Why balling properly is so important

[reefermadness]

I guess regular water changes make his point about the additional sodium and chloride moot. I only say this after using regular 2 part on my aquarium for 5yrs and getting excellent results.

[xenon]

Originally Posted by reefermadness

I guess regular water changes make his point about the additional sodium and chloride moot. I only say this after using regular 2 part on my aquarium for 5yrs and getting excellent results.

That's tough to argue with.

He says if you do the standard 10% water changes per week, you are only removing 10% of the ionic imbalance problem.

[Aqua-Digital]

Originally Posted by reefermadness

I guess regular water changes make his point about the additional sodium and chloride moot. I only say this after using regular 2 part on my aquarium for 5yrs and getting excellent results.

this is the biggest trap people seem to fall into. If you change 20% of the water you only change 20% if the imbalance, leaving 80% unbalanced.

this is why it can take up to 8 weeks to stabilizes a system that switches to the correct balling method

You can argue with science the facts are so simple. 2 part and 3 part that does not employ NACL with all the 70 trace elements WILL cause an imbalance, whether you wish to believe true science or not is not my concern. However it goes back to the whole point of keeping corals and a marine system and that is to replicate nature,. By doing 2 part, balling light or however you wish to name it, you are trying to beat nature to save a few dollars but happy to throw expensive corals into that imbalanced environment.

Hans werner balling put his name to a system that replicates nature, why then try and cut it back and turn it into something its not or even try and disprove simple science?

Now thats where I struggle to understand the logic

You may have good results right now but have you see what results you would get doing it properly, thats a very valid question also

[Aqua-Digital]

One other important point to add is that you cant use any old NACL the whole point of Hans's system is that you are adding sea salt to your system minus the salt, so the NACL you use must have ALL the 70 trace elements in it that your salt mix would have.

watch the last part of Hans speach in the video, he does explain this.

2 and 3 part leaves you with an imbalance of sodium chloride with nothing to balance it to. (unless you do a 100% water change, water changes will not stop this) The part C in TM's system balances the scales by giving the free sodium chloride left with the correct 70 elements to balance to. the combined result is SEA SALT! Neither 2 part or 3 part (balling light etc etc do this)

Yes TM's system raises very slightly your salinity (so does two part or 3 or balling light system) but the difference is the raised sodium in TM's original balling system is balanced with the correct other elements so any water change done in TM balling is balanced therefore any % water change does not leave an imbalance as the water is already balanced.

Plain simply unarguable science!

[reefermadness]

How can it be SO important if I can get world class results and an RCTOTM after over 5 yrs of regular 2 part use. And I was adding a lot more than the average user would.

Maybe the true balling. system is a better way but it won't make or break your system.

[Aqua-Digital]

what every one forgets is that 2 parts and 3 parts are just cut down versions of natures way of doing it properly ie true balling. what are you trying to prove by cutting away at the proper way of doing something,

Yes running your car on half flat tyres will get you home but that does not mean its the right way to get home.

the questions are why make short cuts in an environment you are trying to replicate in nature? You may argue cost, well you are happy to spend $$$$ in trying to keep your new delicate species alive so why risk it with something that goes against the fundamentals of simple reef chemistry?

second is, yes there are some tank that look good on 2 part but there are also many tanks that were doing good and switched too the proper method and then did even better.

Lots of the great tanks show great photos rarely do they report the struggles. Its only coming to light now with proper education that short cuts are not needed and doing it properly reaps the benefits for those that wish not to argue with natures way.

Old saying you can take a horse to water but you cant make it drink.!!

We can all post fancy photos of corals until the cows come home but that does mean the system used is working to produce those colours, neither does it re write basic science. I can spend all day showing off colourful frags, but lets talk about the real reasons you should use the proper system.... TANK HEALTH, doing what is required in nature to provide the best environment for your system long term.

This is about doing it properly, doing it right, giving your system the best chance to work in harmony. Yes tanks do ok on other systems but is doing ok enough? Are you prepared too continue breaking the fundamentals of reef science when there is a system out there that does it as it should be done? what is there to gain from cutting this corner? I have read posts about fighting commercialism, any system is commercial even 2 part you still have to buy something to follow 2 part.

Balling is NOT about colouration thats only part of the story its about growth, health, long term balance.

There is nothing to gain by not doing it properly.

[reefermadness]

Originally Posted by Aqua-Digital

what every one forgets is that 2 parts and 3 parts are just cut down versions of natures way of doing it properly ie true balling.

Since when is adding synthetic chemicals natures way of doing it properly (or at all)? Nothing we do in this hobby is natures way. We can't replicate it. A bit off topic.

what are you trying to prove by cutting away at the proper way of doing something,

Not trying to prove anything, just trying to have a beautiful, thriving reef aquarium. The "proper way" is simply your opinion. Does the proper way mean there is only one way?

Yes running your car on half flat tyres will get you home but that does not mean its the right way to get home.

huh, not sure Im following. I thought we were discussing aquarium dosing methods.

the questions are why make short cuts in an environment you are trying to replicate in nature? You may argue cost, well you are happy to spend $$$$ in trying to keep your new delicate species alive so why risk it with something that goes against the fundamentals of simple reef chemistry?

I think you may be overstating the risks (which is why Im getting involved) or if there is a risk at all. Again I surely did not see any obvious negative effect.

second is, yes there are some tank that look good on 2 part but there are also many tanks that were doing good and switched too the proper method and then did even better.

Lots of the great tanks show great photos rarely do they report the struggles. Its only coming to light now with proper education that short cuts are not needed and doing it properly reaps the benefits for those that wish not to argue with natures way.

Struggles of what? My tank was probably 90% grown from frags, healthy for many years straight. Im not going to argue that it was 2 part dosing alone that did this, just like I wouldnt argue if something went wrong that it was the cause. The problem with people making hard line statments that say only this way works is that people who do have problems go looking for answers and listen to these arguments. Ultimately this confuses them into changes that wont solve their problem.

Oh and nature again?

We can all post fancy photos of corals until the cows come home but that does mean the system used is working to produce those colours

So now you are questioning whether or not I'm telling the truth?

neither does it re write basic science.

Please show me these studies that show how these levels get elevated and/or depleted and the negative effects on corals because if that is the case Im not sure why my system had stayed so healthy for so long. Plus countless other personal friends and friends on forums who use simply 2 part as well.

I can spend all day showing off colourful frags,

Hey I like pictures, but lets see some colourful colonies grown from frags instead.

but lets talk about the real reasons you should use the proper system.... TANK HEALTH, doing what is required in nature to provide the best environment for your system long term.

Maybe in the 6th year my tank would have fallen apart?

This is about doing it properly, doing it right, giving your system the best chance to work in harmony Yes tanks do ok on other systems but is doing ok enough? Are you prepared too continue breaking the fundamentals of reef science when there is a system out there that does it as it should be done?

Why such a staunch hard line on the subject. I really wouldnt be taking you to task if you didnt draw such a hard line on the subject. Firstly my tank was far beyond average or OK by any normal hobbyist standard. I was completely satisfied (and sometimes amazed) by the performance, health, colour etc. Doing it "as it should be done" is your opinion.

what is there to gain from cutting this corner? I have read posts about fighting commercialism, any system is commercial even 2 part you still have to buy something to follow 2 part.

Im not fighting commercialism. Im simply doing what anyone does with any purchase. You do a cost benefit analysis. Just like I know that a bubble king skimmer would have been a better skimmer, I didnt purchase one. Why, well because of budget constraints and fact that the bubble king skimmer did not guarantee me better results over all with my tank. There are lots of great tanks not running the "best" possible equipment.

Now I will say chemistry is a little different. But nothing I've seen or experienced made me believe that I NEEDED to do a full balling system in order to have a gorgeous, thriving reef tank. Many TOTM's have ran ordinary 2 or 3 part systems.

FYI, I also have only used Instant Ocean. [gasp]

Balling is NOT about colouration thats only part of the story its about growth, health, long term balance.

There is nothing to gain by not doing it properly.

There might not be anything to gain by not doing a full balling system but there might be anything to gain by doing it either.

[Aqua-Digital]

As I said you cna take a horse to water but you cant make it drink.

You say "the proper way" is my opinion, again its not my opinion its simple chemistry, You cant defy that fact. Its NOT an opinion, its natural science.

You are not showing any reason why NOT to do it.

TM Balling as developed by Hans Werner Balling is without argument the correct way to keep up with minerals of you tank. If you feel using a cut down method gains you some benefit over this than go for it. But for those that do believe in doing it properly the CORRECT system is available

I cant argue with someone that feels taking short cuts is the right way

Bottom line until you try it you wont know. You can argue as a non user with every corner but the fact still remains, YOU DONT KNOW.

You also cant argue Hans Werner, if it had no requirement it would not be the biggest selling system in Europe and now catching on fast in the USA. It just took education to get the reasons for doing it right across.

You should have joined the webinar I think your eyes would have been very pleasantly opened. I know more than one that joined the series as against i as you and now are using it.

[Aqua-Digital]

Here is an amazing article on Hans Werner Ballings method, well written and explains a lot for those that wish to follow the original balling method.

Many thanks to our friends at Ultimate Reef in the UK for this well written article
Written for UltimateReef by Alan Mullett (AlanM).
Published November, 2007 at UltimateReef.com

The Balling Method

INTRODUCTION
The primary elements consumed by corals and coralline algae need to be replaced at a rate which keeps up with the demand, with the aim that the levels of these elements remains stable. Stability is a key word often used and quite rightly so as in a reef environment the short term levels of elements (short as in decades) remain very constant with the consequence that reef inhabitants have not evolved for rapid changes in water parameters.

THE PRIMARY ELEMENTS
There will probably be debate between reef keepers for as longs as there are reef keepers about the aspects of the reef environment which are important to the survival and growth of coral inhabitants. For this I am going to limit the list to four which are:
Calcium
Carbonates
Magnesium
Everything else
The “Everything else” category is somewhat a catch all, but a valid one as you will see in the detail.

THE INGREDIENTS
It would be very nice if we could just take a drop of pure calcium, a drop of carbonate, a drop of magnesium and a drop of everything else and just drop them into the tank. The levels would all be added to and problem solved.

But we can’t just do that, the forms that they would take would not make them readily biologically available which is the whole point of doing it, so we need to look at other avenues.

What Hans Balling documented is a way of adding versions which can become biologically available and in combination which can be balanced with the other elements within the environment.

The short list of items to be added becomes:
Calcium chloride dihydrate (CaCl2-2H20)
Sodium Hydrogen Carbonate (Na HCO3) (aka Sodium bicarbonate – Baking Soda)
Magnesium Chloride Hexahydrate (MgCl2-6H2O)
NaCl free reef salts – your tub of reef crystals without the table salt.
Chuck them in, give it all a stir and there you go.

HOW TO BAKE A CAKE
Ok, so just chucking them all in and sticking it in the oven probably won’t get you a very nice cake, trust me, been there, lumps of dry flour and baking powder don’t do wonders for the taste.

In the same way throwing lots of powders into your tank isn’t going to endear you to your livestock either. They will probably do the obvious thing and fall over and die. So what we need to do is add them in a way that benefits them rather than kills them.

And at some point explain why we need #4 above.

If you look at #1 and #2 on the list you will find we are adding things we want:
Calcium
Carbonates

and things we didn’t want:
chloride
sodium

Now the ones of you who are still awake will notice that chloride and sodium look familiar in combination, Sodium Chloride may be one of the few compounds that most people know, common table salt, and is about 70% of the bucket of reef salts.

So if we do add #1 and #2 we end up with the additional calcium and carbonates which is good, and also more Sodium Chloride which we didn’t want, and so we need to do something about it. We can’t just pull it out of the water, it’s not that easy, but what we can do is add everything else from the bucket of reef salt to balance it all up again. So we add #4, the NaCl Free Reef Salts. With that addition we have now added:
Calcium
Carbonates
Reef Salt
Water

which looks quite a bit better. The only downside now is that we have added lots of salty liquid to the tank, a bit like topping up with mixed water rather than RO water, a mistake often made by beginners.

If you imagine your tank level or sump return level if you have one then the levels will now be higher than when we started. If we ignore evaporation for a moment then eventually your tank will overflow and you’ll have a wet floor. Thanks Hans! If we put evaporation back into play what will happen is that you will top up with less RO than normal which will increase the salinity of your tank over time.

The solution is simple; just remove as much as you add. Sum up the volumes in #1, #2 and #4 and then just take out that much tank water. It’ll put the levels back on track letting your top up do its job.

And, simply put, that is the basics of Balling. Add stuff, balance it out, and level it out.

A CHEMISTRY PRIMER, OR HOW TO WEIGH AN ATOM
So where were we, ah yes, we’ve just taken the cake out of the oven and it looks “interesting”. A slab of brown cake like stuff, looking good. We cut into it and the whole thing falls apart, and another aspect to cookery becomes apparent: you need to measure your ingredients. Just pouring stuff into the bowl doesn’t work.

So, how much do we use? For that we have to delve a little into chemistry looking at how much “stuff” weighs so we can weight it out.

The important factor is that we add calcium and carbonate in the same relative quantity that they are consumed. Biologically the consumption is

Ca2++2HCO3 <=> CaCO3 + CO2 + H2O

which means take one atom of Calcium and two molecules of Carbonate which combine to form one molecule of CalciumCarbonate, one molecule of carbon dioxide and one molecule of water.

From this we can tell several things:
That it is the Calcium (Ca) and Bicarbonate (HCO3) that are the inputs
That two units of Bicarbonate are used for each unit of Calcium
That carbon dioxide and water are by-products of calcification
So we need to ensure that we add the ingredients in the same proportion, that is two units of Bicarbonate for each unit of Calcium, and that we balance out the resulting NaCl with NaCl-Free salts.

In chemistry most measurements of the ‘amount’ of a molecule Is done in mol. Each mol of a substance contains the same number of elementary entities (atoms, molecules, etc), and normally it is the gram-mole which is used. A gram-mole is the quantity of a substance whose mass in grams is equal to its formula weight. This makes it quite easy to weight out substances so that they are in the relative quantities we need.

The important bit is working out the formula weight and for that we need to understand a little more about atoms. Each atom has a particular mass and these are well known quantities and appear on a periodic table of elements. The important elements to us for this purpose are:

Element Atomic number Atomic weight
Hydrogen (H) 1 1.00794
Carbon 6 12.0107
Oxygen (O) 8 15.9994
Sodium (Na) 11 22.9898
Magnesium (Mg) 12 24.305
Chloride (Cl) 17 35.453
Calcium (Ca) 20 40.078


and the way to determine the molar mass is to add up all of the bits to get the total atomic weight for one entity and then that amount in grams is one mole. Showing this makes it much easier:

Determine the atomic weight of CaCl2 - 2H20 by adding the atomic weights of the parts:

First determine the atomic weight of CaCl2

40.078 + 2x35.453 = 110.984

Then determine the atomic weight of H2O

2x1.00794 + 15.9994 = 18.01528

Then add them together remembering we have two molecules of water

110.984 + 2x18.01528 = 147.01

Determine the atomic weight of NaHCO3:

2.9898 + 1.00794 + 12.0107 + 3x15.9994 = 84.00664

So from this we now know that one mole of CaCl2-2H20 weighs 147.01 grams and one mole of NaHCO3 weighs 84.00664 grams. Thus as we need twice as much of one to the other it is simply a case of weighing out the proportionate amount, which is where Balling gets his often used figures of:
147g of CaCl2-2H2O
168g of NaHCO3

and he dilutes each of those to 2L of water, which now means that the same quantity of water from each contains proportionally correct amounts of the two ingredients. That dilution is done to a total volume of 2L, not 2L of water plus the ingredients, so the best way is to measure out 1.5L of water, add the chemicals and then top up to 2L by adding more water.

In those two mixes we now are adding those bits we want, and those bits we don’t which as we noted before is the Na from the NaHCO3 and the Cl2 from the CaCl2. Fortunately we are adding twice as much NaHCO3 as we are CaCl2 so for each unit of addition we have two units of NaCl resulting. So for each 2L added we are adding two moles of NaCl.

The atomic mass of NaCl is 58.443 which means we are adding 116.89 grams of NaCl for each 2L mix we add. As NaCl represents 70% of the ingredients of marine salts we now have to add the remaining 30% to get to a full marine salt mix. As 70% weighs 116.89 grams it means 100% weighs 167g, meaning that the 30% weighs 50 grams, once again the figure that Balling uses as the third container, a mix of 50g of NaCl-free salts to 2L water.

So we have ended up with three mixes of which we add in the same quantities to ensure a balanced addition that adds Calcium, Carbonate and balanced marine water.

[ReEf BoSs]

Originally Posted by Aqua-Digital

this is the biggest trap people seem to fall into. If you change 20% of the water you only change 20% if the imbalance, leaving 80% unbalanced.

this is why it can take up to 8 weeks to stabilizes a system that switches to the correct balling method

You can argue with science the facts are so simple. 2 part and 3 part that does not employ NACL with all the 70 trace elements WILL cause an imbalance, whether you wish to believe true science or not is not my concern. However it goes back to the whole point of keeping corals and a marine system and that is to replicate nature,. By doing 2 part, balling light or however you wish to name it, you are trying to beat nature to save a few dollars but happy to throw expensive corals into that imbalanced environment.

Hans werner balling put his name to a system that replicates nature, why then try and cut it back and turn it into something its not or even try and disprove simple science?

Now thats where I struggle to understand the logic

You may have good results right now but have you see what results you would get doing it properly, thats a very valid question also

I didnt watch the video but how do you get a math equation that equals after one week the system is imbalanced and 20 percent water changes could not fix it, what about 30,40,90 there would be an amount for each system that would balance would there not be? Im not against it i also would rather dose than do a 90 percent water change Ew but without testing its all guessing no ?