Jestersix

Tom's upcoming Waterbox Marine 90.3 Mixed reef

dangalang said:
Interesting, I wonder for us AFR users, if we should take water samples for ICP at least a few hours after the last dose of AFR to ensure it gets fully metabolized?
Click to expand...
Most ICP tests don't even check for Alk (it can't be checked on ICP - they use some other formula to back into it or test it separately I believe). I wouldn't worry too much about it..plus home alk kits are pretty good, relatively speaking.

I bet @Darkxerox is right though - especially with the high quantity of AFR that was bring dosed!
 
Darkxerox said:
What was in your ATO besides just RODI water?
Click to expand...
I emptied out the ATO and cleaned it with a new sponge but there could be residual kalkwasser stuck to the sides. Other than that, it's just RODI water from the water store that I buy at .35/gallon. My home RODI unit is hooked to my kitchen sing with a 5 gallon tank but I don't use that one for the aquarium except in emergencies
 
The GBR is 1.0265 (35psu), and in the red sea are even saltier at around 1.030 (40psu)

If you have an ATO you will be OK
 
for the long term, I'm going to agree with 1.026 as best all around. My concern is putting new corals and animals through too much of a salinty swing when they come into the new tank from either other hobbyists or stores. I've measured the water for various vendors I've bought fish from and they have been pretty low in the 1.019-1.023 range whereas their corals have been kept in water ranging 1.023-1.025. I'm slowing down with new additions now but will likely try to keep it at 1.026 which is where it's at right now. Most of our stuff isn't coming in from the wild and I don't expect to get any Red Sea fish. The only fish I've gotten from there in the past were a Sohal Tang and Desjardini Tang. Those two are way too big for this 65g. Now let's see if we can keep it stable. All the frags from the swap have healed up nicely and even the acro stag where cut has started growing tips. Colors look good across the baord for sfties, LPS as well as SPS. From here, just micro managing the feeding for nutrients. I feed three cubes of PE Mysis with 1/2 an once of mixed Benepets Reef, BRS Reef Chili, Fauna Marin Coral Dust, and Reefroids daily along with TDO Chroma Boost on an automatic feeder. Then dose Coral Snow Plus weekly with heavy skimming and a Rowaphos fluid reactor.
 
t0mmy108 said:
for the long term, I'm going to agree with 1.026 as best all around. My concern is putting new corals and animals through too much of a salinty swing when they come into the new tank from either other hobbyists or stores. I've measured the water for various vendors I've bought fish from and they have been pretty low in the 1.019-1.023 range whereas their corals have been kept in water ranging 1.023-1.025. I'm slowing down with new additions now but will likely try to keep it at 1.026 which is where it's at right now. Most of our stuff isn't coming in from the wild and I don't expect to get any Red Sea fish. The only fish I've gotten from there in the past were a Sohal Tang and Desjardini Tang. Those two are way too big for this 65g. Now let's see if we can keep it stable. All the frags from the swap have healed up nicely and even the acro stag where cut has started growing tips. Colors look good across the baord for sfties, LPS as well as SPS. From here, just micro managing the feeding for nutrients. I feed three cubes of PE Mysis with 1/2 an once of mixed Benepets Reef, BRS Reef Chili, Fauna Marin Coral Dust, and Reefroids daily along with TDO Chroma Boost on an automatic feeder. Then dose Coral Snow Plus weekly with heavy skimming and a Rowaphos fluid reactor.
Click to expand...
A lot of stores keep their fish in hyposalinity for stress reasons. Highly recommend you keep your tank closer to1.026/35ppt for your corals and other invertebrates, plus it makes it easier to maintain key parameters.
 
t0mmy108 said:
An updated Fauna Marine Reef ICP Total came back. This is after a water changeand dosing of only the trace elements that were suggested. AFR dosing was stopped. Alk stabilized. Still need to do another couple small water changes to get salinity down between 1.022-1.024 where they recommend.
Click to expand...
Not getting the salinity right means nothing else will be either. 35 PSU is the most basic parameter you should be able to manage too. There is no reason to differ from this (significantly).
 
Sitting at a desktop so thought id help with quick screenshots of the ICP @t0mmy108 shared in the link.

1730909724421.png


1730909750599.png
 
I am not an ICP expert, but I have recently been spending a disproportionate amount of my hobby time on water chemistry.

The report is to be read from top to bottom, meaning the first parameters are generally considered more important than the ones at the end (with exceptions).

The ones I would address ASAP are the following:

1. Reduce salinity (as mentioned above) - just to emphasize, FM does not recommend the salinity you are referring to. They want you to target 35 PSU. I think there is a conversion error there when you convert PSU to specific gravity, where you have to divide your values by 0.997 to get to the respective result relative to water at 25 C/ 77 F - specific gravity = relative gravity (gravity relative to water).

2. Reduce CO2 in the water - if you do not measure CO2 in your house, you might want to do this. But it is most likely the result of your very high nutrient level (as the report states), which suppresses PH.

3. Reduce nutrients - specifically phosphate - significantly (over time).

Some of the other parameters are pretty good, but they can still be improved after adjusting the salinity.

What have you been dosing excatly in the weeks before you tested your water?
 
Alexander1312 said:
I am not an ICP expert, but I have recently been spending a disproportionate amount of my hobby time on water chemistry.

The report is to be read from top to bottom, meaning the first parameters are generally considered more important than the ones at the end (with exceptions).

The ones I would address ASAP are the following:

1. Reduce salinity (as mentioned above) - just to emphasize, FM does not recommend the salinity you are referring to. They want you to target 35 PSU. I think there is a conversion error there when you convert PSU to specific gravity, where you have to divide your values by 0.997 to get to the respective result relative to water at 25 C/ 77 F - specific gravity = relative gravity (gravity relative to water).

2. Reduce CO2 in the water - if you do not measure CO2 in your house, you might want to do this. But it is most likely the result of your very high nutrient level (as the report states), which suppresses PH.

3. Reduce nutrients - specifically phosphate - significantly (over time).

Some of the other parameters are pretty good, but they can still be improved after adjusting the salinity.

What have you been dosing excatly in the weeks before you tested your water?
Click to expand...

I agree with Alex for once, that phosphate is getting into territory even I would find uncomfortable.

But re: the PH/CO2 - wouldn't any biological processes (like respiring bacteria) that continue in sample elevate both of those and cause them to always read high on ICP? The same reason nutrients typically read low (!) - they are getting consumed during the shipping process.
 
derek_SR said:
I agree with Alex for once, that phosphate is getting into territory even I would find uncomfortable.

But re: the PH/CO2 - wouldn't any biological processes (like respiring bacteria) that continue in sample elevate both of those and cause them to always read high on ICP? The same reason nutrients typically read low (!) - they are getting consumed during the shipping process.
Click to expand...

And if Mr Phosphate says its too high, I would really worry :).

Re the CO2: Partially agree on the impact of bacteria so that the actual value would need to be discounted to some extent - how long was the shipping time for you @t0mmy108 ?

However, 5 mg/l is almost double my nano had after 11 days of shipping (!), and the nano is really not a great state (and has no CO2 scrubber etc). The IM 150 had 2.25 mg/l after 11 days of shipping (previously around 1+). So 5 is still far too high and impacts PH. But again, it is most likely driven to a large part by (super) high nutrients so reducing them should partially fix it, but I would also look into my ambient CO2 levels in the house.
 
Alexander1312 said:
And if Mr Phosphate says its too high, I would really worry :).

Re the CO2: Partially agree on the impact of bacteria so that the actual value would need to be discounted to some extent - how long was the shipping time for you @t0mmy108 ?

However, 5 mg/l is almost double my nano had after 11 days of shipping (!), and the nano is really not a great state (and has no CO2 scrubber etc). The IM 150 had 2.25 mg/l after 11 days of shipping (previously around 1+). So 5 is still far too high and impacts PH. But again, it is most likely driven to a large part by (super) high nutrients so reducing them should partially fix it, but I would also look into my ambient CO2 levels in the house.
Click to expand...
@t0mmy108 you use AFR correct? That probably is what is going on here.
 
I stopped dosing anything between the two tests but did three 16 gallon water changes with 1.020 Fauna Marine salt on the 65g. J can half the feeding and keep the skimming/phosphate reactor going. Let’s see if that reduces the CO2 and raises the ph a bit then run another test. It’s been at 1.026 with a ph of 7.8-8.0 for a few days now
IMG_5280.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top