Salts, which 1 to use...This is a must read!

[MacnReef]

Go to this link and read away...you will be suprised!

 

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-03/rs/f...ature/index.htm

[OscarBeast]

I posted this in the advanced forum on the salt topic.

 

[MacnReef]

Good!

 

I figured that a general forum would be good to...more traffic!

[CRG]

WOW:o Those are some pretty surprising statistics.

 

And to think that I'm using Instant Ocean:blush:

[MacnReef]

That is exactly what I said. I called Aquatic Eco-Systems to get some of that salt and they said that they were out right now but will have more in on Monday. They said that after that was posted they sold 50 buckets in one day! So they ordered another 140!

 

 

Hopefully that will last so I can get some!

[Dave ESPI]

http://www.nano-reef.com/forums/showthread...=&threadid=9491

advanced forum.

 

If you people are such trend chasers and take this crap as gospel, you are a bigger flock of sheep than the followers on RC.

 

There are facts about that "Wonder salt" of Crystal Sea you dont know.

I have explained it many many many times in many of my post on salt.

 

I DO NOT USE ANY SALT BY MARINE ENTERPRISE IN MY REEFS. PERIOD. I did use if for curing live rock. a few times..... boy do I just love me some cyano and slime ..... yum

All though their floating hydrometers w/ thermometers are nice and in all my tanks

 

We don't know if metals in concentrations high or low are of any serious long term detriment to captive reefs.

Yes they can accumulate in live rock, but to extent does it contribute to decline or "OTS" is still unknown.

 

Trends to use a LOT of additives,

trends of LESS water changes,

trends of ONLY waterchanges,

and now a trend frenzy to get a lowered metal content salt.

 

don't be so quick to jump on the bandwagon.

 

just because it looks good on paper, doesn't mean it is good in your reef.

 

Those are words of advice you can bank on from me and my many years of changing hundreds of thousands of gallons.

 

I'll stick with TM and Aquacraft BioSea Salt.

 

Oh and hey ! look at the ratings of IO....

 

IO + That + pipe = Smoke it.

 

more discussion needed plz.

[Caesar]

I use IO and my tank isn't broke so I'm not fixing it.

[DeskJockey]

caesar- I understand what you mean, but would it really hurt you (or your tank) to try something new that MAY be a little more beneficial to your tank? I mean what is it 8 bucks (at the most)more?

 

Ive been using aqua craft salts for the last month now. I cant say I see a huge difference, heck pretty much nothing at all. But I like those numbers in that report a little more then IO's, but then again I treat my tanks better then I treat myself.

 

"sigh" I get new lights for my 55 but yet to get a new mattress.

[Crakeur]

Hail Caesar - you have the right attitude. If it ain't broke....

 

Desk, the biggest mistake reefers make is ditch their use of a product that is working, and replace it with one that someone told them is a better product. It can only screw up the system. If your tank is thriving using Morton's Table salt, why on earth would you switch to another salt.

[DeskJockey]

Im not saying do a 100% w/c. Just the next time you buy salt give it a try. Ive used IO, Tropic marine, & Aqua craft. I never had problems switching from one to the other. Granted I didnt switch constantly, there was a lot of time between them.

[Crakeur]

I've switched around too and in the past I usually just bought whatever was available at the time but I think, given the size of our tanks, any subtle change is liable to have a major effect on the tank. Why take that risk?

[DeskJockey]

given the size of our tanks, any subtle change is liable to have a major effect on the tank. Why take that risk?

 

This is true. But the same goes for many things like feeding, with say golden pearls. They can be a HUGE bio-load for your tank but they have there benefits, right?

[PFB]

So,...... a decision needs to be made. Do you follow the advice of a PhD (Sometimes referred to as Push Here Dummy) who basis his thesis on extremely detailed and controlled scientific process and procedures or from advice gathered from experienced hobbyists and LFS owners. (no offense intended here to any one, just trying to make a feeble point with a bit of sarcasm)

 

This debate will go on forever. I read in to this that there is potential to actually induce “toxic” elements each time you do a partial water change. If you are a believer in this theory, it would be logical for you to perform frequent, smaller water changes.

 

It’s let the animals die in their own wastes vs. introducing contaminates by performing water changes. Kind of a no win situation.

 

Maybe the answer is, save your discarded water. De-nitrify it through some means, thus purifying it, add new mixed salt water and then do partial water changes of that water – thus detoxifying the new added water. Then use this as your make up water???

 

All sounds like to much work to me, I am going to continue to use IO since I have used it for the past 15 years.....

[Dave ESPI]

crak if some thing is working, why improve it?

 

k.

 

and what kind of car do you drive> ?

 

Better be a horse and buggy.

 

seriously. if something is working, you don't have to change. just weigh the options BEFORE making a change.

What appears better is not always the best... OR it may indeed be the way to go.

IF you can change, why not? if something is doing well, why not have it do great? (damn... I sound like MDP now LOL) ugh.. I gtg outa this thread topic before my ....

 

 

 

ut oh....

 

 

 

 

 

 

too late. x(

[PFB]

BTW, how the heck is a mass-manufactured product ever going to hit a bogie of .000001 ppm of any substance?

[MacnReef]

WOW, thats weird...a head with no bones!

[Crakeur]

Dave, I'm not saying we should all be using whale oil for lights, I just think that, in the case of living creatures, why mess with their systems if it isn't needed. My pediatrician told me that I should never switch formulas unless there is a problem with the one I'm feeding to my daughter. I asked her what the difference was, especially since they recently came out with an advanced formula that is better (supposedly) than the older formula. I told her my sister wants to switch her son to the newer formula and she said it was a big mistake. I think the same would hold true for any other animal. Don't mess with a good thing.

[Dave ESPI]

leave them in the ocean then.

 

end of all problems.

[LiQuiD]

I knew it wouldn't take long for another salt thread. hehehe.

 

The way I look at it, if you read the charts (and every survey comes up with a different result I might add), bottom line is that none come close to the low amounts of bad stuff as does natural sea water (if it should be .0000000001% as in natural sea water, and 1 brand has .01% and the other brand has .02%, it is still way to high to begin with). I would then tend to think back to my silly idea of driving over to the coast (Jersey) and bottle my own. According to most artificial salts, even with the pollutents from around my area, it will still probably be better off.

 

Then again, why not just make your own.....

 

"Recipe" for ASW (Artificial Salt Water):

 

Gravimetric Salts g kg-1 of solution

----------------- -------------------

NaCl 23.923

Na2SO4 4.008

KCl 0.677

NaHCO3 0.196

KBr 0.098

H3BO3 0.026

NaF 0.003

 

Volumetric Salts Moles/kg of Solution Concentration Density*

---------------- -------------------- ------------- -------

MgCl2.6H20 0.05237 1.0 1.071

CaCl2.2H20 0.01033 1.0 1.085

SrCl2.6H2O 0.00009 0.1 1.013

 

The first five reagents are dried and weighed and added to distilled

water. The next two are weighed without drying and then added to the

distilled water solution. After that, aliquots of solutions of the

remaining three salts are added to the solution. Lastly, the solution

mass is adjusted with distilled water to 1000.000 g.

 

* g mL-1 @ 23 degrees C

[OscarBeast]

I think it would benefit everyone if they understood the concept of a false correlation when looking at any statistical information.

 

1) Because something is present in one trial, and absent in another trial doesn’t automatically mean it is the direct cause of the result. This is especially true when you have a multitude of variables. One of the things that may be flawed with this study is the fact it was done with a single organism in its first stage of life. While this may have some relevance, most of us intend to keep corals and fish in our tanks. It is always possible that there is something unique about the test subject that determined the results of this test. It is also possible because of this, that coral and other organisms we keep in our tanks will not be affected in the same way. I am not saying that the test does or does not have relevance with the animals we keep, however it is always something to consider.

 

2) We honestly don’t know what works best in an enclosed environment such as an aquarium. In the ocean, trace elements are in a fairly constant state. In our tanks, any element that is readily used, is in a constant state of depletion as soon as that water is added to our tanks. If we were to use NSW in a tank, as soon as we add it, anything that is readily used starts to become depleted. As a result, it no longer matches the values that NSW has in the ocean. For the health or our livestock in our tanks, salts may have to be formulated to compensate for this constant state of depletion. Our tanks contain corals, but it will never be the ocean. In the same hand, synthetic salt may need to have lower amounts of some elements in order to prevent the buildup of these elements to toxic levels in an enclosed environment such as our tanks. Old tank syndrome is still not fully understood and until it is, a perfect salt will not be able to be developed unless it happens by dumb luck and/or pure speculation.

 

It is easy to be persuaded by statistical information such as the S-15 and this Bioassay by Dr. Ron. You should always keep in mind that statistical information can be manipulated. And statistical information when straight forward may not have as much relevance as you think because of false correlations.

 

I am not trying to convince anyone that either study has been manipulated or has no relevance. I am however trying to make sure everyone keeps an open mind so they may look at any study objectively rather than jumping on the next bandwagon because something looks good. This also doesn’t mean that there is anything wrong with giving something new a try as long as you are willing to take the risk. In this hobby, trying new things many times leads to its betterment.

[DeskJockey]

It is always possible that there is something unique about the test subject that determined the results of this test

 

There is, they are very sensitive. That is why they are widely used in enviromental studies. There well being is a good warning marker that something is not right in the enviroment. His use of a bioassay method is a good one as the EPA and many other government agencies follow the same method.

 

Just thought Id point that out

[OscarBeast]

Sure, good example, but we would have to know that corals and fish have the exact same sensitivities. What kills one organism doesn’t mean that is makes a bit of difference to another.

 

For example, suppose we wanted to do a study on chocolate toxicity... Suppose we chose dogs as the test subject because they are particularly sensitive. When we feed the dogs chocolate, they become sick and some die.

 

Conclusion: Chocolate is toxic and shouldn't be consumed by humans.

 

The problem is that the test subject is particularly sensitive to theobromine found in chocolate that humans are not sensitive to.

 

This is just an example, but things like this do happen.

 

I am not saying that this is the case with the study, but again, something to keep in mind.

[DeskJockey]

good point

 

but dont you like the fact that the EPA uses an organism that is sensitive to water conditions to test the water you drink? Even if it is a little more sensitive to those conditions than you or your kids?

 

Your right we are likely to be more immune to it but even my little sister gets sick as a dog when she eats too much chocolate. =)

 

Either way this whole thing will go on forever, even if a test is done covering all bases. There will always be people contesting against it, its just the way things are.

 

My suggestion to everyone or to the noobie who found this doing a search (if you did one) absorb all the info you can find and make your own conclusion.

 

done

[OscarBeast]

but dont you like the fact that the EPA uses an organism that is sensitive to water conditions to test the water you drink? Even if it is a little more sensitive to those conditions than you or your kids?

 

Yep.

 

I do look foward to a study with a few corals. I do think this study is a step in the right direction though.

[Goliath]

You cant beat using actual sea water if you can get your hands on it for a good price. That should always be the way to go if it can be done.

 

I am curious to know what Kent Marine Salts would get in a test, I am sure it would be in the same range as IO and AquaSalts..

 

Science experiments like this is what needs to be done and shouldnt be bashed or followed like the holy grail.. but it is something to turn an eye to and look at. Just because your reef tank is running fine now with the mixed salts doesnt mean a long term problem is brewing in your tank just waiting to raise havok that could be prevented or suppressed if it was real sea water.

 

Just my 2 cents, what do I know

 

Jeremy