New Theory about bryopsis

[mred]

<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">Well, I have a new theory about bryopsis. </span></span>

<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">I got this nightmare in my tank (don’t know where, as tank established 10 years – probably recent coral addition) and it became even worse than that. I would harvest best I could and within a week it was back with a vengeance. I was not testing for anything except pH and SC. I did know I was having a hard time keeping pH up and stable even adding buffers. Well, needless to say, my Mg plummeted over a protracted period of time. Once I got a test kit I found that my Mg was extremely low; down to about 750 ppm. (I know, don’t yell at me too much. Hey, even mojo screwed up his tank more than once!!!) Corals were not suffering, so I had no idea prior to the test. Read about the Kent Tech M treatment and talked to a few about that at the Feb Frag Meeting. I bought a lot of Mg in anticipation of a long process with continuous dosing.</span></span>

<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">I started dosing my 150g tank, about 130-135 gal actual volume in system due to rock and corals, and including sump and skimmer holding about 15g water. I started with about 5 oz daily just to begin to bring levels up to normal before I really pushed to a target of 1,600+ ppm. Miracles of miracles, the bryopsis started disappearing after the third day. It was totally gone by the sixth day. I had only gotten the Mg up to about 950 ppm. A few of my monti’s were bleaching out, so I leveled off. </span></span>

<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">Corals are coming back to better color. So I shall resume the addition of Mg and continue at a slower pace to get within normal range. </span></span>

<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">Theory is this:</span></span></em><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"> Might the elimination of the bryopsis be more related to the percent change in Mg than the high level about normal? I raised the Mg by about 25% in five days. That is about the same percentage increase as going from 1,300 to 1,600. It still could be one of the so called “inert” ingredients, but it would still be the percent change and not the absolute level.</span></span>

<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">I would welcome constructive thoughts from those with more chemistry/ biochemistry background than I.</span></span>
:up:

 

[lilrobb]

If that would be the case then ANY MG additive would help, which is proven to be not the case...

 

[jj ocean]

<span style="color: black"><span style="font-family: Verdana">The reasoning seems valid to me. I feel what it proves (again) is that it has nothing to do with Mg, but some other "agent" in Tech M. It is the addition of that “yet to be identified" agent or substance that is killing the bryopsis.</span></span>
<span style="color: black"><span style="font-family: Verdana"> </span></span>
<span style="color: black"><span style="font-family: Verdana">What would be very interesting to know is if you were maintaining your Mg with Tech M before the treatment? Assuming not. Your starting Mg was low, but does a tank being maintained at 950 or 1200-1300 Mg using Tech M contain growing bryopsis?</span></span>
<span style="color: black"><span style="font-family: Verdana"> </span></span>
<span style="color: black"><span style="font-family: Verdana">I guess what I'm getting at is that we don't know how fast the agent that kills the bryopsis leaves the system (either through consumption, chemical break down or precipitation). I think I remember someone stating they did maintain their Mg using tech m and they had growing bryopsis in 1200-1300 Mg and the increase to 1600 killed it. Based on your finding and theirs, my assumption would be that the half life of that agent is somewhat short in our systems and it is the rapid addition of tech m (agent) that does the deed.</span></span>
<span style="color: black"><span style="font-family: Verdana"> </span></span>
<span style="color: black"><span style="font-family: Verdana">I'm going to start my own tech m treatment with a base of 1250 Mg, but I won't answer that question either since my Mg is being maintained by BRS Mg.</span></span>

 

[jcusmarine]

I dose Tech-M automatically, about 21ml per day for 55 Total Volume. I am hoping long term dosing will maintain a bryopsis free system. I have a few tufts here and there I am dimishing over time. I may have to bump it up to elevate my Mg more....we will see.

 

[jamescook]

I went through a half-gallon of the Tech M raising the MG from 1300 to 1700 and the bryopsis did die off. Unfortunately it came back a month later.

 

[mred]

Well, I was not using any additives other than buffer and pH at the time I started. Thus, the Mg was totally fresh addition. LilRobb's comment does seem to reinforce the "other" factor theory. But it must be the percent change instead of the actual level.

 

[acroholic]

All talk about this Tech M treatment is purely anecdotal, so nothing you or I or anyone else says can be proven, at least right now.

Before anything, do you have any pictures of your bryopsis? Not all folks correctly identify it as such. I have visited ARC Member's tanks that said they had bryopsis, and they didn't. They had hair algae instead. But assuming you did actually have bryosis, my following comments.

Many folks raise their magnesium levels by 100 ppm per day, including me when I successfully treated for it with Tech M, which is much faster than what you did. You only raised your Mag by 50 ppm per day. In my experience, those that use Tech M have had success eliminating their Bryopsis. Those that just use mag sulfate or mag chloride do not. Many people have raised their magnesium levels by a higher percentage count than you in less time than you, only using mag sulfate or chloride, and they did not get rid of their bryopsis. To me, that is a clear indicator that it is not the magnesium that is killing the bryopsis, or the percentage change in system magnesium that is killing the bryopsis.

I would not extrapolate your experience to all bryopsis treatments for a couple reasons. Two things about your experience are very atypical IMO.

1. Your starting magnesium level was abnormally low to start with, so what killed of your bryopsis or how your bryopsis would respond to a Tech M treatment who knows? The Bryopsis in your system could easily have been stressed by the abnormally low mag levels, and the change you effected could have been one of the 22 trace elements in Tech M Kent listed on the label before they changed the label a couple years ago, probably to avoid liability issues from folks using it for Bryopsis, and not its intended manuactured purpose (guess on my part).

2. Your description of how your bryopsis died is very atypical of 99% of what successful Tech M users report. I have never read a report that someone's bryopsis completely dies within 6 days of starting treatment. It is a slow color change and loosening of the algae, with a slow disappearance over a couple weeks.

Your hypothesis could be correct, but the above reasons are possible flaws in it that I see, as far as my own personal experience and research into other Reefer's anecdotal experience goes.

 

[mred]

Acroholic, I value your opinions and you are one of the ones I talked with at the Feb meeting.

I did verify that it was bryopsis. I checked several websites for identification. All were exactly like my "stuff". I did see some similar things, but there were enough differences to make a distinction.

It actually started to change color on the third day, was all dead by the sixth day, and did slough off over a couple days after that.

One thing I have learned since I started keeping saltwater fish in 1970 is that there are very few, if any certainties in this field. I can remember how many fish Axelrod miss-named in his first several books and how different my experiences were from what he described in them.

I knew there would be no common threads to this, but thought it would offer a different experience from anything I have heard.

 

[tomaquar]

I use Seachem and it does a good job at keeping it at bay but I havent been able to win the war yet. If you get more info please post it.

Edit: Follow up question. How are you guys measuring the MG. Im using Red Sea and not at all sure I trust the results.

 

[cr500_af]

I have thought VERY seriously about setting up a bryopsis test tank... dosing the trace elements in Tech M individually to see which one does it (assuming it is only one). I've thought about at least seeing if it's the copper (since I already have Cupramine).

 

[tomaquar]

Let me know if you want to collect samples from different sources to see if that is a variable.

 

[mred]

I have heard several speculate on the copper content. However, I know that copper messes up the circulatory system of inverts like crabs and shrimp. Has anyone had a simultaneous die-off of inverts when usning Tech M? None of my inverts were lost, but I started with a low level of Mg. But the addition of any copper would adversely affect inverts, so I am back to something else.:unsure:

 

[cr500_af]

mred;635943 wrote: I have heard several speculate on the copper content. However, I know that copper messes up the circulatory system of inverts like crabs and shrimp. Has anyone had a simultaneous die-off of inverts when usning Tech M? None of my inverts were lost, but I started with a low level of Mg. But the addition of any copper would adversely affect inverts, so I am back to something else.:unsure:

I think the amount is very, very low, so I personally don't think it's the copper anyway... for exactly the reasons you mentioned; I'd think if it were enough to kill Bryopsis it would be enough to kill inverts.

Of course, my test would be in a tank without anything alive other than the devil algae. The biggest obstacle would be in trying to quantify the trace elements that there aren't tests for.

 

[acroholic]

I think it is the copper myself.

 

[morganatlanta]

I had two serpent stars that did not react well to Tech-M. They both developed a hole in their center disc every time I dosed Tech-M to get rid of bryopsis. They would recover somewhat between rounds. One did not recover after the last round before I took the tank down. He just disappeared. The other has now almost fully recovered in the new tank.

 

[enderg60]

The problem is there is way to much "I think"

I have used kalk paste with good results though.

 

[lifestudent]

If there was copper in Tech-M, running a polyfilter pad would turn to its associated color indicating that it was pulling such metal out of the water.

 

[acroholic]

EnderG60;636037 wrote: The problem is there is way to much "I think"

I have used kalk paste with good results though.

There is not much else available than I think, or IME with this stuff, however, as there have been no formal studies or research to show what it is about the tech m that works. Anecdotal is all we have.

Great that Kalk paste works. Probably good for small patches.

Edit:

Lifestudent;636045 wrote: If there was copper in Tech-M, running a polyfilter pad would turn to its associated color indicating that it was pulling such metal out of the water.

There is copper in Tech M. And there is copper in seawater as a trace element. Here is a list of ingredients and the trace elements in Tech M:

Deionized water containing the following elements (as ions): magnesium, chlorine, sulfur, calcium, potassium, bromine, strontium, boron, fluorine, lithium, rubidium, iodine, iron, molybdenum, zinc, nickel, copper, manganese, vanadium, cesium, cobalt, tungsten, selenium, and chromium.

I talked to Sanjay at the Feb. Frag Meeting and for whatever reason, he thought it was the Lithium in Tech M that killed the bryopsis.

 

[skriz]

Mg has nothing to do with killing Bryopsis as already stated in the thread.

Also, Bryopsis is highly misidentified, even with pictures and by so-called "experts". Other "hair algae" can look EXACTLY like bryopsis. How do I know? I sent some bryopsis (verified by online photos and descriptions) to a lab for identification. Guess what? It was <u>not</u> bryopsis! This likely has a LOT to do with some people having success with Tech M and others failing. Whatever is in Tech-M will kill type A but not Type B.

There is something that will kill bryopsis safely in an aquarium, but it is very costly. Add the EPA into the mix and the cost sky rocket, rendering the product unmarketable.

 

[tomaquar]

Im still not clear on the evidence against Mg being the effective ingredient. I checked the seachem and found out its epsom salt. (thought it was MgCl. Oh well.) Despite the fact that its just MgSO4 it definitely keeps the growth under control.