Edwardw771
NJRC Member
Thank you for the great information and experince in this thread.
-
Folks, if you've recently upgraded or renewed your annual club membership but it's still not active, please reach out to the BOD or a moderator. The PayPal system has a slight bug which it doesn't allow it to activate the account on it's own.
How do I raise my Alk levels
- Thread starter chase33
- Start date
Thanks for the great post Boomer!
Carlo and I have had this chat about temps and O2 levels. You of course explained it much better! ;D
In general I try to maintain my tanks with parameters and processes that allow some room for error, and try to make any changes gradually.
I also try to maintain things as simply as possible so I'm not slave to a technology that may fail, or a labor intense schedule I can't maintain. I now maintain my chemistry with kalk topoff and weekly 10% water changes only, and everyone is thriving. My numbers run pretty near natural seawater and I try to keep temps around 77-78.
It amazes me how much time and money I have spent trying to avoid the cost of frequent water changes in the 35 years I've been in the hobby! And now I find it much less work to go with the changes and not get crazy about elevating the ph, CA and Alk to some higher level than average.
Of course I may never know the joy of owning and tweaking a calcium reactor or a sulphur denitrator, but that just leaves me more money to spend on livestock.
Carlo and I have had this chat about temps and O2 levels. You of course explained it much better! ;D
In general I try to maintain my tanks with parameters and processes that allow some room for error, and try to make any changes gradually.
I also try to maintain things as simply as possible so I'm not slave to a technology that may fail, or a labor intense schedule I can't maintain. I now maintain my chemistry with kalk topoff and weekly 10% water changes only, and everyone is thriving. My numbers run pretty near natural seawater and I try to keep temps around 77-78.
It amazes me how much time and money I have spent trying to avoid the cost of frequent water changes in the 35 years I've been in the hobby! And now I find it much less work to go with the changes and not get crazy about elevating the ph, CA and Alk to some higher level than average.
Of course I may never know the joy of owning and tweaking a calcium reactor or a sulphur denitrator, but that just leaves me more money to spend on livestock.
Carlo and I have had this chat about temps and O2 levels
Well, I often chuckle ( don't take this wrong)) when I hear this as many assume their tanks are at saturation with respect to O2, because "I have greate circulation" and 95 % of them never are, accept maybe for a brief moment. Most tanks by far are below sat and most of the time and reef are always 100% sat. And you need a really good O2 kit to prove this, like a HACH digital titrator, which meaures to 0.02 ppm. I gave it to Randy. After years of arguing this I was backed up by Eric's well done article on O2. And I'm not an Eric fan so to speak.
Glad to have helped
Well, I often chuckle ( don't take this wrong)
) when I hear this as many assume their tanks are at saturation with respect to O2, because "I have greate circulation" and 95 % of them never are, accept maybe for a brief moment. Most tanks by far are below sat and most of the time and reef are always 100% sat. And you need a really good O2 kit to prove this, like a HACH digital titrator, which meaures to 0.02 ppm. I gave it to Randy. After years of arguing this I was backed up by Eric's well done article on O2. And I'm not an Eric fan so to speak. Glad to have helped
I agree on the lazy factor. But he has numerous times said that running calcium and alkalinity on the high side when pH is low MAY help calcification. So while he doesn't say it DOES he seems to indicate it can. I'm kind of with him on allowing pH swings (within reason) just like a couple of degrees on temp from a daily setpoint. The corals in the wild are going to see this to some degree. While only an opinion I feel like it may allow the coral to adapt better to unexpected changes a little better then the coral that is always at the same pH and temp 100% of the time.Boomer said:
I think Walt's a great guy and all but have kind of lost some faith on relying on his info. I remember back when he insisted Fiji is pretty much in the 70s all year round with an occasional rise into the 80s (not talking about the 2000 or similar bleaching events). This goes directly against the reef temp graphs that Bomber (believe it was him) posted (same one I posted above). That chart completely shows something different. Same thing with a couple of other things you would think Walt would be dead accurate on. So while I want to rely on his info I sometimes have trouble taking it at face value without additional backup. I guess the same could be said of many people actually.
I don't know where Anthony got his info from either. But he seems to indicate the value on the Fiji reefs have a low of 8.3 and a high of 8.6 on average. I was kind of hoping you knew of some data on the pH there. I'll contact Anthony and see if he can give me some additional info on it. I'm aware of course that other reefs could be different but I'm mostly interested in the Fiji/Tonga area since that is where a lot of our (my) corals come from.
The bleaching didn't happen until the daily average temps were at the 86/87 mark. Keep in mind reef fluctuations, so some of these corals were seeing temps of over 90F. It's just not the "average" they get hit by. Keeping it capped at 84 leaves a pretty large amount of "buffer temp" in our aquariums compared to the bleaching events. BTW there are many years of data on that graph. I removed high and low years and took averages for each month with remaining years to use as baselines. There's been a lot of chat on RC about temps and SPS and while there are many opinions the people who are allowing daily changes of a few degrees aren't seeing any problems even getting into the 85/86 range. That to me is to close to the edge but still a little safer then the 2000 event because this is the high point of the day not like the 90F in Fiji. Of course at higher temps there is less O2 available but still a considerable amount. Nothing to worry about.
Bingo, this is exactly what I was getting at but you said it better. I'm just trying to get as close to recreating the natural environment as possible within the safety of our enclosed systems and to be able to accommodate other region's corals (used to higher temps).
Agreed, that's part of what I'm shooting for. Since Fiji is subtropic while many other places we get our corals from are tropic regions. This would seem to indicate that corals from these other areas could handle higher temps even better and probably want higher temps too. Kind of why I like the higher side of the temp range but somewhere between the two trying to stay within the safety of the Fiji temps.
Well the "tank game" I played isn't exactly in the same category as the 357 game you playThe same argument for chronically high Alk or Ca++ as pH, there is no reason. If one can get away with it so what. At times one can often get way with things. Why put something in a position to maybe bite you when there is no reason to do so. Just because I put a bullet in my 357 mag and spins the cylinder 50 times and do not end up with a bullet in my head does not mean it is OK, as I did it and nothing happened.
since a precip can be corrected unlike the bullet in the head but I understand your position. But didn't you ever play with your reef/tank (not others of course) to try things? See where limits are? See what causes growth, what doesn't? So I think there is reason to try things and expand our knowledge of what works and doesn't and hopefully find out why.But really the reason I asked was more to get your opinion how the levels can be so high and defy the Omega without getting the precip. It almost seems like the formula is to simple or missing something and not always accurate. GASP, I say that.
I know, but with all the BLU Coral users (and other systems) doing it successfully it begs to ask the question, is there more to it then we typically think. I hope you know what I'm saying/asking. BTW, I know going above the Omega isn't a guarantee of precip but when you really push far above it you would think... That's why I can't help wonder if there is a missing piece to calculating the "probability/possibility" of precip happening especially at some of these ungodly high values people are running at successfully.Carlo
Boomer said:Carlo and I have had this chat about temps and O2 levels
Well, I often chuckle ( don't take this wrong)
Glad to have helped
I chuckle at this to. People get hung up on the saturation level of the water. It doesn't need to be at 100%. In Walter Adey's book he says that natural seawater in areas around reefs are generally between 95-110% saturated with oxygen, and >60% of areas measured are at 100% saturation. Obviously oxygen is important to our animals, and such concern is justified. On the reefs of St. Croix, night time oxygen levels range from about 5-6.5 mg oxygen/l, and daytime levels rise to around 7.5-9 mg oxygen/l (saturation was roughly 6.25) depending on the reef and location. He reports similar levels of oxygen in his ATS-based tanks at the Smithsonian, but also points out in his book (this is KEY), it is not the oxygen concentration itself that is important but rather the EXCHANGE rate of oxygen.
Let's say you start with an average well-stocked 55G reef aquarium. The respiration of the animals in the aquarium would likely be on the order of something like 3g of oxygen per hour. Even if you could supersaturate the seawater (lets say it's at 9mg oxygen/l -- the highest recorded on the natural reefs as far as I know), that still only gives you about an hour for the animals to suffocate with only gas exchange at the tank surface. Of course, protein skimming, turbulent water flow (e.g., "dueling" powerheads), and photosynthesis will alter that rate of exchange, and with the normal exchange rates of roughly 4-6g of oxygen per square meter per hour, the respiratory needs of your animals should be easily met. While it is true that both salinity and temperature will affect the particular value of the oxygen saturation coefficient in seawater (salinity of ~35 ppt, then the oxygen saturation at 25C/77F is 6.9mg/l, while at 30C/86F is only 6.4mg/l), this is pretty much a non-factor. If the difference of 0.5 mg/l of oxygen in your tank makes any difference to the inhabitants of your tank, you are *seriously* under-circulating or overloading your tank! Assuming you would even dare run at 86F.
Everything I've read deals with the O2 levels along the surf, while this might be saturated, what about 20 feet down?
It's a mute point on the temp/O2 thing in my opinion.
Carlo
running calcium and alkalinity on the high side when pH is low MAY help calcification
Nope, only high or somewhat high Alk and pH and not Ca++. Ca++ does nothing
So while he doesn't say it DOES he seems to indicate it can.
You should try to reframe yourself more from reading into things. He does not say that at all and if you have followed him or his articles he says anything over 360 ppm has no impact on coral growth. And his reasoning behind higher AlK is if the pH is high, so there is no limiting for needed CO2, although most do not use CO2 but HCO3- for their carbon source. Something explained to Randy long ago.
I remember back when he insisted Fiji is pretty much in the 70s all year round with an occasional rise into the 80s
Well, you will have to show me that for me to believe it sorry. If one asked him what the reef pH's are what would be his reason to lie to you. Buy the way the temps of the Fiji's are what Walt has claimed so you have been mislead again Fiji weather temps are posted on countless sites and do not lie. You are or seem to be confusing water temps with land temps, which are 23 -27 C, which is 73.4 F - 80.6, which falls in line with Walt. If Walt claims those are reef SST show me. And SST, meaning is good to 50 m.
95-110% saturated with oxygen
Well, that is pretty much +100 % avg
it is not the oxygen concentration itself that is important but rather the EXCHANGE rate of oxygen.
You have been misled again. That is almost shear nonsense. Exchange is mostly a function of pO2. The lower the pO2 the lower the O2 up take. The lower the pO2 the lower the O2 level. Uptake can be improved by good current flow by some animals. A fishes gills move as function of O2 concentration in the water column and the same for most other gilled animals. And I and others really don't give Adey much credit since those Smithsonian tanks are / where often a mess. They actually had some of their collecting permits taken away for killing so much stuff. m
Many reef tanks are 1 ppm below sat. Even in the ocean O2 can drop to half its day time level or only 50% sat or lower. And some tanks, not reef tanks, have gone as low a 15 % sat at night and that is 1 ppm O2. So lowering the temp can make a diffence bewteen life and death. I prefer to keep temps in the mid 70's.
the highest recorded on the natural reefs as far as I know), that still only gives you about an hour for the animals to suffocate with only gas exchange at the tank surface.
Where do you come up with these things ? I have seen large systems shut down for hrs and nothing dies to include my own tanks during power outages.
what about 20 feet down
There are crap loads of O2 plot with depth. Dissolved O2, sat at Temp: 25C S = 35ppt = 4.727 milliL/Liter or 6.75, not 6.9 and 6.2 not 6.4 @ 30 C.
Here is just one plot and there are crap loads of them here
http://www-pord.ucsd.edu/~ltalley/sio210/PPSW/
The bleaching threshold for Fiji is in the range of 29.5-30.0 C (85.1- 86 F). Where on earth do you get your info from ? I have a full pdf by 12 authors on the Fiji 2000 beaching and there is no such thing as you claim of in the 90's. Their own graph plots and even your own posted graph shows no such temperatures. The highest is ~ 30.5 and that is 86.9
Keeping it capped at 84 leaves a pretty large amount of "buffer temp"
Well, you are flat out wrong, that is a 1 F degree buffer and your meter can be off that much. There is again NO reason to keep it that high other then you saying so. It is potentially dangerous and has no meaning. You have to explain what benefit there is being at 84 or even 83 F. My recomended limit it 82 F and Randy goes to 83 F. And samll daily temp ****s are fine.
BTW there are many years of data on that graph. I removed high and low years and took averages for each month with remaining years to use as baselines.
What do you mean YOU removed data ? Do I look like I'm stupid or something ? I did not get up yesterday. Ever hear of right click on image, choose properties ? That graph is as is and came from > http://www.naia.com.fj/research/watertemp_lrg.gif and if you back track it, it all came from the dive site NAIA or http://www.naia.com. And that is a Fiji website. And you just said This goes directly against the reef temp graphs that Bomber (believe it was him) posted (same one I posted above). There are no years or months missing they are all there. So, that is two really big post holes you just dug. Care to explain ?
Omega without getting the precip. It almost seems like the formula is to simple or missing something and not always accurate. GASP, I say that.
That is true, it is more of a guide just like anything else. That Omega has many varables and is based on NSW with shifts in the basic parmeters. And such preicp is said to be "more likely". No one has any data what so ever that such high levels of Ca++ do anything. There is no reason for it other than cause I/he/she said so. Being a guide we should try to follow it so no one gets in trouble. Just because Dick or Jane has no issue with those levels does not mean others may not. And I tend to look out for the others.
But didn't you ever play with your reef/tank (not others of course) to try things? See where limits are?
Nope, I had no reasons to. I have seen to many hobbits kill things when playing games with their tanks. I will add I use to do 95 % water changes / m, which is kinda unheard of other than DonW.
Nope, only high or somewhat high Alk and pH and not Ca++. Ca++ does nothing
So while he doesn't say it DOES he seems to indicate it can.
You should try to reframe yourself more from reading into things. He does not say that at all and if you have followed him or his articles he says anything over 360 ppm has no impact on coral growth. And his reasoning behind higher AlK is if the pH is high, so there is no limiting for needed CO2, although most do not use CO2 but HCO3- for their carbon source. Something explained to Randy long ago.
I remember back when he insisted Fiji is pretty much in the 70s all year round with an occasional rise into the 80s
Well, you will have to show me that for me to believe it sorry. If one asked him what the reef pH's are what would be his reason to lie to you. Buy the way the temps of the Fiji's are what Walt has claimed so you have been mislead again
Fiji weather temps are posted on countless sites and do not lie. You are or seem to be confusing water temps with land temps, which are 23 -27 C, which is 73.4 F - 80.6, which falls in line with Walt. If Walt claims those are reef SST show me. And SST, meaning is good to 50 m. 95-110% saturated with oxygen
Well, that is pretty much +100 % avg
it is not the oxygen concentration itself that is important but rather the EXCHANGE rate of oxygen.
You have been misled again. That is almost shear nonsense. Exchange is mostly a function of pO2. The lower the pO2 the lower the O2 up take. The lower the pO2 the lower the O2 level. Uptake can be improved by good current flow by some animals. A fishes gills move as function of O2 concentration in the water column and the same for most other gilled animals. And I and others really don't give Adey much credit since those Smithsonian tanks are / where often a mess. They actually had some of their collecting permits taken away for killing so much stuff. m
Many reef tanks are 1 ppm below sat. Even in the ocean O2 can drop to half its day time level or only 50% sat or lower. And some tanks, not reef tanks, have gone as low a 15 % sat at night and that is 1 ppm O2. So lowering the temp can make a diffence bewteen life and death. I prefer to keep temps in the mid 70's.
the highest recorded on the natural reefs as far as I know), that still only gives you about an hour for the animals to suffocate with only gas exchange at the tank surface.
Where do you come up with these things ? I have seen large systems shut down for hrs and nothing dies to include my own tanks during power outages.
what about 20 feet down
There are crap loads of O2 plot with depth. Dissolved O2, sat at Temp: 25C S = 35ppt = 4.727 milliL/Liter or 6.75, not 6.9 and 6.2 not 6.4 @ 30 C.
Here is just one plot and there are crap loads of them here
http://www-pord.ucsd.edu/~ltalley/sio210/PPSW/
The bleaching threshold for Fiji is in the range of 29.5-30.0 C (85.1- 86 F). Where on earth do you get your info from ? I have a full pdf by 12 authors on the Fiji 2000 beaching and there is no such thing as you claim of in the 90's. Their own graph plots and even your own posted graph shows no such temperatures. The highest is ~ 30.5 and that is 86.9
Keeping it capped at 84 leaves a pretty large amount of "buffer temp"
Well, you are flat out wrong, that is a 1 F degree buffer and your meter can be off that much. There is again NO reason to keep it that high other then you saying so. It is potentially dangerous and has no meaning. You have to explain what benefit there is being at 84 or even 83 F. My recomended limit it 82 F and Randy goes to 83 F. And samll daily temp ****s are fine.
BTW there are many years of data on that graph. I removed high and low years and took averages for each month with remaining years to use as baselines.
What do you mean YOU removed data ? Do I look like I'm stupid or something ? I did not get up yesterday. Ever hear of right click on image, choose properties ? That graph is as is and came from > http://www.naia.com.fj/research/watertemp_lrg.gif and if you back track it, it all came from the dive site NAIA or http://www.naia.com. And that is a Fiji website. And you just said This goes directly against the reef temp graphs that Bomber (believe it was him) posted (same one I posted above). There are no years or months missing they are all there. So, that is two really big post holes you just dug. Care to explain ?
Omega without getting the precip. It almost seems like the formula is to simple or missing something and not always accurate. GASP, I say that.
That is true, it is more of a guide just like anything else. That Omega has many varables and is based on NSW with shifts in the basic parmeters. And such preicp is said to be "more likely". No one has any data what so ever that such high levels of Ca++ do anything. There is no reason for it other than cause I/he/she said so. Being a guide we should try to follow it so no one gets in trouble. Just because Dick or Jane has no issue with those levels does not mean others may not. And I tend to look out for the others.
But didn't you ever play with your reef/tank (not others of course) to try things? See where limits are?
Nope, I had no reasons to. I have seen to many hobbits kill things when playing games with their tanks. I will add I use to do 95 % water changes / m, which is kinda unheard of other than DonW.
Broken into sections
He has posted the information I mentioned in the forums at RC to answer people's questions and also has it here.
From "The “How To” Guide to Reef Aquarium Chemistry for Beginners, Part 3: pH" http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2007-05/rhf/index.php#3
"The acceptable pH range for reef aquaria is an opinion, rather than a clearly defined fact, and certainly varies based on who is providing the opinion. This range also may be quite different from the "optimal" range. Justifying what is optimal, however, is much more problematic than justifying what is simply acceptable."
"In my opinion, the pH range from 7.8 to 8.5 is a acceptable for reef aquaria, with several caveats. These are:
That the alkalinity is at least 2.5 meq/L (7 dKH) and preferably higher at the lower end of this pH range. This statement is based partly on the fact that many reef aquaria operate acceptably in the pH 7.8 to 8.0 range, but many of the best examples of these types of aquaria incorporate calcium carbonate/carbon dioxide reactors which, while tending to lower the pH, also tend to keep the carbonate alkalinity fairly high (at or above 3 meq/L.). In this case, any problems associated with calcification at these lower pH values may be offset by the higher alkalinity. Low pH stresses calcifying organisms primarily by making it harder for them to obtain sufficient carbonate to deposit skeletons. Raising the alkalinity may mitigate this difficulty by supplying extra bicarbonate to them.
That the calcium level is at least 400 ppm. Calcification becomes more difficult as the pH falls, and it also becomes more difficult as the calcium level falls. It would not be desirable to push all of the extremes of pH, alkalinity and calcium at the same time. So if the pH is on the low side and cannot be easily changed (such as in an aquarium with a CaCO3/CO2 reactor), at least make sure that the calcium level is acceptable (~400-450 ppm)."
So it sure seems to me he is saying if the pH is low to run higher then normal levels of BOTH. Surely the alk level is clearly covered here and agrees with what you said but he also says "make sure that the calcium level is acceptable (~400-450 ppm)."
That's only one example but he has answered peoples direct questions and stated to keep both the alk and calcium higher with a low pH as it MAY help.
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=5089918#post5089918
"Dear All,
It seems we are all at both ends of the field here. A couple of things to point out / remember. I am basing my comments on 16 years experience in the South Pacific (Tonga and Fiji) where the water temp for most of the year is mid 70’s at 8 ft – 20 ft. where most of this stuff is collected. During our summer months, if we are unfortunate to get hit by “hot spots†(traceable on the NOAA maps from their site) the temp can reach into the low 90’s and most of the coral dies or becomes bleached. In 1999 – 2000 season we lost over 90% of the entire coral reef on the eastern side of the Island and in most of the northern group (Yasawas) because of these hot spots which can be very discriminative with some reefs bleaching and less than a mile away everything is OK (or most of it) and there is really no telling where these spots will hit from year to year. Just last year I lost almost all of the corals on my farm racks spread over 7 different sites and while we monitored the temps bi-weekly some spots hit 92 (60 feet down) and others only hit 88 …."
"• Will your corals die at 80 - 82 … probably not. Is it the natural conditions at which they occur in nature … defiantly not.
• Keep in mind that the corals from Indonesia are a different matter where the water IS warmer but I still recommend mid to high 70’s as a medium range to keep your mix well and happy."
There is about half of his post. I only swiped the stuff applicable here but give it a read. See he mentions "where the water temp for most of the year is mid 70’s at 8 ft – 20 ft. where most of this stuff is collected" but that defiantly goes against the NOAA temps. It never gets to "mid 70s" only down to about 78. He does mention bleaching at higher temps then most people usually assume. He mentions 88 and into the 90s.
"Will your corals die at 80 - 82 … probably not. Is it the natural conditions at which they occur in nature … defiantly not."
That goes flat against recorded temps as they spend a great deal of there time in this range.
I've also seen him post similar elsewhere but this one was easy to find.
It wasn't my opinion it was that of Walter Adey from the Smithsonian who is well recognized in this field. How saturated your O2 needs to be is nothing but opinion. There is no right or wrong answer. Think about it. It's no different the Calcium. As long as you are providing the tank with enough O2, are higher levels needed? While it surely wouldn't be a bad idea, the question really is, is it needed? I think you really answered this already as you have said in your opinion that most tanks are not close to saturation. So my take on that is that it obviously isn't that important but the EXCHANGE rate IS. You can surely run a tank at lower saturation rates with good exchange. Can't have it both ways.
I think I agree with you on only needing the higher Alk with decent Ca values but that wasn't the point. I was quoting what Randy has said. While many people look up to Randy because of his no nonsense tell it like it is attitude, some things are still a matter of opinion and you yourself have a different opinion as do I on some things from Randy.Boomer said:
He has posted the information I mentioned in the forums at RC to answer people's questions and also has it here.
From "The “How To” Guide to Reef Aquarium Chemistry for Beginners, Part 3: pH" http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2007-05/rhf/index.php#3
"The acceptable pH range for reef aquaria is an opinion, rather than a clearly defined fact, and certainly varies based on who is providing the opinion. This range also may be quite different from the "optimal" range. Justifying what is optimal, however, is much more problematic than justifying what is simply acceptable."
"In my opinion, the pH range from 7.8 to 8.5 is a acceptable for reef aquaria, with several caveats. These are:
That the alkalinity is at least 2.5 meq/L (7 dKH) and preferably higher at the lower end of this pH range. This statement is based partly on the fact that many reef aquaria operate acceptably in the pH 7.8 to 8.0 range, but many of the best examples of these types of aquaria incorporate calcium carbonate/carbon dioxide reactors which, while tending to lower the pH, also tend to keep the carbonate alkalinity fairly high (at or above 3 meq/L.). In this case, any problems associated with calcification at these lower pH values may be offset by the higher alkalinity. Low pH stresses calcifying organisms primarily by making it harder for them to obtain sufficient carbonate to deposit skeletons. Raising the alkalinity may mitigate this difficulty by supplying extra bicarbonate to them.
That the calcium level is at least 400 ppm. Calcification becomes more difficult as the pH falls, and it also becomes more difficult as the calcium level falls. It would not be desirable to push all of the extremes of pH, alkalinity and calcium at the same time. So if the pH is on the low side and cannot be easily changed (such as in an aquarium with a CaCO3/CO2 reactor), at least make sure that the calcium level is acceptable (~400-450 ppm)."
So it sure seems to me he is saying if the pH is low to run higher then normal levels of BOTH. Surely the alk level is clearly covered here and agrees with what you said but he also says "make sure that the calcium level is acceptable (~400-450 ppm)."
That's only one example but he has answered peoples direct questions and stated to keep both the alk and calcium higher with a low pH as it MAY help.
Here you go my friend:I remember back when he insisted Fiji is pretty much in the 70s all year round with an occasional rise into the 80s
Well, you will have to show me that for me to believe it sorry. If one asked him what the reef pH's are what would be his reason to lie to you. Buy the way the temps of the Fiji's are what Walt has claimed so you have been mislead again
95-110% saturated with oxygen
Well, that is pretty much +100 % avg
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=5089918#post5089918
"Dear All,
It seems we are all at both ends of the field here. A couple of things to point out / remember. I am basing my comments on 16 years experience in the South Pacific (Tonga and Fiji) where the water temp for most of the year is mid 70’s at 8 ft – 20 ft. where most of this stuff is collected. During our summer months, if we are unfortunate to get hit by “hot spots†(traceable on the NOAA maps from their site) the temp can reach into the low 90’s and most of the coral dies or becomes bleached. In 1999 – 2000 season we lost over 90% of the entire coral reef on the eastern side of the Island and in most of the northern group (Yasawas) because of these hot spots which can be very discriminative with some reefs bleaching and less than a mile away everything is OK (or most of it) and there is really no telling where these spots will hit from year to year. Just last year I lost almost all of the corals on my farm racks spread over 7 different sites and while we monitored the temps bi-weekly some spots hit 92 (60 feet down) and others only hit 88 …."
"• Will your corals die at 80 - 82 … probably not. Is it the natural conditions at which they occur in nature … defiantly not.
• Keep in mind that the corals from Indonesia are a different matter where the water IS warmer but I still recommend mid to high 70’s as a medium range to keep your mix well and happy."
There is about half of his post. I only swiped the stuff applicable here but give it a read. See he mentions "where the water temp for most of the year is mid 70’s at 8 ft – 20 ft. where most of this stuff is collected" but that defiantly goes against the NOAA temps. It never gets to "mid 70s" only down to about 78. He does mention bleaching at higher temps then most people usually assume. He mentions 88 and into the 90s.
"Will your corals die at 80 - 82 … probably not. Is it the natural conditions at which they occur in nature … defiantly not."
That goes flat against recorded temps as they spend a great deal of there time in this range.
I've also seen him post similar elsewhere but this one was easy to find.
I just showed you where that information came from.it is not the oxygen concentration itself that is important but rather the EXCHANGE rate of oxygen.
You have been misled again. That is almost shear nonsense. Exchange is mostly a function of pO2. The lower the pO2 the lower the O2 up take. The lower the pO2 the lower the O2 level. Uptake can be improved by good current flow by some animals. A fishes gills move as function of O2 concentration in the water column and the same for most other gilled animals. And I and others really don't give Adey much credit since those Smithsonian tanks are / where often a mess. They actually had some of their collecting permits taken away for killing so much stuff. m
Many reef tanks are 1 ppm below sat. Even in the ocean O2 can drop to half its day time level or only 50% sat or lower. And some tanks, not reef tanks, have gone as low a 15 % sat at night and that is 1 ppm O2. So lowering the temp can make a diffence between life and death. I prefer to keep temps in the mid 70's.
the highest recorded on the natural reefs as far as I know), that still only gives you about an hour for the animals to suffocate with only gas exchange at the tank surface.
Where do you come up with these things ? I have seen large systems shut down for hrs and nothing dies to include my own tanks during power outages.
what about 20 feet down
There are crap loads of O2 plot with depth. Dissolved O2, sat at Temp: 25C S = 35ppt = 4.727 milliL/Liter or 6.75, not 6.9 and 6.2 not 6.4 @ 30 C.
Here is just one plot and there are crap loads of them here
http://www-pord.ucsd.edu/~ltalley/sio210/PPSW/
It wasn't my opinion it was that of Walter Adey from the Smithsonian who is well recognized in this field. How saturated your O2 needs to be is nothing but opinion. There is no right or wrong answer. Think about it. It's no different the Calcium. As long as you are providing the tank with enough O2, are higher levels needed? While it surely wouldn't be a bad idea, the question really is, is it needed? I think you really answered this already as you have said in your opinion that most tanks are not close to saturation. So my take on that is that it obviously isn't that important but the EXCHANGE rate IS. You can surely run a tank at lower saturation rates with good exchange. Can't have it both ways.I just showed you some of this from the man Walt himself above. Bomber from NOAA has also stated the same thing. If you don't agree with Walt then you might find youself in the same boat as me. Remember my comment about some of his info not checking out from him? Bomber on the other works for the NOAA so I'd take what he says more seriously on the matter.
This is your opinion and I disagree with it.
It's nothing more then that. Opinion. I have lots of data that show me bleaching happens at much higher temps then 84 and also have lots of data and personal experience that shows that the corals (mixed) grow and thrive at this temp with no signs of bleaching. So when I know I can keep temps from going over 87 (problems arise here and higher) then I'd consider the 3 degrees on MY SYSTEM a great buffer zone. I have to run over 2000 watts to keep temps over 80 so I'm not worried in the least of getting to high unless it's 100F outside and I've completely lost electricity and use of my generator for multiple days. For ME it's a BIG buffer zone. For others maybe not.But again it's your opinion as many others on the RC are pushing higher temps like me and doing fine. The consensus between us is that bleaching isn't happening until 87/88+s are hit with our subtropic corals. This is fact, in our tanks. Obviously maybe not for others.
You either completely miss took what I said or I should have explained better. I have my temps and light schedules controlled by my Neptune controller. In order to populate the tables used each day/month to control the system I referred to the NOAA chart. Since there is a differences between years for each month on the chart I removed the low and high temps for each month and then averaged the remaining data sets to get the value I used for that month. I can only "plug in" one number for the month so this is how I arrived at the number in a way I though was safe. I also capped the temps regardless of what the math came out to be at 78 and 84. I hope that better clarifies what I was talking about.
I agree on looking out for others. But as you said it's just a guide and it seems to be "off" by a wide margin in practice at times. Doesn't mean it's useless or anything and I agree and use it for working with others on their tanks for a measure of safety. You answered my question on it.
Ahh, see I look at it another way. If everyone always follows the same advice and never tries anything new then where would the hobby be? Everyone would be doing the same thing. How would we ever know what is "ideal" versus "acceptable"? Would we ever have had the Berlin & Dutch methods, DSB/No sand bed, high circulation in tank, the low nutrient Zeo/Prodibio/Pappone/BLU Coral,etc methods? Regardless of if we choose to use these methods we can learn from them and the people experimenting with those systems and find what works and doesn't. While you or I might not like and even have issues with some of these methods, I feel it's the experimenters that have given new life to the hobby and these are the people really responsible for the advancements the hobby has taken over the years.
Wow 95% water changes? That's incredible! I'm the opposite extreme on water changes. I don't do scheduled water changes. I do however pull water from my system for use in QT tanks on ocassion and skim wet. I then need to add new salt water back to the tank. But if I were to calculate it out it would easily be far less the 5% a month. I certainly don't advocate this to anyone else. It's a personal thing and done for two reasons. One is the absolute saving overall. I surely don't want to buy 2 buckets of salt a week to do water changes! Second is more a matter of experimentation to see how long the water quality can be kept up with no visible "objection" from the tank's critters. I just don't see the point in changing out water that is working just because the common wisdom says I need to.
I feel water changes are done for two reasons. One is for delusion and the second is for the addition of new minerals, metals, etc... My system runs exactly where I want it to be and therefore there is no need for delusion. I mix my own salts to match my system and it's levels so I know I'm getting the needed elements back in the tank via top-off due to wet skimming and the occasional 10g pulls of water for QT tanks. This works for me. I've been running my tanks this way or very close to it for 10 years so it's not something new to me. I will add that I just moved back around Easter so my new system water is only about 6 months old.
I'll add on a smaller tank/system it's not worth the effort and the water changes are easier then testing many many things and dosing or mixing up salt to match your system. The larger the system the more the savings add up. I'm not anal about it either. For example if something were to contaminate the water or there was some other serious problem I would change as much water as needed to combat the problem, but knock on wood it hasn't happened.
Carlo
I really wish I would have said "less" instead of "no" there at the end of that sentence. This was in reference to adding washing soda instead of baking soda (wasn't advice to do anyway but just a mention in the post).Boomer said:
BTW, the statement I made was only dealing with the pH/CO2 at the time of dosing, not what would happen after the fact which we already covered.
Here's a few things from Randy:
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/april2004/chem.htm
"Spread baking soda (594 grams or about 2 ¼ cups) on a baking tray and heat in an ordinary oven at 300 °F for 1 hour to drive off water and carbon dioxide."
and
"Note that it doesn't matter how many grams the 594 grams of baking soda turns into on baking. All you are doing is changing the amount of carbon dioxide in the baking soda:
2 NaHCO3 -> Na2CO3 + H2O + CO2
More or less baking will only alter the pH rise on addition to the aquarium"
This is incorrect and that formula is wrong Boomer. pH can't be determined by Alk * CO2. How does an Alk addition relate to the CO2 via the formula. That formula shows that the pH would change not that CO2 would.
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-02/rhf/index.php
"One uses raw baking soda, and the other uses baking soda that aquarists bake before use. The baking drives some of the carbon dioxide out of the baking soda, and raises its pH as well as its alkalinity."
How can it lower CO2 and raise both pH and Alk?
Simple, a "very rough" formula would be to say pH=Alk/CO2 it would be closer but still not correct. To be absolute you would also want to know what type of alkalinity measurement it is using IE carbonate, total, etc?
With a pH of between 4.5 to 8.5, at roughly 77F me thinks D&J should use:
which would give a more accurate value but still not totally accurate.
Either Dick and Jane or Randy & I are wrong. Me think D&J need a new chemistry book.
Carlo
Boomer said:
At 35 ppt at a temp of 25C/77F the saturation is 6.9
At 35 ppt at a temp of 30C/86F the saturation is 6.4
This is from Eric article you mentioned. BTW, some of the data he used is from Adey. I know you mentioned "And I and others really don't give Adey much credit" but apperantly Eric does because he uses his data.
Quote from Eric: http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-06/eb/index.php
"The most complete information I have found regarding oxygen levels and aquaria is in the book, Dynamic Aquaria (Adey and Loveland 1991). They utilized data from the Smithsonian mesocosm, showing that that the system closely approximated oxygen levels found on coral reefs."
"Other sources of aquarium information are, typically, either completely lacking in data or based on conjecture or anecdotal observations."
Carlo
Boomer said:Carlo and I have had this chat about temps and O2 levels
Well, I often chuckle ( don't take this wrong)
Glad to have helped
Now keep in mind I don't think running a tank at saturation levels is that important as long as the levels are decent and you have a good exchange rate.
But I don't get what you are inferring since Eric's article tends to show pretty high saturation levels for the tanks he tested which contradicts your statement "Most tanks by far are below sat and most of the time and reef are always 100% sat."
The second part of that statement is just blatantly wrong. Half the time the reefs are well below saturation as much as 40 to 90%. Even during the day when parts of the reef are supersaturated about 40% are considerable below this level.
From the article you mentioned.
http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-07/eb/index.php
"In the earlier part of this article, I described the role of oxygen in seawater and its potential effects on marine species. I noted, particularly, that hypoxia is likely to occur in reef waters, within coral colonies, at the coral tissue's surface, and that hypoxia potentially affects species exposed to it. The scientific literature suggests that such conditions might be relatively common at night when respiration is high and primary oxygen production through photosynthesis is not occurring. On coral reefs, although oxygen levels are supersaturated near the surface during the day in shallow waters, they are often reduced by 40-90 percent or more at night. Primary factors affecting the oxygen content of reef waters at night include surface conditions and water mixing, as well as total community respiration."
Here he mentions hypoxia conditions on the reef. That's not very saturated.
"In terms of the ten gallon laboratory reef tanks, and despite their lack of fish, it is apparent that supersaturation of oxygen never occurs, although it is close to 100%"
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-08/eb/index.php
"Tank 3 Discussion
The multi-tank system that comprises my 600-gallon reef system is brightly lit during the day, and three of the five interconnected tanks are lit on a "reverse daylight" cycle. The system is skimmed, has strong water flow and a surge tank, and many overflows that I expected to provide a high oxygen level in the water throughout the day. Having measured the tank previously, I knew that oxygen levels were supersaturated during the day and still relatively high at night. This occurs despite extensive growths of large corals and over 20 fish. The readings taken in this tank over the course of full days show oxygen levels that are very close to those of the water column over natural reefs. Like the other tanks, there appears to be a consistent pattern of highest levels occurring several hours after "sunrise" with a decline over the afternoon. In this system, it does not appear that skimming or the Tunze Stream powerheads impact oxygen levels to any great degree."
He already knew his tank was supersaturated from previous measurements.
"The cyclical oxygen levels rise and fall primarily in response to irradiance similar to what occurs on natural coral reefs."
"Tank 4 Discussion
Tank 4 consists of six interconnected tanks, each with a high surface area/volume ratio. Water flow is provided by strong pumps. The system also has a powerful protein skimming system in place, as well as strong lighting. Because the system is entirely lit at night and is located in a sunroom, a substantial amount of light enters the room during the day while the systems are "at night." This irradiance may be partly responsible for the relatively flat and less cyclical oxygen levels that occur in this system, although I am unable to control for this factor without shading many glass walls and ceiling panels. I suspect, however, that the levels would still be high "at night" because of the other factors listed above. Oxygen levels in this system rarely fall to below 90% of saturation, and are frequently supersaturated, though not to the degree I expected. As existing coral fragments increase in size, I will expect to see oxygen levels increase during "day" and decrease "at night." Because of the importance of this system, I was unwilling to experiment with manipulations that might compromise the stability or health of its corals, and that might have provided some interesting data on the importance of various factors in oxygenation of the water."
MY TAKE ON THE ARTICLES
"On coral reefs, although oxygen levels are supersaturated near the surface during the day in shallow waters, they are often reduced by 40-90 percent or more at night."
That alone shows the water does not need to be near saturation all the time. About half the time in the wild the reefs are 40-90 below saturation.
Much of the tests he does are on small 10g tanks. He shows saturation levels in the 80s and 90s for these sealed systems with much lower circulation. No skimmers nor real "reef" setups yet the levels were still pretty good.
Tank 3: "The readings taken in this tank over the course of full days show oxygen levels that are very close to those of the water column over natural reefs."
Keep in mind three of the five interconnected tanks are lit on a "reverse daylight" cycle. These other tanks would take away from the overall O2 level during the day of the main tank but they are still very close to natural reef values.
Tank 4: "Oxygen levels in this system rarely fall to below 90% of saturation, and are frequently supersaturated"
Again seems as good or better then normal reefs 24x7.
So honestly I'm either missing what your point was with the "I often chuckle..." as he also seems to agree with Adey that our tanks can run at or close to saturation levels.
This also happens to go along with my own findings using a PINPOINT II Oxygen Monitor and previously with a Oxyguard Dissolved Oxygen Probe connected to my AquaController III Pro. I know my systems are running at supersaturation levels and know other tanks doing the same. I actually haven't seen a typical reef tank that was below 85% using decent circulation, skimmer and undertank wet/dry or sump.
The main thing I've noticed that you typically don't see in articles is that it's not the day time saturation level you need to worry about. It's the night time levels. This is when your fish typically die on you when you have O2 problem. On our tanks unlike the reefs we can keep the saturation much higher and very close to our day time levels.
IMHO, I think you're trying to read to much into some of the information/studies and coming up with the wrong opinion of the importance of the saturation level.
Carlo
He has posted the information I mentioned in the forums at RC to answer people's questions and also has it here.
You should reframe yourself again as if I don't know who Randy is, have not read his articles or do not know what RC is. I have reviewed many of Randy's articles before there were published. I'm quite aware of what Randy means by his posts and articles and his intent. So there is no need to type lots of gibberish when I'm quite aware of it as you should know. I don't need lesson in chemistry from you..sorry. Just answer specific question without all the gibberish, it is not needed.
In my opinion, the pH range from 7.8 to 8.5 is a acceptable for reef aquaria, with several caveats
And his reasons for the higher pH of 8.5 is for those using Kalk as I have already stated
also tend to keep the carbonate alkalinity fairly high (at or above 3 meq/L.).
As to act as a safety valve, so to speak, for those running lower pH's. I have already explained this.
"That the calcium level is at least 400 ppm. Calcification becomes more difficult as the pH falls, and it also becomes more difficult as the calcium level falls. It would not be desirable to push all of the extremes of pH, alkalinity and calcium at the same time. So if the pH is on the low side and cannot be easily changed (such as in an aquarium with a CaCO3/CO2 reactor), at least make sure that the calcium level is acceptable (~400-450 ppm)."
So it sure seems to me he is saying if the pH is low to run higher then normal levels of BOTH.
He is not saying that at all you are again reading into it. He wants people to be in some acceptable range of NSW. He does not give what those lower Ca++ levels are. As I have said and he has said corals do not grow more at Ca++ higher than 360.
That's only one example but he has answered peoples direct questions and stated to keep both the alk and calcium higher with a low pH as it MAY help.
That is at low pH's. And at normal SSTP it is not an issue. So he wants all to be at least 400 Ca++ in case a problem is encountered with low pH. At SST 450 or even 425 does nothing to increase coral growth. He is giving acceptable ranges with a wide margin to allow for possible errors.
Here you go my friend:
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=5089918#post5089918
"Dear All,
It seems we are all at both ends of the field here. A couple of things to point out / remember. I am basing my comments on 16 years experience in the South Pacific (Tonga and Fiji) where the water temp for most of the year is mid 70’s at 8 ft – 20 ft. where most of this stuff is collected. During our summer months, if we are unfortunate to get hit by “hot spots†(traceable on the NOAA maps from their site) the temp can reach into the low 90’s and most of the coral dies or becomes bleached. In 1999 – 2000 season we lost over 90% of the entire coral reef on the eastern side of the Island and in most of the northern group (Yasawas) because of these hot spots which can be very discriminative with some reefs bleaching and less than a mile away everything is OK (or most of it) and there is really no telling where these spots will hit from year to year. Just last year I lost almost all of the corals on my farm racks spread over 7 different sites and while we monitored the temps bi-weekly some spots hit 92 (60 feet down) and others only hit 88 …."
You posted this and then completely missed what he has said.
water temp for most of the year is mid 70F at ***8 ft - 20 ft**. where most of this stuff is collected.
Those are NOT SST temps
You want to site Bomber but on your own link he agrees with Walt.
Actually all of them. and our temps, where our corals grow best anyway, are the same as yours.
Where does Bomber disagree with Walt's temp at 8 -20 ft
Bomber also goes on to say
Satellite surface readings are just that, surface. They can't shoot down 20ft and tell you what it's like.
And that is what Walt is giving, 8-20 ft not SST.
See he mentions "where the water temp for most of the year is mid 70’s at 8 ft – 20 ft. where most of this stuff is collected" but that defiantly goes against the NOAA temps.
Show me a NOAA plot at 89-20 ft and I'll will shut-up :
That goes flat against recorded temps as they spend a great deal of there time in this range.
No it does not those are SST's and Walt does not give any SST. I might add than in my long technical pdf on the coral bleaching in Fiji. Walt Smith is a ref
The pdf gives a bleaching threshold of 29.5 to 30 C and NOOA is lower @ 29.1/ ~84 F. If you are using NOAA for ref for your Fiji tank, which you have stated, then you are going against your own ref..temp for bleaching
Here are some SST plots and bleaching for Fiji. Other reefs may be different but taken note that even at 84 F bleaching has occurred. You also state that those temps are for months. Your own posts graphs my pdf and these links all disagree, with those temps with you claimed for bleaching in the Fiji's. You also stated these high temps are for months and your own post and graph plots, to include mine, say other wise, with those high for like ~ 2 moths. It is not Walt in error but you that is in error. . The avg mean is more like ~ 82 F and it is that temp you should be looking for with maybe some swings up to 84 F. Meaning your cap should be 82 .F But it is your tank.
http://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/satellite/current/sst_series_fijibeqa_cur.html
http://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/satellite/archive/sst_series_fijibeqa_path.html
I think you threw out Walter's name because some how I should accept what he has said and I don't. I also have his book.
You either completely miss took what I said or I should have explained better
You either completely miss took what I said or I should have explained better
There was no ref to your tank. Are we in a guessing game now or is to see how easy it is to misread a remark/statement such as you have done on a number of occasions by reading into things that are not there.
Think about it. It's no different the Calcium.......O2.........While it surely wouldn't be a bad idea, the question really is, is it needed? ..
Well, good glad you see it that way and the same for high, Ca++, Alk, PH and temp.
As long as you are providing the tank with enough O2, are higher levels needed?
It depends on what one calls acceptable. As I stated some reefs are actually hypoxic at night. That does not mean we need to go there. As long as one has good circulation and good skimming it is my opinion things should be Ok. The issue is if one losses power are those lower levels going to make. 1 ppm is al lot and may tanks are 1 ppm lower than sat.
.So my take on that is that it obviously isn't that important but the EXCHANGE rate IS. You can surely run a tank at lower saturation rates with good exchange. Can't have it both ways.
Do you know what is meant by the term exchange rate and what controls it. It is the boundary layer at the tissue-water interface. Only current can thin out that layer or movement which can increase the exchange rate but as I stated it is also controlled by the pO2.
What do you mean you can not have it both ways, you certainly can. If the BL is thick and you have a higher pO2 the total exchange rate can be the same if the BL is thin and the pO2 is lower.
But again it's your opinion as many others on the RC are pushing higher temps like me and doing fine. The consensus between us is that bleaching isn't happening until 87/88+s are hit with our subtropic corals. This is fact, in our tanks. Obviously maybe not for others.
But there is not reason to push it, it is nonsense to do so. Temp is one of the most dangerous things in this hobby other than ammonia.
You should reframe yourself again as if I don't know who Randy is, have not read his articles or do not know what RC is. I have reviewed many of Randy's articles before there were published. I'm quite aware of what Randy means by his posts and articles and his intent. So there is no need to type lots of gibberish when I'm quite aware of it as you should know. I don't need lesson in chemistry from you..sorry. Just answer specific question without all the gibberish, it is not needed.
In my opinion, the pH range from 7.8 to 8.5 is a acceptable for reef aquaria, with several caveats
And his reasons for the higher pH of 8.5 is for those using Kalk as I have already stated
also tend to keep the carbonate alkalinity fairly high (at or above 3 meq/L.).
As to act as a safety valve, so to speak, for those running lower pH's. I have already explained this.
"That the calcium level is at least 400 ppm. Calcification becomes more difficult as the pH falls, and it also becomes more difficult as the calcium level falls. It would not be desirable to push all of the extremes of pH, alkalinity and calcium at the same time. So if the pH is on the low side and cannot be easily changed (such as in an aquarium with a CaCO3/CO2 reactor), at least make sure that the calcium level is acceptable (~400-450 ppm)."
So it sure seems to me he is saying if the pH is low to run higher then normal levels of BOTH.
He is not saying that at all you are again reading into it. He wants people to be in some acceptable range of NSW. He does not give what those lower Ca++ levels are. As I have said and he has said corals do not grow more at Ca++ higher than 360.
That's only one example but he has answered peoples direct questions and stated to keep both the alk and calcium higher with a low pH as it MAY help.
That is at low pH's. And at normal SSTP it is not an issue. So he wants all to be at least 400 Ca++ in case a problem is encountered with low pH. At SST 450 or even 425 does nothing to increase coral growth. He is giving acceptable ranges with a wide margin to allow for possible errors.
Here you go my friend:
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=5089918#post5089918
"Dear All,
It seems we are all at both ends of the field here. A couple of things to point out / remember. I am basing my comments on 16 years experience in the South Pacific (Tonga and Fiji) where the water temp for most of the year is mid 70’s at 8 ft – 20 ft. where most of this stuff is collected. During our summer months, if we are unfortunate to get hit by “hot spots†(traceable on the NOAA maps from their site) the temp can reach into the low 90’s and most of the coral dies or becomes bleached. In 1999 – 2000 season we lost over 90% of the entire coral reef on the eastern side of the Island and in most of the northern group (Yasawas) because of these hot spots which can be very discriminative with some reefs bleaching and less than a mile away everything is OK (or most of it) and there is really no telling where these spots will hit from year to year. Just last year I lost almost all of the corals on my farm racks spread over 7 different sites and while we monitored the temps bi-weekly some spots hit 92 (60 feet down) and others only hit 88 …."
You posted this and then completely missed what he has said.
water temp for most of the year is mid 70F at ***8 ft - 20 ft**. where most of this stuff is collected.
Those are NOT SST temps
You want to site Bomber but on your own link he agrees with Walt.
Actually all of them. and our temps, where our corals grow best anyway, are the same as yours.
Where does Bomber disagree with Walt's temp at 8 -20 ft
Bomber also goes on to say
Satellite surface readings are just that, surface. They can't shoot down 20ft and tell you what it's like.
And that is what Walt is giving, 8-20 ft not SST.
See he mentions "where the water temp for most of the year is mid 70’s at 8 ft – 20 ft. where most of this stuff is collected" but that defiantly goes against the NOAA temps.
Show me a NOAA plot at 89-20 ft and I'll will shut-up :
That goes flat against recorded temps as they spend a great deal of there time in this range.
No it does not those are SST's and Walt does not give any SST. I might add than in my long technical pdf on the coral bleaching in Fiji. Walt Smith is a ref
The pdf gives a bleaching threshold of 29.5 to 30 C and NOOA is lower @ 29.1/ ~84 F. If you are using NOAA for ref for your Fiji tank, which you have stated, then you are going against your own ref..temp for bleaching
Here are some SST plots and bleaching for Fiji. Other reefs may be different but taken note that even at 84 F bleaching has occurred. You also state that those temps are for months. Your own posts graphs my pdf and these links all disagree, with those temps with you claimed for bleaching in the Fiji's. You also stated these high temps are for months and your own post and graph plots, to include mine, say other wise, with those high for like ~ 2 moths. It is not Walt in error but you that is in error. . The avg mean is more like ~ 82 F and it is that temp you should be looking for with maybe some swings up to 84 F. Meaning your cap should be 82 .F But it is your tank.
http://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/satellite/current/sst_series_fijibeqa_cur.html
http://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/satellite/archive/sst_series_fijibeqa_path.html
I think you threw out Walter's name because some how I should accept what he has said and I don't. I also have his book.
You either completely miss took what I said or I should have explained better
You either completely miss took what I said or I should have explained better
There was no ref to your tank. Are we in a guessing game now or is to see how easy it is to misread a remark/statement such as you have done on a number of occasions by reading into things that are not there.
Think about it. It's no different the Calcium.......O2.........While it surely wouldn't be a bad idea, the question really is, is it needed? ..
Well, good glad you see it that way and the same for high, Ca++, Alk, PH and temp.
As long as you are providing the tank with enough O2, are higher levels needed?
It depends on what one calls acceptable. As I stated some reefs are actually hypoxic at night. That does not mean we need to go there. As long as one has good circulation and good skimming it is my opinion things should be Ok. The issue is if one losses power are those lower levels going to make. 1 ppm is al lot and may tanks are 1 ppm lower than sat.
.So my take on that is that it obviously isn't that important but the EXCHANGE rate IS. You can surely run a tank at lower saturation rates with good exchange. Can't have it both ways.
Do you know what is meant by the term exchange rate and what controls it. It is the boundary layer at the tissue-water interface. Only current can thin out that layer or movement which can increase the exchange rate but as I stated it is also controlled by the pO2.
What do you mean you can not have it both ways, you certainly can. If the BL is thick and you have a higher pO2 the total exchange rate can be the same if the BL is thin and the pO2 is lower.
But again it's your opinion as many others on the RC are pushing higher temps like me and doing fine. The consensus between us is that bleaching isn't happening until 87/88+s are hit with our subtropic corals. This is fact, in our tanks. Obviously maybe not for others.
But there is not reason to push it, it is nonsense to do so. Temp is one of the most dangerous things in this hobby other than ammonia.
Omega
I agree on looking out for others. But as you said it's just a guide and it seems to be "off" by a wide margin in practice at times. Doesn't mean it's useless or anything and I agree and use it for working with others on their tanks for a measure of safety. You answered my question on it.
It is dependent in each tank to a degree. Some have had lots of snowstorms when they should not have had them. And some make no sense based on parameters given. So there is no reason to push it to high.
Regardless of if we choose to use these methods we can learn from them and the people experimenting with those systems and find what works and doesn't.
Yes that is true, examples are Zeovit and the Blue Method and Randy disagrees with them both. It is like the argument of adding "cyano eliminator" drugs to your tank. Same can be said with Sanjay, he as I do, does not believe you need anything of 10k. But some want to jack things up, to include some other exotic additives, to give more color and some feel that is artificial but I see their point of wanting corals extra bright inc color or their tank L@@K'ing more natural, when in fact on most coral reefs the coral is more greenish.
water changes? But if I were to calculate it out it would easily be far less the 5% a month.
Well, that does not speak well of the elevated levels you will get from additives. ~ 30 WC /m drives those levels to more NSW. But, I know someone that has has the same reef for 15 years and never does WC.
I certainly don't advocate this to anyone else.
Anymore than I advocate 95 % WC / m
2 NaHCO3 -> Na2CO3 + H2O + CO2
More or less baking will only alter the pH rise on addition to the aquarium"
That must be a typo on Randy's part and not the first. Even in this thread your seemed to have missed it as you posted
The baking drives some of the carbon dioxide out of the baking soda, and raises its pH as well as its alkalinity."
When Na2CO3 hits the water
Na2CO3 ----> 2 NA+ + 2 CO3-- and that my friend is 2 Alk units. Randy recommends it use when one has both low pH and low Alk. Otherwise if it is just low Alk then BS and for pH Kalk. If you have any doubt about then use of SA just dump some in some water and measure the Alk or just go play with jdieck reef chemistry calculator and compare BS vs SA in raisng the Alk
Well, you have dug yourself a hole here that my formula is wrong so to speak. I used the term Dick & Jane and it is not the first time in this thread
Just because Dick or Jane
I'm sure you are old enough to know who Dick & Jane are and if you do your post and reply is that of a knothead.......sorry. Your own equation is also no more than a Dick & Jane and is way off. Meaning the actually equation has no real merit, it is a term often used ......Dick & Jane. The last equation you posted is also way off but closer and you say you know that, but I highly doubt it. It is a FW equation and has no salinity figured in and is not adjusted to seawater pK1 and pK2
Lets look a this for std seawater @ SSTP based on yoru equation
Alk =2.25 meq / l
CO2 = 0.35
pH = ~8.15 and you should be 8.3 (actually you are off 0.18 pH units for seawater.)
You are getting into one of my pet areas in chemistry the "CO2 -Carbonate System" . I might add I have 2 text book that only deal with this issue in seawater. I have posted and explained the real equation on RC and elsewhere a number of times. Try took up Buch-Park equations by me. Where do you think I got this from on the other post. My calculator is programmed for it. Even the one I posted on RC is linked to only std seawater parameters @ SSTP. You change the temp or salinity and it changes. Then there is the issue is the equation going to be in terms of pHnbs or pHsws
pH = 8.3
Alk = 2.5 meq/ l
CO2 = 0.41 ppm
pH = 8.3
Alk = 3.0 meq/ l
CO2 = 0.50 ppm
pH = 8.3
Alk = 4 meq/ l
CO2 = 0.66 ppm
To make it easier for some I have a posted this on RC and elsewhere a few times.
Ratio pCO2 For NSW
Total Alkalinity (AT)
(mEq/l) . . . 2.0 .. 2.5 .. 2.6 .. 3.0 .. 3.5 .. 4.0 .. 4.5 .. 5.0 ...5.5 ...6.0
(dKH) . . . . 5.6 .. 7.0 .. 7.3 .. 8.4 .. 9.8 . 11.2 . 12.4 . 14.0 . 15.4 . 16.8
pH __________________________________________________ _________
7.7----------3.0.... 3.7 .. 3.9 .. 4.5 .. 5.3 .. 6.0 .. 6.8 ...7.5 ...8.3 ...9.1
7.8----------2.3.. ..2.9 .. 3.0 .. 3.5 .. 4.1 .. 4.7 .. 5.3 ...5.8 ...6.4 ...7.O
7.9----------1.8.... 2.2 .. 2.3 .. 2.7 .. 3.1 .. 3.6 .. 4.0 ...4.5 ...5.0 ...5.4
8.0----------1.3.... 1.7 .. 1.8 .. 2.0 .. 2.4 .. 2.7 .. 3.1 ...3.4 ...3.8 ...4.1
8.1----------1.0.... 1.3 .. 1.3 .. 1.6 .. 1.8 .. 2.1 .. 2.3 ...2.6 ...2.9 ...3.1
8.2----------0.8.... 1.0 .. 1.0 .. 1.2 .. 1.4 .. 1.7 .. 1.8 ...2.0 ...2.2 ...2.4
8.3----------0.6.... 0.7 .. 0.7 .. 0.7 .. 1.0 .. 1.2 .. 1.3 ...1.5 ...1.6 ...1.8
8.4----------0.4.... 0.5 .. 0.5 .. O.6 .. 0.7 .. 0.9 .. 1.0 ...1.1 ...1.2 ...1.3
8.5----------0.3.. ..O.4 .. 0.4 .. 0.5 .. 0.5 .. 0.6 .. 0.7 ...0.8 ...0.9 ...0.9
8.6----------0.2 ....0.3 .. 0.3 ...0.3 ...0.4 ...0.4 .. 0.5....0.6 ...0.6 ...0.7
~ CO2 ppm = pCO2 x 0.56
Either Dick and Jane or Randy & I are wrong. Me think D&J need a new chemistry book.
You don't use FW equations in seawater :lol: A common error made my many so I'll add you to the list
Me think you do not know what you are talking about here which is quite obvious. And try to reframe yourself from comparing yourself to Randy on this issue. Randy would fall right out of his chair in laugher, especially since it is me you are talking to on this issue.....sorry. You may want to go get yourself a seawater textbook before you try this stunt again.
You sure like to spin things don't you
At 35 ppt at a temp of 25C/77F the saturation is 6.9
At 35 ppt at a temp of 30C/86F the saturation is 6.4
This is from Eric article you mentioned
Well, Eric's is wrong. Did I say his article was 100 % accurate. I use known std used and developed by chemical oceanographers. There are crap loads of them on the net. Didn't you look before you posted......ssseh. Here let me help you
http://www.aquanic.org/images/tools/oxygen.htm
http://www.mrhall.org/science/oxygen/oxygen.htm
But when somebody tells me I'm wrong about something well you know how that goes.
Well, you have been wrong lots of times but are not willing to admit to it. That is your big problem, if Carlo says so it is so, all must agree with you. All you do is rant with mile long posts hoping people will assume you are correct. It is called 'confusing the reader', an old trick. Another Rant now on Eric. What did I say in my last post on O2 and reefs or did you just ****deliberately leave that out**** ? More of your spin. Her let me help you again.
Many reef tanks are 1 ppm below sat. ***Even in the ocean O2*** can drop to half its day time level or only ****50% sat or lower***. And some tanks, not reef tanks, have gone as low a 15 % sat at night and that is 1 ppm O2. So lowering the temp can make a diffence bewteen life and death. I prefer to keep temps in the mid 70's
You have a very bad habit of picking out things from a reply to make you LOOK correct. Next time try to post a full quote of what I said and not leave it half of it out and not read into things that are not there.
This also happens to go along with my own findings using a PINPOINT II Oxygen Monitor and previously with a Oxyguard Dissolved Oxygen Probe
Are you sure. Can it be calibrated to seawater and altitude ? Nothing about Seawater on their website. That means your O2 values are off. Check those O2 links I gave. Type in 0 ppt vs 35 ppt.
http://www.marinedepot.com/ps_Aquar...rine_pinpoint_oxygen_monitor_information.html
I think the point here is totally lost and a simple question and its relatively simple short term answer has been lost with scaring off the ability for new people to ask questions.
I agree and I for one am not trying to rant on like Carlo. He has dumped crap loads of stuff on this thread that is not need in regards to me answering his questions. He seems to think I need lesson of well know facts I have posted on hundreds of times. Ranting is just to offset one and is quite common on boards when someone disagree with a certain type of person. Post all the not need gibberish you can to confuse. And ranting does not make one correct. I have tried to keep mine short but it is hard when there is crap loads of rant to sift through.
The merit or credibility of a post/reply can be found within its contents. Those reading this can decide for themselves. This will be my last post on this thread. I'm sure Carlo will have more ranting now for the final word
I agree on looking out for others. But as you said it's just a guide and it seems to be "off" by a wide margin in practice at times. Doesn't mean it's useless or anything and I agree and use it for working with others on their tanks for a measure of safety. You answered my question on it.
It is dependent in each tank to a degree. Some have had lots of snowstorms when they should not have had them. And some make no sense based on parameters given. So there is no reason to push it to high.
Regardless of if we choose to use these methods we can learn from them and the people experimenting with those systems and find what works and doesn't.
Yes that is true, examples are Zeovit and the Blue Method and Randy disagrees with them both. It is like the argument of adding "cyano eliminator" drugs to your tank. Same can be said with Sanjay, he as I do, does not believe you need anything of 10k. But some want to jack things up, to include some other exotic additives, to give more color and some feel that is artificial but I see their point of wanting corals extra bright inc color or their tank L@@K'ing more natural, when in fact on most coral reefs the coral is more greenish.
water changes? But if I were to calculate it out it would easily be far less the 5% a month.
Well, that does not speak well of the elevated levels you will get from additives. ~ 30 WC /m drives those levels to more NSW. But, I know someone that has has the same reef for 15 years and never does WC.
I certainly don't advocate this to anyone else.
Anymore than I advocate 95 % WC / m
2 NaHCO3 -> Na2CO3 + H2O + CO2
More or less baking will only alter the pH rise on addition to the aquarium"
That must be a typo on Randy's part and not the first. Even in this thread your seemed to have missed it as you posted
The baking drives some of the carbon dioxide out of the baking soda, and raises its pH as well as its alkalinity."
When Na2CO3 hits the water
Na2CO3 ----> 2 NA+ + 2 CO3-- and that my friend is 2 Alk units. Randy recommends it use when one has both low pH and low Alk. Otherwise if it is just low Alk then BS and for pH Kalk. If you have any doubt about then use of SA just dump some in some water and measure the Alk or just go play with jdieck reef chemistry calculator and compare BS vs SA in raisng the Alk
Well, you have dug yourself a hole here that my formula is wrong so to speak. I used the term Dick & Jane and it is not the first time in this thread
Just because Dick or Jane
I'm sure you are old enough to know who Dick & Jane are and if you do your post and reply is that of a knothead.......sorry. Your own equation is also no more than a Dick & Jane and is way off. Meaning the actually equation has no real merit, it is a term often used ......Dick & Jane. The last equation you posted is also way off but closer and you say you know that, but I highly doubt it. It is a FW equation and has no salinity figured in and is not adjusted to seawater pK1 and pK2
Lets look a this for std seawater @ SSTP based on yoru equation
Alk =2.25 meq / l
CO2 = 0.35
pH = ~8.15 and you should be 8.3 (actually you are off 0.18 pH units for seawater.)
You are getting into one of my pet areas in chemistry the "CO2 -Carbonate System" . I might add I have 2 text book that only deal with this issue in seawater. I have posted and explained the real equation on RC and elsewhere a number of times. Try took up Buch-Park equations by me. Where do you think I got this from on the other post. My calculator is programmed for it. Even the one I posted on RC is linked to only std seawater parameters @ SSTP. You change the temp or salinity and it changes. Then there is the issue is the equation going to be in terms of pHnbs or pHsws
pH = 8.3
Alk = 2.5 meq/ l
CO2 = 0.41 ppm
pH = 8.3
Alk = 3.0 meq/ l
CO2 = 0.50 ppm
pH = 8.3
Alk = 4 meq/ l
CO2 = 0.66 ppm
To make it easier for some I have a posted this on RC and elsewhere a few times.
Ratio pCO2 For NSW
Total Alkalinity (AT)
(mEq/l) . . . 2.0 .. 2.5 .. 2.6 .. 3.0 .. 3.5 .. 4.0 .. 4.5 .. 5.0 ...5.5 ...6.0
(dKH) . . . . 5.6 .. 7.0 .. 7.3 .. 8.4 .. 9.8 . 11.2 . 12.4 . 14.0 . 15.4 . 16.8
pH __________________________________________________ _________
7.7----------3.0.... 3.7 .. 3.9 .. 4.5 .. 5.3 .. 6.0 .. 6.8 ...7.5 ...8.3 ...9.1
7.8----------2.3.. ..2.9 .. 3.0 .. 3.5 .. 4.1 .. 4.7 .. 5.3 ...5.8 ...6.4 ...7.O
7.9----------1.8.... 2.2 .. 2.3 .. 2.7 .. 3.1 .. 3.6 .. 4.0 ...4.5 ...5.0 ...5.4
8.0----------1.3.... 1.7 .. 1.8 .. 2.0 .. 2.4 .. 2.7 .. 3.1 ...3.4 ...3.8 ...4.1
8.1----------1.0.... 1.3 .. 1.3 .. 1.6 .. 1.8 .. 2.1 .. 2.3 ...2.6 ...2.9 ...3.1
8.2----------0.8.... 1.0 .. 1.0 .. 1.2 .. 1.4 .. 1.7 .. 1.8 ...2.0 ...2.2 ...2.4
8.3----------0.6.... 0.7 .. 0.7 .. 0.7 .. 1.0 .. 1.2 .. 1.3 ...1.5 ...1.6 ...1.8
8.4----------0.4.... 0.5 .. 0.5 .. O.6 .. 0.7 .. 0.9 .. 1.0 ...1.1 ...1.2 ...1.3
8.5----------0.3.. ..O.4 .. 0.4 .. 0.5 .. 0.5 .. 0.6 .. 0.7 ...0.8 ...0.9 ...0.9
8.6----------0.2 ....0.3 .. 0.3 ...0.3 ...0.4 ...0.4 .. 0.5....0.6 ...0.6 ...0.7
~ CO2 ppm = pCO2 x 0.56
Either Dick and Jane or Randy & I are wrong. Me think D&J need a new chemistry book.
You don't use FW equations in seawater :lol: A common error made my many so I'll add you to the list
Me think you do not know what you are talking about here which is quite obvious. And try to reframe yourself from comparing yourself to Randy on this issue. Randy would fall right out of his chair in laugher, especially since it is me you are talking to on this issue.....sorry. You may want to go get yourself a seawater textbook before you try this stunt again.
You sure like to spin things don't you
At 35 ppt at a temp of 25C/77F the saturation is 6.9
At 35 ppt at a temp of 30C/86F the saturation is 6.4
This is from Eric article you mentioned
Well, Eric's is wrong. Did I say his article was 100 % accurate. I use known std used and developed by chemical oceanographers. There are crap loads of them on the net. Didn't you look before you posted......ssseh. Here let me help you
http://www.aquanic.org/images/tools/oxygen.htm
http://www.mrhall.org/science/oxygen/oxygen.htm
But when somebody tells me I'm wrong about something well you know how that goes.
Well, you have been wrong lots of times but are not willing to admit to it. That is your big problem, if Carlo says so it is so, all must agree with you. All you do is rant with mile long posts hoping people will assume you are correct. It is called 'confusing the reader', an old trick. Another Rant now on Eric. What did I say in my last post on O2 and reefs or did you just ****deliberately leave that out**** ? More of your spin. Her let me help you again.
Many reef tanks are 1 ppm below sat. ***Even in the ocean O2*** can drop to half its day time level or only ****50% sat or lower***. And some tanks, not reef tanks, have gone as low a 15 % sat at night and that is 1 ppm O2. So lowering the temp can make a diffence bewteen life and death. I prefer to keep temps in the mid 70's
You have a very bad habit of picking out things from a reply to make you LOOK correct. Next time try to post a full quote of what I said and not leave it half of it out and not read into things that are not there.
This also happens to go along with my own findings using a PINPOINT II Oxygen Monitor and previously with a Oxyguard Dissolved Oxygen Probe
Are you sure. Can it be calibrated to seawater and altitude ? Nothing about Seawater on their website. That means your O2 values are off. Check those O2 links I gave. Type in 0 ppt vs 35 ppt.
http://www.marinedepot.com/ps_Aquar...rine_pinpoint_oxygen_monitor_information.html
I think the point here is totally lost and a simple question and its relatively simple short term answer has been lost with scaring off the ability for new people to ask questions.
I agree and I for one am not trying to rant on like Carlo. He has dumped crap loads of stuff on this thread that is not need in regards to me answering his questions. He seems to think I need lesson of well know facts I have posted on hundreds of times. Ranting is just to offset one and is quite common on boards when someone disagree with a certain type of person. Post all the not need gibberish you can to confuse. And ranting does not make one correct. I have tried to keep mine short but it is hard when there is crap loads of rant to sift through.
The merit or credibility of a post/reply can be found within its contents. Those reading this can decide for themselves. This will be my last post on this thread. I'm sure Carlo will have more ranting now for the final word
