MACNA, who saw the synthetic salt presentation on Sunday?

[TexasTodd]

This was the one program I really wanted to see. Did anyone attend?

What was said? Data?

Thanks,

Todd

[caferacermike]

There are a few responses and some people to PM for specifics in this thread on ARC. Seems everyone is up in arms about the presentation not being very scientific and not very well controlled.

[Ping]

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

HTH

[caferacermike]

That is a good link Ping. I know Kingfish here in ATX saw the demonstration and he is much respected up here. KF seemed to feel that the show had only confused more people than informed them and that maybe it should have waited until the results were finished. Many good points were brought up such as using one light fixture over a long divided tank will not have as even a light spread as say several 10g tanks using their own independant light bulb.

[Ping]

I thought their testing was very scientific and controlled. It was a blind study in a hermetically sealed environment. The tanks and equipment were triple autoclaved prior to the introduction of the DI water and salt mixes. I think the preliminary results mess with peoples paradigm's.

From the presentation presented at Macna, the experiment apeared to follow the rules of scientific testing. When the data is analized and published, the next step is duplication. Lets think about this. Is Eric Borneman willing to ruin his reputation with a poor scientific study. I always try to consider the source of any information, especially in forums. However; some of the scientific minds in our hobby, even those with PhD's, have conducted tests and published data that has been later been refuted. With time and duplication of this test our hobby will benefit. Too much of our hobby relies on personal experiences and not experiments acording to the scientific rules of testing. If this test was done incorrectly I guarantee, Instant Ocean will raise a big flag. A large corporation verses a ( little ole ) scientist.....Hmmmmm.

[Ping]

I dont think ( here we go again, an opinion :innocent ) that lighting played a role. I think it was the chemistry of the salt mixes. I am baseing this off of Sanjay Joshy's environmentally conscious lighting presentation at this years Macna.

Does lighting play a role in the creation of cynobacteria and hair algea? It may have played a role in the growth rates of the corals used.

[Ping]

http://www.personal.psu.edu/sbj4/aquarium/articles/Photosynthesis.htm

[TexasTodd]

Very interesting. Does anyone remember the outcome for Tropic Marin?

Thanks all for the posts!

Todd (IO user currently :) )

[Enigma13]

I think that the biggest issue with the study that has been discussed is its applicability to the real world, more so than whether it was conducted in a scientific manner. I did not see the demonstration but from what I have heard from others that I respect, the testing was done in bare bottom conditions with no live rock. We all know that live rock and different substrate setups can have significant effects on the chemistry and success of our tanks. As a result, even if Borneman's testing was done in a perfect scientific environment and the results are accurate and can be duplicated, how much credance does that have in the average reef tank that has a substrate and differing amounts of live rock. I don't think there is an answer yet.

I think that Ping is right that most of our hobby relies on personal experience more than scientific testing, but I have a different take on that. I do not see that as a negative, but just a realization that this a hobby where every tank has so many variables that are different from a scientific test that consistency from one environment to another is probably dismal. Science may provide us with some decent guideposts, but over reliance on them could prove detrimental in my opinion. That said, I am not attacking Ping's opinion, just trying to light the other side of the issue.

[caferacermike]

Enigma said basically what I hadn't typed. I did not see the presentation but I have now heard about it numerous times. I had not wished to try and discuss it in length or detail as I had not actually witnessed it. That is why I had only linked to another ongoing discussion about salts and teh presentation itself.

Sorry if in my second post I wasn't very clear where I stood.

[Richard]

The biggest problem I have with this study (or any of the salt studies I've seen) is that, intended or not, they tend to give the impression that using a particular brand of salt mix is the key to success. I have my preference in salt brand but I think if you rank all of the things it takes to have a successful reef tank which salt brand you use would be way down on the list. I would have to rank patience at the top of the list.

Personally, I wouldn't lend any weight to the essentially "guesses" about the Eric Borneman's results. He has already said that the data hasn't been evaluated and then the study would have to be peer reviewed to validate that this was in fact a valid scientific study. Below is a link to an article on the study, I can already see that because of some of the "assumptions" made that there will be another great salt debate over this study.

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-09/eb/index.php

It has been said that reefkeeping is as much art as science. I think that is true and that there will never be a completely scientific recipe for being successful. Let's face it, some people are just better at reefkeeping than others without having alot of scientific knowledge. In most cases that boils down to some people just being more patient than others.

Over our counter at the store we have a "recipe" for patience. Oddly enough it is written by Eric Borneman. In 5 years I only have two customers who have followed this "recipe" exactly. They are my best and worst customers. Best because they don't have any problems and their livestock is healthy and thriving. Worst because they have only spent a fraction of what less patient hobbyist's will spend on their aquariums. Perhaps the next study will be on patience. If you tracked the dollars spent on an "patient" aquarium vs a "rushed" aquarium it might actually get some people's attention. Then again I am trying to make a living off this hobby so maybe that isn't such a good idea.

[Jeff]

all right richard what's the recipe for patience.

[akm]

Red sea turned out to be the best, comparable or better the control (real sea water). Instant Ocean was the worst witht he most cyano and hair algae. And everything else I forgot. :wacko

[Bill S]

The problem with non-scientific "observations" is human nature. It is human nature for one to want everyone to use his/her choice, and it is human nature to "go with the flow" - pun intended. Folks WILL make a recommendation on something that they don't particularly like - "misery loves company" kind of thing.

Richard, I TOTALLY agree with you. That's why I haven't bought much livestock lately!

[caferacermike]

Isn't Red Sea supposed to be dehydrated sea water? Basically everything that is left is the "natural" from the sea water. From what was explained to me, and why I should stay away from Red Sea, is that the water used to create the salts is from a not so clean source. That you can also be introducing metals, organics, and chemicals from the ocean it was collected in. Lab salts are supposed to be free from any of that.

[TexasTodd]

From the "first take" observations I believe that he said Reef Crystals had the "same" results as Red Sea. Just from reading some threads on RC and Marine Depot.

Did anyone at MAAST actually go to this presentation?

Todd

[cpreefguy]

Gary did

[Ping]

I went.

[TexasTodd]

OK then Ping, :), without anyone coming back at you, what would YOU personally use as a salt, after seeing the presentation?

Or, would you make no changes until the data is all compiled?

What do you use currently (before MACNA)? :)

Thanks a ton,

Todd

[Ping]

Enigma, well said, I would not take a well articulated post as an attack. I was just defending the experiment as being scientific. My point is as Bill said. An example would be " I changed - "this" (A) - variable in my System and - "this" (B) - negative event accured. Therfore, A is the cause of B. The ONLY explanation for B is that A is bad.

As richard pointed out, this salt test will prove nothing. Falsifiability must be assesed eg: the experiment must repeated. Until then is only one observation. The experiment was not conducted with with the bacteria and microfauna we have in our systems. And the experiment went on for only 10 months. Does this have an effect on the chemistry in our systems? I would speculate it does. Kim and Eric did start the lecture stating that they both have had many succsessful aquariums using whatever salt was on sale when they ran out of salt and went to purchase more.

Many of us with experience in the hobby can make any salt work. But.... if one brand or another creates less problems in a new system, I believe the experiment in discussion is very valid. Possibly one brand or another is better for a new system (less than one year) and others may work better long term. Too many variables for an absolute conclusion. This experiment is just another step in the evolutionary process of our hobby. At this point, no absolutes can be made.


Lets just examine this experiment for what it is, the first experiment of its type.

Falsifiability, or the elimination of plausible alternatives. This is a gradual process that requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate results in order to corroborate them. This requirement, one of the most frequently contended, leads to the following: All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases. (cite) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

[Ping]

Todd, this is just my opinion, and mine doesnt stink :angel . I will no longer use IO when my current supply runs out. I had been mixing 2 parts IO with 3 parts Oceanic. IO for longer term Alk and Oceanic for the higher Calcium at Sg 1.025. Kim and Eric said that to be fair, the salt companies need a chance to respond to the their experiments results. Until this salt study runs its course and/or when I need to purchase salt, I am currently leaning towards Reef Crystals. This due to its apparant clarity and lack of nuisance algae's / bacteria in the pictures presented at Macna. Some of the other salts had better coral and coraline growth rates. I may switch again; to another salt when all the data is published and processed.

[TexasTodd]

Thanks Ping, that's exactly what I was looking for.

I do use a reactor, but will probably switch to Reef Crystals too....after I use up all the IO I have...and I have a bunch.

FWIW, a guy on RC posted he found about 10 mouse pellets in each of his last two IO buckets...but the Reef Crystals are made at the same place I think. :) Maybe a source of nutreints for algae! :lol

Todd

[Ping]

double post

[Ping]

I have found wood chips in my IO buckets. I asked around about this and know of one other person who found wood chips in IO. I talked to all the salt reps at Macna about this. I did not mention to any but the IO rep on which salt I found this in. 2 seperate buckets of mine. The IO rep blew me off and said their quality control could not let this happen. To anyone that knows me, "do I apear in any way to be ignorant or a flake" don't answer that :blink. The study, along with personal experience leads me away from IO. I believe reef crystals is made at the same place also. That is why I may not stay with it once the report has run its course. I also worry about the long term use of Red Sea due to the evaporative process they use to make the salt. I guess if our hobby was easy I would take up something else.

[TexasTodd]

So, it is true, that's how RS is made?

Do we KNOW that it's made from on-shore/close to shore contaminated water? Seems like they wouldn't do this when they could collect a bunch off shore. UNLESS, they've cut a deal with some of the desalination fresh water plants now around the world making drinking water from the ocean for comunities.

Anyone?

Todd

[Ping]

http://www.redseafish.com/Product.asp?dir=y&CatId=98&SubID=28&proID=190



from their web site.

Introduction to Red Sea Salt

Red Sea offers a premium sea salt mixture based on natural sea salt harvested from the waters of the exotic Red Sea by solar evaporation techniques. Red Sea Salt is enriched with other refined minerals to faithfully replicate natural seawater for your aquarium.

Used for over 10 years by hobbyists and professionals alike,
Red Sea Salt has become famous for its favorable effect on invertebrates. Red Sea Salt is the only salt formulation offered today that is derived principally from a living sea.



Even with a well-balanced aquarium ecosystem, there may still be gradual buildup of undesirable elements in the seawater that are not removed by filtration. It is therefore good practice to dilute these undesirable elements by regular partial water changes.

[TexasTodd]

Thanks Ping, I just e-mailed the main contact there, to have her possibly give information on where the water is collected...near shore, or off shore. She's out/off work today though.

Todd

[loans_n_fishes]

Wow. I have been using IO (now the Seachem reef salt--basically IO with additives) since I started my tank (almost 1 year ago). I wonder if it contributed to the nuisance algae I had. Before I saw this thread, I heard nothing but good things about IO. Many people swear by it (including GARF). So, should I consider switching? I still get some nuisance algae, but not as much as before. Would leaving things alone be a better thing to do? I am not sure if I would risk some major reprocussions by switching.

[Louis]

According to the Red Sea Vendor at today's Retailer Convention the salt is pumped in from about a mile out in the Red Sea. It then has a quality control team analyze and determine weither its "OK" or not. According to the guy I spoke to he said they get consistant results. They also had a salt that was specifically formulated for mixing with RO/DI water. He stated most salts are developed with the idea of mixing with tap water.

Anyway, just some info I picked up on today.

Louis

[TexasTodd]

Is the salt for RO/DI still dried up salt water? :)

What's it called?

Thanks Louis!

Todd

[JeremyGlen]

I have read over/followed the posts on this study since the beginning. I wish I could have been there to hear the results in person.

I personally think that experience with these salts is the only way someone will find the one that works best for their situation.

I started my first tank with IO like most people do since most LFS tend to have people buy it over other salts. After about 6 months or so, I decided to try the Oceanic salt since the rep came into the store I was working in and gave us 5 5g packets. The owner of the store told me I could try it at home and let him know what I thought. Within hours of my first water change with Oceanic, my tank inhabitants looked better than they ever had. Now I'm using Tropic Marin Pro Reef and I like it much better than the Oceanic. Who knows, I may switch to something else and find that I like it better, or not.

Personally, I think the better the salt is, the better it dissolves and the less residual floaty crap it will leave in your mixing container. The only study that tells us anything for sure is the analysis of what is in most of the salts.

I would agree that there should have been a substrate and rock included in the study. It would have been very easy to get a 1-2" sandbed with the same amount of dry base rock in each tank. This would have given the tanks the opportunity to mature as a normal tank would and see how the same substrate effected each salt mix.

Also, since this study was started, most companies are coming out with salts that are mixed for RO/DI water. I don't think they were included, but I may be wrong. I know that the Tropic Marin Pro-Reef salt I'm using is not what was included in the study and is formulated for use with 2-part ALK Ca supplements.

[Louis]

Red Sea's salt is called Coral Pro Salt
http://www.redseafish.com/main.asp

Red Sea says that the salt takes about 10% longer to mix than some of the faster dissolving brands (Oceanic comes to mind) but should mix completely (Unlike I.O. - If anyones ever mixed large vats you know what I'm talking about). His reasoning is that since Red Sea salt is created by taking the salts out of solution its simply going to go back into solution when you mix up a batch. Hopefully when all the research is complete we'll have a better idea of what we're actually getting in each bucket.

HTH

Louis

[TexasTodd]

NOW we're getting somewhere! :)

Check this freaking link out. I don't know if he's full of you know what, but he's got the specs on chemical testing for most salts out there.

Of course i wonder, if Natural SW is the standard/best, why does this guy have so many variations of his own salt mixes?

www.aquacraft.net

Todd

[Richard]

Oh no you di'nt Todd! LOL That's the old great salt debate stuff.

I think the analysis they are giving is based on Ron Shimeck's salt "study". Dr. Tim Hovenac from marineland did a counter study to refute his findings. From what I remember, Shimeck substituted other people's data when his own findings didn't give the results he wanted or something along those lines. You can search reef central and find all the arguments you can stand about those results.

Did Eric Borneman do any chemistry analysis of the different salts & batches they used? It would be nice to see that along with the observed results in the study. That way we could get some idea why some salts may have given better results than others.

For example, Reef Crystals is what people are saying was one of the better salts and IO one of the worst. Since they are both made by the same company and RC is Instant Ocean plus extra things added to it, then it would seem logical that it is more of an issue of what's not in IO rather than IO containing something that isn't in RC. So this may not matter at all in the real world where we are dosing additional trace elements to our tanks anyways.

[TexasTodd]

O.K., who's got some RS they can mix up, cure for 24hrs, and then test and post parameters?

Person or shop...doesn't matter.

Louis? Richard?.......?

Todd

[seamonkey2]

salt what salt?

you guys put salt in your tanks??

whoa!!!

[Richard]

Richard?


Nope, have never carried it. I don't remember ever seeing it at any other stores.

[TexasTodd]

:)

Well, RS just faxed over about 12 pages of info to me. Looks decent, but it "is formulated for a starting base fresh water with an average of 100ppm CA" So, a RO/DI mix will only make about 300-325ppm CA. Noted that this is so the CA doesn't get too high for tap water users causing precipitation. Which kind of makes sense, and maybe a reason IO is a little lower too,

BUT, how do they do this if it's just dehydrated sea water?

TT

[Isis]

There are a few responses and some people to PM for specifics in this thread on ARC. Seems everyone is up in arms about the presentation not being very scientific and not very well controlled.How was it not controlled?

[Isis]

I think that the biggest issue with the study that has been discussed is its applicability to the real world, more so than whether it was conducted in a scientific manner. I did not see the demonstration but from what I have heard from others that I respect, the testing was done in bare bottom conditions with no live rock. We all know that live rock and different substrate setups can have significant effects on the chemistry and success of our tanks. As a result, even if Borneman's testing was done in a perfect scientific environment and the results are accurate and can be duplicated, how much credance does that have in the average reef tank that has a substrate and differing amounts of live rock. I don't think there is an answer yet.

I think that Ping is right that most of our hobby relies on personal experience more than scientific testing, but I have a different take on that. I do not see that as a negative, but just a realization that this a hobby where every tank has so many variables that are different from a scientific test that consistency from one environment to another is probably dismal. Science may provide us with some decent guideposts, but over reliance on them could prove detrimental in my opinion. That said, I am not attacking Ping's opinion, just trying to light the other side of the issue.The whole point of this experiment was to show that not all salts are alike, even when it comes to growth of the animals withing, let alone between sample to sample. We do know that there are variations in all our tank do to a million things, but we can show that with all things being equal, some salts clearly out perform the others without added elements. Once we get done with all the data processing, we are going to seek funding to analyze the salt using chromotography and some other analytical method. This is just a stepping stone, and perhaps something in the ways of improving the products.

The fact of the matter is, no one has done anything to this extent, and we have done this because we wanted something unbiased and based off of several samples, and not just a few like past tests. We would like to repeat this in a larger sample, but the funding for that would be close to $100,000 for us to do it and that isn't including our salary since that would take all of our time.

[Isis]

The biggest problem I have with this study (or any of the salt studies I've seen) is that, intended or not, they tend to give the impression that using a particular brand of salt mix is the key to success. When was that stated? I was standing up there and never once did we imply that. We avoided any statements like that for liability reasons.

I have my preference in salt brand but I think if you rank all of the things it takes to have a successful reef tank which salt brand you use would be way down on the list. I would have to rank patience at the top of the list.Of course everyone has a preference, but that could be due to many things. We wanted to show that there are differences given all things equal, which in our case, this was very true. Now what were the specifics chemically? We don't know yet. We are hoping to do fiurther analytical testing later if we get the money.


Personally, I wouldn't lend any weight to the essentially "guesses" about the Eric Borneman's results. He has already said that the data hasn't been evaluated and then the study would have to be peer reviewed to validate that this was in fact a valid scientific study. Below is a link to an article on the study, I can already see that because of some of the "assumptions" made that there will be another great salt debate over this study.What guesses are you talking about? The fact of the matter is, we are at least doing it in a manner that will be reviewed and critiqued. No one has done anything on this scale but we hope that someone will now follow this and take it a step futher. There is so much to gained from improved synthetic salts, yet so much to be lost. So why not put them to the test?


http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-09/eb/index.php

It has been said that reefkeeping is as much art as science. I think that is true and that there will never be a completely scientific recipe for being successful. Let's face it, some people are just better at reefkeeping than others without having alot of scientific knowledge. In most cases that boils down to some people just being more patient than others.

Over our counter at the store we have a "recipe" for patience. Oddly enough it is written by Eric Borneman. In 5 years I only have two customers who have followed this "recipe" exactly. They are my best and worst customers. Best because they don't have any problems and their livestock is healthy and thriving. Worst because they have only spent a fraction of what less patient hobbyist's will spend on their aquariums. Perhaps the next study will be on patience. If you tracked the dollars spent on an "patient" aquarium vs a "rushed" aquarium it might actually get some people's attention. Then again I am trying to make a living off this hobby so maybe that isn't such a good idea.You are right, there aren't any perfect recipes, but why? Why are things so different? Could it be the salt? Who knows, but at least we are putting it to the test to find out.

[Isis]

Red sea turned out to be the best, comparable or better the control (real sea water). Instant Ocean was the worst witht he most cyano and hair algae. And everything else I forgot. :wackoNot necessarily. Instant Ocean did look the worst, but it didn't necessarily have the worst growth, which we are still trying to compile everything. The same goes with Red Sea. It may have looked the best, but that doesn't mean it had the best growth of the corals. In fact, one of our "ugly" tanks had pretty good growth overall, and every had the best soft coral growth. Peculiar to say the least. This is exactly why we are trying to look at the details.

[Isis]

Enigma, well said, I would not take a well articulated post as an attack. I was just defending the experiment as being scientific. My point is as Bill said. An example would be " I changed - "this" (A) - variable in my System and - "this" (B) - negative event accured. Therfore, A is the cause of B. The ONLY explanation for B is that A is bad.

As richard pointed out, this salt test will prove nothing. Falsifiability must be assesed eg: the experiment must repeated. Until then is only one observation. The experiment was not conducted with with the bacteria and microfauna we have in our systems. And the experiment went on for only 10 months. Does this have an effect on the chemistry in our systems? I would speculate it does. Kim and Eric did start the lecture stating that they both have had many succsessful aquariums using whatever salt was on sale when they ran out of salt and went to purchase more.

Many of us with experience in the hobby can make any salt work. But.... if one brand or another creates less problems in a new system, I believe the experiment in discussion is very valid. Possibly one brand or another is better for a new system (less than one year) and others may work better long term. Too many variables for an absolute conclusion. This experiment is just another step in the evolutionary process of our hobby. At this point, no absolutes can be made.


Lets just examine this experiment for what it is, the first experiment of its type.

Falsifiability, or the elimination of plausible alternatives. This is a gradual process that requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate results in order to corroborate them. This requirement, one of the most frequently contended, leads to the following: All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases. (cite) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_methodPerfect answer. Thank you.

[Isis]

Todd, this is just my opinion, and mine doesnt stink :angel . I will no longer use IO when my current supply runs out. I had been mixing 2 parts IO with 3 parts Oceanic. IO for longer term Alk and Oceanic for the higher Calcium at Sg 1.025. Kim and Eric said that to be fair, the salt companies need a chance to respond to the their experiments results. Until this salt study runs its course and/or when I need to purchase salt, I am currently leaning towards Reef Crystals. This due to its apparant clarity and lack of nuisance algae's / bacteria in the pictures presented at Macna. Some of the other salts had better coral and coraline growth rates. I may switch again; to another salt when all the data is published and processed.Very true... There were a few of the tanks that had awesome coralline growth. Again, why does one tank have better growth over the other when all things are the same?

[Isis]

I would agree that there should have been a substrate and rock included in the study. It would have been very easy to get a 1-2" sandbed with the same amount of dry base rock in each tank. This would have given the tanks the opportunity to mature as a normal tank would and see how the same substrate effected each salt mix.With any scientific research, you have to be able to control all the variables in your project. LR and LS would have variables, critters, chemicals, etc that we couldn't account for. LR has so many pores, that there could be anything in them, including bad critters that eat our detrivores or herbivores. Possibly chemicals that would leach into the tank cause better or worse growth. If we couldn't control it, it wasn't added.

On the other hand, we did have substrate, it was just sterilized prior to adding to the tank. The only variable we wanted was the salt. The corals came from the same mother colony, the clowns from the same brood, and all got fed at the same time with the same amount of food.


Also, since this study was started, most companies are coming out with salts that are mixed for RO/DI water. I don't think they were included, but I may be wrong. I know that the Tropic Marin Pro-Reef salt I'm using is not what was included in the study and is formulated for use with 2-part ALK Ca supplements.When we started this, we used what was on the market at the time. Seachem and TM Pro weren't available when we started. Plus we just didn't have the room.

[Bill S]

Kim, you make some great points - and I think everyone is rushing to conclusions before y'all make yours! Let's let everything calm down, let the researchers finish their work before anyone takes them/it to task. EVERY scientific experiment makes assumptions, and none are perfect. This, however, is a great startng point.

[Isis]

Did Eric Borneman do any chemistry analysis of the different salts & batches they used? It would be nice to see that along with the observed results in the study. That way we could get some idea why some salts may have given better results than others. Not yet. For us to do some analytical work, would cost us thousands. We have saved the samples for later analysis if money becomes available.

[Isis]

Kim, you make some great points - and I think everyone is rushing to conclusions before y'all make yours! Let's let everything calm down, let the researchers finish their work before anyone takes them/it to task. EVERY scientific experiment makes assumptions, and none are perfect. This, however, is a great startng point.Agreed. We are hoping to have it all done by the end of the year or just after the new year, but there is tons of data and we need to make heads or tails of it.

[TexasTodd]

Thanks a bunch Kim, I was wondering if you'd find this thread.

I'm not changing anything right now (still have about 450 gallons of IO left that I'm going to use) but LOVE looking it to all this!

It seems the hardest thing is what looks to be pretty big variations for each brand from batch to batch. I'm not sure how you tackle this. One could come out amazingly good and six months later totally suck.

It would be GREAT to see some links to donate to this study though. Here, many other regional clubs, RC, MD site etc.

Thanks again for doing this!

Todd

[Isis]

Thanks a bunch Kim, I was wondering if you'd find this thread.

I'm not changing anything right now (still have about 450 gallons of IO left that I'm going to use) but LOVE looking it to all this!

It seems the hardest thing is what looks to be pretty big variations for each brand from batch to batch. I'm not sure how you tackle this. One could come out amazingly good and six months later totally suck.This is where we are hoping the manufacturers will put some 2 cents in, that is if they will admit that it could be a possible fluke on their part. I know I do recall one of the brands doing pretty average for several months, and then... BANG!! everything is dead. (And no it wasn't Kent) We aren't sure what happened, even the parameters didn't look too wacky.

One thing to keep in mind is that we did testing weekly on the tank parameters, and measured growth monthly. If you look at photos from one month to the next, there isn't much difference, but when you look at them from the beginning to the end, it is definitely change and differences. I suppose it is hard for many to misunderstand or misconstrue this all, but I can tell you there are differences and perhaps for good or worse. Personally, I want to put somethings to rest, like in a simple system, which brand out performs the rest? If someone in the scientific community decided to do ome sort of experiment using synthetic salt, don't you think they should use one that would support their animals the best without a complicated set-up like what we find in our systems? This project won't just help us as hobbyists, it is meant to benefit those in the research community who would use the info as well.


It would be GREAT to see some links to donate to this study though. Here, many other regional clubs, RC, MD site etc.

Thanks again for doing this!

ToddYou know it would be good to get some support from other communities that are online, but I am not sure how feasible it would be given how much money we would need to make this a better and more extensive project. I am hoping I can use my school facilities next semester for the analytical portion we need done, but I am not going to hold my breath until I get in there and talk with my professor.

[Polkster13]

I was there at the presentation and Eric showed 12 tanks (11 with synthetic sea salt mixes and 1 with natural seawater). They did a 100 percent saltwater change each month and scrubbed the tanks clean of any cyno and algae each month. They also measured growth on several species of vertebrates and invertebrates. He showed PRELIMINARY findings only and he has NOT reviewed all of the data yet. They went to great lengths to make sure nothing was exposed to the tanks during the 10 months of testing.

From the pictures, IO did the poorest and Red Sea did second best (NSW was the best - it was also the control). Until all of the results are published, no one should be jumping to conclusions. Also, who does 100% water changes each month? That could have in itself skewed the results. They also only did one tank for each salt mix even though it was a blind study (they did not know which salt was being used on which tank - except by letters A-L).

This study was very expensive and I applaud Eric for even attempting this. I have asked Eric to meet with our club and present all of his results in a couple of months. He has agreed to do that and more will follow on this as we firm up the date.

[Richard]

When was that stated?




What guesses are you talking about?


Those comments weren't directed at anything you or Eric stated. The "guesses" are things like RS is the best salt and IO is the worst salt or IO causes algae problems. I wasn't even at MACNA and I know you or Eric did not say that, but some have been saying it on various forums. I know some hobbyist's are going blame IO for their algae and switch salts instead of correcting their real problems. Just look at this reef central thread and you can see some really ridiculous statements being made by some (and fortunately some people trying to correct them)...

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=936493&perpage=25&highl ight=borneman&pagenumber=1

Of course, there's nothing you can do about how things get misrepresented in forum land so don't take my comments as anything directed toward you, Eric or the study. I think it's great that you are trying to add some unbiased science to the hobby and I will wait, patiently, for you to finish looking at the data before I decide if I want to switch salts.

[matt]

There were two parts to the old Shimek salt study. One was his comparison of chemical analyses on various salt mixes. This part was severely criticized for not following a credible scientific method; data on some salt was provided by the manufacturers of that salt, while others were independently tested. Many people dismissed Shimek's study altogether for this.

But, there was another part, in which Shimek compared the survival rates of sea urchin larvae in several salts. This part WAS done with a reasonable attention to objective and scientific comparitive methods. This is the part that sold me on Bio-assay salt and the aquacraft salt. The complication with this part of the study is the applicability of the results to the study. In other words, it is an assumption that a salt which does poorly in keeping sea urchin larvae alive is poorly suited for reefkeeping. It make sense that this is the case, but there is no data to prove the corrolation between urchin larvae mortality and toxicity that directly harms a reef tank. However, there is no question that the IO and some other salts resulted in a FAR higher urchin larvae mortality that did NSW, bio-assay salt, and the aquacraft salt, which I believe is called Marine Environment. I used this salt for a while and loved it. I was disappointed when it was not longer easilty available locally, and I read that IO changed it's formula after the Shimek study to lower levels of certain metals. So, I'm using IO for the time being, but would gladly switch to Marine Environment if it were available locally.

BTW, urchin larvae survival rate is a standard test for marine water toxicity to my knowledge.

[Texreefer]

I have used every type of salt out there over the years and am currently using coralife because i was given a gift cert... i have a small bucket of red sea i will use and when i run out of that i will buy whatever is cheapest and easiest to find.i think the study is good for informational purposes but i will still use whatever i come across.. it far more important to me what you put into the tank and how you maintain it... i think way too many conclusions are being drawn about something we don't know much about yet... anyone that wants to refute those tests or argue with the results should do their own study ........

[alton]

If you drive a chevy do you use Kent, IO, Oceanic, Red Sea,
If you drive a ford do you use Kent, IO, Oceanic, Red Sea,
If you drive a toyota do you use Kent, IO, Oceanic, Red Sea,
If you drive a nissian do you use Kent, IO, Oceanic, Red Sea,
And the arguement continues ..........
Thanks Isis for repling to all the post, I think no matter what testing you do, there is no perfect answer to why animals, corals, and algae act differently in different aquarums. I have three tanks all using Kent salt and not one looks like the other.

[Isis]

I was there at the presentation and Eric showed 12 tanks (11 with synthetic sea salt mixes and 1 with natural seawater). They did a 100 percent saltwater change each month and scrubbed the tanks clean of any cyno and algae each month. They also measured growth on several species of vertebrates and invertebrates. He showed PRELIMINARY findings only and he has NOT reviewed all of the data yet. They went to great lengths to make sure nothing was exposed to the tanks during the 10 months of testing.Actually it was about 12 months (about 1 1/2- 2 months prior to addition of critters for initial cycle), but who's counting...


From the pictures, IO did the poorest and Red Sea did second best (NSW was the best - it was also the control). Until all of the results are published, no one should be jumping to conclusions. Actually, from a qualitative view, the NSW was a "good average", but not "the best" from what we saw. For now we are attributing this to the fact that the NSW was very sterile, which we don't think that the synthetics were in the slightest.


Also, who does 100% water changes each month? That could have in itself skewed the results. They also only did one tank for each salt mix even though it was a blind study (they did not know which salt was being used on which tank - except by letters A-L).Theoretically, if the salts were sufficient for our tanks, regardless of the percentage change, the inhabitants, small and large, should be able to tolerate the change, especially if it is 100%. The ocean goes through 100% changes many times daily, so why should once a month affect our tanks? Also, doing higher percentange water changes dilutes the pollutants in the water column and what's in the rocks. Besides, all the beneficial bacteria that keep are systems in check are found on the surfaces of the rocks, glass and substrate.


This study was very expensive and I applaud Eric for even attempting this. I have asked Eric to meet with our club and present all of his results in a couple of months. He has agreed to do that and more will follow on this as we firm up the date.I agree it was expensive and we didn't even get paid. If this were to get replicated on this same scale, it would cost and easy $10-15K before we got compensated for our time.

[Isis]

If you drive a chevy do you use Kent, IO, Oceanic, Red Sea,
If you drive a ford do you use Kent, IO, Oceanic, Red Sea,
If you drive a toyota do you use Kent, IO, Oceanic, Red Sea,
If you drive a nissian do you use Kent, IO, Oceanic, Red Sea,
And the arguement continues ..........
Thanks Isis for repling to all the post, I think no matter what testing you do, there is no perfect answer to why animals, corals, and algae act differently in different aquarums. I have three tanks all using Kent salt and not one looks like the other.True, everyone has a preference and they will stick to it for one reason or another, or change because they want...

Chances are your tanks aren't the same on some level... Size? Shape? Angle of flow? Flow rate? Lighting intensity? Bulb life? LR and LR quantity? LR and LS composition? Coral and fish age, origination, etc? Heck even position in your home cause a variable on some small level. There are SO many variables, of which all can change things in the slightest. Of course in our complex systems, there are some balances aquired, but they are easily thrown out of whack due to their sensitivity.

IMO, the more simple, the easier it is to control.

[GaryP]

BTW, urchin larvae survival rate is a standard test for marine water toxicity to my knowledge.

Youare correct. Urchins along with a minnow type fish, and grass shrimp are used as test subjects in tests to determine the toxicity of industrial discharged waste waters. Been there done that in a former life.

The point I think Todd was trying to make was that one species may not be a good standard for determining toxicity. Would you use a dog to test aspirin toxicity in humans. Aspirin is highly toxic in dogs and obviously wouldn't be a good animal model to compare to human toxicity. See my point? Shimek used an echinoderm, but is that necessarily a good model to compare to corals? Not necessarily. Urchin larvae are simplier an easier test subject then corals. Why didn't he use corals? Simple! He didn't have the time, money, and effort that was invested in a more "realistic" experiment such as Eric and Kim did. Which is more realistic, a 10 month test in aquariums or a test lasting a few days in a test tube. My point? You can't compare experimental protocols. Its not an apple and oranges scenario. The two tests had different goals. Eric and Kim weren't looking at toxicity per se. They were looking for what gave the best growth. it just so happens that they came up with some interesting observation concerning nuisance algae along the way.

We are alsways looking for some magic answer to why our tanks aren't suceeding up to our expectations. That's why there are so many magic bullet products out there. There is to much of an expectation of instant gratification in our society. That is a tragic trait when applied to this hobby. For example, why do people buy a product like Chemi-Clean, Faltworm Exit, or Joe's Juice when there are better natural prodators out there to handle those issues? The answer - instant success and gratification. Richard is right, if someone could bottle paitence, they would make a killing in this hobby.

[GaryP]

Chances are your tanks aren't the same on some level... Size? Shape? Angle of flow? Flow rate? Lighting intensity? Bulb life? LR and LR quantity? LR and LS composition? Coral and fish age, origination, etc? Heck even position in your home cause a variable on some small level. There are SO many variables, of which all can change things in the slightest. Of course in our complex systems, there are some balances aquired, but they are easily thrown out of whack due to their sensitivity.
The Butterfly Effect...

[GaryP]

Just to clarify, there are now 2 RS salt products. From reading this thread I think they were being used interchangeably. I had a long talk with the RS rep after the meeting and this is what I found out.

The original RS which was used in this study has calcium removed from the evaporative salt. Again, as was pointed out originally, it was intended to be used with tap water that has additional calcium in it.

The newer salt is intended to compete with the other "reef" salts now on the market such as Oceanic, Reef Crystals, Seachem Reef, etc... Like some of the other salts its intended to be mixed in RO water. It is an "as is" salt, that it is what you get when you evaporate NSW.

I'm not sure where the concern about pollution in the Red Sea are coming from. Its not exactly the Houston Ship Channel. Very little industry to speak of and virtually no agriculture.

Just for the record. I used the older Red Sea version at one time and was very pleased with the result. I switched to Oceanic when it came out. I'm not sure why I didn't go back to it other then all the rest of you had me conviced that IO was the way to go and none of my favorite LFS carried it. I know the slow mixing time was something I recall, however, I usually mix at least 24 hr. in advance so I doubt that's a big issue. RS is available in SA at Fintique. I'm not sure where else it is available. Perhaps we can get one or more of you sponsors to bring in a pallet to give it a try. I know Richard carries the Reef Crystals if someone wants to give it a try. I'm not sure who else carries it.

I got a free bucket of RS pro coral at MACNA and I plan on doing a water change with it this week. I know some of you guys were looking for a U-Haul to haul back your free "samples," so hopefully you can give us your experiences with it.

[Isis]

BTW, urchin larvae survival rate is a standard test for marine water toxicity to my knowledge.

Youare correct. Urchins along with a minnow type fish, and grass shrimp are used as test subjects in tests to determine the toxicity of industrial discharged waste waters. Been there done that in a former life.

The point I think Todd was trying to make was that one species may not be a good standard for determining toxicity. Would you use a dog to test aspirin toxicity in humans. Aspirin is highly toxic in dogs and obviously wouldn't be a good animal model to compare to human toxicity. See my point? Shimek used an echinoderm, but is that necessarily a good model to compare to corals? Not necessarily. Urchin larvae are simplier an easier test subject then corals. Why didn't he use corals? Simple! He didn't have the time, money, and effort that was invested in a more "realistic" experiment such as Eric and Kim did. Which is more realistic, a 10 month test in aquariums or a test lasting a few days in a test tube. My point? You can't compare experimental protocols. Its not an apple and oranges scenario. The two tests had different goals. Eric and Kim weren't looking at toxicity per se. They were looking for what gave the best growth. it just so happens that they came up with some interesting observation concerning nuisance algae along the way.

We are alsways looking for some magic answer to why our tanks aren't suceeding up to our expectations. That's why there are so many magic bullet products out there. There is to much of an expectation of instant gratification in our society. That is a tragic trait when applied to this hobby. For example, why do people buy a product like Chemi-Clean, Faltworm Exit, or Joe's Juice when there are better natural prodators out there to handle those issues? The answer - instant success and gratification. Richard is right, if someone could bottle paitence, they would make a killing in this hobby.Good points...

[GaryP]

Before I am totally misquoted, let me clarify one thing. I am not switching back to RS because of the study. Rather, I was just reminded of what a good product it was for my system and I was given one more reason why I should change back.

Another thing. To say that one product is "the same" as another because it manufactured at the same location is highly misleading. This manufacturer is what is called a "toll manufacturer." That means he mixes up whatever formula with the clients recommended raw materials to the clients QC standards. They are only providing the equiment, labor, and packaging. Two totally different products can be made this way. I had a long chat with Paletta about this when he was here. He had visited the facility in question. Coca Cola and Sprite are made at the same plant, but that doesn't mean they taste the same. I used to work for a toll manufacturer (not salt), so again, been there, done that.

[GaryP]

Admittedly Kim & Eric's experimental protocol wasn't perfect. Unless you can come up with a way to set up 12 perfectly identical full scale tanks you are forced to make sort of concessions to practicality. Kim and Eric made this point numerous times.

I guess my question is this? Can anyone name a study that has been done that was better then this?

All of the hoopla seems to be based on the visual record of the experiment. Namely the nuisance algae, particularly in the IO. Believe me when I say you could a huge difference in the IO tank.

For those of you that are willing to cast the first stone, I would suggest that Kim and Eric would gladly accept your cash donations to do a more exhaustive and complicated study. That would have been easy to do if they had accepted donations from the salt companies. My opinion is that we have enough studies sponsored by the salt companies that all show exactly what they want the data to show. If you want that data, just go to their website. Its readily available. Until we as a hobby come up with a way to fund these sorts of independent studies, we have no room to complain. There was an excellent chemical analysis project going on a couple of years ago. It was shut down about half way through due to a lack of funds. Believe me, you have no idea how tight a shoestring this study was done on.

BTW, we (MAAST) helped support the study to a small degree. I wish we could have done more. We sort of came in on the end to help out when they were about to run out of supplies. We contributed somewhere around $400-500 for the project. DFWMAS and MARSH also contributed as well as several other groups and individuals. Just an example of your contributions to MAAST at work.

[Isis]

Admittedly Kim & Eric's experimental protocol wasn't perfect. Unless you can come up with a way to set up 12 perfectly identical full scale tanks you are forced to make sort of concessions to practicality. Kim and Eric made this point numerous times. We did definitely try to equal to all the tanks when changes were made. Everytime there was an addition of more snails or hermits, we added the same to all. Heck, when one of our fish had some weird "growth", we decided that we would add beta-glucan to the diet since it has been thought to improve immune systems. This of course would aide the fish and not cause any affects to the corals, since well, they don't have a immune response to beta-glucan. Of course the fish got better, then months later it died or disappeared. We then replaced it with another fish from the same brood since we ordered extra at the beginning.


I guess my question is this? Can anyone name a study that has been done that was better then this?Funny you mention that, I was just dicussing this with Eric last night. I don't think I can recall ever reading a journal paper that you looked at it and the experiment looked "flawless". There are so many experiments out there, some of which repeat others to replicate their data. Heck, in some instances, it is hard to replicate because there isn't enough info from the original publishers. Things change, and being a scientist you learn from things like this and repetition. Maybe next time this will be done slightly different with different outcomes. Perhaps this will shed light on the addition of one particular variable?


All of the hoopla seems to be based on the visual record of the experiment. Namely the nuisance algae, particularly in the IO. Believe me when I say you could a huge difference in the IO tank. There is definitely a difference between IO and let's say Red Sea, but I can guarantee you that we will say one is better over the other, we just don't know that. All we will be showing is that given our circumstance in the environment we provide, this particular brand had this amount of growth, reproduction, and mortalities. The algaes present are just additional observations, perhaps contributing to the health of the tank, maybe not?


For those of you that are willing to cast the first stone, I would suggest that Kim and Eric would gladly accept your cash donations to do a more exhaustive and complicated study. That would have been easy to do if they had accepted donations from the salt companies. My opinion is that we have enough studies sponsored by the salt companies that all show exactly what they want the data to show. If you want that data, just go to their website. Its readily available. Until we as a hobby come up with a way to fund these sorts of independent studies, we have no room to complain. There was an excellent chemical analysis project going on a couple of years ago. It was shut down about half way through due to a lack of funds. Believe me, you have no idea how tight a shoestring this study was done on. Definitely. There was some money donated, of which we appreciated so much since we were beginning to tap into our own pockets.

If this ever gets repeated, the researchers will need quite a bit of funds, space and help. In the end, this was a massive learning experiance for both Eric and me.


BTW, we (MAAST) helped support the study to a small degree. I wish we could have done more. We sort of came in on the end to help out when they were about to run out of supplies. We contributed somewhere around $400-500 for the project. DFWMAS and MARSH also contributed as well as several other groups and individuals. Just an example of your contributions to MAAST at work.We thank all who donated!!!

[Bill S]

Ditto what Gary said.

[matt]

The point I think Todd was trying to make was that one species may not be a good standard for determining toxicity. Would you use a dog to test aspirin toxicity in humans. Aspirin is highly toxic in dogs and obviously wouldn't be a good animal model to compare to human toxicity. See my point? Shimek used an echinoderm, but is that necessarily a good model to compare to corals? Not necessarily. Urchin larvae are simplier an easier test subject then corals. Why didn't he use corals?

He used urchin larvae because their mortality is an accepted scientific measure of toxicity in marine water. I'm sure it's obvious to you as a former scientist yourself that toxicity in marine water does not have to be lethal to corals in order to be harmful for our systems. Since most reef tanks are a mini-eco system with interdependency among a variety of species, both visible and microscopic, any water condition that threatens the development and reproduction of marine invertebrates of any species is potentially very harmful to the health of the tank, even if all the corals are nice and pretty.

Alot of people will say something to the effect of "I use such and such and I have good results" or whatever. I more or less said that about Marine Environment. But, the problem with this sort of endorsement is that problematic salts may not manifest themselves for several years in a tank, as the toxicity slowly builds and the biodiversity suffers. In fact, Shimek dd the study because he noticed a decline in the health of one of his tanks after several years and could not explain it any other way.

[TexasTodd]

Um, uh, is there another Todd on here? I didn't make any references to the urchins. :)

TT

[GaryP]

Todd, I apologize. I got lost in the flurry of activity in this thread. I meant Matt.

[GaryP]

All experiments are based on the idea of creating an "experimental model." You try to design the model so that as many variables as possible are controlled for. No model is perfect and no model is going to be identical to a real world sytem. That's why it is a "model." In the design of the model I think Eric and Kim did a great job with the finite resources thay had available to them. The extent of the model has to be defined by available resources. In addition to these compromises they were also forced to make further compromises not planned for in their original model design because of some unplanned developments, such as the growth of large quantities of nuisance algae and the death of fish.

An aqurium itself is a model of a reef. There is no way for an aquarium to have the biodiversity and chemical and physical parameters present in a wild reef. We attempt to do so as best as we can. Recent developments in equipment and additives has gone a long way towards closing the gap between the natural system and the model. Even then we ourselves put factors into the model that are not "natural." I'll give you an example from my own tanks. Where are you going to find a wild reef with critters from the Red Sea, Pacific, and Carribean? Where in the wild are you going to have incompatble species forced to develop new interactions while confined within the space of a few square feet. Again, we do the best we can, but we never have a true "model." Life is all about compromises. This hobby gives us day to day lessons in how to manage those compromises in the best way that we can.

Urchin larvae are a model. The test tube they are in are also part of that model. So were the critters and systems in this study.

OK, I'm off the soap box.

[matt]

Life is all about compromises.

That's something I can wholeheartedly agree with!

[GaryP]

How about this? Why don't we just get Kim and Eric over here to do a talk and you guys can beat up on them (I meant ask them) in person? :)

Deal?

I sorta got this lined up when we are at MACNA. I just need to get with them and work out the details. I'm sure they are going to be busy working on the paper and their other commitments for a while. Now that the data collection phase of the project is done, I'm sure they are both playing catch up as well as doing data analysis and writing the paper. I was hoping for sometime in early 2007.

[TexasTodd]

Sounds great.

When? Nail down a specific time G!

Todd

[GaryP]

Dec 31st, midnite.

[Isis]

How about this? Why don't we just get Kim and Eric over here to do a talk and you guys can beat up on them (I meant ask them) in person? :)

Deal?

I sorta got this lined up when we are at MACNA. I just need to get with them and work out the details. I'm sure they are going to be busy working on the paper and their other commitments for a while. Now that the data collection phase of the project is done, I'm sure they are both playing catch up as well as doing data analysis and writing the paper. I was hoping for sometime in early 2007.I am sure my mother would appreciate me coming home to visit, so I am sure I will be back in SA sometime soon.

The one issue I have with the use of sea urchin larvae is that, how many of us have that in our tanks? The larvae are great for scientific research on various levels and uses, but for our purposes, we were trying to do something that was closer to how a normal hobby tank is.

[Tim Marvin]

Oceanic is the best...LOL....

[Richard]

Oh no! Not you again! LOL

[don-n-sa]

Oceanic is the best...LOL....

:lol

[TexasTodd]

Man you've been off for a while!

Starting a new tank? :skeezy

Todd

[sharkboy]

Just got thru 2 buckets of oceanic....Any suggestions for which one to try out?

[TexasTodd]

Bump.

What's new here? Does anyone have a link that shows the testing of ALL elements for most/all mixes out there? I think I may have even posted a similar link, but can't remember! :)

Todd

[ErikH]

http://maast.org/forums/showthread.php?t=41194&highlight=salt+comparison

[Ping]

Todd, I talked to Kim at last year’s MACNA. Nothing has been published. I think Eric has moved on to other things and left her behind

[TexasTodd]

Thanks guys.

Good to hear from you Ping!

Todd

[Ping]

Erik, your link is not what this thread was about.

[Ping]

I have used many buckets of the major salt brands and have gone back to Oceanic, only now I use straight Oceanic and dose the baking soda/washing soda mix to make up for Oceanics low Alk. This is above my normal and equal dosing of the 2 part system.