Noticeable difference after switching to ESV B-Ionic 2-part from BRS 2-part

[SoCalVictor]

I recently switched to ESV's 2-part after using BRS's 2-part (using Sodium Bicarbonate instead of Soda Ash). For my current situation, I haven't needed to dose Calcium yet. I had another thread that discussed this.

After switching to ESV, I noticed a pretty significant difference, even after just a few days. SPS PE is more pronounced, esp on some corals that I had previously seen minimal PE. There's also visible growth on a lot of my SPS. I realize I may sound a bit dramatic because it's just a few days and I'm only dosing the Alk part. I didn't think there was a significant difference between the two products. Any insights here?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I think the effect is due to something else, but if your tank was very deficient in a trace element such as manganese, I suppose it is possibly related.

The effect would be like doing a 0.1% water change each day. If it seems plausible that would impact your tank, then the B-ionic might help. If that seems unlikely to help, then it isn’t the B-ionic.

 

[SoCalVictor]

Does the Alk component of ESV's 2-part contain trace elements?

The only other thing different about my tank was the in the last few days my temperature rose about 1.5F degrees due to some hotter weather, from 76-77.5 to 76-79

Other than that, nothing different that I'm doing and other major parameters have been stable.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Does the Alk component of ESV's 2-part contain trace elements?

The only other thing different about my tank was the in the last few days my temperature rose about 1.5F degrees due to some hotter weather, from 76-77.5 to 76-79

Other than that, nothing different that I'm doing and other major parameters have been stable.

I’m not certain which elements they put in which part. But again, by design it adds no more than a tiny water change.

 

[YankeeTankee]

I think the effect is due to something else, but if your tank was very deficient in a trace element such as manganese, I suppose it is possibly related.

The effect would be like doing a 0.1% water change each day. If it seems plausible that would impact your tank, then the B-ionic might help. If that seems unlikely to help, then it isn’t the B-ionic.

Randy, one of the takeaways I got from an older article of yours is that people mistakenly only dose alk when they should be dosing ca and alk, the reason is because we see less swings in Ca due to it's abundance in seawater. My impression was that you think people should pretty much dose both and rarely only the alk, in this circumstance would you suggest the OP dose Ca as well, what are those few scenarios where alk only makes sense?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I would only not use the calcium part if calcium is already too high. If calcium is just right, dosing it should keep it there. It shouldn’t make it rise.

 

[SoCalVictor]

Right now, my Alk is around 8.2 and my Ca is 465, which is a bit high for me, unless I am informed otherwise. Per my other thread, it has remained steady for over 4 weeks w/o any Ca dosing, just Alk dosing. My water change Ca concentration is actually a bit lower than 465 so water changes wouldn't explain the steady and high Ca. I see growth on my sps and clams so I know there's consumption.

Another data point is that these readings come from my Trident.

When I test with Salifert Ca test, Salifert tests out in the low 400s, but still steady. I was told Trident is the more realistic one, esp since I've calibrated the Trident a few times already.

 

[Ryan Doolittle]

Right now, my Alk is around 8.2 and my Ca is 465, which is a bit high for me, unless I am informed otherwise. Per my other thread, it has remained steady for over 4 weeks w/o any Ca dosing, just Alk dosing. My water change Ca concentration is actually a bit lower than 465 so water changes wouldn't explain the steady and high Ca. I see growth on my sps and clams so I know there's consumption.

Another data point is that these readings come from my Trident.

When I test with Salifert Ca test, Salifert tests out in the low 400s, but still steady. I was told Trident is the more realistic one, esp since I've calibrated the Trident a few times already.

I know this is old but how big of a difference were you seeing between the Trident and the Salifert test?