Dave ESPI Posted March 3, 2003 Share Posted March 3, 2003 http://www.animalnetwork.com/fish2/aqfm/19...s/1/default.asp so here is some chit. lets discuss OMG ! SALT ! Link to comment
ajroahkni Posted March 3, 2003 Share Posted March 3, 2003 "Acknowledgments: This work was partly funded by the University of Hawaii SeaGrant Program NOAA, NA36RG0507 R/EL-1. We also thank Terry Siegel for reimbursing us for the commercial salt samples used in this report. ©Copyright, Aquarium Frontiers and Fancy Publications Inc. All rights reserved. " Do these write-outs suggest that this is a fair and impartial study? I hope so. Link to comment
Dave ESPI Posted March 3, 2003 Author Share Posted March 3, 2003 I think it was JUST for paying for the materials used. we all hope so. as compared to the s-15 report, at least this one is documentable. Link to comment
Crakeur Posted March 3, 2003 Share Posted March 3, 2003 ok, I could spend the time it takes to read and understand all that mumbojumbo or I can ask if anyone has tried comparing the results from the S-15 to the results posted in the new study? I started to but the percocet has made staring at numbers really difficult (not good for an accountant doing people's taxes). Just wondering how some of the salts fared via comparison of the two reports. Link to comment
gobies Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 I'd like to see this study re-done with more samples from different sources. (BTW, this is the study that a certain manufacturer when ape over because they didn't include his salt...because TFP doesn't carry it.) Link to comment
justin699 Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 What's the thoughts on the S-15 report? Biased? Good, no Good? Apparently Kent didn't seem to think they were biased enough to challenge them Link to comment
OscarBeast Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-03/rs/f...ature/index.htm Read. MDP would like it. Link to comment
gobies Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 I was just headed over here to post that link... my thoughts were along the lines of "MDP's gonna break out the Havannas for this." Link to comment
OscarBeast Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 Yes, but it appears that with this particular bioassay, that his salt was put to shame by a salt that is considered inferior by the S-15 report. Of course one has to consider that the Crystal Sea used in this experiment is different from what is commonly purchased. Now Dr. Ron does state it is similar. He said, "The Crystal Sea Marinemix - Bioassay Formulation is essentially the same as standard Crystal Sea Marinemix which it differs from only in lacking the dechlorinator found in the latter salt (R. Spellman, pers. comm.). Standard Crystal Sea Marinemix and Bio-Sea Marinemix salts are widely available." If this is the case, MDP is not going to be very happy about that part. It should also be noted that Crystal Sea Marinemix Bioassay appears to have lower concentrations of trace elements than Bio-Sea. Dr. Ron seems to believe that trace elements contribute to the break down of tanks (old tank syndrome) over time. He has largely contributed this to inferior synthetic sea salts with too high of levels of trace elements. It seems very preliminary, but I believe that Dr. Ron now thinks this is the best salt out so far. From what I understand, he is switching brands to Crystal Sea. Since I am currently using IO, I may try a bucket of Crystal Sea Bioassay formulation for the hell of it. Link to comment
MegaDeTH Posted March 15, 2003 Share Posted March 15, 2003 If your really interested in the real differences between the salts, check the following thread. http://reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=27367 Link to comment
freakaccident Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 Is the difference in trace metals between one brand of AFS and another even something to be concerned about? Reading those test results makes me want to stop using IO. Link to comment
printerdown01 Posted March 27, 2003 Share Posted March 27, 2003 :woot: Hey Dave do a search... :woot: I posted this same report December of last year LOL... ...in fact if you look at the very next post, you clicked on the link, read it, and responded... Slow the drinkin' it's killing the brain... -sorry couldn't resist http://www.nano-reef.com/forums/showthread...=&threadid=6487 Link to comment
zizmans Posted March 27, 2003 Share Posted March 27, 2003 I'm wondering what salt you all use? From other threads about salt studies people post "WOW, I'm changing tomorrow!" Do they? It's hard to differentiate between band wagon and cold hard facts. I'm using IO, which in polls is usually the most used, but many people have said is no good. I don't know. The Seattle aquarium sells water, I'm considering going that way, but of course again you get different opinions on it. Link to comment
printerdown01 Posted March 27, 2003 Share Posted March 27, 2003 Hey zizmans, I was going to tell you that there was a poll on here regarding which salts people use... But I don't see it . Anyway, I don't think people switch salt brands easily. When your tank looks great, it is hard to convince yourself that you should try another brand!! Although I did recently switch (3 days ago) to natural sea water. But I only switched because we here in San Diego CA can get it for free (thanks to Scripts Aquarium/Research Institute -UC San Diego). I figure if we are trying to compare our salts to natural sea water why not just use it (especially when I can get the real thing for free). p.s. Gilman, please do not tell anyone how far I had to carry my water thanks to my ignorance... Link to comment
freakaccident Posted March 27, 2003 Share Posted March 27, 2003 How far did you have to carry your water? Link to comment
zizmans Posted March 28, 2003 Share Posted March 28, 2003 I called the Seattle Aq. They said that it should only be used with FO tanks because it is so nutrient rich. It would cause massive diatome blooms. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.