calcium at 600 ppm

[coolfishy101]

Is calcium at 600 ppm suicide for a reef tank? I accidently overdosed over a long period of time. My corals did not have any negative effects. I have no idea what my alk was. Every thing else was at normal levels. Would this actually make my sps corals grow faster since there is more calcium available? (I stopped dosing and my ca is at 450 ppm now) (I used kent liquid calcium chloride)

[Dz99ls]

600 is definitly too high i wouldnt imagine that it would allow corals to grow faster since the rate at which they can consume ca would remain constant no matter how much is out there. ie you go to a buffet your not gonna eat all the food right? of course not your only gonna eat what you can. im glad to hear that you didnt loose any livestock however :)

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

No, 600 ppm Ca++ isn't suicide. The drawback to elevated calcium is usually low alkallinity. My suggestion is to just keep maintaining alkalinity at normal levels and the calcium will decline.

This article describes that process:

Solving Calcium and Alkalinity Problems
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/nov2002/chem.htm

The evidence that I have seen sugggests that the corals tested are not calcium limited at 420 ppm calcium, so they won't likely grow faster at 600 ppm calcium, at least under most normal conditions (it remains to be established what is limiting at elevated alkalinity levels, and it may be calcium there). I discuss that in this article:

The Chemical & Biochemical Mechanisms of Calcification in Corals
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/apr2002/chem.htm


from it:

"Implications for Reefkeeping: Calcium Concentration

Reefkeeping hobby lore has it that boosting the calcium concentration above natural levels of 410 ppm does little to enhance calcification in most corals. That idea is supported by experiments on Stylophora pistillata where calcification becomes limited by calcium at levels below natural levels, but is not increased above about 360 ppm.4 The relationship between external calcium concentration and calcification rate displays exactly the behavior to be expected if an active transport process were limiting the calcification rate, and that this transport process is saturated with calcium at concentrations above 360 ppm.

Using some of the information provided in previous sections, we can understand why this may be the case. Again, for Stylophora pistillata, as the calcium level is increased in an artificial seawater medium from 0 to 800 ppm, the calcium uptake by the coelenteron increases in a linear fashion.4 The uptake by most of the tissues other than the calicoblastic epithelium also increases in a linear fashion. There is no data specific to the calicoblastic epithelium, but the data show that calcification does not increase above 360 ppm calcium.

If the calcium is let into the calicoblastic epithelium by a calcium channel, then the influx of calcium is dependent on the concentration in the coelenteron, and the proportion of time that the calcium channels are open. Since the cells themselves control the gating of the calcium channels, they presumably can control their internal calcium levels at will UNLESS there is not enough calcium outside of the cells to go through the gate, cross the calicoblastic epithelium cells, and get to the active transporter that sends it into the ECF. Consequently, one interpretation is that at external calcium concentrations below 360 ppm, the calcium flux into the calicoblastic cells becomes the rate-limiting step in calcification.

There is a second interpretation that is also possible, however. In this scenario, calcium enters the calicoblastic epithelium through the gated channels, but is not controlled very well in the cell. As the calcium concentration in the coelenteron drops, the concentration inside of the cell drops (regardless of whether there is a large efflux or not), making it harder for the active transport to pump the calcium into the ECF, and thereby decreasing the rate of calcification.

The difference between these two scenarios is rather esoteric, and probably not of interest to most reefkeepers, but it is intellectually stimulating nevertheless. The difficulty in distinguishing these two scenarios comes about because the nature of the control of the calcium level in these cells is unknown. How exactly the large influx is regulated in relation to the large efflux is not understood and has apparently never been investigated.2 Consequently, we cannot yet know whether calcification drops primarily because the influx through the gates cannot keep up with the efflux rate when calcium concentrations in the coelenteron are low, or whether it drops primarily because the active transport of the calcium into the ECF cannot keep up when the calcium concentration in the calicoblastic cell is low."

[coolfishy101]

Took me a while, but I understand what you are saying. I guess I should hve realized that if it made corals grow faster, then everyone would have higher calcium levels.
I am thinking about adding a diy kalk doser. Will this be better than the liquid calcium? I know liquid calcium is calcium chloride. if the calcium is used up will this leave a build up of chloride in my tank and become harmful? Thanks for the info.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Using limewater (kalkwasser) is better than calcium alone as it is a balanced calcium and alkalinity additive, yes.

I use limewater.

There is a small concern with using calcium chloride and sodium bicarbonate to supplement calcium and alkalinity as the chloride and sodium will slowly rise. They are already by far the most common ions in seawater, so the effect is often small, but it can happen. These articles show the effects:

Simulating the Effect of Calcium Chloride and Sodium Bicarbonate Additions on Reef Systems
http://web.archive.org/web/20030624144914/http://www.animalnetwork.com/fish2/aqfm/1998/dec/bio/default.asp

Additional Simulations: The Combined Effect Of Calcium Chloride
/Sodium Bicarbonate Additions And Water Exchanges
http://web.archive.org/web/20030624150320/http://www.animalnetwork.com/fish2/aqfm/1999/feb/bio/default.asp

[coolfishy101]

I think I am going to change to a kalk doser. I think it may be cheaper in the long run and there won't be a hassle of dosing every day.

I had to ask about the chloride because I am not a big fan of water changes. My 20 gallon FOWLR with an eclipse top hasn't had a water change in 2 years only top off evaporation every 2 months. My reef hasn't had a water change in 3 months but I top off evaporation a gallon a day, and I add a lot of supplements. In both tanks which have wet/dry, all of my levels are perfect, even though they are both heavily stocked.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Limewater dosing is a good method, although over time all aquaria may drift in the absence of water changes. Magnesium, for example, may become unacceptably low.

[coolfishy101]

I think that should be ok because I can also dose magnesium using kent. Here is a list of what I dose right now - calcium, strontium, molybnenm (or whatever), trace, iodine/iodide, vita chem. Here is what I am about to start dosing with the elements above - coral vite, vital reef DNA, magnesium, iron w/ manganese, coral accel, and kalk (replacing what I have now). What else do you dose?

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Other than calcium, you may not actually need any of those. That sounds like too many different supplements to me. Water changes do not just raise depleted ions, they can also reduce elevated ions.