Dump kalk slurry in sump or tank?

[boobookitty]

I'm using the "Calfo" method of dumping kalk "slurry", in my case to raise the pH on a calcium reactor-fed tank. I'm adding about 1/2 tsp in a couple liters of top-off water every morning, and it works fine for raising the pH by 0.2-0.3. It's been mentioned in the past that one should *not* dump this into the sump, instead dumping it into the main tank. I've been doing this, but I'm wondering why dumping it in the sump would be a problem; it certainly would be much easier, at least on me, than adding it to the high-flow are of my tank.


Is it a problem to add this to the sump instead?

bbk

[boobookitty]

^

[Clyde]

I willhave to admit, I read your post this AM, and I was confused, and I didnt want to say anything due to the fact I did not read the Calfo method, but I do question dump in tnak, suppose a clump of kalk floats down right on a coral, that would be bad IMHO

I've subscribed to this thread, saw a reply, and came and only to find it was you doing a ^^ to bring it back up.

anyway I m curious too, where did you read about this method ?

What purpose does this do ecept raise your pH from 8.0 to 8.3 ?

you using a pH monitor to realize your pH is low ? or what Im curious

[Aquatect76]

It has been stated by Anthony Calfo and others that dosing Kalk into the main tank is more beneficial than dosing it into the sump. The reason is because your corals are in the main tank and so that is where the maximum calcium intake would be. I use to use this method and when I did I tried it both ways, with the lights off ofcourse, with no adverse effects. To me, however, it seems a little safer to dose it into the sump IMO. You know, dripping it in would also increase your pH and would create a more stable environment. Usually people dose "kalk slurries" when they are not able to meet the demands for calcium any other way. Since you have a calcium reactor I, personally, would recommend simply dripping it in 24/7 to balance out the evaporation rate as well as keeping the pH up.

[mhurley]

This method truly baffles me. If the entire concept is to put kalk directly into the main tank versus the sump, then I don't get it. My sump to tank turns over 3000 gallons an hour. How the heck can it matter if I put the kalk in the sump or into the tank directly? It's going to be in the tank in a matter of seconds anyway.

[ri]

I dose everything into my sump, kalk included.

Just don't dose at the pump intake. Instead, dose into an area of high water flow. This will help mix things up and minimize buildup on the pump impeller.

ri

[bamboozler]

I dose in the sump. That way dried-on kalk chunks that flake out of the dosing container don't land on livestock.

Scott

[boobookitty]

Thanks for all the responses. On of the primary reasons I got a reactor is that I got sick and tired of dosing kalk. Then I find out that to beat the pH problem, it's recommended to...dose kalk...:)

I used to drip kalk into the sump as well, when I used that method for calcium replacement. With the reactor, calcium and alk aren't a problem anymore, but kalk is also a good way to raise pH, which is usually low on a reactor-fed tank due to CO2 - the kalk absorbs excess CO2, and 1/4tsp of kalk in my tank almost instantly raises pH by 0.1.

But dripping it is, for me, difficult, because of where the tank is situtated. Calfo's method is good for me, simply dumping the kalk in (which I used to shy away from, but which apparently is not fatal, as I would have thought). But I've heard in some other kalk-dumping discussions that it's not a good idea to do it in the sump, especially if you have a skimmer. I'm trying to determine if it would be a problem...

bbk

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

It has been stated by Anthony Calfo and others that dosing Kalk into the main tank is more beneficial than dosing it into the sump. The reason is because your corals are in the main tank and so that is where the maximum calcium intake would be.

I hope you misunderstood, because that statement is.... (OK, I'll be nice).:D

Unless the exchange between the sump and tank is less than 1 exchange per day or so, there will be no appreciable difference between the calcium in the tank and in the sump.

Since you don't want high pH "clouds" descending on corals and other organisms, I can't see any benefit to dosing to the tank itself, and I see huge potential problems. So if you have a sump, that's where you should do this dump technique (and then only using small amounts).

[boobookitty]

Ah, thanks, Randy, that's what I was looking for. My preference is the sump anyway, but there was something (can't find it in my searches now) about the air exchange in the sump due to the skimmer being a problem is settling out something something...remember, I'm a chemistry novice...:)

Thanks...

bbk

[boobookitty]

Actually, I did have one more question: I've finally been able to get the reactor to supply enough alk to the tank, but only by lowering the effluent pH to 6.2-6.3. Is this a problem? It seems lower than what others might run theirs at...

bbk

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

about the air exchange in the sump due to the skimmer being a problem

More air exchange is better. I would not worry about precipitation inside of a skimmer unless the the limewater is fed directly into it (and even that is probably OK).



I've finally been able to get the reactor to supply enough alk to the tank, but only by lowering the effluent pH to 6.2-6.3. Is this a problem?

It makes no difference as long as the tank pH is not getting too low.

[boobookitty]

Thanks...

I had heard that if the effluent pH falls to 6.2 or much lower, it starts to "melt" the reactor media...

bbk

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

The lower the pH the faster it will dissolve. If it isn't dissolving well enough at the pH that you tried (say 6.5) then trying lower may be the way. Increasing the circulation etc. may also help.

[Vpham97]

How about dumping it into the overflow box?

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Yes, the overflow sounds like a good place.

[Aquatect76]

I hope you misunderstood, because that statement is.... (OK, I'll be nice).

I'm not quite sure what you meant by this statement. I also do not know for sure if you continued reading beyond the first sentence of what I typed, but basically I said that it would be safer, IMO, to dose slurry into the sump and I then went on to add that dripping in kalk 24/7 would create a more stable atmosphere. Let me quote Anthony Calfo's Book of Coral Propagation (Vol.1, p. 185)To maximize phosphate fallout and calcium uptake, it has been observed that kalkwasser additions are more effective if they can be safely dosed into the main display rather than the sump. This method of calcium supplementation should appeal to aquarists and coral farmers who cannot afford or choose not to invest in calcium reactors.
I use to use this method in the past, BUT even then I dosed the slurry into my sump (simply because I already had a sump). I now, and for quite some time, drip kalk 24/7 to promote a more stable environment for my charges. However, let it be known, that coral farmers, and particularly the most successful ones, have been safely dosing "kalk slurries" into their main systems for nearly 3 decades....

[Russ]

Yeah, I read that same statement about dumping Kalk slurry directly into the tank, rather than the sump... I'll have to find the reference and understand what the reasoning was... But, you're not dreaming. I read the same thing too.

[mhurley]

Let me ask my question again (and Randy pointed this out too). What difference could it possibly make if it goes into the sump or the tank? Unless your turnover is extremely slow I don't see how it could matter. I'm turning 3000 gallons an hour through my sump. A drip into my sump is in the tank in a matter of minutes (probably seconds). I have not read Anthony's book so I'm just trying to understand his reasoning.

Mike

[Aquatect76]

The reasoning is that it, supposely, maximizes calcium uptake and phosphate fallout according to Calfo and others. Lets say you have a 55g tank w/sump and a pump that turns, theorectically, the volume of water 20 times/hr. So lets say you use a mag 12 or something. You know that really, technically, all of the water in the 55g isn't turned over 20 times an hour right. This can get really "involved" an for a complete understanding of volume turnover I would have to recommend reading Aquatic Systems Engineering by P.R. Escobal. P.R. Escobal, by the way, worked on the engineering of the F-1 rockets that propelled The Apollo to the moon. If you really want to understand volume turnovers and such then you simply must read this book. Anyway, just dump the stuff into your sump. IT'S A SAFER METHOD FOR MOST PEOPLE.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

To maximize phosphate fallout and calcium uptake, it has been observed that kalkwasser additions are more effective if they can be safely dosed into the main display rather than the sump. .

I didn't mean to imply that folks repeating Anthony's suggestion were somehow at fault. It is the original suggestion that I take exception to.

Anthony may make the assertion, but I've seen no published evidence of such, nor can I think up any conceivable reason for this to be the case.

Let's take the issues one at a time.

Phosphate

If adding it to the main tank will maximize phosphate precipitation (something that may or may not actually happen anywhere, but let's hypothesize that it really does happen), then the assumption must be that the phosphate concentration is higher in the main tank than in the sump? How else could phosphate precipitation actually be higher when it is added to the main tank than the sump? If so, why would phosphate be higher in the main tank than in the sump? Unless the tank turnover was especially slow, how could it be higher in the tank (unless the sump had some other very very effective means of phosphate removal, like tons of macroalgae, in which case it makes no difference whether it happens in the main tank or not)?


Calcium

Suppose that you are replacing the equivalent of 2% of the total system volume in saturated limewater every day (a typical amount). Since limewater is about 800 ppm in calcium, then that is adding about 16 ppm of calcium in that addition once added to the tank.

Is he suggesting that in the period before the water mixes into the sump (probably a 10-60 minutes in most tanks) that the slightly elevated calcium levels help drive coral growth? I suppose that is possible, but if it were, a smart coral farmer would just keep the calcium levels there all of the time.

[Russ]

Now that I really think about it... I'm inclined to agree with Randy. One thing's for sure, I don't agree with Anthony on the iodine supplementation (a whole 'nother debate!).

Nevertheless, Anthony's book is great... And, I think he adds a lot to our understanding re: reefkeeping, decribing what he's learned from his experiences.

[Aquatect76]

In all honesty, I'm in agreement with you, Mr. Farley. I was just simply stating where that info came from since Clyde, earlier, ask about its original source.

[tiny tentacle]

Randy,
i have been dosing low amounts
of a kalk slurry ( 1/10 teaspoon per liter)
for the last 3 weeks in a 120g reef system.
pH and other parameters are all good. corals are fine (SPS, LPS)
pH 8.43 day
pH 8.25 morning (lights out)
I dose at night directly into skimmer to help remove phosphates.
I use an IV drip for a slower delivery.
10% water change /week
DIY protein skimmer is powerful

Q: i noticed a heavier than normal
film on the surface of the 75g and you can see the bubbles don't pop as easily.
Is this because in the slurry i am also adding those chemicals that usually settle out on the surface? Like when one makes the traditional saturated kalk sol. and takes the "middle part" of the solution and not the floating film.

perhaps a slurry is not a good idea for my tank.

tiny

[TippyToeX]

tiny tentacle- It sounds like you are dripping kalk, not the same as the slurry method. :)

[tiny tentacle]

thanks tippy
i am dripping but it is still a "slurry"
mix as opposed to a saturated mix where
one lets the solution sit, then you take the middle portion of the bottle and leave the surface and bottom precipitate behind.

at least that is the way i understand
the meaning of "slurry"
also understand that you can just dump all of it in right away .....i'm thinking slower drip may be safer .

What i'm afraid, is that this method also
intoduces unecessary heavy metals
which can be removed using the saturated kalk sol. method.

Randy wrote a great article about metals in lime water
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/may2003/chem.htm