Moonshiners method feedback

[reef_ranch]

The Basics of Minor Trace Elements in Reef Aquariums | Reef Builders | The Reef and Saltwater Aquarium Blog

As the hobby has continued to expand and the knowledge to be successful with it, some aspects have been found to be more important than originally thought. Foremost among these is water chemistry and…

reefbuilders.com

this newly released article on reef builders seems to answer a lot of your doubts above.

I read that. Sanjay certainly raises some issues although he was carful not to opine which service was more accurate. I wonder whether if you send two samples taken at the same time to the same ICP service you get identical results. If so, that would at provide some comfort.

 

[RussiReef]

Thank you Art for mention my name in the group of top hobbyists.
For me personally, regular water changes with the quality salt replenished most if not all trace elements.
Happy reefing!!

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

The Basics of Minor Trace Elements in Reef Aquariums | Reef Builders | The Reef and Saltwater Aquarium Blog

As the hobby has continued to expand and the knowledge to be successful with it, some aspects have been found to be more important than originally thought. Foremost among these is water chemistry and…

reefbuilders.com

this newly released article on reef builders seems to answer a lot of your doubts above.

FWIW, I don’t believe some of the claims there, notably the barium and rubidium requirements, despite no scientific evidence of a requirement for either in any organism.

 

[reef_ranch]

Thank you Art for mention my name in the group of top hobbyists.
For me personally, regular water changes with the quality salt replenished most if not all trace elements.
Happy reefing!!

You tank speaks for itself. Your system, as simple as it is, clearly works.

 

[ELChingonsReef]

Well, I am four weeks in on an 3yr old SPS heavy tank and while I was skeptical, I have to say I am seeing accelerated growth in several (not all) acropora. My tank was stable starting the program so I had a good feel for how the corals were growing. I haven’t seen any huge color improvement as of now. It’s way too early for any conclusions but at the moment I am on the Moonshiner bandwagon.

I'm not using moonshiners but I am using captiv8 aquaculture trace elements program. It's very similar to moonshiners. I'm seeing better coloration and some growth too on sme corals. I'm curious as to what would help the others that are not growing as fast.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I'm curious as to what would help the others that are not growing as fast.

Some coral types just naturally grow very slowly.

 

[Coinzmans Reef]

Close to the three year mark my corals polyp extensions were non existent. I decided to try the shine and am very happy with the results. I do ICP every two months and adjust accordingly. I also do a 10% water change monthly with the blue bucket. As far as adding chemicals that have unknown effects.... exactly, see what reefers say in 10 years from now. We are trying to mimic sea water, whether our critters, fish or corals use these additives may never be known. I look at it this way if we are just adding additives to keep levels of natural sea water how could you go wrong? other than an expense we don't need but if expense was the concern what am I doing in this hobby?

 

[JB Reefer]

I'm 6 months in and my tank has never looked better haven't lost a single piece since switching and the growth and color is excellent. I put everything on dosers after hand dosing and ICP testing for tge first 5 months.

 

[JB Reefer]

6 months in thanks to Thirstyreefer for showing me his amazing tank on Moonshiners I'm going to switch my other tank to moonshiners also.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I look at it this way if we are just adding additives to keep levels of natural sea water how could you go wrong? other than an expense we don't need but if expense was the concern what am I doing in this hobby?

lol

Yes, reef hobbyists may be the first to discover a biological role for barium. That idea seems highly unlikely to me, but, of course, cannot be proven incorrect without waiting to see if it happens. It hasn't happened yet.

However, the world of trace elements is not nearly as simple as some ICP folks and supplement marketers would have you believe.

Trace elements vary greatly by location and depth. What exactly are you matching? Some ICP companies and supplement manufacturers specifically set targets that do not match seawater. Magnesium, for example, is often boosted far above natural levels.

Even more complicating, a certain concentration of, say, iron, says almost nothing about it bioavailability to organisms, so while matching some seawater concentration may be worthy, if you ignore the chemical form present, you will have failed to match its bioavailability. Bioavailability is impacted to a large extent by the oxidation state and the binding of the ion to organics of various sorts, some of which decrease bioavailability, some of which increase it, and some of which only increase it for specific organisms that are designed to bind that specific organic-bound form (such as by releasing siderophores that go out, scavenge iron, then are selectively taken back up by some organisms).

We also learned the hard way over many years that matching natural levels of phosphate and nitrate was not optimal in many reef aquaria. Why would trace elements be different.?

So while it sounds simple and obvious to match seawater, in reality, it is far from easy, and may not be optimal.

That said, I have no problem with folks maintaining ions I think are useless. I just have a problem with folks indicating that one needs to do those to have optimal success, since I am confident that not a single test has been done on two matched aquaria, one with and one without barium dosing (or whatever ions, strontium, rubidium, etc.) , to see if there's a difference. That, IMO, is the best way to show an effect, not maintain 15 things, and claim that because it works it is desirable to maintain all 15.

 

[Stang67]

lol

Yes, reef hobbyists may be the first to discover a biological role for barium. That idea seems highly unlikely to me, but, of course, cannot be proven incorrect without waiting to see if it happens. It hasn't happened yet.

However, the world of trace elements is not nearly as simple as some ICP folks and supplement marketers would have you believe.

Trace elements vary greatly by location and depth. What exactly are you matching? Some ICP companies and supplement manufacturers specifically set targets that do not match seawater. Magnesium, for example, is often boosted far above natural levels.

Even more complicating, a certain concentration of, say, iron, says almost nothing about it bioavailability to organisms, so while matching some seawater concentration may be worthy, if you ignore the chemical form present, you will have failed to match its bioavailability. Bioavailability is impacted to a large extent by the oxidation state and the binding of the ion to organics of various sorts, some of which decrease bioavailability, some of which increase it, and some of which only increase it for specific organisms that are designed to bind that specific organic-bound form (such as by releasing siderophores that go out, scavenge iron, then are selectively taken back up by some organisms).

We also learned the hard way over many years that matching natural levels of phosphate and nitrate was not optimal in many reef aquaria. Why would trace elements be different.?

So while it sounds simple and obvious to match seawater, in reality, it is far from easy, and may not be optimal.

That said, I have no problem with folks maintaining ions I think are useless. I just have a problem with folks indicating that one needs to do those to have optimal success, since I am confident that not a single test has been done on two matched aquaria, one with and one without barium dosing (or whatever ions, strontium, rubidium, etc.) , to see if there's a difference. That, IMO, is the best way to show an effect, not maintain 15 things, and claim that because it works it is desirable to maintain all 15.

Agreed, but worth a shot vs doing nothing. Water varies in make up at different depths and at different locations.
Thank you all for the great discussion. I have learned that like so many other things in this hobby there is no one "right" way to do things. I appreciate everyone insights and comments. And thank you all for being respectful of each other's opinions and experiences.

 

[rtparty]

I read that. Sanjay certainly raises some issues although he was carful not to opine which service was more accurate. I wonder whether if you send two samples taken at the same time to the same ICP service you get identical results. If so, that would at provide some comfort.

Spoiler alert….they won’t read identical and have even varied drastically when others have done this exact thing.

 

[rtparty]

There are two major sticking points IMO that most Moonshiners (and other similar methods) can’t/won’t answer: inaccurate and unreliable ICP results (even from the better companies) and what does EACH INDIVIDUAL element ACTUALLY do.

These two points made me question why I was spending so much time, effort, and money on a system with no clear answers. Why am I dosing so many bottles that have no clear benefit or use outside of “he has a nice tank and told me to dose it, so I do?”

Does Element X increase pinks? If so, show me the evidence.
Does element Y increase yellows? If so, show me the evidence.
What part of the coral is using Rubidium and if it’s so important, why aren’t tanks dying left and right when it isn’t dosed? Again, show the evidence.

These questions can’t be answered with any shred of actual evidence. Just anecdotal. Which is totally fine in my book. Test, dose, test, dose, test test, dose dose….all you want. If you’re happy and the tank is happy, all is good.

 

[Reefahholic]

without (a) tests that are accurate and repeatable at the ppb level

Which ICP company/tests are you referring to?

I find OCEAMO’s ICP-MS to be very accurate. I’ve been targeting many elements under 1 ug/L and have seen a marked change in both color and growth. Corals don’t lie.

I wonder whether if you send two samples taken at the same time to the same ICP service you get identical results. If so, that would at provide some comfort.

The answer is no. You can take fresh blood here in the hospital, and run it back to back on the same machines. Machines that are highly accurate, monitored, and maintained. You will still get slightly different results.

Thank you Art for mention my name in the group of top hobbyists.
For me personally, regular water changes with the quality salt replenished most if not all trace elements.

Quick question, what % water changes, and how often? Is this Acropora dominated system or mixed? Sounds like an amazing system.

Agreed, but worth a shot vs doing nothing.

Exactly.

There are two major sticking points IMO that most Moonshiners (and other similar methods) can’t/won’t answer: inaccurate and unreliable ICP results (even from the better companies) and what does EACH INDIVIDUAL element ACTUALLY do.

I’ll answer.

I wouldn’t say that being able to target and maintain “ultra trace” elements in the 0.2 ug/L to 1 ug/L range is inaccurate would you? That’s very accurate, but it’s even more sensitive than that. Typical detection limits for most elements are 0.05 ug/L or better. It really depends on the element. Some elements have insane sensitivity on ICP-MS. They can get down to 0.001 ug/L with Uranium. That is 1 ng/L. Not that we care about Uranium, but that is amazing.


To answer your second question:

This is how I look at it personally. Do we really need to know the exact mechanism of each element? I don’t think so. If the element is being consumed “consistently” then something is obviously using it. If my system continues to look better and better, “that something” must be the corals or other organisms in the system consuming it, because it is unlikely to be the rock. I’d like to know more details about many things in this hobby, but we do not know much about a lot of things. So if we apply that standard to trace elements or major elements, then it we should apply the same standard across the board.

 

[RussiReef]

Which ICP company/tests are you referring to?

I find OCEAMO’s ICP-MS to be very accurate. I’ve been targeting many elements under 1 ug/L and have seen a marked change in both color and growth. Corals don’t lie.


The answer is no. You can take fresh blood here in the hospital, and run it back to back on the same machines. Machines that are highly accurate, monitored, and maintained. You will still get slightly different results.


Quick question, what % water changes, and how often? Is this Acropora dominated system or mixed? Sounds like an amazing system.


Exactly.



I’ll answer.

I wouldn’t say that being able to target and maintain “ultra trace” elements in the 0.2 ug/L to 1 ug/L range is inaccurate would you? That’s very accurate, but it’s even more sensitive than that. Typical detection limits for most elements are 0.05 ug/L or better. It really depends on the element. Some elements have insane sensitivity on ICP-MS. They can get down to 0.001 ug/L. That is 1 ng/L.


To answer your second question:

This is how I look at it personally. Do we really need to know the exact mechanism of each element? I don’t think so. If the element is being consumed “consistently” then something is obviously using it. If my system continues to look better and better, “that something” must be the corals or other organisms in the system consuming it, because it is unlikely to be the rock. I’d like to know more details about many things in this hobby, but we do not know much about a lot of things. So if we apply that standard to trace elements or major elements, then it we should apply the same standard across the board.

I perform 25% water changes every other week with Red Sea coral pro salt. And 90% of my corals are acropora

 

[Reefahholic]

I perform 25% water changes every other week with Red Sea coral pro salt. And 90% of my corals are acropora

Have you sent a recent ICP-MS on your system? I’d be really curious to see where the levels are at. Sounds like you have a impressive system.


For me personally here’s what irritated me about doing water changes.

1. They mess with stability.

2. Inconsistencies with parameters.

3. No precision. (Consumption varies depending on nutrients, stability, etc.)

5. The possibility of introducing a pollutant with each batch. This is more dangerous with larger volume changes.


Many elements are being consumed quicker than others. Some weeks you may
see little consumption for a single element or none at all. This depends what’s going on in the system. If water changes are my only way to supplement major and trace elements, then that element gets overdosed unless I stop doing water changes. Then I run the risk of everything else becoming depleted in a growing system. Now some people may be fine with that, but personally I’m looking for more control.

This is very similar to a 1-3 bottle method. If I have one element that goes north…I need to stop the entire bottle, and everything else in that bottle. So let’s say that one element is Barium, but in the same bottle I have Cobalt, Chrome, Manganese, Iron, and Nickel. I stopped my Barium overdose, but I also stopped 5 other elements with it. For me, it’s not enough control. Sure, it may keep a system alive, but is it optimal for coral growth, health, and coloration.? My definition of optimal is probably different from others.


I guess I would care a little less if I was sitting on 24” colonies, but I’d still be worried about elements like Potassium and Iodine becoming depleted or overdosed, because I could never get accurate numbers for those at home.

Honestly, I’m trying to get from A to B as fast as possible especially in a younger system. I’m not as patient as I used to be and I’m certainly not getting any younger. Acro’s grow slow until you get them to a certain size. I can use all the help I can get, not only with growth, but parasitic resistance. So many people dumping Cipro into their systems like candy. I’m not that comfortable yet! What if it’s not bacterial? What if the entire time it was merely a lack of specific trace elements?

 

[Dennis Cartier]

I guess I would care a little less if I was sitting on 24” colonies, but I’d still be worried about elements like Potassium and Iodine becoming depleted or overdosed, because I could never get accurate numbers for those at home.

For iodine, I have found the test procedure developed by @thatmanMIKEson , @taricha and @Dan P to be very helpful.

You should check it out if you want an iodine test to use between ICP runs.

AN ACCURATE AND PRECISE METHOD FOR MEASURING IODINE

ABOUT THE ARTICLE: The article describes an accurate and precise method and it's development, for measuring the level of Iodine in a saltwater aquarium. It is a follow-up to an article written in 2021. The current article describes an improved method but using the same basic ideas as the 2021...

www.reef2reef.com

 

[Doctorgori]

…. you can also grow corals using Phoenix tap water, cool white tubes, Instant Ocean and weekly water changes

Add: if we are going to “make reefing great again” we need to focus on lowering cost and quit worrying about water quality

 

[Court_Appointed_Hypeman]

I believe the moonshiners is a overall better tool than balling. Each tank is completely different in uptakes of elements and if you base them solely on your alk/calcium uptake you can overdose or not even come close to replenish certain elements. My 40b consumes half of my buddys 180g system alk but i dose 1/16th of the dailies/corrections that he does. If I went off the balling I would be overshooting everything in my tank.

Balling doesn't replenish traces, it just adds them to keep up with the dilution of ions (traces included) from 2 part dosing.

It can't make up for consumption without sending mag off the chart.

Edit: the initial replies did not load for me, my bad. I see this has already been said.

 

[Reefahholic]

And then there's Jason Fox , Tusi, @RussiReef and so many others (JDA included) who don't dose many if any individual trace elements yet have incredible coloration. and growth. I love the concept and have dabbled with Fauna Marin and RM with some success but the "scientist" in me has concluded that without (a) tests that are accurate and repeatable at the ppb level (Sanjay and Rich Ross's reports raise questions about that) and (b) even more importantly, evidence that each element has a biological effect, we're really just making educated guesses and throwing elements at the wall seeing what sticks, without ever knowing which do. My guess is that a small handful of the trace elements are important to health and coloration but we don't know which so these systems target all they can in a shotgun approach. It sure helps to watch your tank every day and test parameters regularly. Just keeping the major elements and nutrients in balance is 90+% of the battle.

Our club in Houston actually did one of the best interviews with Jason Fox back in 2017. His method is pretty simple for sure. He does large water changes and runs fairly lower intensity light. His systems are old and established.