test kits

[wmboots]

I know this subject has been visited more than once but I have been fighting bryopsis for a couple of months now.
All the info I have gathered seems the best way to combat bryopsis is raising the tank magnesium to 1500 or higher. Having done this for a couple of weeks now I find the nasty weed/algae is growing even faster.
I had been relying on the red sea test kit but today I used my seachem kit and what a difference in readings.

Red Sea - 1550 ppm
Sea Chem - 1050 ppm

Which one to believe?
Interesting I find since increasing mag and alk using Red Sea kit all the cyano is gone along with hair algae and everything else seems to be doing fantastic including the lovely little green grass called bryopsis.

Has anyone else tested between these two kits and had similar findings?

 

[coolsurf]

Never tested between the two but I can say that raising the mag is a proven and effective way to kill that spawn of the devil. I had the problem years back and used a Sea Chem kit. Basically keep raising the Mag until you see the edges starting to die off. Bring it up a touch more and hold it there for a week or two until all has died. Slowly bring it back down with water changes.

Dave (Acroholic) can elaborate more as he was the "founder" of this whole process I believe.

 

[rdnelson]

Have never used Sea Chem but just recently changed from Elos to Red Sea on the Cal, Alk and Mag. I find the Mag reads a bit higher on the Red Sea than it did on the Elos. I tend to like the Red Sea from a stand point of how easy it is to use but like you, I don't know what test is more accurate. So, I watch for changes more than for actual numbers. If it aint broke I try not to fix it. (well most of the time).

 

[ralph atl]

I can't say for sure, so if I were you I would find a reefer that is close that uses Elos or Salifert to check......

I would trust Red Sea over Seachem. Seachem test kits kinds suck....imho.

 

[wmboots]

I have salifert for alk and find red sea and salifert pretty close also I find red sea and seachem comparable on ph. I find many like to knock API and love Seachem but I have found both API and Seachem to give me comparable readings and found both give me comparable readings to salifert.

 

[jennm]

Bill, why don't you use the reference solution that came with your Seachem kit, to test and see which kit is accurate? (or if one or both is not).

If the Seachem one isn't - call them with the lot number. Triple-Eight-Seachem.

That's why the solution is provided with the kit - so you can make sure your method is accurate and/or the test reagents are accurate.

You can use the reference solution to test the Red Sea kit's accuracy too, or any other MG test. The solution has a known value.

Pretty simple.

As for using Magnesium for Bryopsis, are you using Kent Tech M? That seems to be the product of choice for that method, and from what I've read, it's rapidly raising the levels that kills the stuff and/or some component in that particular product that has a happy side-effect of killing the stuff. So raising the level gradually probably won't work.

I've heard it speculated that it's the ammonia component in the Tech M that actually does the job.

Jenn

 

[wmboots]

Jenn I did find a small difference with the reference solution with salifert and red sea being very close to the same and sea chem about 150ppm less than the other two.
I have been using centium which I have been told is the same as kent m but I am having no success and actually seeing a concerning spread of this nasty grass and I have been maitaining magnesium levels at 1700 and above for several weeks now.

JennM;806990 wrote: Bill, why don't you use the reference solution that came with your Seachem kit, to test and see which kit is accurate? (or if one or both is not).

If the Seachem one isn't - call them with the lot number. Triple-Eight-Seachem.

That's why the solution is provided with the kit - so you can make sure your method is accurate and/or the test reagents are accurate.

You can use the reference solution to test the Red Sea kit's accuracy too, or any other MG test. The solution has a known value.

Pretty simple.

As for using Magnesium for Bryopsis, are you using Kent Tech M? That seems to be the product of choice for that method, and from what I've read, it's rapidly raising the levels that kills the stuff and/or some component in that particular product that has a happy side-effect of killing the stuff. So raising the level gradually probably won't work.

I've heard it speculated that it's the ammonia component in the Tech M that actually does the job.

Jenn

 

[jennm]

Continuum products are made by Jack Kent, who originally founded Kent Marine. I doubt the products are identical. Heck, Chris Brightwell of Brightwell Aquatics used to be the R&D guy for Kent marine, so following that logic...

Did you raise the MG level quickly, or slowly? From the reading I've done, it's the act of raising the level quickly that supposedly kills the bryopsis, not what the level is or if it's brought up slowly.

What are your other parameters - including Phosphate and Nitrate? Any nuisance algae needs food and light - part of the solution to the problem is making sure to cut off its food source as much as possible.

Jenn

 

[wmboots]

all other params are spot on - nitrates 0, phosphates 0, alk 8.4-8.6
no other nuisance algaesevidently this nasty stuff hitch a ride on a frag I picked up from another tank but wouldn't know where or who.
I tried raising the levels slowly which was the instructions I read on another forum, brought them back down and raised them quickly to no avail.
I wonder if kent tech m is the key and need to give it a try, unfortunately I was told centium was the same thing but I believe the info I was given is not correct.
If you have kent tech m I will swing by thursday and pick up a bottle.
As always Jenn you have been a fantastic source of info and help I only wish all lfs owners would take their cue from how you are there for your customers.

 

[jennm]

I heard - sort of third-hand, that Big Dave (formerly of Creation, formerly of Marine Fish, and formerly of Kent Marine) said that the effect of the Tech M killing the bryopsis was the type of ammonia in the Tech M. THIRD HAND - so take that for what it's worth. I do know that there is ammonia in Tech M - and in some other (but not all) magnesium supplements. Dave worked in the lab at Kent, so I'd say he knew what he was talking about if he indeed told somebody that (who then shared that with me).

It's not the same kind of free ammonia that does harm in a system. I don't know the whys and wherefores that make it different - but that was explained to me firsthand by a Kent rep, once upon a time.

Since formulas for products are proprietary, I would venture to believe that all three product lines, Kent, Brightwell and Continuum, would have significant differences among them, lest they'd be suing each other... (just my speculation there...)

I do know that some have tried using a different brand or format of magnesium (not any of those 3) and didn't get the results, so take that for what it's worth too.

It would seem that there's "something" about the Kent product that makes it work in that off-label application.

Jenn

 

[ralph atl]

JennM;809102 wrote: I heard - sort of third-hand, that Big Dave (formerly of Creation, formerly of Marine Fish, and formerly of Kent Marine) said that the effect of the Tech M killing the bryopsis was the type of ammonia in the Tech M. THIRD HAND - so take that for what it's worth. I do know that there is ammonia in Tech M - and in some other (but not all) magnesium supplements. Dave worked in the lab at Kent, so I'd say he knew what he was talking about if he indeed told somebody that (who then shared that with me).

It's not the same kind of free ammonia that does harm in a system. I don't know the whys and wherefores that make it different - but that was explained to me firsthand by a Kent rep, once upon a time.

Since formulas for products are proprietary, I would venture to believe that all three product lines, Kent, Brightwell and Continuum, would have significant differences among them, lest they'd be suing each other... (just my speculation there...)

I do know that some have tried using a different brand or format of magnesium (not any of those 3) and didn't get the results, so take that for what it's worth too.

It would seem that there's "something" about the Kent product that makes it work in that off-label application.

Jenn

YOU must use Kent Tech M brand in order for it to work, albeit it is not 100%.....There are countless members and threads that state to only use Kent Tech M, period.

and you must start at around 1200 or 1300 and raise it to around 1600-1800....it's generally believed to be some impropriety of Kent Tech M. Most suspect Copper, but Jenn could be correct.....

 

[acroholic]

If it was ammonia in Tech M that was killing the bryopsis, don't you think your fish would be dropping left and right from getting their gills burned, and ammonia is taken up by algae as food, so I believe ammonia would help, not hurt, bryopsis.

 

[ralph atl]

and I also agree that Dave is correct, Ammonia is not the correct answer.......

 

[jennm]

I've heard the "copper" theory before but that's not it. Plenty of reef products have copper - it *is* a necessary trace element. Trace being the operative word. Big difference between a trace amount and a therapeutic dose (ie when treating for parasites).

I didn't see Acroholic's post before he deleted it so I have no idea what he said. Concerning the ammonia theory - as I stated, what I heard was "Big Dave's theory as told to me by somebody who was told by him" so there is the possibility of the "telephone game factor" coming into play here - but the notion was plausible to me.

Jenn

 

[acroholic]

JennM;809155 wrote: I've heard the "copper" theory before but that's not it. Plenty of reef products have copper - it *is* a necessary trace element. Trace being the operative word. Big difference between a trace amount and a therapeutic dose (ie when treating for parasites).

I didn't see Acroholic's post before he deleted it so I have no idea what he said. Concerning the ammonia theory - as I stated, what I heard was "Big Dave's theory as told to me by somebody who was told by him" so there is the possibility of the "telephone game factor" coming into play here - but the notion was plausible to me.

Jenn

Hi Jenn,
I deleted the post when I reread your first post about the ammonia being some other form, but what I stated was that if it was ammonia, you would see fish gills being burned and that algae absorbs ammonia directly from the water column, so I doubt that was it. AFAIK, ammonia is only present in reef water as ammonia or ammonium, and I'm not aware of any other form that would be toxic to algae, not toxic to fish, and not an algae food.

Also, how can you or I absolutely say it is or is not ammonia, or is or is not copper? Regarding copper, yes, copper is a trace element, but copper is a FW algaecide. Algae is a simple plant, and why wouldn't a trace copper level higher than NSW levels, but lower than what would kill more complex corals or inverts, not be as plausible as some mystery form of ammonia that is supposedly not toxic to fish and not algae food, which seems much less believable to me?

 

[jennm]

I don't know the answer to that, Dave. Like I said - I was just repeating what was explained to me, as it was explained by "Big Dave" to the person who shared that info with me. Since Dave worked in the lab at Kent when that product was formulated, I would guess he'd have some insight that others might not.

Whatever it is about Tech M, it seems to be the only product that works for this particular application.

Jenn