech M and bryopsis. Ivermectin is used in animals as a deworming agent, not an intended treatment against redbugs, a crustacean. Interceptor's effect on Redbugs came about as a result of anecdotal observation, not scientific studies, and it came from within the Reef Hobby Community, originated by Dustin Dorton at ORA.

And we do know the traces in Tech M, we just don't know which one of them kills the bryopsis.

And no, there are no scientific studies about Kalk paste killing aiptasia. People tried it and observed that it worked, nothing more than than anecdotal observation and testimonials, just like Tech M and Bryopsis. If you are aware of some, please cite them for me. I have never seen any.

[brandon429]

I love anecdote arguments. You can amass a thousand pest cures over and over and its never good enough for some

I feel that every advancement in home reefing started as a darn nice anec lol but really

[AcroporAddict]

Originally Posted by brandon429

I love anecdote arguments. You can amass a thousand pest cures over and over and its never good enough for some

I feel that every advancement in home reefing started as a darn nice anec lol but really

I totally agree with you. What gets me are the "if you can't prove it scientifically then it doesn't work or exist" die hards. It would be nice if everything that works in a reef tank were based on scientific sudies, but that is just not the practical reality of the hobby.

[tmz]

Originally Posted by 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

Exactly . Much different than chasing a "mystery toxin" in a product with likely variabiliy. I know what's in them and how they work to some extent.. I can see red bugs fall off when dipped. I can also watch my shrimp, pods, and other crustaceans die it I chose to put it in my tank.I know why calcium hydroxide kills aiptasia.

I agree learning as we go via anecdotal information is important with some basis. The idea of increasing magnesium to take advantage of a mystery impurity in a certain product without a clue about what it is and how much is in it from batch to batch is not for me.
I remain dubious.


There are alternatives for bryopsis control , ie, controlling inorganic phosphate.
The argument that goes: if it didn't work for you; you did it wrong is ,well.....

Back to the OPs question,this hijack has gone on long enough:

I don't think anyone can answer the question about granualted activated carbon because there is no way to know if or which element in a Tech M batch is actually effecting the bryopsis directly or indirectly , and; if so then without knowing what it is and it's hydrophobic or hydrophylic tendencies ; the mystery elements affinity for gac is unknowable .

[Allmost]

Originally Posted by AcroporAddict

Yes, but that really has nothing to do with Tech M and bryopsis. Ivermectin is used in animals as a deworming agent, not an intended treatment against redbugs, a crustacean. Interceptor's effect on Redbugs came about as a result of anecdotal observation, not scientific studies, and it came from within the Reef Hobby Community, originated by Dustin Dorton at ORA.

And we do know the traces in Tech M, we just don't know which one of them kills the bryopsis.

And no, there are no scientific studies about Kalk paste killing aiptasia. People tried it and observed that it worked, nothing more than than anecdotal observation and testimonials, just like Tech M and Bryopsis. If you are aware of some, please cite them for me. I have never seen any.

lol

you really think there is no explanation for why kalk kills everything ? not just aiptasia, but inject kalk into palys they die, inject it to zoas, they die, you can review Randy's article on kalk and lime water for explanation on what it does when added to water

....

I am not arguing nor do I want to be part of this arguement, but just pointing out, that there is scientific reasoning behind all that you used as examples interceptor, kalk and so on.

[Allmost]

Originally Posted by AcroporAddict

I totally agree with you. What gets me are the "if you can't prove it scientifically then it doesn't work or exist" die hards. It would be nice if everything that works in a reef tank were based on scientific sudies, but that is just not the practical reality of the hobby.

as an engineer, I do not like this statement.

Science, including Physicas and Chemistry can explain all.

everything that happens in a reef tank [lets face it, in a sea water container] can be explained by chemistry. [Except why my clown fish are so cute lol no explanation for that ]


I am more of a ""if you can't prove it scientifically then we need to dig deeper and try harder to look for a proof or a reason" type of guy,
dont get me wrong ! I am not saying your experience is wrong just saying the correct way to go ahead is to find why, rather than coming up with magical number for MG concentration ... or ...

[AcroporAddict]

Originally Posted by Allmost

lol

you really think there is no explanation for why kalk kills everything ? not just aiptasia, but inject kalk into palys they die, inject it to zoas, they die, you can review Randy's article on kalk and lime water for explanation on what it does when added to water

....

I am not arguing nor do I want to be part of this arguement, but just pointing out, that there is scientific reasoning behind all that you used as examples interceptor, kalk and so on.

A strong base like kalk will kill living tissue, no problem there. At least one of the Tech M traces has algaecidal properties I am aware of, ionic copper. I've always thought that was the effective ingredient. Minute additions from the Tech M that raise the tank copper level to higher than NSW levels to affect bryopsis, but less than toxic levels for corals. Just a guess, however.

I discussed Tech M with Sanjay Joshi at one of our Club's events in 2011 where he was our Keynote Speaker, and he told me he thought the trace that killed the bryopsis in Tech M was Lithium, however I don't know why he thought this was the one. He had many people wanting to talk to him that day.

Originally Posted by Allmost

as an engineer, I do not like this statement.

Science, including Physicas and Chemistry can explain all.

everything that happens in a reef tank [lets face it, in a sea water container] can be explained by chemistry. [Except why my clown fish are so cute lol no explanation for that ]


I am more of a ""if you can't prove it scientifically then we need to dig deeper and try harder to look for a proof or a reason" type of guy,
dont get me wrong ! I am not saying your experience is wrong just saying the correct way to go ahead is to find why, rather than coming up with magical number for MG concentration ... or ...

Understood, but the practical reality is that this will not take place in the reef hobby because there will not be money for it for pure scientific research to find out why or dig deeper, unless it is funded by a company wanting to make a dollar from a product based on the results.

Currently, all hobbyists have for bryopsis control is what they come up with themselves and share with their fellows, among them Tech M, and whatever else folks have found to work, like inorganic phosphate control that tmz mentioned. Then again, does one person's method, like inorganic phosphate control, simply reduce the amount of bryopsis in a system, or does it eliminate it completely? Tech M eliminates it. It does not control it. It kills it all and it doesn't come back. At least IME using Tech M, it did. Been gone from my system for over two years now.

Everyone can decide for themselves what Bryopsis control methods to use or not use for whatever reasons they want, but there are those that will try a method they see others use and have success with instead of suffering an algae infestation that can ruin a reef tank, even though it is not proven scientifically. It may not be proper per your standards, but Tech M has saved many reefs from being overrun by bryopsis, including my own.

[AcroporAddict]

Originally Posted by 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!

Lynn,
When I successfully used Tech M to eliminate rid bryopsis, I discontinued the use of carbon in case whatever it was that was killing the bryopsis could get removed by the carbon.

Not that 1800 is the "magic number" or anything, but since I chose that mag concentration as my target for Tech M treatment, I made up for not using carbon by doing increased water changes. But I made sure my water change water magnesium was at the same 1800 level (adjusted with Tech M) as the tank water before I added it.

[agruetz]

So I have been doing this for a few days now. Obviously do not expect immediate results I have no removed any filtration yet. I have noticed my poly filter starting to turn a reddish color. Red according to them indicates the presence of aluminum. Is it possible there is an impurity of aluminum in the kent tech-m that kills the bryopsis. I lack the proper tools to actually test that theory but it just made me think about it. I am going to remove the poly filter and do a water change and redo the mag dosing and see if that has a different affect because the first day when i dos'ed the kent tech-m and directly hit the bryopsis with the stuff those spots turned white for a day or so.

[AcroporAddict]

Originally Posted by agruetz

So I have been doing this for a few days now. Obviously do not expect immediate results I have no removed any filtration yet. I have noticed my poly filter starting to turn a reddish color. Red according to them indicates the presence of aluminum. Is it possible there is an impurity of aluminum in the kent tech-m that kills the bryopsis. I lack the proper tools to actually test that theory but it just made me think about it. I am going to remove the poly filter and do a water change and redo the mag dosing and see if that has a different affect because the first day when i dos'ed the kent tech-m and directly hit the bryopsis with the stuff those spots turned white for a day or so.

I would definitely remove the poly filter if you are treating bryopsis with Tech M. The poly filter could remove whatever trace is affecting the bryopsis. I would not want to chance it myself. Tech M is too expensive, and I think poly filters remove some metals, which are some of the traces in Tech M.

[agruetz]

I want to see what happened...however i think it is removing te impurity that kills it. Was wroth the experiment to me i have a small tank. It us not going to break the bank on kent tech-m.

[mysterybox]

My experience with Tech M

The first time I did it for two weeks per Dave's instructions and within 24 hours putting my Rox carbon back on line, the deteriorating fern like algae starting making a comeback.

My second time, I went with 59 days...mag eventually was up to 2200..

Algae was 90% gone, the remaining 10% was wilted, looking like 1/2 life....

Again, after a "normal water change" (I was adding tech m previously to change water) and adding ROX Carbon back on, the algae started to rebound.

That's when I went with H2O2.

Before I started tech m, there were many success stories that I researched.


I'm thinking other factors may contribute to the success such as the exact species, PH, Alk, etc

This hobby is full of anecdotal evidence, are you kidding?

(especially when it pertains to issues, diseases, stn, rtn, bacteria, ICH, etc.)

I run an ULNS, btw. Lol

[Allmost]

ok here is a question I have, specially for Dave as you are more updated on this.

the tanks that have bryopsis, and it is solved using tech M, do they start off with normal range MG concentration ? or lower than normal ?
could it be that DROP in MG is causing its growth ?

I had it in one of my tanks I think about 6 months ago, for a short period, tested everything,mg was at 1050, raised it to 1300 and bryopsis was gone the day after [it started dying and my tangs started eating it] just wondering if this is the case with others or not. I didnt put this case as "treated by tech M" as I think low MG was causing it.


mysterybox ..... bryopsis growth is a good sign that you do not have an Ultra Low Nutrition System. not that there is anything wrong with it, but that term is used tooo often, in wrong places. ULNS with algae, is like an anorexic with a fat belly

[mysterybox]

Originally Posted by Allmost

mysterybox ..... bryopsis growth is a good sign that you do not have an Ultra Low Nutrition System. not that there is anything wrong with it, but that term is used tooo often, in wrong places. ULNS with algae, is like an anorexic with a fat belly

albeit I did overfeed during a month or two due to a leopard wrasse that was recoverying (fully too), my phates (DD Merck, HACH) are below 0.028 and trates are below 0.5 (tropic Marin, Elos).

I do believe It's been noted in many reefers tanks that some macro continue to grow in ULNS, anecdotally, of course.

[MedRed]

I actually kept using my filter sock, Chemipure Elite, and Purigen while dosing Tech M. I still killed off my bryopsis. I have since switched the magnesium in my auto doser to Tech M as it's not overly expensive to buy the big jugs and does with a few ml's a day. I don't know if the bryopsis would make a comeback if I stopped, but I don't have any at this point to speak of.

[Allmost]

Originally Posted by mysterybox

albeit I did overfeed during a month or two due to a leopard wrasse that was recoverying (fully too), my phates (DD Merck, HACH) are below 0.028 and trates are below 0.5 (tropic Marin, Elos).

I do believe It's been noted in many reefers tanks that some macro continue to grow in ULNS, anecdotally, of course.

the growth of algae, takes up N and P,. so the values tested arent real.

if algae present

Bryopsis is not an algae that would grow in ULNS, like bubble algae, or leafy types.

just saying

[brandon429]

What's your theory on how the ocean grows it

Are you thinking our test kits will show dirty or clean water if taken from let's say the east end of grand Cayman for example. While diving there I saw mixed algal communities, green and hairy etc, that's when I thought water params may not be indicative of very much regarding control of primary producers viva peroxide lol.

[Allmost]

Originally Posted by brandon429

What's your theory on how the ocean grows it

Are you thinking our test kits will show dirty or clean water if taken from let's say the east end of grand Cayman for example. While diving there I saw mixed algal communities, green and hairy etc, that's when I thought water params may not be indicative of very much regarding control of primary producers viva peroxide lol.

I do not think Oceans are ULNS. no comment about proxide.

[AcroporAddict]

Originally Posted by Allmost

ok here is a question I have, specially for Dave as you are more updated on this.

the tanks that have bryopsis, and it is solved using tech M, do they start off with normal range MG concentration ? or lower than normal ?
could it be that DROP in MG is causing its growth ?

I had it in one of my tanks I think about 6 months ago, for a short period, tested everything,mg was at 1050, raised it to 1300 and bryopsis was gone the day after [it started dying and my tangs started eating it] just wondering if this is the case with others or not. I didnt put this case as "treated by tech M" as I think low MG was causing it.

I can only speak for my system at the time I treated with Tech M. My magensium level was usually in the 1250-1350 range, maintained by Randy's 2 part, when I introduced bryopsis in my system via a chalice coral. I asked about the algae, and the LFS owner told me it was no big deal. I did not know what bryopsis was then, but quickly learned about it after it started to spread. Did a lot of research and started seeing Tech M pop up as a way to get rid of it.

So my mag levels were OK when I got Bryopsis, and I tested then with a Salifert Mag test kit.

On a side note, I saw a couple trends regarding succcess and failure reports with Tech M: some folks that reported no succcess with Tech M used mag chloride or mag sulfate or a combination to raise mag levels initially, then used Tech M the last part of the way. Also, some folks tried to deal with the bryopsis by raising Mag levels using only mag sulfate and/or mag chloride without using Tech M at all. Those reporting success used Tech M as the sole source for increasing their mag levels. These trends told me that there was something in the Tech M that was killing the bryopsis other than the magnesium, because if it was the magnesium doing it we would not need Tech M, as the only mag source in it is mag sulfate (I don't think it has mag chloride in it). Also, the reports of success with Tech M also showed folks used the 1600-1800 range and kept it there for a period of time, with those reporting bryopsis returning not using a long exposure time. This told me that a certain length of exposure was also needed for successful killing of the bryopsis, aside from whateve concentration level of the effective trace was needed. So as this all was anecdotal, I used 1800 as my target and a two week exposure time at that level, which were the upper limits of what folks that were successful were using, just to be sure. I felt comfortable doing this, as higher than normal magnesium levels for a short duration didn't appear to be a threat to corals or fish.

But aside from any trace variations from Tech M batch to batch, adequate length of exposure to the trace appeared to be as important as any other factor, which brought about my first post in this thread. I believe you need an adequate concentration of the trace, but you also need a certain minimum exposure period of the bryopsis to that trace in Tech M to kill, rather than just reduce the amount of bryopsis in the system, then have it return later. Similar to how you need a certain exposure time with Interceptor to kill Redbugs in a system, which seems to be 8 hours for a single Interceptor treatment.

So it is not just raise your magnesium levels using Tech M by 30% over what it is normally. There seems to be a minimum exposure time required as well. Again, based on ancdotal observations of Tech M users. All we have at this point, but it seems to be true based on my use of it and others successful or unsuccessful use of it.

There is also the chance that one could buy Tech M that has a low amount of the effective trace as well, or maybe one species of bryopsis is more resistant than another. I have read posts saying they did all the things I mentioned when I was successful with it, and they still could not get rid of it. Ralph's experience illustrates that quite well.

But taken as a whole, there are far more reports of successful use of Tech M than unsuccesssful use of Tech M. I was lucky in that I found Tech M for $17.99 a gallon when I treated, so it didn't break the bank to try it. I think I used about 3 gallons to treat my then 450 net gallon system.

[mysterybox]

Originally Posted by Allmost

the growth of algae, takes up N and P,. so the values tested arent real.

if algae present

Bryopsis is not an algae that would grow in ULNS, like bubble algae, or leafy types.

just saying

So I guess you are using very anecdotal & inconsistent evidence as many have found this to be true.........and a small patch of Bryopsis isn't going to change any readings in your tank water concerning both nitrates and phosphates...

[brandon429]

I in fact believe a large patch won't either. The article we need most is for someone to determine the nitrogen and phosphorous ratio in a 'large' patch of x green invader, and to determine how much command the patch actually has. I bet right now its not much. We blame algae for sucking up nitrates and phosphates, I bet it doesn't. Probably 5% of what we think

If you really track algae threads, there is a critical mass reached, it holds for a while and does not increase biomass enough to justify all the n and p sucking attributed, watch and see.

[brandon429]

When the article comes out i'm linking back to the prediction!!

[mysterybox]

Originally Posted by brandon429

When the article comes out i'm linking back to the prediction!!

Lol

[Allmost]

Originally Posted by brandon429

I in fact believe a large patch won't either. The article we need most is for someone to determine the nitrogen and phosphorous ratio in a 'large' patch of x green invader, and to determine how much command the patch actually has. I bet right now its not much. We blame algae for sucking up nitrates and phosphates, I bet it doesn't. Probably 5% of what we think

If you really track algae threads, there is a critical mass reached, it holds for a while and does not increase biomass enough to justify all the n and p sucking attributed, watch and see.

hmm, how does that make sense ?

are you trying to say algae does not take up N and P ? if so, why do we run ALGAE FUGE ?

experiment for yourself, take a bit of any algae, dry it, grind it in RO/DI water, and leave over night, test the water for N and P the day after

or send the dry algae for testing to any lab. if it came back to contain no N or P, I will pay for the testing