tamarindthai
Well-known member
I/O salt had been out and known as good salt for long time,,,,what can we do about this new I/O salt now 
,I/O rep should know about it ?
,I/O rep should know about it ?
IO salt problems?
- Thread starter Skeptic9962
- Start date
Help Support Reef Aquarium & Tank Building Forum:
Boomer
Well-known member
More testing is needed on the IO as only 1 10 gal box was tested.
Kurt_Nelson
Well-known member
Not doubting your test results Boomer, but I just wanted to note that according to an email I received yesterday from the good folks making IO/RC, there has been no formulation change to either IO or RC - it was just a packaging change. I didn't ask about consistency issues though...
DonW
R.I.P.
If they havent changed the formula then their is a quality control issue. Something in it is screwing with ca test kits and nitrates have been high enough for me to rename it instant cyano. Im sure they will get it fixed but in the mean time even oceanic has been better.
Don
Kurt_Nelson
Well-known member
I don't doubt that one bit. That's the reason I test every new bucket I get. I've gotten lucky... so far.
Boomer
Well-known member
Well Kurt, sorry but my info comes deep within the IO/RC people making it from a very reliable source who has worked for them for many years. Salt companies rarely tell you if they change the formula even if you ask as you did. That is why a friend of mine was running new tests on it. He test all salts as a hobby. His thread on RC has 1,000 posts and 100,000 views.
Kurt_Nelson
Well-known member
Well then the folks at United Pet Group are pretty stupid for having their customer service reps give out knowingly false info when asked a direct question. (Guess I should add "in my opinion" to that!)
Seems to me that causing confusion as to the formulation will just drive people to other salts. I mean... if they've truly changed the formula, then in effect I'm changing salts when I start using the new buckets. The whole reason I stick with RC is because I know what to do with it to make it what I want, and I've had no major issues with it. If I have to go back and figure that out all over again, and risk new problems with my tank, then what's to keep me with RC? Sorry... just a rant that I hope some bonehead at United reads. Guess there's a reason they're in bankruptcy...
Seems to me that causing confusion as to the formulation will just drive people to other salts. I mean... if they've truly changed the formula, then in effect I'm changing salts when I start using the new buckets. The whole reason I stick with RC is because I know what to do with it to make it what I want, and I've had no major issues with it. If I have to go back and figure that out all over again, and risk new problems with my tank, then what's to keep me with RC? Sorry... just a rant that I hope some bonehead at United reads. Guess there's a reason they're in bankruptcy...
Kurt_Nelson
Well-known member
Sorry for the previous rant... tried to edit it but I guess I waited too long!
If they really did change the formulations THAT much, then I don't see why they didn't just come out with a "new" salt and leave the old formulations at the proportions they were at. They could have "Reef Crystals" and "Reef Crystals Pro"... or "Reef Crystals HiGrade"... or... you get the point. That way, instead of just pushing the "new" formulation down everyone's throat and risking losing customers, you actually give yourself the ability to pick up new ones while maintaining the existing ones. Oh well... guess it's not my company.
If they really did change the formulations THAT much, then I don't see why they didn't just come out with a "new" salt and leave the old formulations at the proportions they were at. They could have "Reef Crystals" and "Reef Crystals Pro"... or "Reef Crystals HiGrade"... or... you get the point. That way, instead of just pushing the "new" formulation down everyone's throat and risking losing customers, you actually give yourself the ability to pick up new ones while maintaining the existing ones. Oh well... guess it's not my company.
Boomer
Well-known member
Did you call UPG or AS ?
AS
1-800-822-1100, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time.
Two sources tell me it was changed and new tests showed it is changed. It can't all be just coincidence. And if it hasn't they there are some very serious issues with qauity control. I'll check with another guy.
AS
1-800-822-1100, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time.
Two sources tell me it was changed and new tests showed it is changed. It can't all be just coincidence. And if it hasn't they there are some very serious issues with qauity control. I'll check with another guy.
Kurt_Nelson
Well-known member
I emailed UPG. I'm going to give the guy that responded to me a call tomorrow because of what I just found out...
I've used RC ever since I started my tank, and it's always tested for me about 360 Ca and 8 dKh alkalinity using DI water, mixed to 1.025. I've been lucky and have always had pretty consistent results.
I tested the unopened bucket of RC that I'd just bought - with the new packaging. I mixed some up Monday night and dropped a powerhead in it. It's now Tuesday night and test results are...
SG 1.024 (a little lower than I normally mix...)
Ca... 400 ppm (salifert)
Alk... 12 dKh (API)
Mg... 1140 ppm (salifert)
pH... 8.2-8.3 (API)
Nitrates... not 0, but less than 0.2 ppm (salifert)
Phosphates... none measurable (salifert)
Even with the somewhat lower salinity than I normally mix up at, the alkalinity was obviously very different. Calcium was definitely higher. Granted... I'm not saying these numbers are exact, but I always test the same way, in the same room lighting, using the same test kits... and this bucket came out higher than normal.
Yup... they changed something. The numbers look good, but I'm just worried about what we may be compromising to get those numbers. Whether or not I was lied to by UPG... that's a different issue. I suppose it gets down to what their allowable tolerances are for things like calcium. I mean... if they have a +/- 10% tolerance on calcium levels, and their "normal" levels are 380, then me getting buckets that in the past have been 360, and now are 400+ are all within that 10% tolerance band. But it sure seems strange if "things haven't changed" that I suddenly get a bucket with substantially higher alkalinity and higher calcium.
OK... guess I'm on the "they changed the formula" bandwagon. I'll definitely have to keep a closer eye on things as the new bucket starts working it's way into the tank.
I've used RC ever since I started my tank, and it's always tested for me about 360 Ca and 8 dKh alkalinity using DI water, mixed to 1.025. I've been lucky and have always had pretty consistent results.
I tested the unopened bucket of RC that I'd just bought - with the new packaging. I mixed some up Monday night and dropped a powerhead in it. It's now Tuesday night and test results are...
SG 1.024 (a little lower than I normally mix...)
Ca... 400 ppm (salifert)
Alk... 12 dKh (API)
Mg... 1140 ppm (salifert)
pH... 8.2-8.3 (API)
Nitrates... not 0, but less than 0.2 ppm (salifert)
Phosphates... none measurable (salifert)
Even with the somewhat lower salinity than I normally mix up at, the alkalinity was obviously very different. Calcium was definitely higher. Granted... I'm not saying these numbers are exact, but I always test the same way, in the same room lighting, using the same test kits... and this bucket came out higher than normal.
Yup... they changed something. The numbers look good, but I'm just worried about what we may be compromising to get those numbers. Whether or not I was lied to by UPG... that's a different issue. I suppose it gets down to what their allowable tolerances are for things like calcium. I mean... if they have a +/- 10% tolerance on calcium levels, and their "normal" levels are 380, then me getting buckets that in the past have been 360, and now are 400+ are all within that 10% tolerance band. But it sure seems strange if "things haven't changed" that I suddenly get a bucket with substantially higher alkalinity and higher calcium.
OK... guess I'm on the "they changed the formula" bandwagon. I'll definitely have to keep a closer eye on things as the new bucket starts working it's way into the tank.
Boomer
Well-known member
Kurt, it is offcial
Ok, here is the official response, and you can quote" an official source" with this.
Reef Crystals formula was modified slightly a couple of months ago when we launched the new packaging. (FWIW, Kevin Kohen took the photo we use on the new RC package!). The salt should now contain, at 35ppt, Calcium 455, Mag1345. 13dkh. There is a +/- 5% tolerance in the manufacturing process, so you may see 430-480 on Calcium etc.
The IO formula has not been changed, however, we have implemented some additional quality control checks in our processes which should result in a more consistant product. IO at 35ppt should be 400 Calcium, 1350 Mag, 13dkh, again at +/- 5%.
Ok, here is the official response, and you can quote" an official source" with this.
Reef Crystals formula was modified slightly a couple of months ago when we launched the new packaging. (FWIW, Kevin Kohen took the photo we use on the new RC package!). The salt should now contain, at 35ppt, Calcium 455, Mag1345. 13dkh. There is a +/- 5% tolerance in the manufacturing process, so you may see 430-480 on Calcium etc.
The IO formula has not been changed, however, we have implemented some additional quality control checks in our processes which should result in a more consistant product. IO at 35ppt should be 400 Calcium, 1350 Mag, 13dkh, again at +/- 5%.
Kurt_Nelson
Well-known member
Thanks Boomer. Perhaps that explains why the guy that told me "no change" is not returning my phone calls today! Also good to know their manufacturing tolerances.
It's odd that they didn't/aren't making this public knowledge, don't you think? Seems like rather than have the truth dribble out over the course of months, with people running away from their salt because they didn't know what they were getting, they'd come out with a "You Complained/We Listened" type of campaign. Go figure.
While I don't use IO, I find it odd they claim it comes in at 400/13 for ca/alk. That seems pretty high compared to what folks in the real world find.
It's odd that they didn't/aren't making this public knowledge, don't you think? Seems like rather than have the truth dribble out over the course of months, with people running away from their salt because they didn't know what they were getting, they'd come out with a "You Complained/We Listened" type of campaign. Go figure.
While I don't use IO, I find it odd they claim it comes in at 400/13 for ca/alk. That seems pretty high compared to what folks in the real world find.
tamarindthai
Well-known member
people running away from their salt because they didn't know what they were getting
this is the good one,,,I/O ,,salt is better wake up and identify what is going on quick
this is the good one,,,I/O ,,salt is better wake up and identify what is going on quick
Skeptic9962
Well-known member
every bucket that ive tested with the new labeling just regular IO not RC has been at 12-14dkh but before that it was lower around 9 or so with the older buckets....isnt 14dkh a bit high? i know for me i try to keep it between 8-9 and when i do a LARGE change going from 8 or so and adding 12-14dkh back into the tank i would think could lead to some potential problems......
Skeptic9962
Well-known member
doesnt make sense to me.....this would mean that IO is higher in mag then RC? and only difference would be a tiny bit more calc.......
Kurt_Nelson
Well-known member
Yeah... that didn't make sense to me either. Unless they're planning to get rid of one or the other...
On the other hand, who really tests IO at 400 Ca in the first place?
On the other hand, who really tests IO at 400 Ca in the first place?
Boomer
Well-known member
Kurt my source tells me they never do this. I do not see why myself. We are going to figure it out by testing sooner or later so why the hell hide it. I think SeaChem was the only one when they announced (most form the beatings me and Randy gave them) that they have lowered the Borate for, 10 x to 3 x. And we applauded SeaChem for doing that. I am clueless why most salt manufacture have their heads up their butts, when for 25 years all we have asked for is a salt with parameters close to NSW and they just can't or won't and have ever excuse in the book there is.
Skeptic
The original idea behind RC was to have a salt with more Ca++ and little more Mg++ as that is what many were whining about with IO. If it would have been at or just above NSW to begin with there would be no such thing as RC.
Skeptic
The original idea behind RC was to have a salt with more Ca++ and little more Mg++ as that is what many were whining about with IO. If it would have been at or just above NSW to begin with there would be no such thing as RC.
