PDA

View Full Version : Salt study results from MACNA conference


Angel*Fish
09/24/2006, 05:38 PM
The preliminary results are out - Red Sea & Reef Crystal are sort of tied for best and Instant Ocean was the worst out of the 10 tested....

Eric Borneman and Kim Lowe gave their presentation this morning - the study was only finished two days ago and so the data has not been completely compiled and processed yet

Andrew
09/24/2006, 05:43 PM
Guess I use the worst salt. ;)

Angel*Fish
09/24/2006, 05:47 PM
Me too! :lol:

Here's a link to the study http://www.marshreef.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=20


And here's the Key: Note -- not the order of results!!!

A Coralife
B Reef Crystals
C HW Marine Mix
D Crystal sea
E Tropic Marin
F Red sea
G Kent
H Oceanic
I
K Natural sea water - control

And here's a link to the article by Eric Borneman regarding the study in RC Magazine
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-09/eb/index.php

marinelife
09/24/2006, 06:06 PM
This is interesting, use IO as well, Can not wait to see the final results

sjm817
09/24/2006, 06:08 PM
I always spring for the whopping extra $3 per 160G bucket of RC over IO.

Angel*Fish
09/24/2006, 06:18 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8213086#post8213086 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by sjm817
I always spring for the whopping extra $3 per 160G bucket of RC over IO.

Well I guess you knew it it was better - I talked to the Instant Ocean rep and he acted like any idiot should know that RC are for reefs and IO shouldn't be used for them - but from the study, and this is preliminary, it looked like IO wouldn't be great for a fish only tank either --- I hate to admit it, but until today, I've just used IO because many successful reefers say it's good/ok. I haven't done the proper reading on the different salt

But at least I'm in good company E.Borneman says he uses IO or what ever is on sale

fsn77
09/24/2006, 06:23 PM
Interesting... who knew $3 could make up the difference between worst to first?!?

I'm definitely interested in seeing the final report once it comes out.

marinelife
09/24/2006, 06:25 PM
I use IO because the is all that we have around here in buckets, The LFS only sell IO

sjm817
09/24/2006, 06:27 PM
I had no clue. I just figured for the extra $3 (DR FosterSmith), what the heck. I've never seen or heard of any complaints of IO. In fact RHF uses it and he knows his stuff.

Also interested in the full report.

Angel*Fish
09/24/2006, 06:27 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8213171#post8213171 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by marinelife
I use IO because the is all that we have around here in buckets, The LFS only sell IO
Well I saw the Reef Crystals in buckets too, so it seems like your LFS's shouldn't have any trouble getting them, if you want them -- they come from the same factory

Fatboy
09/24/2006, 06:31 PM
Which letter is Instant Ocean..... J ? I don't see any pictures of I.

marinelife
09/24/2006, 06:31 PM
Yeah I may have to see if they will order it in

UnderwaterExotic
09/24/2006, 06:43 PM
Personal Preference!!!

LOTUS50GOD
09/24/2006, 07:00 PM
My experience is that IO is low in Mg. Most reefers dont check Mg when they check for Ca.

Angel*Fish
09/24/2006, 07:19 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8213203#post8213203 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Fatboy
Which letter is Instant Ocean..... J ? I don't see any pictures of I.

Sorry - yes Instant Ocean was "J"

chrismunn
09/24/2006, 07:21 PM
i knew i shouldnt have left so early. so red sea salt huh? i just read an article on advanced aquarist online mag about thier salt study. there study consisted of finding out what concentration of each compound was in a various amount of salt brands, and which ones had the highest concentrations of toxic heavy metals.
in that study, it was recorded that instant ocean, and tropic marin salts had the closest values to natural sea water. i was trying to find the link, but i cant even find the web site anymore...

kappaknight
09/24/2006, 07:35 PM
Very interesting... I just switched from IO to reef crystals due to some threads here about the increased Ca and other levels. I'm glad I bought two buckets of RC instead of two buckets of IO.

stereomandan
09/24/2006, 07:57 PM
I remember old studies that showed IO to be great. How big was the sample size, just one random bucket or bag?

:edit: I see that they took 11 random samples of each salt. Not bad!

Dan

hypermikie
09/24/2006, 08:35 PM
I have always had good sucess with my Crappy IO....
;)

thor32766
09/24/2006, 08:35 PM
yeah spend the 3 extra bucks and get the RC!

drives300
09/24/2006, 08:54 PM
But isnt red sea cheaper than IO. If its just as good as RC why not use it? Ive always been meaning to try it because I heard it was derived from natural seawater. I just started a new tank and went with Oceanic, I figured it was cheeper to add baking soda to increase alk than to buy calcium supplements. Cant wait to see the results.

notenoughtanks
09/24/2006, 09:00 PM
I've been using IO from day one and have had one inch frags grow into 12 inch colonies, huh. Also never lost a single sps, wild or cultured. Guess I also use a **** load of C- Balance. I have always thought go with what works, maybe i'll try RC

fmuakkassa
09/24/2006, 09:14 PM
I am waiting for the results too. I use Tropic Marin Pro.

I bet that IO will be re-named and repackaged to hide the results. If you read Consumer Reports you'll notice that. As soon as a product gets bad ratings the manufacturers re-name it and confuse the consumer.

3.99AfterTaxes
09/24/2006, 09:24 PM
I wish they would have tested some of the Euro brands... Doh well, good to know!

vanmo92
09/24/2006, 09:30 PM
I also use just regular IO. But i have a FOWLR tank so i dont really worry bout' getting all the extra calcium, magneesium, etc.

Justin74
09/24/2006, 09:34 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8212896#post8212896 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Angel*Fish
The preliminary results are out - Red Sea & Reef Crystal are sort of tied for best and Instant Ocean was the worst out of the 10 tested....



Other than best and worst do you have the rest of the order? Or is that the part that needs compiling?
Ive, been waiting for this too :)

-Justin

mummra100769
09/24/2006, 09:52 PM
this was the biggest seminar for me at the entire three day thing and man oh man was i surprised. i will be going back to red sea esp. now since they have an RO version that just came out. i have never heard borneman speak in person but was very pleased how detailed his preliminary results were presented.

i took what seemed like 20 or 30 pics of the slide show showing the progression of the tanks over the ten month period and detailed notes. even though none of this is scientific if you guys saw the pics it was pretty obvious what salt was consistent. good job red sea.

i am happy that months ago on one of the plentifull salt threads on here i was one of just a few that said they liked red sea and used it often. i am now on a mission to bring it back to our LFS so i can once again be a red sea user.

i do not know if anybody else mentioned this but both speakers said they used what ever salt was on sale (except 40 fathoms for phosphate reasons) kinda interesting.

mummra100769
09/24/2006, 09:55 PM
do you think its ok to post pics? i have all but one slide of the presentation.

ReefMonger
09/24/2006, 10:21 PM
Do it. I just went back to red sea last month. I had been using IO but my mag levels dropped badly and lost some corals before I figured it out. My theory always was everything is more colorful in the Red Sea. There must be a reason why not use salt that is mostly natural from the red sea

tylorarm
09/24/2006, 10:28 PM
Did they test Tropic Marin or Tropic Marin Pro?

melev
09/25/2006, 01:40 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8214650#post8214650 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mummra100769
do you think its ok to post pics? i have all but one slide of the presentation.

Yes, it is okay to post pictures and share what you heard. I'd love to hear it myself because I missed that talk today.

UnderwaterExotic
09/25/2006, 03:25 AM
Did they say anything about Oceanic? Thats what i use and works well!

Snakebyt
09/25/2006, 04:14 AM
I have always used IO as well....

64Ivy
09/25/2006, 06:03 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8212896#post8212896 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Angel*Fish
The preliminary results are out - Red Sea & Reef Crystal are sort of tied for best and Instant Ocean was the worst out of the 10 tested...

Yes, but then Marinemix Bioassay turned out to be one of the better ones and many of us recall the collateral damage caused when THAT bandwagon crashed a few years back. Even Kim and Eric repeatedly said all of the data wasn't in. so before we all start shipping our buckets of IO to the landfill (again), let's take a collective deep breath, look at the health of our OWN tanks, and wait for the rest of the information to come in.

JB NY
09/25/2006, 06:16 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8215600#post8215600 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by 64Ivy
Yes, but then Marinemix Bioassay turned out to be one of the better ones and many of us recall the collateral damage caused when THAT bandwagon crashed a few years back. Even Kim and Eric repeatedly said all of the data wasn't in. so before we all start shipping our buckets of IO to the landfill (again), let's take a collective deep breath, look at the health of our OWN tanks, and wait for the rest of the information to come in.

Yeah I would wait till the data is more formal as well. I got burned real bad from the Crystal Seas salt a few years ago. Even though is was not good news, I was happy with some of their findings. Mainly the cyano with using IO. When I used IO, I just could not get rid of the cyano no matter what I did. Eventually I just felt that no matter what someone did a little cyano was always going to be present. So I find it very interesting that the IO tank was plagued with cyano.

Also it was good to see that the two tanks that seemed to fair well were using salts that many, many reefers use and has been on the market for some time. So I'm not a worried that those salts might cause any problems in our tanks.

Oceanic is what I had used for the last two years on my tank. That tank didn't seem to fair too bad, in the end it has slightly more algae than the best tanks but I think that it showed good growth with corals.

plandy
09/25/2006, 07:16 AM
While the test offers interesting information & additional pressure on manufacturers to maintain high standards it is far from conclusive. My Salifert test for Mg turned out above standard. In fact all my chemical parameters are rock solid with everything thriving. Cyano was never a problem here. If anything I found coraline a bit too slow to catch on but it's growing now. I am not going to fix something that's not broken :p

JB NY
09/25/2006, 07:38 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8215868#post8215868 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by plandy
Cyano was never a problem here.

I think it's important to note that in this test they did nothing to control phosphates, which most reefers do. Also I believe that there were no skimmers used on the tanks, just water changes. So it is entirely possible that a tank that shows algae problems in their test might not in someone home as they are actively doing things to remove N and P from the water. I think one way of looking at the results is that you might be successful with one salt, but maybe another might make things a little easier on you.

FMarini
09/25/2006, 07:47 AM
Guys and Marie-
your jumping the gun here. Eric & Kim did NOT say what was worst or best. Eric showed qualatative data(pictures) they used their eyes and a camera. They made statements based on a picture. Please wait until they crunch the numbers and let the real non-subjective data allow for a decision.

I too was in attendence and saw the pictures and while it was clear some salts facilitated nuscience algae growth and others didn't, however the end result was which salt was better for the growth and survival of our tank organisms -their hypothesis-remember.

So I'll hold my judgement til I see the compiled data. Thats science.

However I will say that I was surprised to see that a couple of the salt mixes had resting algae spores and copepod cysts in them, that was crazy

reefdood
09/25/2006, 07:54 AM
I've always used IO. I find, when mixed to a S.G. of 0.124, Ca., Alk., and Mg. are all right where I want them. If they're not, a little Randy's homebrew can fix that.

I also love being able to print up the petsmart online price and walk out of the local store with a bucket for $35. ;) Which allows me to do more water changs = healthier system. :)

IndyMatt
09/25/2006, 08:52 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8214827#post8214827 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by tylorarm
Did they test Tropic Marin or Tropic Marin Pro?

I am wondering the same thing, I believe it was regular Tropic Marin from the very limited research I looked at.

dc
09/25/2006, 09:13 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8215600#post8215600 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by 64Ivy
Yes, but then Marinemix Bioassay turned out to be one of the better ones and many of us recall the collateral damage caused when THAT bandwagon crashed a few years back. Even Kim and Eric repeatedly said all of the data wasn't in. so before we all start shipping our buckets of IO to the landfill (again), let's take a collective deep breath, look at the health of our OWN tanks, and wait for the rest of the information to come in.

:lol: You remember that too huh?

conefree
09/25/2006, 09:23 AM
Looking forward to the results and holding my own until they come out...:rollface:

Fatboy
09/25/2006, 09:26 AM
We want to see those pictures........

Angel*Fish
09/25/2006, 09:46 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8215995#post8215995 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by FMarini
Guys and Marie-
your jumping the gun here. Eric & Kim did NOT say what was worst or best. Eric showed qualatative data(pictures) they used their eyes and a camera. They made statements based on a picture. Please wait until they crunch the numbers and let the real non-subjective data allow for a decision.

I too was in attendence and saw the pictures and while it was clear some salts facilitated nuscience algae growth and others didn't, however the end result was which salt was better for the growth and survival of our tank organisms -their hypothesis-remember.

So I'll hold my judgement til I see the compiled data. Thats science.

However I will say that I was surprised to see that a couple of the salt mixes had resting algae spores and copepod cysts in them, that was crazy

Frank, if you think everybody is not dying to & going to talk about this while waiting for the non-subjective data & number crunching - well, c'mom now!!!! :D

And don't pick on me ;) My post said the results were "preliminary" and that "the study was only finished two days ago and so the data has not been completely compiled and processed yet" and even followed up in a subsequent post with "and this is preliminary"

As far as not saying RS & RC looked "best" - you must have missed it. And Kim was v-e-r-y clear in the very beginning of the talk about Tank J (IO) starting out badly & never getting any better.

If someone remembers Eric's exact words about Resf Crystals & Red Sea, please post - but the point was that these two appeared to outperform the other salts in these preliminary findings.

And the observations were not only in regards to growth of nuisance algae - there was also observation of coral growth, macroalgae and fish mortalilty.

And unless I am mistaken, this board is not restricted to strict scientific discussion -

While few of us are scientists, it's not as if the we are not intelligent enough to handle this "juicy" bit of info.
If you think this info shouldn't be shared maybe Eric would be the person to "call down".

miwoodar
09/25/2006, 09:53 AM
I look forward to seeing the final results - hopefully they will include good tables and graphs.

Many of us watch our water parameters so closely it probably doesn't matter what kind of salt we start with. I just want to know what deficiencies my salt may have so I have an idea of what kind of adjustments might be needed. I don't mind adding a teaspoon of this or that...it would only take 30 seconds to dump something in.

djtodd
09/25/2006, 09:54 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8216621#post8216621 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Angel*Fish
If someone remebers Eric's exact words about Resf Crystals & Red Sea, please post - but the point was that these two appeared to outperform the other salts in these preliminary findings.

Nah, I'd prefer to just panic, ditch my IO and go buy Oceanic. :)

conefree
09/25/2006, 09:57 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8216656#post8216656 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by miwoodar
I look forward to seeing the final results - hopefully they will include good tables and graphs.

Many of us watch our water parameters so closely it probably doesn't matter what kind of salt we start with. I just want to know what deficiencies my salt may have so I have an idea of what kind of adjustments might be needed. I don't mind adding a teaspoon of this or that...it would only take 30 seconds to dump something in.

yes yes bring on the pretty pictures :D Shock and awe.

Angel*Fish
09/25/2006, 10:06 AM
Added to above post

IndyMatt
09/25/2006, 10:17 AM
You would think that if there was nothing to be gained from the preliminary results Eric would not have provided them.

My $.02

BumpinTJ24
09/25/2006, 10:24 AM
Frank, if you think everybody is not dying to & going to talk about this while waiting for the non-subjective data & number crunching - well, c'mom now!!!!

And don't pick on me My post said the results were "preliminary" and that "the study was only finished two days ago and so the data has not been completely compiled and processed yet" and even followed up in a subsequent post with "and this is preliminary"

As far as not saying RS & RC looked "best" - you must have missed it. And Kim was v-e-r-y clear in the very beginning of the talk about Tank J (IO) starting out badly & never getting any better.

If someone remembers Eric's exact words about Resf Crystals & Red Sea, please post - but the point was that these two appeared to outperform the other salts in these preliminary findings.

And the observations were not only in regards to growth of nuisance algae - there was also observation of coral growth, macroalgae and fish mortalilty.

And unless I am mistaken, this board is not restricted to strict scientific discussion -

While few of us are scientists, it's not as if the we are not intelligent enough to handle this "juicy" bit of info.
If you think this info shouldn't be shared maybe Eric would be the person to "call down".

Well said Angel*Fish.

Kurt03
09/25/2006, 10:31 AM
Is there any idea when the final results will be posted? Or is it just whenever they get the time to finish it up?

mummra100769
09/25/2006, 10:38 AM
i will be waiting to see the data. i know that i have the brownish clear jelly in my IO tanks right now and will be changing back to red sea as i have always liked it anyways. none of what was said was conclusive...they did say that both of them used what ever was on sale and saw no real change what so ever, so that says alot to how we monitor our tanks.

i will post pics when i get back on tuesday.

chessmanmark
09/25/2006, 10:41 AM
"Mainly the cyano with using IO. When I used IO, I just could not get rid of the cyano no matter what I did. Eventually I just felt that no matter what someone did a little cyano was always going to be present. So I find it very interesting that the IO tank was plagued with cyano."

I find this statement interesting JB as I just recently started using IO, which I had never used before, and now find myself with a cyno problem, which I never had before. Maybe just coincidence, however I'll be curious to see the final results.

Justin74
09/25/2006, 10:49 AM
Us hanging on there words of "we buy what's on sale" doesnt weigh too much when Eric at the last convention said "I dont do waterchanges". I know he had to a waterchange recently with issues with his own personal system. But for the most part and in general, he doesnt do waterchanges, but should we all hang on that as well? I think not ;)

So unless we all have Mr. Borneman's skills at reefkeeping, I dont think we should kid ourselves, and get the most advantageous salt we all can get.

I smell an IO clearance sale coming on...;)

-Justin

Tomzpc
09/25/2006, 11:03 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8216955#post8216955 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by chessmanmark
"Mainly the cyano with using IO. When I used IO, I just could not get rid of the cyano no matter what I did. Eventually I just felt that no matter what someone did a little cyano was always going to be present. So I find it very interesting that the IO tank was plagued with cyano."

I find this statement interesting JB as I just recently started using IO, which I had never used before, and now find myself with a cyno problem, which I never had before. Maybe just coincidence, however I'll be curious to see the final results.

I've actually had many people say the same to me about oceanic.
FWIW, I've always used IO and reef crystals on occasion. I attended Eric's session at MACNA and while I think that it is an excellent study and that Eric is an excellent presenter for whom I have the utmost respect, I believe that this study is far from conclusive. What it is IMO is a model that others can follow and try to duplicate. Only when we have multiple tests to look at will there be any conclusive results IMO. There are just way too many anomalies to consider from one single ten gallon system. I look forward to further testing results from Eric along with his own conclusions.

Tomzpc
09/25/2006, 11:04 AM
mods please delete...double post

BrianPlankis
09/25/2006, 11:08 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8216885#post8216885 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Kurt03
Is there any idea when the final results will be posted? Or is it just whenever they get the time to finish it up?

I think the amount of data that they collected will take years to analyze. There will be some preliminary publications out of it, probably in the next 4-6 months, but the full results will not be apparent for years.

I was in attendance and watched the entire presentation, I'm just happy that I happened to pick up 400 gallons worth of VERY cheap Red Sea before the presentation began :)

Red Sea and Reef Crystals may have been the best in terms of low nuisance algae, but their results in zoanthid growth were lower than Kent, Crystal Sea and Oceanic and of course natural sea water did best.

I needed salt, so I'm happy I got some of the better performing salts, but I don't think this preliminary report should mean buying truckloads of RS and RC :)

Brian

Angel*Fish
09/25/2006, 11:40 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8217155#post8217155 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by CirolanidHunter
Red Sea and Reef Crystals may have been the best in terms of low nuisance algae, but their results in zoanthid growth were lower than Kent, Crystal Sea and Oceanic and of course natural sea water did best.

Thanks for posting that - good info, anybody else with more of the details? If I remember correctly, IO had the least zoanthid growth.

The thing I hope is that more salt studies like this will be done - there are so many factors.

I've used IO for years --- based on this initial info & the IO rep explaining to me that Instant Ocean is not for reef tanks, I have decided to try a new salt - So... since I use RO water and got 55g tub (for free!) at MACNA, I'm going to try the Red Sea Coral Pro formulated for RO water :)

Uuuummmm..anybody know if Red Sea puts free towels in?

kozmo02
09/25/2006, 12:22 PM
Am I the only one that remembers the big debate/study conducted to show that Reef Crystals was practically the same as Instant Ocean?

I don't remember the outcome, but I know it was discussed:

http://www.aqcraft.com/w0024.html

Crusty Old Shellback
09/25/2006, 12:40 PM
I'll stick with my filtered NSW. ;)

Just an FYI, even with filtered NSW, my tank still goes thru stages with cyno and hair alage outbreaks. No big deal as it tends to go away as nutrients are reduced in the tank. :)

houseofha
09/25/2006, 12:45 PM
Angel,

I also attended the presentation and there were many other animals used in the study that included Montipora and Occerlaris Clowns - some of which died during the study and were replaced with new specimens etc. I doubt the data collected will point to the fact that an animal lived/strived in one salt over another, rather the environment we keep them in is what will make the rate of sucess.

As Cirolanid mentioned the data will take long to digest and when all is said and done, it may be relatively inconclusive as to what salt to choose What I think we will find from this study is that our design and husbandry practices are what will make our reefs sucessful, not our salt choices.

House

TrojanScott
09/25/2006, 12:48 PM
Yup, I'll stick with NSW myself. One of the benefits of living on the West Coast!

FMarini
09/25/2006, 01:29 PM
Marie-
I'm not picking on you specifically, I'm just concerned that w/o proper evidence posts like this may trigger saltwar2006. Remember all those sea salt fights after Dr Rons showed that one salt type better supported sea urchin larvae? I'm just trying to be a voice of caution.
But by all means- yes report the talk- I thought it was great, and NO i don't expect anyone to be a scientist- its silly -then the world would be boring, and i'd be unemployed.

What I'm saying is- like you I sat in the audience. I also saw the photos in question and I heard Erics statements about cyano and keeping one tank free of nuscence algaes. I also saw the first bits of growth data- just like you, and yes I too heard eric and Kim say that one tank performed wrose in their qualitative assessment.

Obviously we discuss many reef related topics here, its just that that one salt type was described as "best" and IMO even Eric cant make that statement- (althou I'm sure he did) he hasn't crunched the numbers that address his hypothesis.

All I saw was data on which salt support cyano & nuscience algaes, and data on growth weight of one coral type and a fish in a 10 gal aquarium. IIRC Eric and Kim also mentioned things died and were replaced, so how does that balance the equation? So from viewing the photos, am I too infer that IO supports clownfish, but not montipora, or that red sea & reefcrystals support coral X, but not coral Y. Its too preliminary to tell.

Anyway I'm just saying the current data is NOT enough to support any CLAIM - best & worst IMHO-YMMV -but its certainly worth discussing

Eric mentioned that they had 82 pages of data to run stats on, from his talk he also mentioned that this study would be published in hobby mags and technical journals, since part I is in reefkeeping.com, I would assume partII would follow.

All I ask is that everyone hang tight and lets see what shakes out from the data.

Tomzpc
09/25/2006, 01:39 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8218057#post8218057 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by FMarini

Anyway I'm just saying the current data is NOT enough to support any CLAIM - best & worst IMHO-YMMV -but its certainly worth discussing



I couldn't agree more Frank.

houseofha
09/25/2006, 01:52 PM
Frank,

couldn't agree more

House

Kip
09/25/2006, 02:11 PM
anybody wanting to unload their IO... send it to me. :)

xinumaster
09/25/2006, 02:22 PM
Even Ronald Shimek suggest that IO and another brand Coralife were toxic to sea life. But then his study was done in 2003.

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2005/11/aafeature1/view?searchterm

mhurley
09/25/2006, 02:50 PM
Toxic?!?!?


Someone better send that memo to the Georgia Aquarium

http://forums.reeftraders.org/photos/georgia_aquarium/images/406/secondarythumb.aspx

And the Shedd Aquarium.

And Mandalay Bay's aquarium.

And.....(repeat for as many major non-coastal aquariums as you can think of)


:D

Tomzpc
09/25/2006, 03:18 PM
One thing I find interesting is that while the IO tank exhibited a constant growth of cyanobacteria, the Reef Crystals tank stayed clean comparatively. One would think that if one contributed more to algal growth for one reason or another, then so would the other since RC is supposed to be the same basic formula as IO with some added calcium and some other elements(I think?). Or, assuming it were to be proven later with further testing that the results are a true representation of the salts, maybe it is the additional elements in RC that are retarding the growth of cyanobacteria and algaes.

To me, this test would be much more interesting if it were to be repeated numerous times over and over again but unfortunately that is unlikely to happen anytime soon.

Angel*Fish
09/25/2006, 04:07 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8218057#post8218057 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by FMarini
Marie-
I'm not picking on you specifically, I'm just concerned that w/o proper evidence posts like this may trigger saltwar2006. Remember all those sea salt fights after Dr Rons showed that one salt type better supported sea urchin larvae? I'm just trying to be a voice of caution.
But by all means- yes report the talk- I thought it was great, and NO i don't expect anyone to be a scientist- its silly -then the world would be boring, and i'd be unemployed.

What I'm saying is- like you I sat in the audience. I also saw the photos in question and I heard Erics statements about cyano and keeping one tank free of nuscence algaes. I also saw the first bits of growth data- just like you, and yes I too heard eric and Kim say that one tank performed wrose in their qualitative assessment.

Obviously we discuss many reef related topics here, its just that that one salt type was described as "best" and IMO even Eric cant make that statement- (althou I'm sure he did) he hasn't crunched the numbers that address his hypothesis.

All I saw was data on which salt support cyano & nuscience algaes, and data on growth weight of one coral type and a fish in a 10 gal aquarium. IIRC Eric and Kim also mentioned things died and were replaced, so how does that balance the equation? So from viewing the photos, am I too infer that IO supports clownfish, but not montipora, or that red sea & reefcrystals support coral X, but not coral Y. Its too preliminary to tell.

Anyway I'm just saying the current data is NOT enough to support any CLAIM - best & worst IMHO-YMMV -but its certainly worth discussing

Eric mentioned that they had 82 pages of data to run stats on, from his talk he also mentioned that this study would be published in hobby mags and technical journals, since part I is in reefkeeping.com, I would assume partII would follow.

All I ask is that everyone hang tight and lets see what shakes out from the data.

Well I don't disagree with anything in your second post - I just thought you were trying to put a "hush" on this discussion and you know we've all just got to talk about it.

Even as I non-scientist I can see that the study was farther from perfect than it could have been - but I'm also thrilled they were willing to step up & do the best they could with the limited resources they had.

Your statement:
Anyway I'm just saying the current data is NOT enough to support any CLAIM - best & worst IMHO-YMMV -but its certainly worth discussing is one I couldn't agree with more. And I hope that my dramatic way of introducing this topic doesn't mislead anyone - honestly I don't see how it could mislead a thoughtful person who is actually reading this thread. I always expect skepticism at RC and if you read the posts, that's mostly what's there - though I have to admit more so since your first post.

Anyway everybody knows now that the study wasn't ideal/perfect and the explanations for the visual & other results won't be out for at least a few months. Obviously none of the salt mixes is killing fish, etc. --- IOW - there are lots of factors affecting the outcome of this study other than simply the salts themselves.

I thought everybody already understood that stuff..

Maybe not - one thing for sure on this board is one person's "Thank goodness somebody told me that" is just as easily another's "Duh, I think we all know that" For example I was floored when the IO rep told me that IO is not for reef tanks!

reefdood
09/25/2006, 05:04 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8218894#post8218894 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Tomzpc
One thing I find interesting is that while the IO tank exhibited a constant growth of cyanobacteria, the Reef Crystals tank stayed clean comparatively. One would think that if one contributed more to algal growth for one reason or another, then so would the other since RC is supposed to be the same basic formula as IO with some added calcium and some other elements(I think?). Or, assuming it were to be proven later with further testing that the results are a true representation of the salts, maybe it is the additional elements in RC that are retarding the growth of cyanobacteria and algaes.

To me, this test would be much more interesting if it were to be repeated numerous times over and over again but unfortunately that is unlikely to happen anytime soon.

Maybe the ionic balance in RC is arranged to not fed the cyano. If for instance RC contains extra 2 cups of Cacium chloride and a cup of baking soda, that would leave 3 cups of another element absent , equaling the same weight as IO. Right?

JmLee
09/25/2006, 05:21 PM
I am also intrested in if they said anything with Oceanic salt?. I use oceanic and love it.

bcolvin
09/25/2006, 06:07 PM
This was a great INITIAL STUDY. I too was in the audience.

More than anything I felt like this was a huge step in Marine Aquarium Science. Many products in this business go untested and it is left up to a well organized forum debate to decide which product is the best. I am very impressed and pleased in the direction of study.

Looking at the study and now having a few days to think about the presentation here are my thoughts.

*MUCH more data needs to be collected before there are any conclusions made. One study cannot prove anything only open doors for others to verify this results.

*I am worried that know in forums/discussions that switching to Reef Crystals or Red Sea will be offered as solutions for "why did my tank crash?"

*I hope that OTHER people will recreate this study and post unbiased results.

*That everyone and their brothers switches to Red Sea and Reef Crystals because of one study... I will still use IO until there is supporting data.

*This information needs to be run through proper statistical analysis. Remember his test was on coral growth.. Qualitative data (like really covered in cyano or a little cyano) can be hard to analyze. Eric Borneman is very talented and I am sure it wont be too challenging for him.

These are just a few things that come to mind from his talk. Again this was a great study and just one of MANY things that I learned at MACNA!!!!

Bennett

Lpsfanatic338
09/25/2006, 06:21 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8219797#post8219797 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by JmLee
I am also intrested in if they said anything with Oceanic salt?. I use oceanic and love it.

I too am interested in how oceanic did. I also use it and have had spectacular results. At least i know it didn't do the worst

antonsemrad
09/25/2006, 07:05 PM
We just had a poll (http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=928296) in our reef club not long ago. I was suprised how many people used IO. IO has been the standard for many years for many people. Could it be possible that a reef tank "grows" around a type of salt? Favoring flora and fauna that eat the "blooms" that the different salts favor? I just tried a new salt, (coral life that I got for free) when I had alwayed used TM from day one. It seemed that I got a small bloom on the glass that passed within days. Well I guess my point (thinking) is that our tanks are dynamic and flexable enough to handle different types of salt, and that it really dosn't matter that much what salt you use. But that it may be wise to stick with what you are using. After all most IO users think its just fine and have used it for many, many years without cyno probs.
I wonder if this will affect the price of anything?
I might be switching to IO:eek2:

J/K

leeweber85
09/25/2006, 08:24 PM
I dont see the results anywhere.

help?

Kurt03
09/25/2006, 08:41 PM
There are none yet :D You can look at the pictures though. Link was posted on the first page.

scott0615
09/25/2006, 09:00 PM
IMO regardless of the brand of salt we, as hobbyists and professionals, must keep in mind we are keeping "wild" animals in a closed box. Over the 20 years in this industry I have realized that certain animals are going to do well while others of the same species collected the same day from the same part of the world will not. Considering all the variables that come with keeping a closed system I honestly don't know how anyone can do a truely "scientific" study regardless. Yes we can start with the same purified water source and add different salts and use the same equipment but when we start to add life that is the point it all changes. Different metabolisms among the same species of animals will create immediate changes to each environment. "Studies" regardless of who is doing them should be taken as a guide and not the rule.

Anyone out there been around long enough to remember Albert Thiel's studies?????

dmazyn
09/25/2006, 11:12 PM
Here's a link to the Marine Depot forum where Eric posted an answer to a ? about the salt study.

http://forum.marinedepot.com/Topic45946-9-1.aspx

Zoos
09/26/2006, 12:03 AM
Thats a weird.

JmLee
09/26/2006, 01:41 AM
oceanic, oceanic, oceanic!. =)

Sudad
09/26/2006, 06:15 AM
For me it isn't so important, how the score of a salt is in one or two tests.

For me it's more important, that a salt offers the same quality from batch to batch over a long a time.

And especially in this point, the Aquamedic Reef Salt is the winner for me, especially for SPS-tanks.

I use Aquamedic Reef Salt for long time.

It's very good soluble. You could use it 5-10 minutes after mixing and the corals looks great after the water change.

High Ca and Mg-levels from batch to batch. No high concentrations of dangerous metal-ions. No Po4 or NO3 and no EDTA'S, but this should be normal today for a salt, wich is recommended for reef tanks.

Sometimes I use the new Red Sea Salt (Coral Pro), it's also a very good salt and has extra high Ca and Mg-levels, but isn't so great soluble like the Aquamedic Reef Salt. So you need a little bit of time before using it. But I like it too.

Tropic Marin Classic has too less Ca and Mg for me and is more recommanded for fish tank and soft coral tanks. But it's o.k.

With Reef Crystals I had bad experiences. Contains too much trace elements.



Sudad

Angel*Fish
09/26/2006, 07:11 AM
For those wondering about Oceanic - at the conference we were shown pictures of the tanks and the general progress of how each did was shown/described...but not until the end was the key flashed up on the screen as to which salt was A, B, C etc. and it was only up for a few brief moments. Some people copied the list - others carefully listened to what was said. Most people didn't get the whole list and had to compare with others after it was over (like "I've got A, B & C what were D, E & F)

E.Borneman definitely has a flare for the dramatic - :D And I have to admit that I & probably others found it pretty exciting [even though we knew the results had not yet been analyzed yet!!!!]

My point is, it was fast and hard to take in all the info - I guess no one is going to post the pictures from the lecture, but maybe they could comment on Tank H (Oceanic)

FWIW, Here is a direct link to the tank photos thru month 5 (http://www.marshreef.com/modules.php?set_albumName=Salt-Study&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php) I thought there were pictures posted thru the end of the study - but I guess not - sorry

Angel*Fish
09/26/2006, 07:30 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8222308#post8222308 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by dmazyn
Here's a link to the Marine Depot forum where Eric posted an answer to a ? about the salt study.

http://forum.marinedepot.com/Topic45946-9-1.aspx
Thanks, dmazyn - very interesting and...

[welcome]

MJAnderson
09/26/2006, 08:40 AM
I've seen other salt studies that looked at the trace elements of what was in the salts. Some salts kinda skewed the results by having 20x what was in natural sea water but then showed as having "the most" trace elements. TMPro was tied for first because it gave a greater variety of trace elements, even though it didn't give "the most" trace elements. Don't remember what the other was --- I use TMPro so that stuck in my mind.

I dose Calcium and Mag already. I'd rather have that be a bit low and not have to worry about getting some of the lesser trace elements.

Craig Lambert
09/26/2006, 08:59 AM
I've used IO for years. I do add both Mag, and Calcium when mixing it to raise both to the proper levels. (I would think most of us do this as well). Wonder where it would rank after raising these......

Ginzo
09/26/2006, 09:00 AM
Anybody use Seachem ReefSalt ?

http://www.seachem.com/products/product_pages/Reefsalt.html

I was thinking about going with this for my next tank.

mthedude
09/26/2006, 10:03 AM
I was thinking of trying it as well. Funny, I used Red Sea to start my tank about 5 years ago.

Nu2SW
09/26/2006, 05:31 PM
I have used IO for the past 6 months. I switched to seachem reef salt and going to see how that does. Ive hear some good things.

Angel*Fish
09/28/2006, 10:45 AM
Edit: Deleted info - not accurate - sorry

RGibson
09/28/2006, 11:12 AM
I pick up some Red Sea salt at Downunder saltwater in Garner NC to give a try ,will test the salt water after a day of mixing and post how it turn out.

marinelife
09/28/2006, 03:18 PM
was Coralife Scientific Grade Marine Salt in the test and if so how did it do

RGibson
09/28/2006, 03:49 PM
Coralife sea salt was letter A on the tanks.

DrBegalke
09/28/2006, 04:17 PM
Hmm, I'm glad the FDA doesn't test medications in this manner.

Using a sample size of 1 means it is next to impossible to obtain statistically different results.

I understand there are financial limitations and that according to the MARSH site "... there are ten replicates. Ten batches of salt, one each month. So there is replication for the treatments" ... instead of multiple tanks for each study group.

The idea that a single tank (or person) can be used multiple times to increase the power of the study is simply incorrect. Any source of error (i.e. a rogue/diseased ramet, contamination of a tank, different bacteria levels between tanks, etc., etc.) can potentially be there throughout all 10 months....

For future studies (maybe funding could come from the salt manufacturers) statistically power could be greatly increased by testing 10 instant ocean tanks versus 10 natural sea water tanks, etc.

Another idea is to do a cross-controlled study. Take the best performing salt mix and switch it with the worst... etc. If the worst tank suddenly improves dramatically, its much more likely to be due to the salt, and vice versa.

Kudos for attempting to scientifically study different salt mixes, but this is essentially a case report with n=1 and will have to be taken with a grain of salt.

marinelife
09/28/2006, 04:36 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8241046#post8241046 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RGibson
Coralife sea salt was letter A on the tanks.

How did tank A do overall

RGibson
09/28/2006, 05:15 PM
You need to look at the pictures of A and and the rest of the tanks this will give you a idea how well A did.

crabsy
09/28/2006, 05:49 PM
Isn't the advertised 2.2-2.5 alk level on Red Sea Salts awfully low for an aquarium????
What am I missing here?

mummra100769
09/28/2006, 06:18 PM
where are these pics of the tanks?

reefman23
09/28/2006, 06:45 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8241902#post8241902 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mummra100769
where are these pics of the tanks?

http://www.marshreef.com/modules.php?set_albumName=Salt-Study&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php&page=1

Jesse

Justin74
09/28/2006, 08:22 PM
Very good point DrBegalke, I was thinking that a lil while go myself. If indeed there was an anomaly with a given tank, without a control or total sterilzation why wouldnt it stay for the continual testing, potentially contaminating the results? But, on the other hand,
n=1 > n=0 ;)

But what really has me kinda flabbergasted,is people saying dont jump ship and ditch the IO for your reeftanks; the test hasnt concluded and said that yet.. Very true, but there own company representative has... I'll take his word for it ;)


-Justin

Angel*Fish
09/28/2006, 08:33 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8242764#post8242764 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Justin74
Very good point DrBegalke, I was thinking that a lil while go myself. If indeed there was an anomaly with a given tank, without a control or total sterilzation why wouldnt it stay for the continual testing, potentially contaminating the results? But, on the other hand,
n=1 > n=0 ;)

But what really has me kinda flabbergasted,is people saying dont jump ship and ditch the IO for your reeftanks; the test hasnt concluded and said that yet.. Very true, but there own company representative has... I'll take his word for it ;)


-Justin

I agree!! And if you read the link above to E.Borneman's post he also says something on the order that it was enough to make him stop using it also.

Here's the link again. it also addresses the concerns of those who are unsatisfied with the study's quality at the very end of his post.
http://forum.marinedepot.com/Topic45946-9-1.aspx

vessxpress1
09/28/2006, 08:39 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8218676#post8218676 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mhurley
Toxic?!?!?


Someone better send that memo to the Georgia Aquarium

http://forums.reeftraders.org/photos/georgia_aquarium/images/406/secondarythumb.aspx

And the Shedd Aquarium.

And Mandalay Bay's aquarium.

And.....(repeat for as many major non-coastal aquariums as you can think of)


:D



I see this argument used a lot. Could it be that IO is just the most readily available, cheapest and it works so they're not going to spend more money on huge amounts of salt, to do the same thing? I don't see how we can use this as an argument. Do these large aquariums also do all of their water changes with pure RO/DI?

If we can use something better for our smaller scale setups, then I don't know why anybody wouldn't want to.

Now I'm not trying to start WW III over this. I too have used IO for years. But last year, shortly after starting the reef, I switched to Reef Crystals. I could never get a batch of IO to test higher than 360 for calcium and the Mg was also very low. Iodine also low. Alkalinity always sky high. Sometimes 16 dKH. The pH was always low.

Basically, after days of adding all the stuff to get my calcium and Mg up, I knew I was diluting and depleting the levels by doing a water change with IO.

With RC, I know I'm at least putting back 420+ Ca water and reasonably high Mg, and the pH is always spot on. Iodine content is much higher also. Alk is always reasonable around 8 dKH.
Do I still add B-ionic, Mg, and occasionally iodine? Sure. But I don't need to use as much. Even with the RC being higher, I still add Mg to newly mixed batches to keep the level up there.

As far as RC eliminating algae growth......that seems like a reach. I run a lot of carbon, plenty of nitrate sponge, rowaphos, skimmer,water changes regularly, large clean up crew, and I still have patches of hair algae I can't get rid of. What was the argument behind this?

Overall, I love my Reef Crystals though. I won't be switching salts any more.

RGibson
09/29/2006, 04:16 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8242856#post8242856 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by vessxpress1
I see this argument used a lot. Could it be that IO is just the most readily available, cheapest and it works so they're not going to spend more money on huge amounts of salt, to do the same thing? I don't see how we can use this as an argument. Do these large aquariums also do all of their water changes with pure RO/DI?

If we can use something better for our smaller scale setups, then I don't know why anybody wouldn't want to.

Now I'm not trying to start WW III over this. I too have used IO for years. But last year, shortly after starting the reef, I switched to Reef Crystals. I could never get a batch of IO to test higher than 360 for calcium and the Mg was also very low. Iodine also low. Alkalinity always sky high. Sometimes 16 dKH. The pH was always low.

Basically, after days of adding all the stuff to get my calcium and Mg up, I knew I was diluting and depleting the levels by doing a water change with IO.

With RC, I know I'm at least putting back 420+ Ca water and reasonably high Mg, and the pH is always spot on. Iodine content is much higher also. Alk is always reasonable around 8 dKH.
Do I still add B-ionic, Mg, and occasionally iodine? Sure. But I don't need to use as much. Even with the RC being higher, I still add Mg to newly mixed batches to keep the level up there.

As far as RC eliminating algae growth......that seems like a reach. I run a lot of carbon, plenty of nitrate sponge, rowaphos, skimmer,water changes regularly, large clean up crew, and I still have patches of hair algae I can't get rid of. What was the argument behind this?

Overall, I love my Reef Crystals though. I won't be switching salts any more.
Is the Instant Ocean sea salt that the Georgia Aquarium used the same as the one you buy in the store.It would be nice if E Borneman could test the salt that the George Aquarium use in there tanks.

Angel*Fish
09/29/2006, 08:14 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8244304#post8244304 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RGibson
Is the Instant Ocean sea salt that the Georgia Aquarium used the same as the one you buy in the store.It would be nice if E Borneman could test the salt that the George Aquarium use in there tanks.
That's an interesting question - it's not like they don't buy enough of it that it couldn't be specially mixed just for them - we also don't know if they make any adjustments to it themselves.

We also don't know that they are necessarily happy with the salt, either -
LOL -maybe they were on the phone switching salts as soon as the Preliminary report was out (j/k lol) <<<< joke - not a rumour :p

bdare
09/29/2006, 08:31 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8223833#post8223833 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Ginzo
Anybody use Seachem ReefSalt ?

http://www.seachem.com/products/product_pages/Reefsalt.html

I was thinking about going with this for my next tank.
I've been using it for a few months now. LOVE IT! At a SG of 1.025 Ca is 430 Dhk 9.0

mthedude
09/29/2006, 08:59 AM
IO and Reef Crystals are on Sale now at Dr. Foster & Smith....who called it?

Spracklcat
09/29/2006, 09:20 AM
They are at ThatFishPlace.com too...

old salty
09/29/2006, 09:32 AM
I am just grateful that there are people out there who are willing to dedicate their time and effort to put out a study like this. Last I checked, he didn't ask me for any donations, so he also had to fund it by some other means.

Douglas LEHMAN
09/29/2006, 10:35 AM
Hello
As we at CMAS just had a club meeting. Marine water quality, all you need to know that was presented by Alan Lapointe (Director of water Quality) Shedd Aquarium Chicago. Any how about 10 years ago he thought to himself "why are we using IO". After testing it and 4 other readily available (commercial) marine mixes he decided to stay with Instant Ocean. It was the most consistent, from batch to batch and most economical in truck load quantities. It's nice to have a water quality expert in your own back yard that's only a few keyboard clicks away. I'm content to use IO, if it's good enough for the Shedd it's good enough for me!
I know, I know... I'll try to find out what the other 4 mixes were!

marinelife
09/29/2006, 10:53 AM
I agree, I have been using IO for 11 years and not alot of problems, I do add CA and MAG to the new makeup water when doing a water change, I have looked into Reef Crystals but it is hard to come by without ordering it

mthedude
09/29/2006, 02:39 PM
For my money if you have to add Calcium and Mag to it you might as well spend the extra and buy Reef Crystals or other products to save money on the Ca and Mg supplements.

DrBDC
09/29/2006, 04:11 PM
I spend about 10 cents to correct a 32 gallon brute container worth so it's not enought to pay 8 bucks more when I only spend 50 cents to correct the whole bucket.

DrBegalke
09/29/2006, 04:33 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8242764#post8242764 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Justin74
Very good point DrBegalke, I was thinking that a lil while go myself. If indeed there was an anomaly with a given tank, without a control or total sterilzation why wouldnt it stay for the continual testing, potentially contaminating the results? But, on the other hand,
n=1 > n=0 ;)

But what really has me kinda flabbergasted,is people saying dont jump ship and ditch the IO for your reeftanks; the test hasnt concluded and said that yet.. Very true, but there own company representative has... I'll take his word for it ;)


-Justin

I agree. It is strange.

cschweitzer
10/09/2006, 02:07 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8245955#post8245955 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Douglas LEHMAN
Hello
As we at CMAS just had a club meeting. Marine water quality, all you need to know that was presented by Alan Lapointe (Director of water Quality) Shedd Aquarium Chicago. Any how about 10 years ago he thought to himself "why are we using IO". After testing it and 4 other readily available (commercial) marine mixes he decided to stay with Instant Ocean. It was the most consistent, from batch to batch and most economical in truck load quantities. It's nice to have a water quality expert in your own back yard that's only a few keyboard clicks away. I'm content to use IO, if it's good enough for the Shedd it's good enough for me!
I know, I know... I'll try to find out what the other 4 mixes were!

No offense meant by this at all, and I am sure the test was done very well, but can't things change over 10 years? I'm assuming IO has changed and I'm absolutely sure new products have come out and maybe even the ones he tested against have changed. A 10 year old study on a substance that changes yearly(in both makeup and desired effect) can have dramatic effects on results; 10 years is a huge time in our hobby. Look at what has come about in the last 10 years with skimmers and lighting and honestly tell me a 10 year old study can make a lick of difference in an aquariast environment of today. I would love to see him do more studies with newer salt batches and such to see differences as of today.

I can see IO's board's minds churning right now on how to recreate their formula to fit Eric's results...:)

Obviously, we have to wait and see, but I just finished my IO bucket and ended up ordering a RC bucket. Yes, I may be skewed by unverified and uncalculated data, but my eyes don't lie.

Douglas LEHMAN
10/09/2006, 03:14 PM
Hello
Trust me when I tell you that the Shedd routinely test confirms/daily whats in the salt they use. Over the years, truck load after truck load it's allways up to snuff. Mind you they have water quality test and monitoring equipment that we can only dream of!

manderx
10/09/2006, 03:31 PM
But, on the other hand, n=1 > n=0
i don't agree. bad data is worse than no data.

looking at which grows algae the best/worst doesn't mean anything to me. it could just be that RC and Red Sea are more toxic to algae, not that the others are so much promoting it. i'm holding all judgement till we see some published results on coral growth. but even then, it's still n = 1.

Justin74
10/09/2006, 04:47 PM
Let me reformat that equation then :)

n=1(i*) > n=0

i*=incomplete(not necessarily bad :p)

I see what your saying though, lets hope it's not :)
But for IO, that case was closed not only with the preliminary's,the rep, everyone else's experience and reports on here, and my own personal experience IMO ;)

-Justin

musty baby
10/18/2006, 01:48 AM
My major prof would have beaten my *** if I approached him with such a project. There's a lot of questions rolling around in my head as to the details of their study though, will definitely read the final results when they're published and until then will stick with oceanic.

Tang Salad
10/18/2006, 03:24 AM
Any idea when the final results are due out?

melev
10/19/2006, 12:17 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8362982#post8362982 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Tang Salad
Any idea when the final results are due out?

It'll be some time next year. I think the original estimate was 7 months to compile the data.

Tang Salad
10/19/2006, 02:01 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8370208#post8370208 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by melev
It'll be some time next year. I think the original estimate was 7 months to compile the data.

Great, thanks!

Now get back to work, hint, hint, wink, wink ...:D

jpf71
10/20/2006, 10:38 AM
http://www.aquacraft.net/s9914.html
Check out the 2 part salt.......supposed to be the best of best?

Anyone use it?

melev
10/20/2006, 01:17 PM
I've never even heard of a 2-part salt before.

BeanAnimal
10/20/2006, 03:41 PM
This keeps going round and round....

"well at least they tested something"
"at least it gives you an idea of what differnet salts..."
"Just wait until they compile the data..."

I honestly don't feel that the results are even worth talking about (from a scientific or "lets switch" standpoint) let alone waiting for the data.

There was no control used, there is only n=1 samples of each salt. There is no way to isolate contamination from the samples or ensure that each setup was contaminated in the same way.. .and the list goes on and on.

To me the test is like shooting 20 different guns into the air at random locations and then using the results to determine which weapon is more accurate.... none of it makes any sense.

My hat goes off to the people involved for trying... I know that they had the best of intentions and worked very hard to gather the data. Eric is a great guy and has put a lot of time and work into this. I am sure time and money played a very important role in the decisions that had to be made regarding the study protocol. IN OTHER WORDS I am not knocking ANYBODY! In reality I think it is great the people would take the time to try and get some meaningful data! Eric does a lot for this hobby and the coral reefs...

...but I just don't see how anybody can actually take all of this seriously with regards to what salt is better. The results may be interesting to look at and fun to talk about. However, at the bare minimum n=2 samples would need to be used. Either side by side or at different sites. At least the rest of the variables (all 187 dozen of them) could be somewhat compensated for by saying the test was repeatable... either that or a second test needs to be done to confirm the basic findings of the first test.

Kids in grade school science classes are taught that a test like this is not capable of showing a proven result... but in this case it was a MACNA headliner and has the entire reef community abuzz...

I eagerly await the day when a better designed series of tests is run.... or this basic test is repeated with the exact same protocol and used to confirm or disprove the original results.

Ohh well.

hans1976
10/20/2006, 08:28 PM
When I was fish only back in the late 90's, that salt was readily available up her in the northeast. It was great salt and rather inexpensive. Then suddenly, they stopped making it available up here and I had to switch.

I think am going to wait to see the final results of Eric's study before I go changing.

BeanAnimal
10/20/2006, 08:43 PM
I think the point is (at least from my perspective) that the results can not really mean much.

Tang Salad
10/20/2006, 08:51 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8381621#post8381621 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BeanAnimal
There is no way to isolate contamination from the samples or ensure that each setup was contaminated in the same way.. .and the list goes on and on.

I thought I'd read that they went to great lengths to eliminate contamination, as far as sterilizing all equipment and even autoclaving sand and rocks. Could be wrong, though...

And while it's true that more scientifically controlled comparisons could surely be designed, that doesn't take away from the fact that this will still be the most detailed and controlled comparison to date.

I won't be switching salts based on the results, but I'll certainly be interested to see them. I think many others are in this same boat.

BeanAnimal
10/21/2006, 07:37 AM
Tang n=1 samples... The initial components may have been sterilzed... but what about the rest of the study and the controls... there is just way too much left to chance here.

Everybody keeps using the same logic... "well at least they did it and it is the most detailed to date". That surely does not make the data any better. It just means that more work was done.

vessxpress1
10/21/2006, 08:20 AM
Man, this fight is still going on? Bean, I see your point and I think we just have to take the info for what it was. No, it wasn't a perfectly, scientificaly executed test, but a random sampling of all these major brands were used that anyone could have bought themselves. The only thing you can't compare is the consistancy. They can't be rated on consistancy. Unless a really screwed up batch came out, I can't imagine the consistancy changes would deviate that much. It's impossible for every batch to be exactly the same as the last. You have to give them a little error.

Don't know about the rest but there's been enough threads started on RC vs. IO here, in conjunction with my own test results for me to make the switch. Never mind the study. It was mentioned earlier in this thread that an IO factory rep did not recommend IO for reef tanks. What more do we need?

I'd like to see more random tests done on some of these more uncommon brands.

Tang Salad
10/22/2006, 06:20 AM
Bean- I see your point. And I've always appreciated your scientific clarity, as in response to barfridge-DIY-chiller ideas, et al. Thanks. :)

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8385062#post8385062 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BeanAnimal
but what about the rest of the study and the controls... there is just way too much left to chance here.


My understanding of experimentation is that each one refines the next. As people experiment on the same topic, they isolate more variables with each new experiment, thereby refining hypotheses.

From this POV, the 1st thing to do with the final results of this salt study will be to look for what variables were missed, hypothesize and re-test.

What other elements of chance concern you?

BeanAnimal
10/22/2006, 08:12 AM
LIke I said... I commend Eric and the others for taking the time to do this. I am not real thrilled about the sample size... the 100% water change thing is kinda goofy (I can see why they did it but...). In general there is a lot of area for things to differ between the setups. I (like most of you) am interested in seeing the final results. I however will look at thim a bit differently than a lot of folks.

Bean

billsreef
10/22/2006, 08:33 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8385062#post8385062 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BeanAnimal
Tang n=1 samples... The initial components may have been sterilzed... but what about the rest of the study and the controls... there is just way too much left to chance here.


Yup. With all of n=1, no real conclusions can be drawn that would stand up to any sort of real scientific scrutiny. However, the study as it was done most certainly raises questions to be looked into, both in terms of results and experimental design. That is not a bad thing as it gives a more defined starting point ;)

rayjay
10/23/2006, 11:27 AM
Over the years, I've seen a few "salt" comparisons, and always there is discussion of the validity of the testing.
However, I don't see any of those posting negative remarks of the various tests using their funding to do a proper tests that meets their standards.
I know I couldn't do it.
I'll continue to take each test for what I think it's worth based on who, how, and knowledgeable comments of each test results, just like always. At this point I think the testing not done by a salt company or its designate, is better than nothing.

Serioussnaps
10/23/2006, 12:12 PM
that test is seriously flawed...anyone with intelligence can see that...its not their fault...their are just too many things that cant be controlled

melev
10/23/2006, 01:22 PM
Why don't some of you type up a list of ways to do the test without flaws?

I wasn't there personally, but I do know a lot of time and work went into this study that lasted 6 months. 26 weeks of hard work, unpaid. I have a feeling they did more work caring for this experiment than many of us work on our own tanks.

UrbanSage
10/23/2006, 01:23 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8398147#post8398147 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Serioussnaps
that test is seriously flawed...anyone with intelligence can see that...its not their fault...their are just too many things that cant be controlled

I think this is getting a bit too nasty for a study that from the sound of it has not been published yet?

Flawed or not, its the best thing we have and this saltwater hobby is an area where studies are needed.

You just managed to insult everyone who does not agree with you at the same time as undermining any argument those people may have, because afterall they are unintelligent right?

I have not been following the progress or debates much. I heard a bit about what the study was about and found that it sounded very interesting.

I will however wait those 7 months or so for the final outcome before I will read much about it.

jpf71
10/23/2006, 02:20 PM
Has anyone heard of the "S-10" Report ???? I don't know if this is what you are talking about. Or maybe it is something new for everyone. Just would like to hear other peoples opinions.

http://www.aquacraft.net/index.html

Let me know

billsreef
10/23/2006, 02:29 PM
The S-10 report is merely advertising copy for Aquacraft. Is also rather outdated by at least a decade ;)

Angel*Fish
10/23/2006, 04:40 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8398147#post8398147 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Serioussnaps
that test is seriously flawed...anyone with intelligence can see that...its not their fault...their are just too many things that cant be controlled
That statement seems a little strong to me - but since not everyone seems to have bothered to read E.Borneman's statement on the study - I thought I'd post this one quote from it

The good thing is we have samples for further analyses and I would finally end this post by saying this is far from the definitive study. I hope it will be a platform that can be used for further work, comparison and discussion.
from this link (http://forum.marinedepot.com/Topic45946-9-1.aspx)

I am glad & grateful for this study - but I sure don't understand the strong emotions & reactions it has produced. Why people don't just take this information and give it the credit it is due is a mystery to me.

And why some people are so worried that this study will be given too much credit makes me wonder if some of them don't have a stake in this. Anyway, I thought it would be an interesting topic of discussion & speculation while we await more information.

jpf71
10/24/2006, 04:39 AM
Well if its worth anything....they now have a "S-15" Report!!!!
Regardless, Has anyone used their Salts?

billsreef
10/24/2006, 05:22 AM
The S-15 apears to be the same thing as the S-10. It's not very independant when bought and paid for by the manufacturer. If it was truly and independant study, the report would be available independant of Aquacraft and any aquarium mag they sent it to.

conefree
10/24/2006, 05:46 AM
It's hard to take Aquacraft seriously when their newsletter is plagued with spelling errors. They can afford all of these so called scientific tests to toot their own horn, but they can't afford spell check? :D

jpf71
10/24/2006, 07:21 AM
So I am assuming that nobody has used their brand of salt.....Interesting.......I wonder if it is as good as they claim.......

jpf71
10/24/2006, 07:23 AM
Then again.....................seems like no one is as good as they claim!!!!!!!

Tang Salad
10/24/2006, 08:25 AM
I find it a little humorous that so many people are concerned with the n=1 (sample size) issue.

Take a look at all of the advice given on this board, and you'll have to agree that all of it (with the rare exception of links to scientific studies), for most RC hobbyists, n is always equal to 1.

This study is a first step, as Angel*Fish quoted above.

Watson and Crick didn't decode the human genome. ;)

conefree
10/24/2006, 08:42 AM
Good point Tang Salad,

almost everything here is based on n=1 (their opinion), and their opinion is always the best. Almost everything we do in this hobby is based on anecdotal evidence and experimentation on the hobbyist level. This is the only reason the hobby has advanced so far in such a short time. Sharing information.

Take a deep breath folks, take the information for what it is, and relax. This is but the start of something greater.

musty baby
10/24/2006, 08:50 AM
Take a look at all of the advice given on this board, and you'll have to agree that all of it (with the rare exception of links to scientific studies), for most RC hobbyists, n is always equal to 1.
[/B]

...and you'd have to be an idiot to take a single person's (n=1)recommendation! ;)


Don't get me wrong, like I said before I'm going to wait til it's published to see what it's all about, but you can't hold it against anyone for being skeptical about the design.

Tang Salad
10/24/2006, 10:00 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8404380#post8404380 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ryansholl
...and you'd have to be an idiot to take a single person's (n=1)recommendation! ;)

LOL, ok, I'd agree with that.

But my point is that even the commonly agreed-upon reefkeeping methodologies discussed in the hobby are largely n=1. It's all anecdotal, from a scientific POV.

This is with exception to earlier research done by Wilkens, Jaubert, Adey, Sanjay, Holmes-Farley, Shimek and Borneman. Wait....who? :lol:

Anyway, I think most people (still reading this thread) are interested in the study because it's interesting, not because it will be published in Nature.

Just my two cents.
:)

donski
10/25/2006, 12:40 AM
when it comes down to it i don' t thinkwhich salt mix one uses is going to make or break your reef aquarium. Some will require more additives but i've seen many gorgeous tanks with just as many diiferent salts being used. IO probably the most popular.

chrisstie
10/25/2006, 07:05 AM
I have been using IO but have had some algae issues in my tank. Due to the macna study and a local study of reefers experimenting with tanks larger than mine, I am going to try tropic marin pro in my 12g when it comes in from fosters and smith.

Maybe we'll see a difference! I liked how it was rated to be very close to natural sea salt but not erm, IO :)

newreef8584
11/03/2006, 06:53 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8248167#post8248167 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by DrBDC
I spend about 10 cents to correct a 32 gallon brute container worth so it's not enought to pay 8 bucks more when I only spend 50 cents to correct the whole bucket.

It's funny reading many of the other posts in this thread. I do the same as you DrBDC. I would probably use RC but there is a real cost issue. I buy all my IO for the year on Boxing Day. 50% off sale. Makes RC about $55.00 more a bucket then the IO.

As for all the guys/gals fixated on the rep not recomending IO for reef tanks. What did you expect him to say? His company produces a reef tank specific salt. If you had posed the same question to him prior to the production of RC what do you think the answer would have been.

When you go shopping for a high end car what does the saleperson recomend, the Cavalier or the Caddilac?

Angel*Fish
11/04/2006, 10:04 PM
But isn't the Cadilac better? :D

Anyway I guess I'm lucky - my LFS sells Red Sea for $40/bucket

cham
03/05/2007, 01:38 PM
Any new updates? New info?

I understand there will be no perfect solutions, but I don't conisder the fact that IO is low in CA or MG to be anything at all. If you have figured out how to get MAG/DOW flakes & Epsom salts you can adjust to perfect levels of your choice for pennies.

I would like to see importiant trace elements & or lack of bad elements that would make me look at switching from IO to another brand.

porthios
03/09/2007, 10:55 PM
lol @ n=1

if eric borneman says he prefers salt x i'm gonna use it or at least give it a shot. i don't care how he comes to his conclusion.

if he licks his thumb and sticks it in the wind, far out. i'm in.

saturn tech
03/10/2007, 01:06 AM
i just use NSW, no need to worry about which salt is the best that way. i figure $10 bucks every two weeks for the real deal is better then the hassle of worrying about which salt is the best.

cham
03/10/2007, 05:10 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9441165#post9441165 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by porthios
lol @ n=1

if eric borneman says he prefers salt x i'm gonna use it or at least give it a shot. i don't care how he comes to his conclusion.

if he licks his thumb and sticks it in the wind, far out. i'm in.

I 100% agree.

Did he say that he prefers one over another yet? I have not heard anything.

RedSonja
03/10/2007, 08:22 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9441165#post9441165 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by porthios
lol @ n=1

if eric borneman says he prefers salt x i'm gonna use it or at least give it a shot. i don't care how he comes to his conclusion.

if he licks his thumb and sticks it in the wind, far out. i'm in.

I don't know if *I* would go quite that far LOL but, I do know that we've battled cyano in our 75g reef after every water change using IO and wondered what the heck we were doing wrong, for 3 years. I recently set up a 5 gal hex Eclipse to cycle for dwarf seahorses, and to keep it pest-free didn't use anything from existing tanks - just new sand and a piece of shrimp to start the cycle. Brown slime algae the first week, cyano the second week, hair algae starting now. Once we use up the IO we have stockpiled, I'm going to try Red Sea Pro and see if there's any change, better or worse.

-Sonja

blueplanet
03/10/2007, 08:26 AM
Angel*Fish,

Many thanks for opeing this thread.
Followed through and thinking hard on my next salt purchase.

May Ditch IO in favour of Red Sea. Used Red Sea before, abt 2 yrs back. Did n't dissolve easily then and heard of batch inconsistencies, so dicth it then for corallife. Now Red Sea again? What a big circle: Isn't the earth round? :).

RedSonja
03/10/2007, 08:28 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9441884#post9441884 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by cham
I 100% agree.

Did he say that he prefers one over another yet? I have not heard anything.

IIRC from the presentation at MACNA, he said he doesn't do water changes anyway so it's rather a moot point for him.

-Sonja

blueplanet
03/10/2007, 08:28 AM
Seriously. Anyone uses Marine Environment with good results?

One of my reefer buddy says its good. He switched from Corallife few months back.

billsreef
03/10/2007, 08:36 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9441165#post9441165 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by porthios
lol @ n=1

if eric borneman says he prefers salt x i'm gonna use it or at least give it a shot. i don't care how he comes to his conclusion.

if he licks his thumb and sticks it in the wind, far out. i'm in.

I would think that even Eric Borneman himself, as a scientist, would object to this sort of blind following.

melev
03/10/2007, 11:18 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9441612#post9441612 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by saturn tech
i just use NSW, no need to worry about which salt is the best that way. i figure $10 bucks every two weeks for the real deal is better then the hassle of worrying about which salt is the best.

That's totally untrue. It's people like you that start huge debates: Which is better, atlantic or pacific?! :eek2:












:lol:

Angel*Fish
03/10/2007, 05:44 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9443461#post9443461 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by melev
That's totally untrue. It's people like you that start huge debates: Which is better, atlantic or pacific?! :eek2:












:lol:
:lol: funny!

Blueplanet, you're welcome - fwiw :D

porthios
03/10/2007, 10:16 PM
'I would think that even Eric Borneman himself, as a scientist, would object to this sort of blind following.'


heh.. maybe. my point tho, is that there are certain things i'm willing to trust the experts on (my home's hvac, plumbing, electrical, the aquarium salt i use, etc..) and certain things i want to research/discover for my self (furniture building, auto mechanics, the consequences of keeping a mixed reef tank, etc..).

when/if i get the itch to investigate the merits of different salt brands i'll do so. even then i'd keep the context of his 'less than definitive' study in mind.

until then it's my thumb in the wind versus his and i'm goin w/his ;)

Medaka
03/10/2007, 11:01 PM
Hopefully they will finish that salt study :|

Angel*Fish
03/11/2007, 10:25 AM
I'd like to say for the record - that Eric Borneman is an intelligent, thoughtful person/scientist. Some of the criticisms of his salt study, IMO, are really silly. If anyone knows what the study was, the pros & cons of it and its value, he does.

It seems like there are always people who are going take light comments way too seriously and try to create problems/issues where none actually exist.