Alkalinity and Calcium Not Rising

[biom]

Actually, I don't agree at all. I think one should target the desirable range of magnesium (say, 1250-1400 ppm) independent of what the calcium level actually is.
There is no substantial reason that just because calcium might be on the high or low side to target a magnesium level that is high or low.

I don't agree . May be you mean there is no substantial chemical reason? I think one should target the natural ratio magnesium/calcium (and other major ions), and I cannot find any substantial reason to not use natural ratio which is relatively stable in world ocean for very long period of time and is quite independent of salinity (with only few exceptions).

 

[jason2459]

I don't agree . May be you mean there is no substantial chemical reason? I think one should target the natural ratio magnesium/calcium (and other major ions), and I cannot find any substantial reason to not use natural ratio which is relatively stable in world ocean for very long period of time and is quite independent of salinity (with only few exceptions).

Then would you chase trying to keep the ratio and PSS numbers for all the major ions? Seems tedious and unnecessary.

 

[biom]

Then would you chase trying to keep the ratio and PSS numbers for all the major ions? Seems tedious and unnecessary.

Yes, why not? Mother Nature proved it works, and no body (to my knowledge) is proved the opposite. and yes I'm keeping all major elements right in the spot (with no water changes) and this is no rocket science. It doesn't seems tedious and unnecessary to me, my corals look happy and healthy.

The list of major elements is not correct btw, some of the elements are listed several times which gives wrong impression of a long list.

 

[jason2459]

Yes, why not? Mother Nature proved it works, and no body (to my knowledge) is proved the opposite. and yes I'm keeping all major elements right in the spot (with no water changes) and this is no rocket science. It doesn't seems tedious and unnecessary for me, my corals look happy and healthy.

The list of major elements is not correct btw, some of the elements are listed several times which gives wrong impression of long list.

Yes, repercussions of trying to screen shot from a kindle book. Pilson.


And how are you certain of accuracy. With as much interference there is its much easier to just stay in a range which usually matches about the accuracy of the testing we(majority) have available.

 

[jason2459]

Also a side note, mother nature is not fully in control anymore and totally off topic... ha

 

[biom]

Yes, repercussions of trying to screen shot from a kindle book. Pilson.


And how are you certain of accuracy. With as much interference there is its much easier to just stay in a range which usually matches about the accuracy of the testing we(majority) have available.

We are talking about different things. I'm just saying that I don't see any reason to keep calcium at 460 ppm and magnesium at 1250ppm, or Calcium 390 and Magnesium 1400 for example instead of natural 410/1290 at 35ppt salinity. I dont think it is easier or beneficial to keep elements imbalanced instead of balanced.
Just saying there is nothing wrong one to try keeping Mg/Ca ratio (and salinity) balanced at natural levels as close as possible with available tests of course. (And inaccuracy of tests only supports this approach, because targeting natural levels is far safer than targeting lower or higher limits - every test inaccuracy could have quite negative effects)

And sorry revhtree for the off topic Pls tell us what is the Mg level?.

 

[jason2459]

We are talking about different things. I'm just saying that I don't see any reason to keep calcium at 460 ppm and magnesium at 1250ppm, or Calcium 390 and Magnesium 1400 for example instead of natural 410/1290 at 35ppt salinity. I dont think it is easier or beneficial to keep elements imbalanced instead of balanced.
Just saying there is nothing wrong one to try keeping Mg/Ca ratio (and salinity) balanced at natural levels as close as possible with available tests of course. (And inaccuracy of tests only supports this approach, because targeting natural levels is far safer than targeting lower or higher limits - every test inaccuracy could have quite negative effects)

And sorry revhtree for the off topic Pls tell us what is the Mg level?.

Because of the inaccuracies and unknowns I also would not aim purposefully for the extreme ends myself.

To clarify I don't practice what I preach as a general recommendation.

If speaking on what we do personally I'm far to lazy to constantly test my water. I target what ever my daily water change plus kalk addition happens to hit. Plus a tiny addition of Mg to my water change water.

It seems to do well for keeping my Ca, Alk, and Mg in the ranges when ever I do test. Last year it was tested a lot just through curiosity of testing various test kits. My numbers can easily be found in several "shootout" threads. Nitrate. Phosphate. And Big 3. I've stated in those threads my tendencies toward not testing regularly as well unless I'm testing something else.

I wouldn't recommend people do many things I have done, do, and will end up doing.

When posting recommendations on a public forum I will tend towards what could apply to the majority.

i.e. it is safe and easier to stay in a recommended range and highly advise against chasing specific numbers or keeping ratios as they are probably off anyway so why waste that time.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I don't agree . May be you mean there is no substantial chemical reason? I think one should target the natural ratio magnesium/calcium (and other major ions), and I cannot find any substantial reason to not use natural ratio which is relatively stable in world ocean for very long period of time and is quite independent of salinity (with only few exceptions).

OK, we can agree to disagree, but I cannot think of any reason that I'd accept that you'd really want magnesium to be low just because calcium was low unless it was a short term situation that you planned to fix (such as low salinity).

I can think of reasons you may want to push magnesium higher. I think (but cannot prove) that higher magnesium drives more coralline growth, for example.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

FWIW, we have issues mother nature does not, such as hot pumps and heaters that induce calcium carbonate precipitation. That could be a reason to skew from the natural ratio.

 

[Julian Bastidas]

Today i went to have my magnesium check, and was told it was 1500, my calcium at 460 and alk at 9.5 corals are growing a lot. I read that having you magnesium high, would make you corals grow more. Sorry for asking here, but how do you lower your magnesium ? I will like to have it lower. Thank you

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I've not seen any reason to think that magnesium at 1500 ppm makes corals grow faster than at more natural levels close to 1300.

The only way to lower it is by water change with a lower magnesium mix?

What salt mix and what salinity and what test kit?

Some people using the Red Sea kit seem to get faulty high readings.

 

[biom]

Because of the inaccuracies and unknowns I also would not aim purposefully for the extreme ends myself.

To clarify I don't practice what I preach as a general recommendation.

If speaking on what we do personally I'm far to lazy to constantly test my water. I target what ever my daily water change plus kalk addition happens to hit. Plus a tiny addition of Mg to my water change water.

It seems to do well for keeping my Ca, Alk, and Mg in the ranges when ever I do test. Last year it was tested a lot just through curiosity of testing various test kits. My numbers can easily be found in several "shootout" threads. Nitrate. Phosphate. And Big 3. I've stated in those threads my tendencies toward not testing regularly as well unless I'm testing something else.

I wouldn't recommend people do many things I have done, do, and will end up doing.

When posting recommendations on a public forum I will tend towards what could apply to the majority.

i.e. it is safe and easier to stay in a recommended range and highly advise against chasing specific numbers or keeping ratios as they are probably off anyway so why waste that time.

You know stability is the key word in this hobby. Keeping stable params of major elements doesn't mean constantly testing and adjusting, not at all, when parameters are once stabilized it will take less and less time and need to test and adjust, there are ionic balanced additives on the market which makes keeping this balance quite easy. It is up to you to decide numbers they will be kept at, my decision was to try keeping them close to the natural ones, I don' think this is wrong and I don't think it is dangerous if someone in this public forum decide to follow this approach.
Yes, I was following your treads - they were very good and useful indeed!!

FWIW, we have issues mother nature does not, such as hot pumps and heaters that induce calcium carbonate precipitation. That could be a reason to skew from the natural ratio.

i.e. high magnesium levels will prevent calcium carbonate precipitation on heaters and pumps? I never had problems with abiotic precipitation of calcium carbonate on pumps or heater when kept major elements levels close to natural ones. Of course if alk is 11 and calcium is 460, then precipitation could happen.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

i.e. high magnesium levels will prevent calcium carbonate precipitation on heaters and pumps? I never had problems with abiotic precipitation of calcium carbonate on pumps or heater when kept major elements levels close to natural ones. Of course if alk is 11 and calcium is 460, then precipitation could happen.

Maybe your pH is not very high? The supersaturation at elevated temp is quite significant.

 

[biom]

Maybe your pH is not very high? The supersaturation at elevated temp is quite significant.

It is quite high, i'm dosing sodium carbonate, this winter was low for two months, but problem solved and currently is 8.1 - 8.4. It is titanium heater and after 7 years of use is still shining like new, there is no calcium carbonate precipitate in sump around it also. on my Tunze (DC) pumps there are only biotic calcium carbonate in form of coraline and other calcareous algae. My skimmer pump (also DC) is one year old and is like new. May be they are not producing significant heat since they are DC driven.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Your pumps may run cooler than many folks, but pumps eventually seizing up due to deposits on the impellers if not periodically cleaned is a common problem. Likewise, heaters often get a substantial coating on them which can be broken off in chunks. Both happened for decades in my tank.

In terms of precipitation, a pH of 8.5 and alk and calcium at natural levels is the same as pH 8.2, alk over 12 dKH, and normal calcium. pH is a huge driver.

 

[jason2459]

You know stability is the key word in this hobby. Keeping stable params of major elements doesn't mean constantly testing and adjusting, not at all, when parameters are once stabilized it will take less and less time and need to test and adjust, there are ionic balanced additives on the market which makes keeping this balance quite easy. It is up to you to decide numbers they will be kept at, my decision was to try keeping them close to the natural ones, I don' think this is wrong and I don't think it is dangerous if someone in this public forum decide to follow this approach.
Yes, I was following your treads - they were very good and useful indeed!!



i.e. high magnesium levels will prevent calcium carbonate precipitation on heaters and pumps? I never had problems with abiotic precipitation of calcium carbonate on pumps or heater when kept major elements levels close to natural ones. Of course if alk is 11 and calcium is 460, then precipitation could happen.

I believe more in consistency over stability. Corals adapt to their environment and some environments are not stable but at least consistent. Look at tide pools, near shore run offs, and areas of large tidal shifts.

There's a great thread on RC with a person from Australia that goes out in an area where periodically the water gets extremely low and exposes a lot of corals to the air for a significant amount of time. Not stable at all but its consistent.


If someone followed the Mg 3x that of Ca and their Ca was 400 which is perfectly in the recommended range then that would put Mg under the recommended range and I would suggest raising Mg.

And 460 is outside the recommended range.

Thanks for reading through those threads and I'm enjoying this discussion. [emoji4]

 

[biom]

I believe more in consistency over stability. Corals adapt to their environment and some environments are not stable but at least consistent. Look at tide pools, near shore run offs, and areas of large tidal shifts.

There's a great thread on RC with a person from Australia that goes out in an area where periodically the water gets extremely low and exposes a lot of corals to the air for a significant amount of time. Not stable at all but its consistent.


If someone followed the Mg 3x that of Ca and their Ca was 400 which is perfectly in the recommended range then that would put Mg under the recommended range and I would suggest raising Mg.

And 460 is outside the recommended range.

Thanks for reading through those threads and I'm enjoying this discussion. [emoji4]

Sorry I'm not native speaker and quite often is hard to find right words to express what I mean , I'm not sure I understand difference between words consistency vs stability.

If someone followed the Mg 3x that of Ca and their Ca was 400 which is perfectly in the recommended range then that would put Mg under the recommended range and I would suggest raising Mg.
And 460 is outside the recommended range.

Not really, Mg/Ca ratio in world ocean is usually about 3.15 (can vary 3.1 -3.3):
400 x 3.15=1260 ppm Magnesium which is for sure OK, and is very close to natural levels at 35 ppt salinity.
460 x 3.15=1449 ppm Mg which is also in "acceptable" ranges, despite the fact I dont see reason to go for that high numbers.

Your pumps may run cooler than many folks, but pumps eventually seizing up due to deposits on the impellers if not periodically cleaned is a common problem. Likewise, heaters often get a substantial coating on them which can be broken off in chunks. Both happened for decades in my tank.

In terms of precipitation, a pH of 8.5 and alk and calcium at natural levels is the same as pH 8.2, alk over 12 dKH, and normal calcium. pH is a huge driver.

Yes, fortunately (or not) pH of 8.5 is rarely seen in most tanks aside of those dosing kalkwaser.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Yes, fortunately (or not) pH of 8.5 is rarely seen in most tanks aside of those dosing kalkwaser.

The same statement can be made for folks with lower pH:

"In terms of precipitation, a pH of 8.3 and alk and calcium at natural levels is the same as pH 7.8, alk over 12 dKH, and normal calcium. pH is a huge driver."

 

[GoVols]

Some people using the Red Sea kit seem to get faulty high readings.

+1
And that's why I switched to the Salifert mag kit.

Also, it's just more "SIMPLE" to preform against the RSP mag kit.

I'm sorry I just had to say "simple" again on this thread one more time.

Randy,
lol
I'll walk myself back to the "New to the Hobby" forum.

 

[revhtree Verified Admin]

Checked Mag and it was 1100. I've been dosing for a couple days to bring it up.

Bought another test kit and reading were almost identical.

Mixing the BRS mix according to the directions and it is correct.

Been dosing 500ml a day and my ALK is dropping. Dosed 700ml total yesterday and it was down 1DKH today!