Why balling properly is so important

[reeferfulton]

sorry ,

Who is the inventor again ??

[Aqua-Digital]

Hans Werner-Balling

[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.

[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 ?