♦Nah, Mojo not confused at all, just allot of **** to deal with
I feel a Boomer tsunami coming on so I am going to grab my rain gear.
More like a wave from the Gail's of November on Lake Superior
So as Sid mentioned for lack of a better word, a dump.
Yes, it is a toilet just like it is in many carbonate organisms
Because what we only see is the overall growth we are seeing both tissue (coral) and skelital (dump) growth.
In the real world of coral studies coral growth is the growth of the coal as a function of its total mass i.e, how many llbs / month or extensional growth.
BUT at which relationship?? 75% growth acceleration of skeliton?? and only 25% excelleration in tissue??
I have never seen such data on soft tissue growth of x mass / cm^ 2 vs high rate of growth of x mass /c m^2. I'm one that wants to see data and or measurements
and old fart once told me its kind of like humans and steroids?? you take the steroids and you grow like crazy
Yes, I that guy was me
I have no issue buying into exceeding an energy budge there are some examples below. I want to see data that at x Ca++ ppm it is an issue. You have to remember that in geologic times for the last few hundred million yeas there have been coral reefs and higher and lower Ca++ than now. You know for FACT I do not buy into this high Ca++, not as a energy budget issue but as and issue it is not needed as corals do not grow any faster or any noticeably difference. The case, for the most part for reefers, is down right laziness and cheapness. "I want my salt to have like 450 ppm or high so I do not have to add additives", STICK it. You want them flip' corals so bad and when told to do it right you piss whine about it. " That means I have to buy supplements"......STICK it. So, you let that Ca++ go up and down like a see-saw. Mojo likes to talk about the Calcium pump and now it is going up and down like a flipp'in Yo-Yo. Think outside the box here. Do you eat like that ? That calcium pump is not like a heart.
Examples of excessive use of energy budget.
A good example is Shrimp and the misunderstood claim we need to add Iodine as they need it for their molt cycle. Shrimp do not take Iodine from the water column but from foods. When you jack up the Iodine level it has to high a gradient which causes excessive amounts of Iodine to diffuse into the shrimp. This in return causes the shrimp to go into excessive molt cycles, which ends up killing them, as they have expended all their energy in molting, which is controlled allot by iodine.
On the same note, Zenia and their pulsating. Lets think out side the box here for a second. How about the reason they pulsate more, when you are adding Iodine, is they DO NOT like it and are increasing the water currents around them by pulsating, so there is LESS Iodine uptake or it is acting as an irritant to them. Zenia usually pulsate for one reason, the water column current is to slow, so they can speed it up by pulsating, take in more food and are able to rid itself of unwanted mucus and waste. You put them in a better current the pulsating usually stops, as it is suppose to, as they do not need it.
More copy paste from other post here on K+
For corals and many other carbonate producers that carbonate skeleton, test, shell, is a dumpster for ions they pick up and do not need and just dump them in the "skeleton". That is why many of these ions are in direct portion to what is found in surrounding column water. Matter of fact, they are so precise that they are used in Paleoclimatolgy and Paleothermometry studies of accident corals and the environments they use to live in. People need to get off this kick of Coral Skeleton and look at the Coral Tissue needs.
Corals really have two growth rates and they are not always equal, Coral growth, as in Skeletal Growth and Coral Growth and is Soft Tissue Growth. Just because a Coral Skeleton has very good growth does not really = Coral Tissue is also at a good Growth. That accelerated Skeletal Growth may produce a thinner soft tissue making it more prone to wave impact, taring it or make the Skeletal Density to low, making the Coral branch more subject to breaking/fragile to debris and wave action energy.
skimerwhisperer
actually.... scientists who have studied ice core samples will tell you that natural cyclic levels of Co2 were at their highest before mankind's pollution was a consideration
It has always been higher than now an way higher except for on geologic time period where it was lower. So, this planet as its its lowest CO2 levels in Geo-Time / 1. As in past Geo-Times corals will adapt or re-adapt. They have a fancy word for this............... EVOLUTION
Lots of confusion here
i belived that ALK was the most important thing,
and that the ALK wont be stable unless the MAG is where it's suppose to be,
now, the PH is buffed(up or down) with the ALK and on one end of the "seesaw",
while MAG and CAL are on the other end of the seesaw,
when one side goes up, the other goes down,
and that you want the seesaw to balance in the middle..
Ca++ or Mg++ do not really control Alk, but a number of things do. One of the biggest is the generation of acids. In Limnology, it is often called ANC, Acid Neutralizing Capacity. In carbonate producing fauna and flora, we then need to throw in Ca++ and Mg++. Then you have to throw in non-biological precip, called Abiotic. It is really not the Mg++ controlling the Alk but the Ca++ and its abiotic precip. The Mg++ helps keep Ca++ in the water so there is less Ca++ abiotic precip, as does Borate.
and isnt there an ionic balance... meaning that if your MAG and ALK are X,
then your CAL, and PH should be X?? and that you can look it up exactly??
The so called "balance" in seawater is to try and follow the Law of Equal Proportions, in which case 99 % of reefers do not.
pH is a pure function of Alk and CO2 and has NOTING to do with Ca++ or Mg++. If "Bob has a pH of 8.1 and Sue has a pH of 8.1, both of then have the same exact ratio of CO2:HCO3-:CO3--. Bob may have a higher Alk but the ratio is still the same. It can be given mathematically with great accuracy.
pH = [ pCO2 pK1 s Ѓ ( pCO2^2 pK1^2 s^2 + 8 CA pCO2 pK1 s pK2 ) ] / 2 CA
HCO3 - = CA / ( 1 +2 pK2 / pHt )
CO3-- = CA x pK2 / ( pHt + 2 pK2 )
CO2 = CA x pHt / [ pK1 (1 + 2 pK2 / pHt ) ]
The attachment is a good graphic illustration
spllbnd2
Boomer is not argueing against what I am saying?
Nope not arguing but I like to see evidence
spllbnd2
I would like to know where the scientific evidence is that shows or states that excess calcium levels in a reef tank will kill or inhibit coral growth. I think that if all our parameters are as close to NSW, our systems should not inhibit/kill any of our corals that we keep under our care.
Mojo
Every single scientific study done on coral growth, states that in order for coral to grow (as cell division) it needs to remove calcium from with in its cell structure first. This tells you that the presence of calcium in the cells stops/prevents/inhibits the process. I can list these studies but thier are thousands and it is a know thing.
and
When you increase the levels of calcium present in the tank you are going to get a higher level of calcification (skeliton growth) and a lower level of tissue growth (as the coral is donating much more energy to calcium removal).
Nope, high calcium has shown time and time again not to increase coral growth, as the surrounding water is already supersaturate at NSW levels. Meaning, they can not take bring about more precip. So, if the Ca++ is 360 ppm to 500+ ppm ( or higher) they grow at the same rate. Chris Jury has shown this in the lab. What accelerates coral growth of hard the skeleton is increasing the Alk and pH. However, the higher Ca++ *may produce less tissue growth and the coral may expend energy more, thus less soft tissue development by dealing with the high outside Ca++ gradient or expel the Ca++ out of the tissue, which would use up needed energy budget for soft tissue growth.
If I missed something somebody please speak up
