A General Guide to Salt Mixes

[Aquarist007]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15302177#post15302177 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by lastduke
Let me ask a newbie question. After been educated by Randy, homemade two parts dosing is a cheap and effective way to adjust CA, ALK. Why do we care about the readings from different salt? we can always dose it and adjust it to the normal range execpt mg too high. I know it sounds too easy to be believed, I just don't understand it.

The accepted range for alk is 8.5 - 11.5 dkH. I would want to keep it within that range.
Similarily with magnesium 1300 ppm. Although I and a number of other reefers prefer 1400 ppm. Some will run it at 1600 for a couple of weeks to get rid of bryopsis(algae)

The other thing I could see possible happening is relying too much on the addivities and ignoring water changes. Water changes replentish the trace elements but they also are very affective at reducing nitrates and restoring the buffer system in your tank.

 

[Billybeau1]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15302177#post15302177 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by lastduke
Let me ask a newbie question. After been educated by Randy, homemade two parts dosing is a cheap and effective way to adjust CA, ALK. Why do we care about the readings from different salt? we can always dose it and adjust it to the normal range execpt mg too high. I know it sounds too easy to be believed, I just don't understand it.

Simply stated, some tanks seem to do better with one brand of salt as opposed to another. They do not all have the same levels of the things we do not measure for.

Reefers have different livestock that require different needs and have different consumption rates. Couple this with the wide range of husbandry practices we all have, one salt may just be a better fit than another for that particular situation.

Some reefers do not have time to make homemade recipes and dose on a particular schedule. They rely on water changes to keep their parameters in check. Others find peace in dosing on a regular schedule to keep their tank looking good.

 

[DenverDave]

Does anyone know if Instant Ocean has changed anything? I've made water with both a bag and a bucket and tested Magnesium at about 1300 each time (Salifert).

I noticed the numbers from Billybeau in the start of this thread for IO for Mg were below 1100.

To make the matter even more confusing, I called IO and they insisted that IO has not changed, and that if you mix to 35 ppt, you should expect Mg numbers in the 12-1300's ppm.

But, this contradicts the numbers Billybeau originally posted.

Anyone have any ideas?

Dave

 

[Aquarist007]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15325956#post15325956 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by DenverDave
Does anyone know if Instant Ocean has changed anything? I've made water with both a bag and a bucket and tested Magnesium at about 1300 each time (Salifert).

I noticed the numbers from Billybeau in the start of this thread for IO for Mg were below 1100.

To make the matter even more confusing, I called IO and they insisted that IO has not changed, and that if you mix to 35 ppt, you should expect Mg numbers in the 12-1300's ppm.

But, this contradicts the numbers Billybeau originally posted.

Anyone have any ideas?

Dave

good question---I would like to know that to----I think I read earlier in this thread that IO had revised their formula?

 

[DenverDave]

However, and this is the confusing part, IO insisted that the formula has remained static for years.

 

[Billybeau1]

IO has not changed its formula in years.

The thing about testing magnesium, is, this particular test has the most test noise of any of the hobby grade kits.

It is not uncommon to see a difference of 200 ppm from hobby grade kits depending on which brand you are using.

I doubt IO's claims that their salt at 1.0264 has 1200 to 1300 ppm. At least I have not seen it testing with 3 different brand test kits.

 

[DenverDave]

Billybeau,

So is your reported Mg number of 1070 ppm an average of several test kits? If it is, and Salifert is high, that means that some test kits yielded concentrations below 1000, right?

You'll probably guess the inevitable next question:

If I'm using Salifert correctly, then is Salifert wrong? Or, did I just get lucky with a bag and a bucket with higher concentrations?

 

[Billybeau1]

You certainly could have.

Actually, the Salifert and Elos reported the same. The others were all over the place. I threw those numbers out.

The previous mentioned are the only 2 hobby grade kits I consider worth a darn for magnesium testing.

As I stated earlier, mag tests are really touchy. I would say anything between 1050 and 1200 would be a believable number for IO @ 35 ppt.

 

[DenverDave]

Billybeau,

Another way of looking at it is that with Salifert's test, they have to get up to 1500 ppm in 1 mL, which means every tenth of a mL of titration yields 150 ppm difference- the resolution is much lower than say, the calcium tests.

It's just frustrating to me that the numbers are different, and we don't know if they are different b/c of the tests kits, the salt, or human error, or any combination of these!

I do have a question- if I am mixing IO to 35 ppt and then boosting Mg from 1070 ppm (assuming I get a "normal bag") to 1400 ppm (I like it here so far) PLUS boosting my calcium from 350 ppm to 410 ppm, then my SG will end up probably around 37 ppt in my make up water. I also dose full strength limewater for cal/alk maintenance and make up the rest of the demand with Randy's 2 part.

My question is: my SG is bound to drift upward over time in my tank- would you overskim and dillute in the main tank, or would you mix the makeup water to less than 35 ppt initially?

The whole goal is to get about 35 ppt worth of trace elements packed into the tank, right?

 

[Billybeau1]

Boosting calcium and magnesium does not raise salinity. If you dose evaporated water with limewater, your salinity should not increase.

 

[DenverDave]

Billybeau,

The caclium chloride I boost my make-up water with releases Cl ions- the Magnesium does the same. Doesn't this affect the reading on my refractometer?

 

[Billybeau1]

I do not believe so DD, but I could be wrong I suppose. I'll look through some of Randy's articles and see if I can find out for sure.

 

[Aquarist007]

My question is: my SG is bound to drift upward over time in my tank- would you overskim and dillute in the main tank, or would you mix the makeup water to less than 35 ppt initially?

The whole goal is to get about 35 ppt worth of trace elements packed into the tank, right? [/B]

The only thing that would make your salinity drift upward overtime would be through evaporation of ro/di water--and subsequently not replacing the evaporatio with ro/di water.

Refractometers should be standardized quite frequently using the pin point solution--this could make a difference.

If my system water is off in salinity--I correct or compensate using ro/di water first. Then I do a water change with 1.026. I find this a little more stable on the overall system rather then trying to second guess on using an amount of salt water less then 1.026.
I use to do this but found a got a little bit of a pendulum affect with the salinity level in the system.

 

[Billybeau1]

The small difference in salinity will not affect trace elements much, because, well, they are trace elements.

I would not sweat the trace element thing as long as you are doing regular water changes.

 

[DenverDave]

Thanks, guys.

 

[Billybeau1]

:thumbsup:

 

[ILLiDaN]

i made a thread earlier this week, and has anyone had any experience with the D-D h20 salt, and it producing a thicker skimmate after trying it out? Is this a bad or good thing? I feel like its nice to have a nastier looking skimmate, but if my skimmer was not so kick @55 it would be producing something in my main tank.

 

[ILLiDaN]

i made a thread earlier this week, and has anyone had any experience with the D-D h20 salt, and it producing a thicker skimmate after trying it out? Is this a bad or good thing? I feel like its nice to have a nastier looking skimmate, but if my skimmer was not so kick @55 it would be producing something in my main tank.

 

[Aquarist007]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15371637#post15371637 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ILLiDaN
i made a thread earlier this week, and has anyone had any experience with the D-D h20 salt, and it producing a thicker skimmate after trying it out? Is this a bad or good thing? I feel like its nice to have a nastier looking skimmate, but if my skimmer was not so kick @55 it would be producing something in my main tank.

I switched over about a month or so ago but have seen no difference in the skimmate and amount produced
What I have noticed is that in the 45 gal brute container I use there is a brown preciptiate on the sides of it and I get a brown skim on the top of the water.
I've just being ignoring it --doesn't seem to affect the chemistry at all in the system

 

[ILLiDaN]

alright, sorry about the double post. Other people have noticed this at least on other forums, nothing bad has come out of it short term. Just bothers me a little bit.