Article Discussion: New Salt Study

[The Apprentice]

Supplementing for Calcium

Thanks for the reply Nikki I haven't been adding or supplementing My calcuim levels but I do 27 gallon water changes weekly in both tanks trying to eliminate the need to add aditives

 

[NaH2O]

snprhed - Welcome to Reef Frontiers!!!

 

[WaterDogs]

For those having salt problems and want to change then try Aqua Craft Marine Environment salt for a truly balanced reef mix; delivered to your doorstep here: www.aquacraft.net

 

[NaH2O]

WaterDogs...didn't you find a piece of cardboard in your AquaCraft salt one time?

Why all the Lithium in Aquacraft? 70X higher than NSW

 

[Boomer]

Nikki

Bromine, actually bromide, no. Only that tests in the past are nowhere near these levels. I question the test methods and possible interferences with its sister chloride ion .

A quick search for you showed this comment

If an electron multiplier detector is being used, precautions should be taken, where necessary, to prevent exposure to high ion flux. Otherwise, changes in instrument response or damage to the multiplier may result. This may be true for samples containing bromide in the parts per million range

and then there is this;

Ion chromatography coupled to the inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry: Separation and detection of bromide and bromate

I saw nothing of a IC coupled to a ICP-MS or IC - ICPMS

Most of the old salt tests are from years ago and show no such Bromide. There was a time when borimde was not added at all and now in more recent times it has been added back in. There are no up to date tests on bromide in salt mixes other than this latest study by Inland. But I still do not buy it

 

[Maxx]

For those having salt problems and want to change then try Aqua Craft Marine Environment salt for a truly balanced reef mix; delivered to your doorstep here: www.aquacraft.net

I might have considered buying Aquacraft had I not seen many discussions on RAG and RC where MDP, (Owner of Aquacraft) bashed other salt manufacturers, made allegations regarding the competition that couldnt be proved, refused to answer pointed questions regarding his salt and the allegations he made against other salt manufacturers, and generally acted like a horses ass towards myself and others who had the audacity to ask him questions....after he started threads and invited people to ask him questions.

No disrespect intended towards you Waterdogs, if you're happy with Aquacraft salts then I'm glad for you and I wish you well, sincerely.

Personally, if Aquacraft was the only Salt manufacturer on the planet, I'd quit the hobby.


Boomer, so your saying you feel there was an error in this test regarding the Bromine/Bromide levels in the tested Salts?

Nick

 

[Boomer]

Nick

Yes, maybe an error. Randy also says the same thing, he does not believe those levels

Aquacraft. If the guy, MDP, shut his flippin' big mouth, long ago, he would probably have the best selling salt. Its more than 20 years and he still has not figured that out yet, to shut-up.

 

[WaterDogs]

Am I on RC?

 

[wrightme43]

Naaaa I think they would of banned me by now. LOL I went and checked out the link to aquacraft. I do have to say that the sales tactic of bashing I.O. kinda turned me off to it. I mean I can look at too many succesful tanks with what is being said will kill everything. I am not knocking the salt at all. I am sure it will do great. Just that I learned along time ago to praise my competion so that when I beat the pants off them, it looks even better because I was competing against the best instead of drunken inbred monkeys. LOL
See that right there would get me banned, and probley you for reading it. LOL

 

[Scooterman]

Note to self!!
Self Keep an eye on wrightme43!

 

[plack]

To me these were the highlight's and I agree with pondfrog's statement's and would like to add the more we learn the more questions we have.

"But, clearly, every salt manufacturer plans for a salinity less than full strength sea water when advertising the yield of their bags"

"We came to the unfortunate conclusion that no consumer test kit on the market today is accurate enough for these purposes. In some cases, even a basic trend was difficult to obtain (i.e., higher concentration reference samples sometimes failed to actually test higher)."

And I wonder ? Are the batches that inconsistent or are the tests that in accurate after reading -----------------------------------------------
--- "Silver and Tellurium were below the test's 5 ppb detection limit for all salts. Interestingly, Silver levels for Instant Ocean and Coralife were reported at 248 ppb and 410 ppb respectively in the 1999 Atkinson and Bingman study."

Oceanic had the most aluminum of all (this time) and that was not even mentioned !!!----------------------------------------------------------
" This is one of the elements called out in Dr. Shimek's study as showing significantly higher toxicity levels for Instant Ocean and Coralife as compared to Bio-Sea MarineMix and Crystal Sea Bio-Assay. As can be seen, Bio-Sea MarineMix tested with the second highest Aluminum concentration and Crystal Sea Bio-Assay was comparable to Instant Ocean."

 

[NaH2O]

Part two of the article is out: Inland Reef Aquaria Salt Study Part II

Who can say with quantitative certainty which elements are more important to the life in our tanks? Are excess Copper levels worse than excess Arsenic levels? Is a Strontium deficiency more or less critical than a Magnesium deficiency? There are hundreds of such questions that could be argued endlessly. We will not attempt it. We can, however, note those pieces of data that "stick out" and try to summarize which salts seem to get which elements right, i.e.; are closest to NSW levels or correctly minimize the subjectively "bad" elements and elevate the subjectively "good" ones.

How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie brand Tootsie Pop? The world may never know

What do you look for when choosing a salt? Which data are most important to you, when reviewing the salt study?

 

[sryder]

so whats it all mean. the tests were a big difference between the two. Was it for formulation change of instant ocean or for the testing procedures and or the testers. For me I have to go by what realy seems to work. I have to go by experienced reef keepers and from what seems to work for them. I would believe more of what is said here than to studies that i dont know all procedures, conditions and people.

 

[jeffkeith_us]

The bad guys are in all salts, but you can get them out.

The one salt I wanted to see another test run on was Reef Crystals, too much copper. Another would have been Seachem's new salt. I had trouble growing Nannochloropus(Green water) two years ago while using Reef Crystals, but no trouble growing it with Instant Ocean. I now use Tropic Marine and don't have any trouble. The growth rates of coral and anemone are just as good. It's possible that Instant Ocean is best in a tank or tray dedicated just to anemones, like E. quadracolor as they can't use strontium and too much iodine will burn them.
The salts that are high in Copper are good for keeping down disease. So I think salts that have high levels of copper are good for quarantining higher order animals, but even in quarantine I like using pro-biotics.
I feel the same as Nikki about the motive for this new round of tests. I don't like what I read in either part one or part two. All of what Dr. Ron Shimek has in print has worked-out quite well for me in the area of growth and production of Anemones, Anphipods, and Copepods.
We do need some of the raw materials to be on the high side for use in each different type of aquarium or grow-out tank. Of coarse some elements, like copper, need to be gotten down to and held at a naturally low level. While calcium, iodine, magnesium, and strontium are used up in a reef aquarium at a very rapid rate. It just makes sense to utilize salts with higher levels of these and other inorganic nutritive substances and raw minerals.
Heavy elements that we don't want are remove quite easily by vascular plants like seagrass, mangroves, and saltwater marsh plants. Take a look at the Tunze website www.tunze.com. Go to the "Comline" link and look at the Bio-Hydro-Reactor. Afterward go back to the catalog page and click on the "SYSTEM Kits" link, then the "SYSTEM Reactors" link and look at the Hydroponics reactors.
Also read the article by Charles Matthews, on The Benefits of Photosynthetic Refugiums in the 2006 annual issue of Marine Fish and Reef magazine.

 

[Scooterman]

I like salt

If you start your tank with one particular brand should you make risk changing them to the latest fad or salt study? One thing sticks out is that none of these are close to NSW & they can change the mixture of their mix @ any given whim, so doesn't that scare you?

 

[jeffkeith_us]

Just the thought of doing anything to my fish on a whim scares me, to answer a bated question. I learned to trust Dr. Shimek way back when I was trying to save my first anemone, which I still have. I got it from a LFS (bleached-out, of course) and they told me to do all the same things that all the websites like Dr's. Foster & Smith were saying. Then I got his book on anemones "Host Sea Anemone Secrets" and found out who knew what they were talking about.
Jeff

 

[steve-s]

How long ago is "way back"? (in regards to having the anemone)

Cheers
Steve

 

[wave98]

I see this thread has been "napping" for a couple of weeks.

A point of interest. From part II, there are a lot of math errors in the charts.

from the Bio-Sea MarineMix chart: ( from chart values )

corrected calculations :

Lithium + 283%
Magnesium + 20%
Manganese + 100%
Nickel - 25%
Strontium -34%

The comparison of Instant Ocean from 1999 values, to current values chart:

Ten of the values in the chart are over 100% in "the negative". these values are invalid.

values below 100% negative = "dark matter"

I can't say if it impacts the "conclusions" that are implied, but now you know better than to reference the grossly inaccurate numbers.

> Wave98

 

[Scooterman]

Think that is bad check out the Bio-Sea web site & add up his numbers on their products lol

 

[dgasmd]

Someone asked Shimek in RC a while back after the second article what he thought abou it. After a rather long reply and somewhat of a short thread, I posted something, which I hope is OK to reproduce here.

quote:Originally posted by rshimek
I would note the point here that in my bioassay/toxicity study, I didn't test the composition of the salts; I couldn't afford to, and it was irrelevent. The composition was irrelevent - only the survival was relevent. There is no way of telling which components or mixture of components may or may not be lethal.

Like I said, I think the data are fine. They answer a question, "What is in the salt on the date those particular mixes were purchased?"

That is, however, the wrong question, the question that should be asked is, "Can any given salt support delicate animal life when mixed? My bioassays were run 24 hours after the salt was mixed and 2 of the 4 salts tested resulted in significant mortaility. Why they did is not our problem, it is the salt manufacturers' problem. Our problem is chose a salt that is good from the mixing, not after having to be "conditioned" in a tank.

quote:Originally posted by dgasmd
I read the original article back when Dr. Shimek's results were published and drew my own personal conclusions. All of which are besides the point anyway. Regardless, I did not change my use of IO, which to this date, right or not, continious. However, I, like many others, had/have a serious question with no answer to this date:

If the 2 salts pointed by the bioassay results of Dr. Shimek's study are better at survival, how come hundreds of people switching to those salts from IO and others reported from coral stress to complete tank crashes? Almost every single person I know that tried them had major problems. We are not talking about a complete system water change to the new salt, but rather just started use the salts pointed by Dr. Shimek's study in their customary and regular water changes. And that ranged from a 2-<10% water change with no other variable changes. The moment they went back to their old salt use, whichever that was, it made the problems stop or stabilize. I completely agree with Dr. Shimek when he says The composition was irrelevent - only the survival was relevent. , but give me some theories as to the reasons for the problems with the practical use of the salts in a reef aquarium.

Some people jumped in with silly arguments and reasons of "too quick of a change" without thinking of the practical chains of custody corals go through before making it to your tank. They go from the ocean, to the holding facility, to an exporter, to the bag in transport, to the wholesaler, to the LFS, and finally to your tank. Does anyone in their wildest dream think that all those middle points use the same salt as the end user? That is just ridiculous given most corals that make it to your personal tanks have gone through "dips" in several saltwater compositions in a matter of days.