Moonshiners method feedback

[ReeferB28]

It's literally 1 -4 hours a month.

 

[ReeferB28]

You do know who created the Balling Method, right? It certainly wasn’t ATI. They were only two decades late to that party

Oh, I know created it. I've been using it for years.

 

[ReeferB28]

I have no interest in dragging you through this forum. I focus on growing corals. For me, Moonshine is the easiest way to take care of the entire chemistry. It’s not rocket science, but I’d argue we have some of the purest and most bioavailable elements out there. Consistent QC is performed and we test other products on the market. We also have 5K+ members who all share their data in our group, so we are quite familiar with all the methods, products, ICP labs, etc. It’s very simple. Do what you feel works the best for you. If you don’t like Reef Moonshiner’s, just don’t use it. That simple. Go grab you some ATI Essentials.

Never said I didn't like it.

 

[rtparty]

Oh, I know created it. I've been using it for years.

So why bring up ATI Essentials which is not the Balling Method to begin with?

 

[Reefahholic]

But, you can't argue with the fact that it creates a good baseline

What Good baseline does ATI Essentials Pro create? How do you know?

 

[ReeferB28]

What Good baseline does ATI Essentials Pro create? How do you know?

Literally had similar results across multiple reef systems over the pasy 6 years. But hey, what do I know? Do we have to do a challenge? I'm ready, are you?

 

[ReeferB28]

.

 

[Reefahholic]

It’s not that Reef Moonshine is a magic unicorn. I’d be ok using any method that focuses on the entire chemistry, uses ultra pure raw elements, does consistent QC, and doesn’t compromise when something is available for a cheaper price. There are other methods that work pretty well I’d assume such as full Triton, Chris and Jean’s method, etc. It doesn’t have to be Moonshine.

I personally perfer what Andre developed, because it’s stupid simple, and I know how his brian thinks when it comes to elements and purity. To him…He’d rather loose money or take a bullet to the leg than buy some cheap garage. I trust him. I’ve seen him give people stuff for free many times and let people beta test products. Not just pros in our group, but even newbies. That is why people back Andre. He’s a hobbyist like we are, and it’s good to have somebody who’s willing to teach and not all about profit.

We need to all work together for the future of the hobby. We will never get far if we’re divided. If you can get excellent results like Denadai, share your knowledge and show others how to achieve the same results, because most reefers need guidance with nutrient management and dosing. I try to help anybody I can, but some guys are just gifted with green thumbs, and not everybody is willing to share their technique or secret sauce.

 

[Reefahholic]

Literally had similar results across multiple reef systems over the pasy 6 years. But hey, what do I know? Do we have to do a challenge? I'm ready, are you?

I don’t think I’ve been unreasonable, but if you want to challenge my chemistry against your ATI Essentials, just let me know. We’ll send some ICP’s and have a look at them.

 

[Reefahholic]

Enough is a loaded term. More than water change and likely more than reactor media for some trace elements, yes.

As far as enough trace elements in food it could be enough for some systems, but not enough for others.

I know Randy also knows (not really responding to Randy here, but just in general) it will depend on the actual feeds being fed, frequency, biomass, volume of food per system volume, coral species, growth rates, light intensity, and the list goes on and on. Too many variables.

My logic is why try to feed to get enough trace elements. Just send the ICP and learn what your individual system needs and supplement exactly what is low or depleted with precision. This allows you to feed the same amount consistently and keep the nutrients stable which will promote stability and growth.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

. I’d be ok using any method that focuses on the entire chemistry, uses ultra pure raw elements,

What does raw mean in this context?

 

[ReeferB28]

So why bring up ATI Essentials which is not the Balling Method to begin with?

Well, simple. It's based on the complete dosages of calcium, alk, magnesium, and Trace elements.. it's just in two bottles. Used to be in three. It's a variation of the following method. While as other brands have different variations of it as well.

 

[Max93]

I think RMS is awesome. A lot of pros use it, and their tanks are awesome. I believe there has been three so far shared from the WWC YouTube series so far.

I’m growing acros, finally, I’m so happy and enjoying the hobby. zero water changes.

Takes me TWO minutes to dose dailies, maybe less…. I do ICP every 60 days and just guess in between for corrections (mind you, I Used to do ICP monthly but no need anymore). The Facebook group is super knowledgeable too, and the pictures and growth/color is amazing. To me, 100% worth it.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

. I do ICP every 60 days and just guess in between for corrections (mind you, I Used to do ICP monthly but no need anymore). The Facebook group is super knowledgeable too, and the pictures and growth/color is amazing. To me, 100% worth it.

Do you find the doses change significantly after seeing the ICP each 60 days?

 

[Max93]

Do you find the doses change significantly after seeing the ICP each 60 days?

No, I’m actually in the stage of getting to the optimal moonshine levels recommended. It’s been a good amount of time but I approach everything slowly.

So I have been slowly increasing my dosages every 60 days. Flouride is consistently depleted, and the “correction” is the same based on the excel doc. And ICP results. Same for iodine, I’ve gone from 4 drops, to now 21 drops .3ml per drop. My iodine levels are about halfway to optimal. The only things that swing are my calcium levels, everything else is consistent and the corrections have always been the same for me. For example -
Nickel and zinc always test the same every ICP, or about the same, so I have to always dose the same every correction. I’m happy to answer any questions for my specific scenario, just let me know and I can provide data so we can take a look.

 

[Oldreefer44]

I decided to try it out so sent the specified ICP test out to get a baseline measurement. Since I had some other brands of tests laying around I also sent the same sample to one of them. They disagreed more than they agreed. Over the last 5 months I have sent out two tests a month overall using 5 different brands of tests. On average the 2 tests identified 7 elements as being deficient and 4 as being elevated. The issue is that they only agree on 1. So my issue is if we are going to be dosing based on individual elements down to ppm/ppb then we need to know that the basis for the amounts is correct. I am only dosing Vanadium which is the one element they agree on and even then at half the amount RM prescribes.

 

[rtparty]

I decided to try it out so sent the specified ICP test out to get a baseline measurement. Since I had some other brands of tests laying around I also sent the same sample to one of them. They disagreed more than they agreed. Over the last 5 months I have sent out two tests a month overall using 5 different brands of tests. On average the 2 tests identified 7 elements as being deficient and 4 as being elevated. The issue is that they only agree on 1. So my issue is if we are going to be dosing based on individual elements down to ppm/ppb then we need to know that the basis for the amounts is correct. I am only dosing Vanadium which is the one element they agree on and even then at half the amount RM prescribes.

ICP companies will never agree. Way too many variables and none of them are providing solid data showing benchmarks and calibration data with every test. They can’t.

This is one (there are many) of the biggest holes in the RM method that they will not admit to. Today, Oceamo is the “best” and “most accurate” ICP company. Yesterday, it was ATI. Before that it was likely Triton or whoever Andre started with. Tomorrow? Might be Oceamo still. Might change yet again.

It may very well be that Oceamo is reliable and accurate. They are the only company providing any calibration data on here or anywhere else. Props to them for that.

After the holidays I will be releasing my findings from sending multiple identical samples to some of these ICP companies. Your experience is not isolated

 

[Max93]

Some people use triton ICP and moonshine with those results. Ati is way off.

I use oceano MS. My tests I can test at home always match (I test the day I send the sample to compare my own hobby grade test kits).

I know the tests are shipped to somewhere in Europe, can’t remember exactly where but hey it is definitely working for me.

 

[Oldreefer44]

Oceamo was one I used also and compared to others. It's results were very similar to Reef Labs.
ICP.com, Triton and ATI differed quite a bit.

 

[eg8r210]

ICP companies will never agree. Way too many variables and none of them are providing solid data showing benchmarks and calibration data with every test. They can’t.

This is one (there are many) of the biggest holes in the RM method that they will not admit to. Today, Oceamo is the “best” and “most accurate” ICP company. Yesterday, it was ATI. Before that it was likely Triton or whoever Andre started with. Tomorrow? Might be Oceamo still. Might change yet again.

It may very well be that Oceamo is reliable and accurate. They are the only company providing any calibration data on here or anywhere else. Props to them for that.

After the holidays I will be releasing my findings from sending multiple identical samples to some of these ICP companies. Your experience is not isolated

From what I have gathered after reading Andre's responses to other people, RMS is not based on whether the ICP says an element is elevated or not. What Andre asks you to do is use the ICP tests that he recommends because he trusts how those tests are set up, run, maintained and calibrated. Once you have the results from those tests he asks that you enter those results into HIS calculator to decide if an element is OK, low or high. He doesn't use the ICP recommendations for those results.

So, your findings will only tell you results of how those identical samples were calculated using different machines with different algorithms run by different people of different education/skill levels. None of your findings will have anything to do with RMS. Now, if two people use these results (Say one from ICP Analysis and one from Oceamo) simultaneously in the RMS calculator they will get different recommendations. This is why Andre recommend everyone only use the three (Triton, ATI and Oceamo) and he further recommends Oceamo as his preferred. I believe this is because he has worked with them to develop a lot of this stuff.