Which Magnesium recipe do you use?

[jnguyen4007]

I found three magnesium recipes on reefkeeping.com and I'm interested in knowing who uses what and why?

 

Recipe 1:

 

Using Epsom salt only

 

Recipe 2:

 

Using Mag flakes or the equivalent only

 

Recipe 3:

 

Combined 7 1/4 cups of Mag Flakes and 3/4 cup of Epsom salt

[jamal]

i combine them because the good dr. said that it would lower the accumulated sulfate buildup and is more ionically stable if i remember correctly.

[jnguyen4007]

i combine them because the good dr. said that it would lower the accumulated sulfate buildup and is more ionically stable if i remember correctly.

 

As quoted for the combination of Mag flakes and Epsom salt: "This recipe is preferred, but its advantage over recipe #2 is minimal in most cases."

 

They also did say for recipe #2: "This choice is not a good way to go if calcium is supplemented by calcium chloride, because together they will force chloride excessively high."

 

I like to play it safe so I would have to agree with you, Jamal, and go with the combined route.

 

James

[SurlyT]

As quoted for the combination of Mag flakes and Epsom salt: "This recipe is preferred, but its advantage over recipe #2 is minimal in most cases."

 

They also did say for recipe #2: "This choice is not a good way to go if calcium is supplemented by calcium chloride, because together they will force chloride excessively high."

 

Could somone please point me to some of these recipes and associated discussions? I've been poring through the website for quite a while and can't seem to come up with them directly. I'm particularly interested to know if the choice of recipe (or ingredient ratio) would be different when you're dosing calcium hydroxide (kalk) rather than calcium chloride.

 

Thanks in advance.

Edited October 14, 2007 by SurlyT

[wreck]

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-07/rhf/index.php

 

Magnesium

 

Could somone please point me to some of these recipes and associated discussions? I've been poring through the website for quite a while and can't seem to come up with them directly. I'm particularly interested to know if the choice of recipe (or ingredient ratio) would be different when you're dosing calcium hydroxide (kalk) rather than calcium chloride.

 

Thanks in advance.

[flowerseller]

Does anyone ever really find their Mg level low and actually a cause for concern?

 

I ask bcause I've never seen an actual case where it's low and this is the "problem" preventing calcification.

[Sugar Magnolia]

Chip, I had low levels of magnesium for years while using IO. My level was typically in the 1110-1150 range and the only way I could bring it up into the normal range (1250-1350 ppm) was to dose with a magnesium supplement. (I used Seachem's MG supplement) As far as coral growth, grows, it didn't seem to be a problem, but I noticed when I started dosing with the supplement, the coraline growth accelerated.

[rrubberbandman]

Chip, I had low levels of magnesium for years while using IO. My level was typically in the 1110-1150 range and the only way I could bring it up into the normal range (1250-1350 ppm) was to dose with a magnesium supplement. (I used Seachem's MG supplement) As far as coral growth, grows, it didn't seem to be a problem, but I noticed when I started dosing with the supplement, the coraline growth accelerated.

ditto.......

my last batch of IO read 1100 ish but only with one test...so i assume some error + or -......

[flowerseller]

I completely appreciate everything I read and hear about Mg levels.

I've just never been able to notice an appreciable low level of Mg providing both Ca and Alk are at least in the "suggested" range. I'm confounded by these low levels of just Mg since I've never seen any literature with a reasonable explaination as to why/how it become low.

Ca yes, ALK yes, I get the reasoning to the low levels and even how one could come into this situation and the responses needed to correct it.

 

What is it that is causing the lower levels of just Mg that cause all the commotion?

Leave out the part about being needed for calcification because that much I grasp. Start at the part where Mg is used at such a higher rate that it's depleted so much faster than Ca which will cause a use drop in ALK bank.

[mogurnda]

I completely appreciate everything I read and hear about Mg levels.

I've just never been able to notice an appreciable low level of Mg providing both Ca and Alk are at least in the "suggested" range. I'm confounded by these low levels of just Mg since I've never seen any literature with a reasonable explaination as to why/how it become low.

Ca yes, ALK yes, I get the reasoning to the low levels and even how one could come into this situation and the responses needed to correct it.

 

What is it that is causing the lower levels of just Mg that cause all the commotion?

Leave out the part about being needed for calcification because that much I grasp. Start at the part where Mg is used at such a higher rate that it's depleted so much faster than Ca which will cause a use drop in ALK bank.

Dunno whether it was precipitation or calcification that caused it, but I did have problems with low Mg that made it impossible to keep Ca above 375. Kept dumping Ca in and nothing happened. Once I tested for Mg, found it to be low, and brought it above 1100, the Ca got back in line. This is exactly as predicted from the role of Mg in calcification.

 

I figure it happened because the reactor was keeping up with Ca and Alk, but Mg slowly fell behind. All I can say is that Mg became low, and it had the predicted consequence. As one of my profs used to say, "empirical data can be a powerful tool."

[flowerseller]

Dunno whether it was precipitation or calcification that caused it, but I did have problems with low Mg that made it impossible to keep Ca above 375. Kept dumping Ca in and nothing happened. Once I tested for Mg, found it to be low, and brought it above 1100, the Ca got back in line. This is exactly as predicted from the role of Mg in calcification.

 

I figure it happened because the reactor was keeping up with Ca and Alk, but Mg slowly fell behind. All I can say is that Mg became low, and it had the predicted consequence. As one of my profs used to say, "empirical data can be a powerful tool."

 

OK,

I'm not disputing your finds or those of anyone elase, maybe questioning mine and my experiences would make some happier in a magical kind of way.

 

Maybe this is a new thread waiting to happen because:

dumping in Ca, if via calcium chloride, this will clearly lower your alk thus adding to the calcification problem - right?

dumping in Ca, if via calcium hydroxide this can raise alk & Ca but not at the same rate and generally Ca not much if any higher then 350-370 and an unstable alk at that, - right?

What is it that would cause Mg to fall out of solution like we know Ca can?

Don't most Ca reactor media manufactures suggest that their media has a higher Mg dissolve ratio like do with strontium/molybdenum claims?

 

I actually only test for Ca once every month or two as long as my alk is were I like it since it generally falls into the 400-420 with proper alk. I assume the same for Mg as it always has too.

[mogurnda]

dumping in Ca, if via calcium chloride, this will clearly lower your alk thus adding to the calcification problem - right?

NOt unless your Ca were unnaturally high.

 

I agree that raising Ca using CaOH is a fool's errand.

 

Like I said, I don't know why my Mg dropped, and it has not done so in the years since. From my point of view, it is something to be suspected when Ca levels are low and stay low. Beyond that, the dabate doesn't have a lot of interest for me.

[SurlyT]

Disclaimer: I'm reading as much about reef chemistry as my brain has the cycles to process it, but I admit I'm not completely there yet.

 

With that said, though, I've had trouble getting my Ca level to stay above about 365 for any period of time, and I was told a low Mg level could contribute to the problem. So I got a Mg test kit and my first test did indeed read pretty low - about 1000 ppm. Thus far I've only been able to get it up to about 1065 via liquid buffers and was interested in the various dry-mix recipes as a better way to get there, that's all.

 

Addendum: I've been using IO salt and also suspect that's why my Mg deficiency developed over time.

Edited October 14, 2007 by SurlyT

[Almon]

dumping in Ca, if via calcium chloride, this will clearly lower your alk thus adding to the calcification problem - right?

Is that right?

 

I agree that raising Ca using CaOH is a fool's errand.

Do you mean that you would not use (CaOH) Kalk to "Raise" Ca if it were low, but you would use kalk to maintain Ca? I certainly agree with that.

 

 

 

SurlyT: When I needed to raise my Calcium I used Seachem Reef Advantage Calcium. It contains Calcium Chloride, Magnesium Chloride, and Strontium Chloride. I had remarkably spectacular results. Although the alk was already low, I did not notice any change to the alk levels, and best of all, no change to pH.

 

I like the product and I recommend using it for your aquarium to bring up both the Calcium and the Magnesium.

[mogurnda]

Do you mean that you would not use (CaOH) Kalk to "Raise" Ca if it were low, but you would use kalk to maintain Ca? I certainly agree with that.

yep

 

I hope I didn't sound too surly, but the argument was getting a bit academic for me. Chemistry has been a part of my work life for somewhere over 20 years, so I have the basics down pretty well, but reef aquaria are complex systems and don't always respond in a linear, predictable way. Plus I was supposed to be out mulching and not on the computer.

 

To get back to Chip's question

dumping in Ca, if via calcium chloride, this will clearly lower your alk thus adding to the calcification problem - right?

The only way I can see this happeining is:

1) Your Ca is close to saturation, so the added Ca precipitates CO3.

2) You use CaCl2 as your only supplement, and carbonate becomes depleted.

 

Otherwise, the main disadvantage of using CaCl2 as a Ca source is the possibility of Cl buildup.

 

However, I am usually wrong when I think I'm right.

 

[/end hijack]

[flowerseller]

That's why you can buy or make a two part solution.

I never reccomend adding only one part unless you are very clear on how they will react in your situation.

Like Dave said, " reef aquaria are complex systems and don't always respond in a linear, predictable way."

We could always say it's magic.

 

Time for a new thread since this is about Mg.

I'm happy to continue via my experiences should one get started as I'm off to play for the day.

[lanman]

Back on topic... my MG is a little low - about 1040. It stayed around 1200 when I was using two-part, and has dropped while using kalk. Disregarding whether anyone thinks it is necessary - if I decide it's necessary, what would be a good supplement to use??

 

bob

[Grav]

Back to the original question:

 

I use the RHF 3 part. On the MG part I have diluted the solution so that I dose it at exactly 1/3rd rate of parts 1 and 2. This way I don't need to track each tank to know when I have added a full gallon of part one and 2.

 

Even got randy to bless my #s

 

6 cups epsom

10 cups Mag flake

4.2 gallons of water.

[lanman]

Back to the original question:

 

I use the RHF 3 part. On the MG part I have diluted the solution so that I dose it at exactly 1/3rd rate of parts 1 and 2. This way I don't need to track each tank to know when I have added a full gallon of part one and 2.

 

Even got randy to bless my #s

 

6 cups epsom

10 cups Mag flake

4.2 gallons of water.

 

So can I dose just this to supplement magnesium - without the othe two parts? The kalk is doing fine with my pH, ALK, and CA.

 

bob

[Grav]

Yes, you can.

 

Would be happy to give you some Bob.

[lanman]

Yes, you can.

 

Would be happy to give you some Bob.

 

I'll trade you some frags for it.

 

Heck, at this point, I'd trade frags for most anything. In fact; I think I need to start looking for a larger frag tank. Or maybe... after I set up the 240 - I'll use the 58 as a frag tank!

 

Thanks for the offer - I'll see if I can't drop by Saturday. Meanwhile I got a little bottle of 'magnesion' at Marine Scene on the way home today. Going to dose for a few days and measure again.

 

bob

[Sugar Magnolia]

 

 

6 cups epsom

10 cups Mag flake

4.2 gallons of water.

Grav, how long can this be stored and in what kind of container? That amount of solution would last me an eternity, having just a 30 gallon tank to dose.

[Guest Aurora]

In response to the original question of why Mg is important...here's my understanding.

 

IO salt is notoriously low in Mg usually around 1000-1100 is the range I find it in. Your Mag depletion depends on what you keep. I ran low Mg for a while before realizing it about 4 years back. I started to notice a tannish deposit in the pumps and the side of my sump. I realize now that the deposits are likely a result of the chronically low mag. Since I've kept my Mg up in the past few years, my tank has been much more stable and I notice my cal reactor is also much more efficient. Your Mag depletion rate depends on the corals you keep...most sps only use a small amt of mg in building their corals. I think clams tend to suck up more Mg in there skeleton. I know this since I have a 24" Gigas clam and have to constantly keep an eye on my Mg...about once a month. Also coraline algae will soak up a lot of Mg. If you notice a rapid bloom in your coraline algae on your back glass, watch your Mg.

Now, the convention is that if you have a low Mg, Alk and Ca level...you need to fix the Mg level FIRST before Alk and Ca can be raised and stabilized. If you don't fix your low Mg and you try to raise your Alk too quickly , you will get what is called a snow storm...your tank start to precipitate Calcium carbonate and this will cause a precipitous drop in your Ca level. A Mg level of at least 1300 will help prevent this as you raise your Alk since Mg is critical in keeping everything in solution. This is especially important if you tend to run a higher alkalinity to push your sps growth rate in your tank.

 

If you are going to do a one time adjustment of your Mg...any of the three is fine...however, if you are adding Mg on a regular basis with our water change, I think the 3rd recipe is best.

 

Just my 2c....

Edited October 18, 2007 by Aurora

[jnguyen4007]

In response to the original question of why Mg is important...here's my understanding.

 

IO salt is notoriously low in Mg usually around 1000-1100 is the range I find it in. Your Mag depletion depends on what you keep. I ran low Mg for a while before realizing it about 4 years back. I started to notice a tannish deposit in the pumps and the side of my sump. I realize now that the deposits are likely a result of the chronically low mag. Since I've kept my Mg up in the past few years, my tank has been much more stable and I notice my cal reactor is also much more efficient. Your Mag depletion rate depends on the corals you keep...most sps only use a small amt of mg in building their corals. I think clams tend to suck up more Mg in there skeleton. I know this since I have a 24" Gigas clam and have to constantly keep an eye on my Mg...about once a month. Also coraline algae will soak up a lot of Mg. If you notice a rapid bloom in your coraline algae on your back glass, watch your Mg.

Now, the convention is that if you have a low Mg, Alk and Ca level...you need to fix the Mg level FIRST before Alk and Ca can be raised and stabilized. If you don't fix your low Mg and you try to raise your Alk too quickly , you will get what is called a snow storm...your tank start to precipitate Calcium carbonate and this will cause a precipitous drop in your Ca level. A Mg level of at least 1300 will help prevent this as you raise your Alk since Mg is critical in keeping everything in solution. This is especially important if you tend to run a higher alkalinity to push your sps growth rate in your tank.

 

If you are going to do a one time adjustment of your Mg...any of the three is fine...however, if you are adding Mg on a regular basis with our water change, I think the 3rd recipe is best.

 

Just my 2c....

 

I found my Mg level is around 1020. I read in the two part section that we should add Mg only after you're done adding the two parts and I believe they said something that it's best to add a little at a time because too much at one time can be a bad thing. From your experience, how much do you normally add that is consider safe amount to your tank? I have a 30 gal tank with a 20 gal sump, my total water volume probaby around 30 gal or less. I've been adding about 4 tsp a night and the next day, my Mg reading is still the same. I considered adding more, but not sure if I would do more harm than good.

 

James

 

James

[Guest Aurora]

I have 400g of water in my system and it takes about 1 quart of MgCl salt to raise my reading by about 100. If you are using the commercial Mg liquid. It'll probably take the whole bottle to raise your tank to 1300. You can add 1/2 the bottle and recheck the level before proceeding. When I first found out that my Mg was low, I made a one time adjustment from 900 to 1300 over 24 hours without any problem to my corals or clams. If I remember it correctly, there is 3 part/molecules of Mg to 1 part/molecule of Ca in NSW. That is why you need a lot of Mg salt to bring the level up. Your coraline will love the higher Mg level. I think it's a lot safer to adjust your Mg before adjusting your Ca nd Alkalinity for the reasons in my previous post.