Calcium level high

[miskairal]

Is it ok to have a calcium reading of 600? I tested it 5 days ago when I
bought the test kit and it was the same. pH is 8.5, GH is only 7, SG
1.022 and Ammonia, Nitrites, Nitrates and Phosphates are all 0.

Can a high Ca hurt anything?

[Roy]

Generaly a high calcium level will not cause any harm, except you may
get calcium snow if the water can not hold any more dissolved calcium
in suspension.......Give it some time and it will come down and your
alk level will go up. I tend to keep our tanks in the 450 to 500
range, and have on occasion had them much higher....usually when cal
level is up the alk level is opposite so in time they will level out
and both will be in the desired range. Are you keeping any corals and
liverock.if so I wold bump my SG up to a minimum of 1.023.......LR
coraline and corals get the benefit of calcium more than fish do, so I
assume you have a reef or partial reef setup so I would increase the
SG,



On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 20:23:15 +1000, miskairal <mehiding@Oz> wrote:
Is it ok to have a calcium reading of 600? I tested it 5 days ago when
I
bought the test kit and it was the same. pH is 8.5, GH is only 7, SG
1.022 and Ammonia, Nitrites, Nitrates and Phosphates are all 0.

Can a high Ca hurt anything?

--
\\\|///
( @ @ )
-----------oOOo(_)oOOo---------------


oooO
---------( )----Oooo----------------
\ ( ( )
\_) ) /
(_/
The original frugal ponder! Koi-ahoi mates....

[Don Geddis]

miskairal <mehiding@Oz> wrote on Mon, 12 Dec 2005:
> Is it ok to have a calcium reading of 600?
> Can a high Ca hurt anything?

I once had green star polyps with a high Ca like that. They wouldn't come
out/extend. I was asking for help at the time, and someone suggested the
high calcium as a possible culprit. Sure enough, as the calcium dropped to
more normal levels, the star polyps began to re-emerge.

I suspect you ought to keep calcium levels near that of normal seawater.

-- Don
__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Don Geddis http://reef.geddis.org/
If I could be a bird, I think I'd be a penguin, because then I could walk
around on two feet with a lot of other guys like me.
-- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey

[miskairal]

Thanks Roy and Don. Yes I have some coral that came on the live rock,
soft and hard, and I bought a leather coral at the same time as the Ca
test kit and it's looking great.

How do I lower the Calcium level? I have added nothing to this new setup
so far apart from the coral life salt. Actually, I suppose I should test
the R/O water as it has just occurred to me that there is a lime quarry
on our farm and I make the R/O water from our creek water.

I've got the SG at 1.022 b/c my petshop guy recommended that. He keeps
his holding tanks at 1.018 - he told me that is less stressful on fish
that are stressed by being capturing and/or moved. I had intended
keeping my Q tank at 1.020. My tank is new and I'm just starting to
stock it.

Don Geddis wrote:
> miskairal <mehiding@Oz> wrote on Mon, 12 Dec 2005:
>
>>Is it ok to have a calcium reading of 600?
>>Can a high Ca hurt anything?
>
>
> I once had green star polyps with a high Ca like that. They wouldn't come
> out/extend. I was asking for help at the time, and someone suggested the
> high calcium as a possible culprit. Sure enough, as the calcium dropped to
> more normal levels, the star polyps began to re-emerge.
>
> I suspect you ought to keep calcium levels near that of normal seawater.
>
> -- Don
> __________________________________________________ _____________________________
> Don Geddis http://reef.geddis.org/
> If I could be a bird, I think I'd be a penguin, because then I could walk
> around on two feet with a lot of other guys like me.
> -- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey

[Wayne Sallee]

There was once a thought that keeping fish in a low
salinity level was less stressfull on fish because the
fish did not have to proces as much salt with theier
kidneys, but this is fals.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



miskairal wrote on 12/12/2005 4:15 PM:
> Thanks Roy and Don. Yes I have some coral that came on the live rock,
> soft and hard, and I bought a leather coral at the same time as the Ca
> test kit and it's looking great.
>
> How do I lower the Calcium level? I have added nothing to this new setup
> so far apart from the coral life salt. Actually, I suppose I should test
> the R/O water as it has just occurred to me that there is a lime quarry
> on our farm and I make the R/O water from our creek water.
>
> I've got the SG at 1.022 b/c my petshop guy recommended that. He keeps
> his holding tanks at 1.018 - he told me that is less stressful on fish
> that are stressed by being capturing and/or moved. I had intended
> keeping my Q tank at 1.020. My tank is new and I'm just starting to
> stock it.
>
> Don Geddis wrote:
>
>> miskairal <mehiding@Oz> wrote on Mon, 12 Dec 2005:
>>
>>> Is it ok to have a calcium reading of 600?
>>> Can a high Ca hurt anything?
>>
>>
>>
>> I once had green star polyps with a high Ca like that. They wouldn't
>> come
>> out/extend. I was asking for help at the time, and someone suggested the
>> high calcium as a possible culprit. Sure enough, as the calcium
>> dropped to
>> more normal levels, the star polyps began to re-emerge.
>>
>> I suspect you ought to keep calcium levels near that of normal seawater.
>>
>> -- Don
>> __________________________________________________ _____________________________
>>
>> Don Geddis
>> http://reef.geddis.org/
>> If I could be a bird, I think I'd be a penguin, because then I could walk
>> around on two feet with a lot of other guys like me.
>> -- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey

[Roy]

I prefer to keep the majority of my tanks at 1.023 and have 2 at
1.025, none lower than 1.023 even with just fish......It just seems
1.018 like the LFS uses is pretty low, as most around here keep it at
1.021 or 2 but thats neither here nor there........but you will find
any corals of any variety will inevitably do better at a sg of 1.023
or more.

Its hard to take one person or authors word as to what is best, so all
you can do is try it and find out......I have a heap of book by well
know recomended authors, and it seems there is always contradiction
between each ones ways and set of parameters. One recomends a temp of
80 to 83 deg and a sg of 1.025 for an average reef tank, another says
75 to 80 and 1.023.......and then when you figure in the other
elements like calcium and the numerous trace elements there is all
kinds of variations given......If yur fish is doing fine,
great.........and calcium is not life threatening even at the 600
mark, and will come down as its consumed.......Like you said it may be
in the water already or you may also find some synthetic salts have
high percentages of such, but would not think it would be over the 500
limit which is usually a standard high end count. Is your ph ok?
Unless ph is lower than it should be its p ossible at low levels to
cause calcium to go high, but odds are at the level required the fish
would be dead or severely stressed....



On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 22:09:10 GMT, Wayne Sallee >
wrote:
There was once a thought that keeping fish in a low
salinity level was less stressfull on fish because the
fish did not have to proces as much salt with theier
kidneys, but this is fals.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



miskairal wrote on 12/12/2005 4:15 PM:
> Thanks Roy and Don. Yes I have some coral that came on the live rock,
> soft and hard, and I bought a leather coral at the same time as the Ca
> test kit and it's looking great.
>
> How do I lower the Calcium level? I have added nothing to this new setup
> so far apart from the coral life salt. Actually, I suppose I should test
> the R/O water as it has just occurred to me that there is a lime quarry
> on our farm and I make the R/O water from our creek water.
>
> I've got the SG at 1.022 b/c my petshop guy recommended that. He keeps
> his holding tanks at 1.018 - he told me that is less stressful on fish
> that are stressed by being capturing and/or moved. I had intended
> keeping my Q tank at 1.020. My tank is new and I'm just starting to
> stock it.
>
> Don Geddis wrote:
>
>> miskairal <mehiding@Oz> wrote on Mon, 12 Dec 2005:
>>
>>> Is it ok to have a calcium reading of 600?
>>> Can a high Ca hurt anything?
>>
>>
>>
>> I once had green star polyps with a high Ca like that. They wouldn't
>> come
>> out/extend. I was asking for help at the time, and someone suggested the
>> high calcium as a possible culprit. Sure enough, as the calcium
>> dropped to
>> more normal levels, the star polyps began to re-emerge.
>>
>> I suspect you ought to keep calcium levels near that of normal seawater.
>>
>> -- Don
>> __________________________________________________ _____________________________
>>
>> Don Geddis
>> http://reef.geddis.org/
>> If I could be a bird, I think I'd be a penguin, because then I could walk
>> around on two feet with a lot of other guys like me.
>> -- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey

--
\\\|///
( @ @ )
-----------oOOo(_)oOOo---------------


oooO
---------( )----Oooo----------------
\ ( ( )
\_) ) /
(_/
The original frugal ponder! Koi-ahoi mates....

[miskairal]

Well I might walk the SG up to 1.023. I'm doing what the petshop guy
says b/c like you said there are so many different ideas out there and
this guy has a gorgeous tank the same size as mine in his shop. He has
others as well. He never has sick fish (that the public gets to see
anyway) or coral. The 1.022 was within the limits that my 2 books both
say as well.

The pH is 8.5. At least now I can stop worrying about the Ca. I haven't
got round to testing the R/O water b/c it's too darn hot to do anything
here that I don't have to today (36c/96f in the upstairs part of the
house but the tank is sitting on 29 downstairs aided by fans).

Thanks guys!

Roy wrote:
> I prefer to keep the majority of my tanks at 1.023 and have 2 at
> 1.025, none lower than 1.023 even with just fish......It just seems
> 1.018 like the LFS uses is pretty low, as most around here keep it at
> 1.021 or 2 but thats neither here nor there........but you will find
> any corals of any variety will inevitably do better at a sg of 1.023
> or more.
>
> Its hard to take one person or authors word as to what is best, so all
> you can do is try it and find out......I have a heap of book by well
> know recomended authors, and it seems there is always contradiction
> between each ones ways and set of parameters. One recomends a temp of
> 80 to 83 deg and a sg of 1.025 for an average reef tank, another says
> 75 to 80 and 1.023.......and then when you figure in the other
> elements like calcium and the numerous trace elements there is all
> kinds of variations given......If yur fish is doing fine,
> great.........and calcium is not life threatening even at the 600
> mark, and will come down as its consumed.......Like you said it may be
> in the water already or you may also find some synthetic salts have
> high percentages of such, but would not think it would be over the 500
> limit which is usually a standard high end count. Is your ph ok?
> Unless ph is lower than it should be its p ossible at low levels to
> cause calcium to go high, but odds are at the level required the fish
> would be dead or severely stressed....
>
>
>
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 22:09:10 GMT, Wayne Sallee >
> wrote:
> There was once a thought that keeping fish in a low
> salinity level was less stressfull on fish because the
> fish did not have to proces as much salt with theier
> kidneys, but this is fals.
>
> Wayne Sallee
> Wayne's Pets
>
>
>
> miskairal wrote on 12/12/2005 4:15 PM:
>
>>Thanks Roy and Don. Yes I have some coral that came on the live rock,
>>soft and hard, and I bought a leather coral at the same time as the Ca
>>test kit and it's looking great.
>>
>>How do I lower the Calcium level? I have added nothing to this new setup
>>so far apart from the coral life salt. Actually, I suppose I should test
>>the R/O water as it has just occurred to me that there is a lime quarry
>>on our farm and I make the R/O water from our creek water.
>>
>>I've got the SG at 1.022 b/c my petshop guy recommended that. He keeps
>>his holding tanks at 1.018 - he told me that is less stressful on fish
>>that are stressed by being capturing and/or moved. I had intended
>>keeping my Q tank at 1.020. My tank is new and I'm just starting to
>>stock it.
>>
>>Don Geddis wrote:
>>
>>
>>>miskairal <mehiding@Oz> wrote on Mon, 12 Dec 2005:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Is it ok to have a calcium reading of 600?
>>>>Can a high Ca hurt anything?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I once had green star polyps with a high Ca like that. They wouldn't
>>>come
>>>out/extend. I was asking for help at the time, and someone suggested the
>>>high calcium as a possible culprit. Sure enough, as the calcium
>>>dropped to
>>>more normal levels, the star polyps began to re-emerge.
>>>
>>>I suspect you ought to keep calcium levels near that of normal seawater.
>>>
>>> -- Don
>>>__________________________________________________ _____________________________
>>>
>>>Don Geddis
>>>http://reef.geddis.org/
>>>If I could be a bird, I think I'd be a penguin, because then I could walk
>>>around on two feet with a lot of other guys like me.
>>> -- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey
>
>