Calc levels . . .

[fatman]

Another reason why one should not make a 50% WC is the fact; fresh salted water has for approx. 12-24 hours a relatively high toxic portion. With the high change rate I raise also the toxicity in the aquarium, even if only for a short time. Also this is unknown to ALL living beings in the aquarium, they have developed no defences against it and react differently sensitively to it.

I can understand the caution, but I thought there was something more specific tht you were possibly referring to that I missed. A water change of any degree made quickly is pretty much unknown to nearly all wild coral reef inhabitants.

I admit I occasioanlly give people more credit then they deserve and at other times (most times) I am over critical and overly pessimistic. I was foolishly going on the assumption that the water being used was aerated and slowly heated over a period of 24 hours before salt was added, and then aerated over 24 hours after mixing as I do and as I reccommend. I did not think about some one using freshly mixed unaerated potentially toxic water and therefore did not think to recommend smaller amounts of water exchanges do to that reason.

I in general do not recommend large water changes, however, this situation is not typical, and I believe that aged properly mixed water at 25 percent or 50 percent would likely be just about equally stressful if all other water parameters are matching between the tank and the water being put in the tank.

While I do not myself recomend large water changes on a regular basis. I do know people who perform weekly 50 percent water changes regularly. Some of the people are people such as Anthony Calfo, who are sucessful commercial coral growers. I recomend very frequent small water changes when the person can afford it or can automate to also it. My own water changes are automatic with dual pumps with a single drives set to run on timers daily. It takes 8 hours of pump time for my daily water change so I do not worry much about sudden changes. I would recommend this to every one but it is expensive. Not real expensive, but expensive enough not to be on the top of most reefers supply wish lists.

As is the tank were talking about has more salts in it than are in solution. Therefore it is going to take water that is not saturated in magnesium, calcium and carbonates to get those excess salts in solution. If there were large amounts of supplements put in the water then those salts need to be taken up into the water and the excesses removed through further water changes. Each water change should bring the levels up or down to levels closer to the new balanced water added to the old water. However each salt that was added in excess that did not go into or stay in solution is still going to skew the levels through quite a few water changes not yet performed. With small water changes this could take some time.

 

[hma]

Thank you Lynn, I follows, by the way, the so-called German 4 zones Model.

Here a picture:

For all 4 zones there are quite clear rules. If one follows the rules, there are no problems. This is one of the reasons why I, e.g., the Balling method applies, she follows exact to these rules.

 

[lcstorc]

Hey, that looks exactly like the model Randy uses.
How cool.

 

[hma]

Hey, that looks exactly like the model Randy uses.
How cool.

yep.... this is water chemistry, there are no very big differences. Merely the use of NaCl free salt Randy does not know, indeed, the use changes the values very positiv.

 

[fatman]

.................:sleeping:

 

[lcstorc]

Sorry to bore you Fatman.
I like learning and Heinz likes teaching.

 

[fatman]

Sorry to bore you Fatman.
I like learning and Heinz likes teaching.

No your not Boring. I was expecting more from Heinz though. I usually find when I put expectations on others they are not as fruitful as I would like. You carry your self in discussions with me very well though.
I just finished reading Eric Borneman's thread on Skimmers. That was very boring. I think it could have been that tenth jar of slightly tinted water he posted a picture of, Or the fifty times he said I don't know. He even wrote "I will have to check with Randy on that." That whole thraed made be appreciate Randy, Dana, Joshi and even Shimek a whole lot more.
I was hoping Heinz had more input on the calcium problem, or would answer my questions, or explain where I was wrong in my thoughts and why. But oh well. There is a department of Marine Biologists I can ask, or a department of Chemists I can ask if Heinz will not have a discusion with me.
I have not been to bed yet, so I am trying to convince myself to turn away from the computer. I keep hoping for that little spark of something that will explain why I am on the computer instead of sleeping.
The closest thing has been your surprise that we both agreed about something.

 

[lcstorc]

The thread was certainly long and in fact I admited I only read the first and last couple of pages. Perhaps he will put it together in an article without all the added commentary from the forum that makes it so long.
While Heinz may not have gone into the detail you would like, he certainly does know his stuff and has proven it many times. Both in text and in the quality of his tanks. He is also a fabulous photographer as well. Check out his web site. He may have more info there that interests you. I just look at the pretty pictures.
You would probably be happy in our chemistry forum where Boomer explains a lot of things many of which go over my head anyway. He is also a good friend of Randy's so you will likely get along well and perhaps he will get into the more indepth conversations you are looking for.

 

[fatman]

My only experience with boomer so far is to go to a site he seems to recommend. I paid for a life time subscription based on little research. I would not recommend the site to anyone. I kept reading that I could access all kinds of articles and stuff as a member so I paid the membership fee. Afterwords I found out I could have registered for just a year and for 1/5 the price. There was almost nothing to access except a few paragraphs about this and that and advertisements to sell screen savers.
I do not think I have entered into any treads Boomer has been actively replying to yet.
I must say as does Heinz, "I really do not visit the reefing chat sites to learn reefing information or to get advice." Most of what I learn on line comes from .edu sites and from googling specific names of professional in the trade (mostly people with doctorates in biology, marine biology, chemistry and engineering), and people doing studies and research in the trades. I try to stay involved in reef forum/chat sites enough to stay attuned to what practices are common by hobbyists and what their needs/wants are that are not being met.
I checked out pictures of Heinz's tank and went through a few pages. He knows what he is doing, it just is not something I would do or recommend. Even though mixed reef tanks is the in thing,I do not do mixed reef tanks. I do not even mix corals and fish. I keep SPS corals. I do not have the time or money more than one type of systems so I picked what I liked best that was challenging. Fish are not challenging, large polyp corals are not challenging, and soft corals are not challenging. That left what are my favorites, the SPS corals. I at times have used soft corals as nutrient exporters, but other than that I have been pretty exclusively SPS. I do not believe anemones should be kept with anything but its companion clowns, so I do not keep them. I will not recommend or ever purchase a coral, fish or any higher order invertebrates is not aqua cultured or at least maricultured. In my 35 years of keeping marine organisms I have lost more than any mans fair share of marine organisms and will not buy or support the selling, trading or keeping of any wild caught or taken organisms for the hobbyist trade. I am not so rigid though that I would actively become involved in trying to make illegal those activities. Considering my years running, owning and working in LFS's, and the many years I myself kept anemones that always died, and many fish that still are not often kept for long in captivity. And considering the many years I bought fish when I knew they were captured through the use of dynamite and sodium cyanide. Considering the many tons of live rock and bleached coral skeletons I sold, most of which ended up eventually in sanitary land fills or filling pot holes in Alaska's many dirt driveways. Considering all those reasons and more I believe that would be just a bit hypocritical if I supported taking those very rights away from hobbyists. I do believe today's marine hobbyist's education in regards to keeping marine organisms should come easier and quicker than did mine. For these reasons I contribute to Reef Forums.

 

[lcstorc]

Well, Boomer runs our chemistry forum and has been on vacation. That is why you haven't seen anything lately. He's a really nice and extremely knowledgable person.

 

[BigAl07]

Well, Boomer runs our chemistry forum and has been on vacation. That is why you haven't seen anything lately. He's a really nice and extremely knowledgable person.

Double Ditto or would that be Ditto Ditto ?

 

[nikkipigtails]

Al, I have two good links for you and I'm suprised that no one has posted them yet. This first one is similar to the picture Heinz has already posted...
It's self-explanitory
Chemistry and the Aquarium

The other is a reef chemistry calculator. It's self-explanatory as well.
Reef Chemistry Calculator

My IO salt is always really low as far as calc and alk are concerned so I raise the level with calcium chloride and baked baking soda before I add it to the tank. I drop a PH in the bucket and let it stir for at least 24 hours before I make a water change. That may be what you need to do with your batches of water but increase the calcium, alk and mag, if you need to, slightly above the normal range so it slowly raises in your tanks. Just my .02. The reef calculator I just posted will tell you how much supplement to add at a time and how slowly or quickly you need to add it.

 

[nikkipigtails]

Anyway, hope it helps.

 

[Boomer]

Heinz and Fatman

I see some serous error here with some basic chemistry issue so I need some explanation as to why or corrections


Heinz
Hello Al, remembers please if you increase Calzium ALONE, the magnesium value sinks. Every Calzium ion binds a magnesium ion. Have also an eye on the value KH, with such a strong drop of the Calzium should be also influenced.

No every Ca++ ion does not bind with a Mg++ ion. Where did you get that from ? If that was the case then Aragontie would be 50- 50 Ca++ to Mg++ and Aragonite has almost nil Mg++, as it does not fit into the crystal lattice. Although Mg++ does fit nice into the Calcite crystal lattice it also is not 50- 50. It is only 50 -50 in Dolomite, which are monlayers of Calcite and Magnesite and corals do not produce Dolomite.

Ca2+ + 2HCO3 = Ca(HCO3)2 = CaCO3 + H2CO3

There is not such thing as Ca(HCO3)2 accept as a ion pair, :Ca::HCO32:, where : = denotes the ion being surrounded by one or more molecule layers of water. There is not such thing as a solid for Ca(HCO3)2. It can also be written as and should be;

Ca2+ + 2HCO3 = CaCO3 + 2H+

but it is more complicated than this if looking at how corals grow.



CaCl2 + 2 NaHCO3 = Ca2+ + 2HCO3 + 2 NaCl

Not really, as the NaCl is a solid, which will dissociate to Na + and Cl- . But I know what you mean in both equations


CaCl2 + 2 NaHCO3 = Ca2+ + 2HCO3 + 2 Na+ + 2 Cl-



Fatman

I have found Randy Holmes-Farley only to be contradictory once (about iodine usage)

Where please show me.

and can only remember finding fault in one small thing he wrote once and that was the statement that aragonite and crushed coral are both calcium carbonate and that calcium carbonate dissolved in marine water at a such and such pH.


Where you must have misunderstood what he said. Crushed coral is Aragonite.


Where as aragonite and calcium carbonate (crushed coral) dissolve at different marine water pH's

Different Aragonite, with different porosity, can dissolve at slightly different rates. i.e., aragonitic sand vs crushed coral etc..


But then there is the long argument that aragonite is a form of calcium carbonate, yes as is halite.

Halite !!! That is NaCl, Sodium Chloride .


What ! There is no argument at all anywhere on this Calcite is CaCO3 and Aragonite is CaCO3 just different crystallographic morphs. There is also Hi-Mg Calcite and Low-Mg Calcite.

Well graphite and a diamond are both carbon, no one claims they dissolve in the same marine water pH or are of equal hardness. It is most typical for a chemical compound that has differing geometric arrangements in its structure but the same chemical formulas to have different physical properties and because of that dissolve at different pH's or have vastly different hardnesses or melting points etc. Not that any of this or that matters.

Yes that is true.

When I have difficulties believing something Randy writes I can generally go to a chemistry reference book or even a text book or two or three.

Maybe you do not understand what he is saying Give me some examples or come to our chem. forum on RC and we will discuss it with Randy there. Then maybe it is just an option thing. You sound as if Randy is wrong, which is not a opinion. Yes he has been wrong at times but rarely. We all are wrong at times. But try not to come across here as if only *you are right.

I agree on the WC issue with you. There are many people that do very large water changes with little or no effect on corals , even sps's. Don W was doing ~ 100 % changes on his reef tanks and I use to do monthly 75 - 90 % changes for 20 years.


The calcium issue has been very misleading over the years, Chris Jury, a reefer and grad student, who's dissertation is on this very subject has come to the conclusion from his studies that Calcium levels over ~360 ppm does squat for coral growth and is controlled by pH and Alk, not Ca++ levels or other limiting factors. Meaning, if all *could be the same and one raised the Ca++ only from 360 ppm to 400 or 500 the corals growth rate would not change.

 

[Boomer]

Fatman

My only experience with boomer so far is to go to a site he seems to recommend. I paid for a life time subscription based on little research. I would not recommend the site to anyone. I kept reading that I could access all kinds of articles and stuff as a member so I paid the membership fee. Afterwords I found out I could have registered for just a year and for 1/5 the price.

Well, that is not my falt

I take it you mean The Coral Realm ?

However, that site it not the way it use to be when it stated out. Even Scott Michale does not go there any more and he was one of the ones that started it. I do not go there anymore either and have not for ar leasy 2 years I should drop it an will drop it from my sig. Just kinda forgot it was still there.

"I really do not visit the reefing chat sites to learn reefing information or to get advice." Most of what I learn on line comes from .edu sites and from googling specific names of professional in the trade (mostly people with doctorates in biology, marine biology, chemistry and engineering), and people doing studies and research in the trades. I try to stay involved in reef forum/chat sites enough to stay attuned to what practices are common by hobbyists and what their needs/wants are that are not being met.

So you are saying a reefer can not give you any advice at all ? I might add that many of these "mostly people with doctorates in biology, marine biology, chemistry and engineering" come to forums for advice and to learn form reefers. Lab rats do not know it all and often make mistakes. And most lab rats do not work with running reef systems and trying to compare a reef tank to a reef is just nonsense. And you are not a know-it- all, none of us are, so please drop that attitude.

 

[BigAl07]

Wow! That's a LOT to digest! Whew~~~

So what I'm seeing is ???
:LOL: Just kidding! I am so enjoying the friendly discussion here

I'm still wondering do I do several small water changes or work on a large one and go from there. My normal schedule would be for a 20% on Monday but that's still on the table for discussion.

thanks Boomer for chiming in. It's good to see you bouncing through

 

[lcstorc]

In this case Al I would go with the regular or slightly larger changes. Above all do not hurt your back!! Maybe up the frequency as well.
If I am reading correctly you do not have a critical issue. If you do then I would go with the large water changes. I know I have done as much as 50% twice a day when I had a severe problem and it certainly helped and not hurt the situation.
That is just my non-scientific opinion based on what I do/did. Not necessarily that of the staff or management or any scientist.

 

[Octoman]

Welcome back from vacation Boomer! I have a question for you I'd like to piggyback on this thread (or anyone else who may know), do you know anything about Reef Advantage Calcium by Seachem?

I've been using Kalkwasser for top-off and adjusting the concentration to maintain the alkalinity. I also add RAC to bring my calcium levels up as needed, usually a small dose every couple weeks. It is supposed to be a balanced supply of Ca, Mg, and Sr. I also add RAC to my fresh mixed IO to boost it a bit before I do a WC.



Al, I hope I'm not derailing your thread... I've always preferred more frequent smaller WC's, but I don't have any evidence that either way is better. The only problem is sequential smaller water changes will not have as large of an effect on Ca concentration -

For example -

One 50% WC with 420ppm would bring 340ppm up to 380ppm.

Two 25% WC with 420ppm would bring 340 to 360 (25%) and then 360 up to 375ppm (another 25%).

Did that make any sense at all? I don't know if I said it right...

 

[Boomer]

It is just Calcium Chloride with a touch of Mg++, Sr ++ and a couple of other things, as are most Calcium Choride additives. The come mostly as impurities.There is nothing specual about it.

A 50 % WC should bring it to 400 not 380. Was the salt mixed well before youn made the salt. "Salts" will settle in bags do to different densites and particle sizes.

How to solve you question as to what you should get.

Total tank water - WC water = x

350 - 35 WC gal = 315

So, that is say 350 gal net and WC of 35 gal

35/315 = 88 % with 12 % left over.

Calcium was 340 and salt mix is 400


.88 (340) +.12 (400) = 348 ppm after water change

If we check our math with a 50 % WC

350 - 175 = 175

.50 ( 340) + .50 ( 400) = 370 ppm or 340 + 400 = 740 and 740 / 2 = 370 ppm

 

[Octoman]

Thanks Boomer, I get a large container of the powdered version so it's cost effective for my level of calcium demand and I feel that it's a decent option with Dowflake out of the picture.