Strontium & Molybdenum Dosing - Anyone do it?

Also, a few good reads:

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2003/11/chemistry

It's (In) The Water by Ronald L. Shimek, Ph.D. - Reefkeeping.com

 

Thanks. Read the 1st... interesting article.

Strontium seems to be be easy to overdose, yet there may be some positives from it like the 'active transport of calcium':

And his thought about lime water adding it was interesting.

And this:

He seems to dispute Shimek here:

I gotta run to work - but I will pick it up later.
Thanks

matt

 

So the old test before dosing is still the way to go. Lack of knowledge can kill. But then again so can knowledge. :-/

 

I use Iodide because I have mainly softies and an open brain. Softies use iodide and zoas and shrooms use it more than any other trace. I also use Purple up which has Iodide Strontium Cal and Mag I believe. Since using iodide I have noticed better colors and growth in my zoas, and more "purple" after starting Purple up. I have really stopped the iodide since starting the Purple up. Sorry in advance but I do not test for anything but the standard test kits. These tests are way to expensive and are complicated enough that I would probably mess them up any way.

 

I think there is a lot of guessing. Not much real data, but I think it is safe to guess that strontium will be toxic at some level. What's tougher to guess is what level is in your aquarium. It's not very testable, by hobby grade kits, but there isn't much evidence it commonly gets low and less evidence that being low is an issue... We can all go dumping lots of chemicals in, because someone did and around the same time, for some reason had good results, and decided that it must be the particular trace element.... There is nothing wrong with experimenting with your system, for those willing to risk it, but there just isn't evidence to suggest that doing so is anything but a very uncontrolled experiment....

 

If the uptake of these elements is anything like the uptake of calcium or alkalinity as a proportion of the amount contained in premixed salt water, there is very little chance water changes would keep up.

I have to asume, since I trust the people who originally made this claim, this means they are (a) not essential, or (b) much less of the amount available is consumed over time such that water changes do the trick.

Edit: I quoted the wrong post; I'm addressing a later question I believe.

 

The strontium update as noted in the Advanced Aquarist article appears to be less.

Some interesting stats I gathered finishing that read.

Strontium levels in seawater : 8ppm
Strontium in Instant Ocean: 15ppm
High levels of strontium does not appear to kill anything until it hits 38ppm, then a couple crabs go, much higher above 1500ppm, fish died
Strontium test kits are complicated and expensive.

This is interesting:

Safe to say there are some unknowns if Farley can't figure it out. My take from this article is to check out the ppm of strontium in my salt mix and go from there.

I noticed nobody has touched Molybdenum yet.

matt

 

Okay, I'll give it a shot ;D

I think there is a lot of guessing. Not much real data, but I think it is safe to guess that molybdenum will be toxic at some level. What's tougher to guess is what level is in your aquarium. It's not very testable, by hobby grade kits, but there isn't much evidence it commonly gets low and less evidence that being low is an issue... We can all go dumping lots of chemicals in, because someone did and around the same time, for some reason had good results, and decided that it must be the particular trace element.... There is nothing wrong with experimenting with your system, for those willing to risk it, but there just isn't evidence to suggest that doing so is anything but a very uncontrolled experiment....

 

I'm not so sure about that. I think what people seem to ignore is that they are "trace" elements, meaning they occur in the ocean in "trace" amounts. Trace being quantities that are very difficult, if not impossible to test accurately.

Many impurities come into our systems, in trace amounts from foods and other sources of contamination (even dust in the air). Also, often they occur at increased levels in salts, because they are contaminants from the manufacturing processes. Take the IO example. IO has about 15ppm of strontium, however, that is almost twice the amount in the ocean. If a salt had 840ppm of ca (roughly 2x the ocean), do you not think water changes alone would be enough to keep up? The problem is, you also have other elements, such as bicarbonate (more or less alkalinity), which can not stay in solution if other elements get too high, such as calcium. Also, on the flip-side, components, such as alkalinity re harmful at high levels. So, salt-water, is a very delicate balance of chemicals, easily thrown way off, with simple carelessness.

From people who have do experiments, much of the evidence shows many/most trace elements, are high to begin with. Also, there isn't much, if any data showing the necessity of trace elements. And with that, many trace elements vary widely, in different areas of the ocean and on different reefs. So, if they were crucial, you wouldn't have reefs popping up all over the place, they would only occur where there are sufficient trace elements. So, there is more evidence that most, likely do not need to be added. There may be cases where some would be beneficial, but determining, which ones, and in which cases, is difficult. It will depend on the salt you use, food you feed and dust in your air etc... for example.