High Calcium with All For Reef!

[BigMonkeyBrain]

I do not believe that such a rise could be caused by AFR. It must be for other reasons, or is test error (most likely).

Do you recall how much you added each day? That rise would require a large dose offsetting a very large demand for alkalinity (10.5 dKH) that came from something other than calcification. Unless you are dosing mineral acids tot eh tank, I don't see how that can happen.

Lou Ekus recommends dosing for Calcium not Alk.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

There is a coralation between alk and cal right? High cal gives lower alk. Especially with non elevated magnesium levels. I also think alk is consumed faster. Maybe a combination of high alk usage icm low ph , and a too high elevated cal causing alk not being able to rise further. As a result alk remains stable and cal rises? Or is that not possible?

I mainly have lps, the little sps looks good but not very much growth due to the ph I think. I will do some water changes with low cal salt (tropic Marin classic) and reset the cal levels to normal.

No, high alk does not "give" low calcium.

Any of high pH, alk, or calcium can spur consumption of both alk and calcium, but not independent consumption of one or the other.

AFR adds a very close to balanced mix of alk and calcium, and no amount of addition of it can lead to one rising and not the other.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Lou Ekus recommends dosing for Calcium not Alk.

I know. I disagree with him on that because I think calcium moves too slowly and has too much day to day test variability for that to be the best plan. A 1 dKH rise in alk by AFR dosing (easily detected with most kits) is accompanied by only a 7 ppm rise in calcium, which cannot be reliably detected with most kits.

Thus, while calcium is detected immediately, most kits cannot readily detect a day's dose of calcium reliably.

 

[BigMonkeyBrain]

I know. I disagree with him on that because I think calcium moves too slowly and has too much day to day test variability for that to be the best plan. A 1 dKH rise in alk by AFR dosing (easily detected with most kits) is accompanied by only a 7 ppm rise in calcium, which cannot be reliably detected with most kits.

Thus, while calcium is detected immediately, most kits cannot readily detect a day's dose of calcium reliably.

Do you agree with Lou that a dirty system, detritus pockets can use more Alk , etc,. ?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Alkalinity is being consumed at a faster rate than calcium it sounds like. I’ve been told that eventually dosing with all for reef will not be sufficient to maintain alkalinity unless I want to throw my system out of wack. Maybe you’re there? Do you have rapidly growing colonies/frags right now?

That does not make sense to me. Aside from him dosing a mineral acid (effectively dosing negative alkalinity), there's no normal process that depletes that much alk and not calcium in a reef tank in 9 days (unless the tank is actively cycling by adding ammonia repeatedly).

AFR and kalkwasser have exactly the same alk to calcium balance. Yes, both are balanced to a bit more calcium than alk demand, but those effects show up over months, not days. Regular water changes should suffice to eliminate any such concerns. They were in my reef tank using kalkwasser for 20 years.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Do you agree with Lou that a dirty system, detritus pockets can use more Alk , etc,. ?

I do not typically watch videos, but degradation of organics/detritus does not consume alkalinity.

 

[BigMonkeyBrain]

That does not make sense to me. Aside from him dosing a mineral acid (effectively dosing negative alkalinity), there's no normal process that depletes that much alk and not calcium in a reef tank in 9 days (unless the tank is actively cycling by adding ammonia repeatedly).

AFR and kalkwasser have exactly the same alk to calcium balance. Yes, both are balanced to a bit more calcium than alk demand, but those effects show up over months, not days. Regular water changes should suffice to eliminate any such concerns. They were in my reef tank using kalkwasser for 20 years.

I only use Kalk also, I usually have to add a little Calcium every now and then

 

[crazyfishmom]

That does not make sense to me. Aside from him dosing a mineral acid (effectively dosing negative alkalinity), there's no normal process that depletes that much alk and not calcium in a reef tank in 9 days (unless the tank is actively cycling by adding ammonia repeatedly).

AFR and kalkwasser have exactly the same alk to calcium balance. Yes, both are balanced to a bit more calcium than alk demand, but those effects show up over months, not days. Regular water changes should suffice to eliminate any such concerns. They were in my reef tank using kalkwasser for 20 years.

Beats me. Not a PhD chemist and certainly not pretending like I fully understand the balance of these systems altogether. I know the following: OP is observing drops that point to a system that’s out of balance for whatever that reason might be. I use AFR in a large tank and do not see any swings at all. Somewhere there’s either consumption that’s not balanced or testing errors or both. I’ve been repeatedly told that once I have very large colonies that AFR will be unable to keep up with demand, not there yet. We shall see.

 

[areefer01]

I’ve been repeatedly told that once I have very large colonies that AFR will be unable to keep up with demand, not there yet. We shall see.

Who has told you this and what do they provide to support that claim? Sounds like a mind story. It may not be cost effective but AFR won't know a coral colony size difference from Adam.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I’ve been repeatedly told that once I have very large colonies that AFR will be unable to keep up with demand, not there yet. We shall see.

FWIW, that is not true for calcium and alkalinity using AFR. There's no real limit to how much you can dose if you can afford it.

I'm not sure who you mean by the OP since the thread starter has not been around in more than 2 years, but the person I was responding to did not have a problem caused by AFR.

 

[bkwonnn]

The salifert test came out with 425 calcium. The Hannah one much higher but I have the idea the Hannah one sucks.

 

[bkwonnn]

Thanks guys

 

[gbroadbridge]

The salifert test came out with 425 calcium. The Hannah one much higher but I have the idea the Hannah one sucks.

The Hanna test works just fine provided that it is used correctly.

In most cases the cause of a high Calcium reading is the use of insufficiently pure DI water in the preparation of the blank.

 

[bkwonnn]

The Hanna test works just fine provided that it is used correctly.

In most cases the cause of a high Calcium reading is the use of insufficiently pure DI water in the preparation of the blank.

Yes that is correct. But the fact that Hannah only uses 0.1 ml of tank sample on 10 ml of combined reagent creates a lot of room for error. Too much for my taste.
I think I will stick with the salifert one