Magnesium

.AcroKiller. · Oct 29, 2016

Is there a problem keeping a magnesium level of 1260 instead of higher numbers about 1300

kazikage42 · Oct 29, 2016

I'm not sure but for me, I see a bit faster growth at 1300+. But all tanks are different

jsker · Oct 29, 2016

Th run Le of thumb is 3 x you calcium

jason2459 · Oct 29, 2016

jsker said:
Th run Le of thumb is 3 x you calcium

Why is that? What if Ca is 500 and Mg is 1300. Would that cause an issue?

My rule of thumb is to keep everything in a recommended range and not worry about any ratio or any exact number as testing error alone will cause a spinning cycle of chasing numbers.
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/o...-reef-aquarium-by-randy-holmes-farley.173563/

.AcroKiller. · Oct 29, 2016

What I'm asking is does really matter if magnesium is 1260. Would it matter when it comes to calcium and alkalinity

jason2459 · Oct 29, 2016

iiluisii said:
Is there a problem keeping a magnesium level of 1260 instead of higher numbers about 1300

I just posted a link to a nice list of recommended numbers by Randy. The difference between 1260 and 1300 is negligible IMO and easily with in reason of being the same in regards to testing accuracy.

Many however keep their Mg higher and many much much higher with little negative effects. Once you hit around 1800 you will notice an impact on your snails. They will become sluggish. Pushing even higher they will basically go into a coma. Many think they are dead. Maybe some are. But IME once the Mg level lowers a bit they come back out of it.

One benefit of a higher Mg is to help reduce precipitation events like if your Alk is also high and spikes. I like to keep my Mg right around that 1300-1350 mark.

.AcroKiller. · Oct 30, 2016

jason2459 said:
I just posted a link to a nice list of recommended numbers by Randy. The difference between 1260 and 1300 is negligible IMO and easily with in reason of being the same in regards to testing accuracy.

Many however keep their Mg higher and many much much higher with little negative effects. Once you hit around 1800 you will notice an impact on your snails. They will become sluggish. Pushing even higher they will basically go into a coma. Many think they are dead. Maybe some are. But IME once the Mg level lowers a bit they come back out of it.

One benefit of a higher Mg is to help reduce precipitation events like if your Alk is also high and spikes. I like to keep my Mg right around that 1300-1350 mark.

Thanks Jason. My calcium reactor stabilizes at 1260 magnesium if I don't dose so that's why I asked

Randy Holmes-Farley · Oct 30, 2016

iiluisii said:
Is there a problem keeping a magnesium level of 1260 instead of higher numbers about 1300

No, that is fine.

jsker · Oct 30, 2016

jason2459 said:
Why is that? What if Ca is 500 and Mg is 1300. Would that cause an issue?

My rule of thumb is to keep everything in a recommended range and not worry about any ratio or any exact number as testing error alone will cause a spinning cycle of chasing numbers.
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/o...-reef-aquarium-by-randy-holmes-farley.173563/

Sorry about that, the rule of thumb was suggested to me and I use is Ca x 3 =Mg. I run my Ca between 420 and 450. Remember chasing numbers will only make one frustrated, just shoot for a average and look at how your system is doing.

Randy Holmes-Farley · Oct 30, 2016

jsker said:
Sorry about that, the rule of thumb was suggested to me and I use is Ca x 3 =Mg. I run my Ca between 420 and 450. Remember chasing numbers will only make one frustrated, just shoot for a average and look at how your system is doing.

I agree that this rule of thumb isn't sensible.

jsker · Oct 30, 2016

To each there own, One of the biggest coral wholesaler's run there systems this way and I follow what the do most of the time

and have had really good success

Also with the balling method that I run the number pretty much fall with in those ratios of 3 to 1

Randy Holmes-Farley · Oct 30, 2016

jsker said:
To each there own, One of the biggest coral wholesaler's run there systems this way and I follow what the do most of the time and have had really good success Also with the balling method that I run the number pretty much fall with in those ratios of 3 to 1

Well, it is an irrational rule of thumb, but that doesn't mean folks cannot be accidentally successful using it if the parameters happen to be right.

For example, suppose calcium is lowish at 350 ppm, why would one think that magnesium then is optimal at 1050 ppm?

Or if calcium is on the high side at 550 ppm, is there any reason to think that magnesium is optimal at 1650 ppm?

This dumbing down of chemical science is really irresponsible, IMO.

jsker · Oct 30, 2016

I agree and not disagreeing, this is how I have been running my current system. I run my system based on World Wide Corals system and that is how they do it with the 3 to 1 rule of thumb

Randy Holmes-Farley · Oct 30, 2016

jsker said:
I agree and not disagreeing, this is how I have been running my current system. I run my system based on World Wide Corals system and that is how they do it with the 3 to 1 rule of thumb

Well, I'd strongly suggest you and they upgrade your control to focus on the levels independently.

Newb73 · Nov 2, 2016

Anecdotal, but ive started running slightly higher mg and my tank has responded very positively. Around 1400 to 1500.

Supposedly it discourages algae and as mention helps stabilize ca and alk. Im running alk aound 9 and ca between 420 and 450.

When i ran my mg in tbe 1200s and 1300s i had stability problems... probably because it could drop into the 10s if i didn't stay on top of it. Also had more algae and less healthy corals.

I can't say it was the mg though because of all the other changes i instituted simultaneously (started ozone, a nitrate reactor, increased flow, tweaked lighting, added some marine pure to sump, took gfo and biopellets off line, and changed by filter sock rotating to q48 hours).