Which minor and trace elements are biologically important?

[Reefer Dan]

Hello.

I have a theory that I haven’t looked into at all, but I need somewhere to start and haven’t found a concise list anywhere. Likely unable to test these, but I wanted to throw it out there. Apologize if I am way off base, again, I have not started to look into this yet.

Question:
Which minor and trace elements are considered “biologically important”?

Theories:
- Minor/trace elements that are biologically important may need supplementation.
-Non-biologically important trace elements can be deposited into skeleton, etc as a means to isolate the exposure/damage to one versus the colony.

Any thoughts, insights, or leads on this are welcome, but please remember to be courteous and respectful.

 

[twhit030]

Okay so here’s my OPINION and imma try and keep it simple.

I use to be HIGE into trace elements iodine, iron, boron, zinc. How I got there was icp tests. I think it’s majorly majorly depends on the salt you use. I’m in florida and my lfs gets water from the ocean. For WHATEVER reason the water around us doesn’t have much of that in it yes it’s there but it’s not elevated like some places are idk anyways. Very long story short I caught a hitch hiker from the water and switched to Red Sea salt and continued dozing trace and my next icp came back through the roof. So that being said I def think dosing a few trace elements helps especially the aminos if you’re not using quality salt.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

It's a perfectly reasonable opinion, but what is needed and what needs supplementing beyond foods are different questions.

The list of major, minor and trace elements needed by at least one organism is pretty long. Googling "biological role of XX" usually gives a decent answer as to whether some organism uses it,a nd a few, such as barium, mercury, , etc. will fall off the list.

If you look at a periodic table, I expect most actinides and lanthanides are not required.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Any thoughts, insights, or leads on this are welcome, but please remember to be courteous and respectful.

As a matter of policy, such statements are unnecessary. All threads are open to everyone, and all respondants must be respectful.

-Non-biologically important trace elements can be deposited into skeleton, etc as a means to isolate the exposure/damage to one versus the colony.

There certainly are many elements deposited into coral skeletons that are of no value to the organism. In many cases, it is simple accidental incorporation into the depositing calcium carbonate in place of either calcium or carbonate. THese range for the obvious, such as uranium and plutonium, to theless obvious (IMO, this includes strontium).

 

[Reefer Dan]

It's a perfectly reasonable opinion, but what is needed and what needs supplementing beyond foods are different questions.

The list of major, minor and trace elements needed by at least one organism is pretty long. Googling "biological role of XX" usually gives a decent answer as to whether some organism uses it,a nd a few, such as barium, mercury, , etc. will fall off the list.

If you look at a periodic table, I expect most actinides and lanthanides are not required.

Thank you. Your comment makes a lot of sense. I didn’t think about it from that perspective. To run with this idea and make sure I am understanding the real world application of feeding replenishing trace elements, here is an example:

Phytoplankton is generally grown with f/2 formula. By dosing phytoplankton, this would result in increasing levels of trace elements in a similar amount and higher bioavailable form of the trace elements to be used. Thus potentially reducing/reducing the need for dosing trace elements, this correct logic?

 

[Wasabiroot]

As a matter of policy, such statements are unnecessary. All threads are open to everyone, and all respondants must be respectful.



There certainly are many elements deposited into coral skeletons that are of no value to the organism. In many cases, it is simple accidental incorporation into the depositing calcium carbonate in place of either calcium or carbonate. THese range for the obvious, such as uranium and plutonium, to theless obvious (IMO, this includes strontium).

Wait a minute...this might finally explain all the Nuclear Lepto and Plutonium Tenius I keep seeing ;Joyful

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Thank you. Your comment makes a lot of sense. I didn’t think about it from that perspective. To run with this idea and make sure I am understanding the real world application of feeding replenishing trace elements, here is an example:

Phytoplankton is generally grown with f/2 formula. By dosing phytoplankton, this would result in increasing levels of trace elements in a similar amount and higher bioavailable form of the trace elements to be used. Thus potentially reducing/reducing the need for dosing trace elements, this correct logic?

Yes, but here's an even simpler logic:

Organisms (fish, corals, shrimp, algae) use trace elements to build tissues. Foods are those same types of tissues with all of the N, P, and trace elements they contain.

So there's no inherent reason that if one simply rebuilds tissues (organism growth) from digested tissues (foods), that more trace elements are needed than come in with the food. Such is the case in a person: trace elements for tissue building can come perfectly well from foods.

One inherent reason this logic fails is loss of trace elements to other sinks, such as simple precipitation of inorganic materials (e.g., iron oxide) or incorporation into coral skeletons, abiotic precipitation of calcium carbonate on heaters and pumps incorporating elements, etc.

The bigger these other sinks are in a reef tank relative to foods, the more need for supplementing will exist. That relative need will vary strongly with the specific element concerned, whether any comes in with calcium and alkalinity maintenance, and the relative amount of calcification (biological and abiotic) taking place in the specific aquarium.

 

[KrisReef]

Thank you. Your comment makes a lot of sense. I didn’t think about it from that perspective. To run with this idea and make sure I am understanding the real world application of feeding replenishing trace elements, here is an example:

Phytoplankton is generally grown with f/2 formula. By dosing phytoplankton, this would result in increasing levels of trace elements in a similar amount and higher bioavailable form of the trace elements to be used. Thus potentially reducing/reducing the need for dosing trace elements, this correct logic?

Kinda.
It makes sense but the complication is the dose needed vs the available amount in the environment. They have to get it somewhere, if the elements are in excess adding extra just increases the excess.

^ OH, and Randy give better answers than me ^

 

[Reefer Dan]

Yes, but here's an even simpler logic:

Organisms (fish, corals, shrimp, algae) use trace elements to build tissues. Foods are those same types of tissues with all of the N, P, and trace elements they contain.

So there's no inherent reason that if one simply rebuilds tissues (organism growth) from digested tissues (foods), that more trace elements are needed than come in with the food. Such is the case in a person: trace elements for tissue building can come perfectly well from foods.

One inherent reason this logic fails is loss of trace elements to other sinks, such as simple precipitation of inorganic materials (e.g., iron oxide) or incorporation into coral skeletons, abiotic precipitation of calcium carbonate on heaters and pumps incorporating elements, etc.

The bigger these other sinks are in a reef tank relative to foods, the more need for supplementing will exist. That relative need will vary strongly with the specific element concerned, whether any comes in with calcium and alkalinity maintenance, and the relative amount of calcification (biological and abiotic) taking place in the specific aquarium.

I am a big fan of the KISS principle (keep it stupid simple), so I appreciate the simplicity of your answer—it is understandable that even by adding food, efficiency of utilization is never 100%.

This leads to another question:
1) currently the only way to measure if the “input” is sufficient for all of the “sinks and growth” is using icp and comparing between two time points, correct? (Flux)

Thanks for all the insights and help understanding this. There are so many products offered for trace dosing, etc. that It has been a challenge teasing out fact vs fiction/marketing.

 

[KrisReef]

If your livestock is living and growing, who cares what the ICP says

Knowledge is power?

 

[Dan_P]

I am a big fan of the KISS principle (keep it stupid simple), so I appreciate the simplicity of your answer—it is understandable that even by adding food, efficiency of utilization is never 100%.

This leads to another question:
1) currently the only way to measure if the “input” is sufficient for all of the “sinks and growth” is using icp and comparing between two time points, correct? (Flux)

Thanks for all the insights and help understanding this. There are so many products offered for trace dosing, etc. that It has been a challenge teasing out fact vs fiction/marketing.

Here is one observation about adding trace elements.

I started growing Ulva to bring down the nitrate concentration in my aquarium. It worked, until it stopped working. The nitrate concentration decline came to a halt and the Ulva showed signs that it was not healthy. I guessed that something was depleted by the vigorous Ulva growth, and guessed it was one or more trace elements. I decided to dose ChaetoGro. The Ulva started growing vigorously again and hasn’t stopped. I harvest it every week. Here’s the surprising thing. Life forms I have never seen ”bloomed”. The aquarium had been around for years. Weak coralline growth turned into a pink covering. Fan worms and small sponges started growing all over. The species of algae growing on the aquarium glass completely changed. The list goes on. I am still wondering at what trophic level the trace elements had there effect, maybe just spurring bacteria and micro algae growth would be enough to explain all the changes I observed.

When you are thinking about the importance of trace element addition, think beyond coral needs. Maybe healthy microorganisms are the reason we should be dosing.