Water changes too frequent

[Anonymous]

Again the only thing that could have risen the calcium in the 55g and only in the 55g is the crushed oyster shells.

Not really. What's the ALK, PH (min & max), and magnesium level in the 20? If the PH in the 20 often gets above 8.5 Calcium could precipitate. If ALK is very high then Calcium could precipitate. If Magnesium is very low then Calcium could precipitate. If you have an overheating powerhead then Calcium could precipitate. If you have more algae in the 20 then it could be consuming more Calcium.

There's more than one variable when considering multiple tanks.

Yep that is the reason things were as similiar as possible. same water, same substraight, both had pumps, both has about the same amount and kinds of macros. the 55g had more bioload, more snails, more inverts and more corraline.

powerheads in both.

Anyting else is srictly specualtion. The question is now if my results can be independantly duplicated and therefore verified. Yep another hobbiest added crushed coral to a trickle filter and yep calcium did go up.

So oyster shells to buffer calcium. the only question is how much shells are needed for say fast growing sps corals. that is my next step. As soon as things settle down. And if I get the surge/filter thingie working :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

It must be 400ppm since he says he doesnt dose?

Only if the only source of calcium is the water. but if the system buffers and adds calcium then the calcium can be almost any value depending on the input water, buffering, usage and so on.

Just as copper, ammonia, nitrate, phosphates, lead, cadimum, and all other inputs from the water do not remain in the water for ever and ever.

 

[Anonymous]

But then when you consider they have found a reef at 250' deapth using 1 % of the surface par and 5% of the shallow water par, that should not be too surprising.

You're referring to Deep water coral species that are probably not even available in the hobby. These corals probably grow in terms of inches per century as well. I can assure you that your Montipora wouldn't last a week in that environment.

From what I read it was a mix of deap and shallow water species. they also grew differently. Grew more horizontal to capture more light rather than vertical.

But anyway sure seems that NO have much higher lighting that 5% of shallow. So even with NO you should be able to get some growth from just about anything. Just that they will grow slower is all.

 

[HClH2OFish]

Anyting else is srictly specualtion.

Hence this is in no way 'scientific'...simply anecdotal

 

[Anonymous]

Anyting else is srictly specualtion.

Hence this is in no way 'scientific'...simply anecdotal

Not even anecdotal. Speculation magnesium in one tank may have been different than the other is pure specualtion.

My observations are outside the errors on the measurement equipment used. Therefore just as scientific as any lab experiement. And as with any scientific observation, others are free to setup their experiments to determine if they can be duplicated. Which a scientist would recognize as the necessary next step. And which was done with a fellow club member raising his calcium to 500ppm.

So the results are verified once.

Skecticism is good and valid. To prove or disprove my proven and verified hypothesis that a calcium carbonate source does add calcium to a heavily planted reef tank with a nightly ph drop, the scientist must conduct experiments and make observations.

What is extremely unscientific is to pooh hoo them with no supporting observations and/or experiments. It also completely turns off the scientific process.

 

[Anonymous]

So even with NO you should be able to get some growth from just about anything. Just that they will grow slower is all.

LOL! It's been tried thousands of times by new hobbiests. 90% fail miserably, the rest either get better lighting or buy less light demanding corals. If a coral cannot adapt to low lighting it will perish no matter how hard you will it to live. There are species that can live in low light and there are species that cannot. Trying to lump them all together in a general statement is just plain wrong.

 

[Anonymous]

Dr. Randy Holmes-Farley stated that calcium carbonate does begin to dissolve at ph of 7.9 or so. I measured my just before lights on ph as ~ 7.8 (aquarium pharm***** test kit brown). Additionally, other sources have stated that caclium carbonate dissolves at ph lower than 8 to buffer water at a ph of 8.2 or so. Daytime ph of the 55g has been 8.4 for two years.

There's more to it than just PH. ALK also has to be low (which yours is) but the rate is really slow until PH gets below 7.0.

From what I have been reading lately though, if ALK is low (<2.5Meq/L)and Ca is reasonable (400 is reasonable) then the Calcium carbonate skeletons of your corals should also start to dissolve with the low PH.

Perhaps your calcium level is coming from your corals! That would explain why your tank without the corals has low Ca. I don't really believe this is the case but it's just as likely as the Oyster Shell theory.

Sure the calcium carbonate would come from the corals as well as the oyster shells. And at exactly the same rate. But with say 5 pounds of shells and 1 ounce of coral most the the calcium carbonate would come from the shells. Then when the ph rose under lights on the coral would resume it's growth. So the calcium carbonate is being dissolved from the shells and corals then being grown on the corals only. So the effect is the corals just grow a little slower then if calcium was being pumped into the system and the ph held constant.

Sure the calicum addition is slow. That is the reason the levels took a few weeks to get up to 400ppm. The ph drop is buffered by calcium carbonate which is being added by the oyster shells. Lower calcium carbonate, lower ph, more dissolving, higher ph. Then returning to a ph of 8.4 with the lights on lowering of co2. So the calcium carbonate being added to the system is a function of the calcium carbonate consumed by the system. And being fueled by the plant life consuming the carbon dioxide from the fish.

 

[Anonymous]

even monti digitata under NO in a tank that depth wont grow IMO...It may stay alive but the growth would be so slow that you wouldnt notice for months or longer...This doesnt constitute success...

 

[Anonymous]

Dr. Randy Holmes-Farley stated that calcium carbonate does begin to dissolve at ph of 7.9 or so. I measured my just before lights on ph as ~ 7.8 (aquarium pharm***** test kit brown). Additionally, other sources have stated that caclium carbonate dissolves at ph lower than 8 to buffer water at a ph of 8.2 or so. Daytime ph of the 55g has been 8.4 for two years.

That is not a reliable test kit.
More importantly, I just heard from Randy Holmes-Farley and he says the pH would have to drop to the mid 7's before there was any significant dissolution.
If you are hitting the mid 7's at night, you should be having problems.

 

[Anonymous]

you should be having problems.

Ummm... you did see his tank pics, didn't you? :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

Ok the clams are just the little itty bitty 1" hitch hiker types and only a couple.

I find your posts to be so misleading. You said clams because you knew people would think of the kinds of clams we normally talk about in this hobby, not hitchhikers - which, BTW will grow in a bucket.

the sps is small

The digitata? By this time it should be huge. You have poor growth.

Calcium of my tap water is the same for both tanks.

Why won't you give us the number?

Additionally inland aquatics reports those values are more the sufficient for the sps they grow commercially.

You have been so wrong about Inland Aquatics in the recent past that I simply can't believe anything you say about them.

 

[Anonymous]

Yep that is the reason things were as similiar as possible. same water, same substraight, both had pumps, both has about the same amount and kinds of macros. the 55g had more bioload, more snails, more inverts and more corraline.

powerheads in both.

Anyting else is srictly specualtion.

Your entire theory is speculation. I cant believe you are trying to sound scientific, and talking about lab grade when you are using one of the cheapest, most unreliable test kits.

The question is now if my results can be independantly duplicated and therefore verified. Yep another hobbiest added crushed coral to a trickle filter and yep calcium did go up.

What it the ca level in his tap water? Oh, what is the level in yours?

 

[Anonymous]

Anyting else is srictly specualtion.

Hence this is in no way 'scientific'...simply anecdotal

Not even anecdotal.

No, anecdotal. But I don't think you actually understand what that means.

My observations are outside the errors on the measurement equipment used. Therefore just as scientific as any lab experiement. And as with any scientific observation, others are free to setup their experiments to determine if they can be duplicated. Which a scientist would recognize as the necessary next step. And which was done with a fellow club member raising his calcium to 500ppm.

A scientist would recognize that you are using terrible test kits.

So the results are verified once.

So you keep telling us with absolutely no evidence. You also continue to fail to provide the ca level of your tap water.

Skecticism is good and valid. To prove or disprove my proven and verified hypothesis that a calcium carbonate source does add calcium to a heavily planted reef tank with a nightly ph drop, the scientist must conduct experiments and make observations.

No matter how many times you say it, your hypothesis has been anything by verified.

What is extremely unscientific is to pooh hoo them with no supporting observations and/or experiments. It also completely turns off the scientific process.

What you are doing is not scientific in any way. Like I have been asking for months, do the simplest of experiments and remove the oyster shells and see if you the ca level changes.

 

[Anonymous]

Sure the calicum addition is slow. That is the reason the levels took a few weeks to get up to 400ppm. The ph drop is buffered by calcium carbonate which is being added by the oyster shells. Lower calcium carbonate, lower ph, more dissolving, higher ph. Then returning to a ph of 8.4 with the lights on lowering of co2. So the calcium carbonate being added to the system is a function of the calcium carbonate consumed by the system. And being fueled by the plant life consuming the carbon dioxide from the fish.

At the very least, a scientist would know the level the pH drops to and have numbers. If you aren't hitting mid 7's Randy Holmes Farley says you ain't getting significant dissolution. You don't. A scientist would also know the ca level of his tap water.

 

[Anonymous]

righty

I have a proven hypothesis that the addition of crushed oyster shells in a heavily planted marine tank with 5x water flow over the shells raised the calcium level from 250-300ppm to 400ppm. and the calcium level stays at 400ppm. With a control tank where the clacium remianed at 250-300. same conditions in both tanks including water added. Vertified by another person.


The sceintific process to disprove that hypothesis now rests with others.

So Righty to be scientific you now must disprove that hypothesis by makeing your own observations by attempting to duplicate the conditions and testing that hypothesis. Two gallon jars, some oyster shells, some cheato, an undergravel filter, and some oyster shells are all that are needed.

Ball is in your court now.

 

[Anonymous]

righty

I have a proven hypothesis that the addition of crushed oyster shells in a heavily planted marine tank with 5x water flow over the shells raised the calcium level from 250-300ppm to 400ppm. and the calcium level stays at 400ppm. With a control tank where the clacium remianed at 250-300. same conditions in both tanks including water added. Vertified by another person.


The sceintific process to disprove that hypothesis now rests with others.

So Righty to be scientific you now must disprove that hypothesis by makeing your own observations by attempting to duplicate the conditions and testing that hypothesis. Two gallon jars, some oyster shells, some cheato, an undergravel filter, and some oyster shells are all that are needed.

Ball is in your court now.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[coralfarmin]

I would be worried about "dissolved" oyster shell since oysters absorb heavy metal, though it is possible they would be bound by sediments in the sand or other methods, I'd still be worried

 

[Anonymous]

The digitata? By this time it should be huge. You have poor growth.

Thank you Righty

 

[Ben1]

Bob what type of test kits are you using?

If you already said it sorry but I dont have time to waste reading all this.

 

[Ben1]

Nevermind , I found time. No wonder you think you have these ideals. Get some salifert or LaMotte kits and retest.