Anyone try Marine Environment dual phase formula salt mix???

[billsreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10534588#post10534588 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MDPinUSA
E.g. When simple marine systems are established with silica sand, they produce brown algae. Vs like systems side by side using dolomote as a substate.

I've got to disagree with this. That is purely anectedal, and more to the point my own anecdotal observations over many years disagrees I've set up aquaria with silica sand, dolomite, crushed coral, aragonite sand, etc. and found brown algae almost always is the first to occur. That's also been when using NSW It has more to do with those golden brown diatoms being what an ecologist refers to as a pioneer species. i.e they are typically the first to colonize a fresh surface. This observation is also born out with experiments in situ by placing an object such as a tile or piece of glass in the water, golden brown diatoms will be first to colonize.

Interestingly on the silicate subject, Randy Holmes Farley did some experimentation with adding silicate, yes adding silicate. He was able to dose small levels of silicate, enough to promote growth of organisms, such as sponges, that utilize silicate without having issues of excessive diatom growth.

 

[old salty]

Thanks for your answer.

Nabisco does not put how many Oreos are in a package. They list the weight. I am getting 2 less ounces of cookie per package. A one pound coffee can is pretty much non-existent anymore.

A 50g bag of IO at the LFS clearly states is weighs 15lbs (this is correct as far as my math is concerned.) My bucket that Reef Crystals came in weighs 44.7lbs and claims to make 160g. Doing the math, a bucket of RC is 3.3 lbs shy of it's advertised claim. I have known this for some time and gives me yet another reason to not use their product. All of my emails to their customer service regarding this have been completely ignored!! I commend you for at least having the intestinal fortitude to answer questions in a public forum.

To the mods: I only bring up weight as it was a weighted issue in this S-15 report (it is given a score.) Since MDP is using a public forum to answer questions and clarify some inaccurate statements with this report, I am only trying to get a better understanding of how this report came to it's present state.

 

[MDPinUSA]

We have set up and maintained many different types of marine aquariums in nearly 40 years of marine aquarium keeping.

When we used silica sand we observed the development of brown or diatom algae. Tanks set up at the same time with identical set ups using dolomote did not show brown algae. In fact, the first alga that developed was green.

This was using synthetic sea water. When we used NSW as a control, we saw very little to no brown or diatom algae.

It appears that various types of lighting can play a role in the development of various algae. Using PC lamps as a control, I offer the above comments.

When we introudced Si or used products that contained Si, we observed brown or diatom algae.

When we set up basic systems where Si was avoided, we saw no development of brown or diatom algae.

In new and established systems we maintain and control at this time, we do not see any brown or diatom algae. Not initially or with routine water changes.

We set up totally bare bottom systems with no support equipment, such as skimmers, sumps, resivours, reactor(s), dosers or using any additives or supplements.

We allow what ever "water" we are using to demonstrate what that ionic composition will or will not... can or cannot do.

Since there are a great number of variables with using various items, we choose to eliminate as many of these variables as possible.

Expressing similar or disimilar results opens the channel for communication that can benefit all aquarists. Learning what other items or procedures were employed, other than silica sand might reveal why different aquariums establish and develop differently.

I did not think or intend that 80% of my last post could be viewed as advertising. My intention was to get some people thinking. Then look at various items net weight vs the package next to it.

Package weight is something required by law. This is one of the frist and simplest things anyone can see when looking at various items.

It is misleading to the potential buyer if gallonage is posted, but the net weight contents of the package cannot hydrate that amount of solution at the desired salinity.

This has nothing to do with the purity of the ingredients the consistency or working ability of a brand. This has to do with simple net weight vs. what the product actually offers in usable gallonage.

Heavy metals in measurements up to hundreds of times that found in NSW can easily be tested by a competant lab. It is no secret that heavy metals in excess can be harmful to captive marine organisms.

I offered a lot of information in an effort to negate or circumvent future questions.

Cheers. MDP

 

[billsreef]

The interesting thing about anecdotal evidence with such things as brown algae development, we both have a similar amount of years experience, yet have made some differing observations of the same subject. The one place I will agree with you is on difference of lighting. In my years of aquarium keeping, both hobby and professional, I find that lighting plays much more of a role in brown algae development than use of different substrates or even different salt mixes vs. NSW.

BTW, getting back to GSP, you mention it was a group of professional aquarists. As I know and have known many professional (industry, public aquaria, and research institutions) aquarists over the years I would be curious if your willing to share the names of the folk that formed up GSP, either publicly or via PM. I'm curious to find out if I know any of them

 

[HowardW]

MDPinUSA, Can you please elaborate on the use of EDTA in salt mixes, and do your salt mixes contain any EDTA?

 

[Boomer]

So I go on a fishing trip knowing all this would happen. I rest my case. Bill's remarks pretty much proves my point. It is all hype to sell a salt mix. I see little need to add anything. And this tread sounds like all others over the years. Bill you are not going to get much for answers, just as in the past. It is all a marketing scheme.

GSP can be found nowhere accept on his website. Proof is in the pudding.

A registered trade mark has no meaning or bearing on anything. So what is the point ? An a lot can be said of the same for patients.

Currently we hold about 30%-35% of the world marine salt market

Yah sure as if I believe that. :lol:

It is enlightening to discover which brands of salts have declined in integrity as well as lowered their net weight. E.g. 15 pounds of balanced marine salt chemistry is required to hydrate 50 US gallons of working solution at a SG of 1.024-1.025

That means nothing and nonsense . Just because some salt hydrates to 1.024 -1.025 means nothing in regards to its components. Having a salt mix solution at 35 g /Kg = 1.024 or even 1.026 says nothing.

) Mg in NSW at 35 ppt. salinity can range from 1290 ppm. to 1350 ppt. This depends on which book you read.

More nonsense. Let me see, I have almost every seawater chem, oceanography, marine biology book in print or out of print and NONE of them state this par 2. Not to mention all the seawater chem links there are on the net that state otherwise.

Your [/b] is generally agreed that Mg in NSW at 35 ppt. is about 1325-1350 ppm[/b] can be found nowhere . Show some places I'll show you two out of 20 ref book forms and they are 40-50 year old texts, namely Horne and Harvey. You need a big update.

Here are some of my ref. just books, that state otherwise

Millero, Chester, Riley & Chester, Libbes, Open University, Riley & Skirorow, Spotte, Wilson, Pilson, Thurman, Castro, Garrison, etc.. and all from ~1270 - ~1290, no such thing as 1325 -1350.

I did not think or intend that 80% of my last post could be viewed as advertising. My intention was to get some people thinking

All of your posts MDP are a form of advertising, that is your goal to sell and is why you have been warned so many times on forums. Your only thinkin or intention, as you put it, is IMHO and many others, is to get them to buy your salts or leads to it. Probably the reason why reefaquarium is such a dead forum now as you are so involved in it. Avg 10 post /day less than ~ 6 active members on-line at an time, got banned from MACNA this year and then sent out flyers to tell members not to go to MACNA but IMAC, which ended up being canceled anyway.

BTW you may want to look at some of the more recent salt assay that say other wise as to how good your salt is and where they sit when compared to the S-15 Of course, I'm sure you will disagree with them

 

[Boomer]

Oh, I forgot something

Ok, so let say for the sake of argument the S-15 is on the up and up


Most salt manufacturers have modified their formulations.

Ok, since you are such a great and concerned guy, honest, high integrity, reverent and all that stuff then why is the S-15 report still on your website, as it is 12 or so years go. Being that salt mixes have changed, by you own admission, you should be pulling it as it is VERY misleading. It is no more than gibberish and is meaningless and misleading. Yet, you still have it there why ? IMHO it is to mislead people hoping that they will buy it. And many have read it and been misled. So much for that such a great and concerned guy, honest, high integrity, reverent and all that stuff kinda guy . Not to mention no list of who or what GSP is in regards to contacting any so called claimed person from it. So you have 2 dead ducks sitting in the water.

Another point the scoring system. I have looked at it and pointed out on RAG long ago and no comment from you. Randy Holmes-Farley and Habib have looked at and said the same thing here, it is slanted to make your salts look good.

I'll say it again for about the 5th time in years


How come he does not put this S 15 assay all on a one page plot. Because he does not want you to be able to really compare salts. He only wants you to see what he wants you to see. Go there and copy all those gif reports and compare things when they are side by side and then look at how he scores things.

Your Bromide claims

Recent tests and your Bromide on Bio-Sea (BSM) are through the roof and not even close to 6O-63 ppm as claimed on the S-15

More.

His so called scoring system seems to be based on 5-6% of being off form NSW. Look at his sulfate for MARINE ENVIRONMENT a very major ion in NSW and is ways past that 5-6 %, yet he gives no red mark for it. When other salts are high in other ions he red flags them but not his. It appears if his salts are high in any major or minor ions he does not lower their score. Another salt of his Coral Marine, which is quite low in Potassium, yet no red flags but yet he red flags others that have more than his or that are above NSW ..........And on and on.

The S-15 Reportâ"žÂ¢ was prepared by Anresco Laboratories, an independent third party laboratory. The majority of testing was performed by the University of Missouri, a US Government prime contract testing laboratory, Environmental Trace Substances Research Center, Dept. of Environmental Science & Technology

Why are the signed and dated documents form these places not on the website

In his own words, that he like to use, it is all a smoke screen And we need a very large industrial vacuum pump to get it out

 

[Ninong]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10383733#post10383733 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Billybeau1
Heck this S-15 report you speak of was back in 1999 if I remember correctly. Almost 8 years ago.

I believe the S-15 report was first published in 1988 or 1989. Perhaps Mr. Del Prete will verify that for us in this thread?

P.S. -- The S-15 report was discussed in this post by Dr. Craig Bingman back in 1999, in which he estimated that the S-15 report was at least 10 years old then.

Dept. of Corrections:

I believe Dr. Bingman was a little bit off on the "10 years" comment he posted in 1999. It appears that the University of Missouri testing was done in 1992. That would mean that the S-15 report was probably first published in 1993.

Trivia: The mysterious Global Scientific Publications -- a group of concerned individuals worldwide -- is not incorporated, as far as I can tell, and has never published anything other than this S-15 report.

 

[Boomer]

I think you are right Nin. His only date is his beef with Kent dated 1995, which is why only posted 12 years.

 

[Billybeau1]

Thanks for the correction Ninong.

I just pulled it out and apparently it was featured in an article in March of 1999 on a web site called animalnetwork. Thats where I got that date from.

Anyways, nice to see you pop in. Come visit us more often.

 

[Ninong]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10550620#post10550620 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Boomer
I think you are right Nin. His only date is his beef with Kent dated 1995, which is why only posted 12 years.

I'm fairly confident that it was first published in 1993. I was misled by Craig's comment in 1999 that the S-15 report was about 10 years old then. It was evidently only six years old then.

Have you been able to find anything at all on Global Scientific Publications? A list of officers? Incorporation information? Anything at all that they have published besides this S-15 report?

Maybe Mr. Del Prete can clear that up for us. I noticed that he volunteered his "advice" to another reefkeeping bulletin board four years ago when they were undertaking their own self-financed salt mix study. He posted then that he was "personally involved in salt mix testing from 1985-2002."

 

[Boomer]

Nothing on GSP and have given up on it.

Every time there is a salt study and he hears about it, he tries to to find a way to get involved in it. When Inland was doing theirs he wanted to "help" them so they did it right :lol:

More than likely is was "his own" board, RAG, where he did not use to be and was almost banned and had posts deleted by the Adim but now is there Business Advisor. Of course all those other people left and it is now a dead board and he managed to help them get banned from MACNA this year

 

[old salty]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10416246#post10416246 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Billybeau1
Nothing ever gets ugly in the Chemistry Forum. We make sure of that.

I would like to think that I could hold you to this. Judging by the way things are headed, I have a feeling that I am going to be sorely disappointed.

So much for objective information in the Chemistry Forum. I sure do miss Dr. Farley.



"Reef Central is an online community where quality information about the marine and reef aquarium hobby can be exchanged among all levels of hobbyist from beginner to advanced."

 

[Billybeau1]

old salty, you have a pm.

 

[Ninong]

Re: Anyone try Marine Environment dual phase formula salt mix???

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10379113#post10379113 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ezcompany
I have never heard of 2 part salt mix, but this claims to have all the elements spot on, comparing themselves to other leading brands of salt. has anyone had any experiences with this 2 part salt mix?
here's the link i saw:

http://www.northcoastmarines.com/salt_comparison.htm

ezcompany,

Just be aware that the "comparisons" quoted in that North Coast Marines advertisement were supplied by the manufacturer of this salt mix and they are based on a study that was done in 1992.

Whether Aquacraft's salt mix is good, bad or indifferent, is not what attracts so much controversy as their misleading advertising claims. Their claims are supposedly based on a study performed back in 1992. Following the study, Aquacraft devised a point-scoring system to rate the results of that study.

The point-scoring system valued bromide very highly. Their product has extra bromide, most of the other products back in 1992 did not. Some of those products have since added bromide.

For whatever reasons, the point-scoring system valued elevated sulfate as a good thing. Their product has sulfate at approximately 20% above NSW levels. I would love to hear from Mr. Del Prete why he thinks elevated sulfate is to be valued.

If elevated sulfate is a good thing, then what about elevated lithium? His product has more lithium than any of his competitors by a country mile. In fact, it has 18 times as much lithium as NSW, (3.13 vs. 0.17). Surely that must be a benefit, right? One could claim that it calmed the fish down and made them less stressful.

And while elevated boron is not something I would want in a salt mix, I wonder why he didn't notice that his product has only 1/20 the boron level of NSW? (0.22 vs. 4.6)

The bottom line is that if you choose to try Aquacraft's products, don't do so based on advertising claims that are biased at best and more likely deliberately misleading. I am surprised that vendors would use these so-called comparisons from 1992 in their ad copy today. Virtually all of those salt mixes have changed since then.

 

[MDPinUSA]

Bill:

Part of the negotiations for securing the independent lab information that was later named the S-15 Reportâ"žÂ¢ included signed agreements that insulated GSP from future liability. Also so GSP would not be plagued with a host of email, fax's etc. from individuals that ultimately became a bother.

I can tell you that the vast majority of GSP members were located outside the USA. As I stated, GSP was represented as an off shore group.

What is most important is that the independently generated information was factual and accurate.

HowardW:

We are familiar with EDTA. We have performed exhaustive R & D with no less than six forms of this bonding or chelating agent.

We utilize a specially formulated EDTA that has proven beneficial for inclusion in some of our items. This for bonding metals, enhancing the development of some unicellular agla, etc.

There has been some speculation regarding the pro's and con's of using ETDA. The readily available forms of this acid did not yield results that we thought were worthy of addition or use. E.g. False positives when testing some ions. The development of unwanted algae. The appearance of stress on some captive marine organisms. Undesirable long term effects in the closed system, etc.

The specially manufactured version we employ has been used in marine salt formulations that have proven highly successful in the bio assay of sea urchin as well as marine fish larva. This same marine salt was also used in a program where corals were reproduced, not propagated.

We use this specially made EDTA in our Serie' AA marine salt formulation. This is an in house name for the brand shown on the name of this thread.

I am reluctant to offer who makes this for us, the grade or the amount we use, and in which items. This is information gleaned at our own time and costs.

Boomer:

For what ever reason, I believe you knowingly and willfully posted misinformation and falsehoods on the worlds largest international web site directed to marine aquarium keepers regarding me personally as well as some of our accomplishments.

This is diametrically antipode to what RC stands for. Check the RC home page and understand what this site stands for. Also review the terms and condition of posting on RC.

I responded to your charges. You were openly asked to provide proof that what you posted was accurate.

You did not. In fact, you continue to post the same things over and over. As well as taking things out of context and/or put your own spin on what was clearly posted.

1) Please enlighten me as well as other RC'ers how 14 pounds of marine salts can hydrate the same amount of working solution (same salinity and same temperature) as 15 pounds of the same balanced marine salt chemistry?

2) Provide any type of proof that I ever had or currently have a brother-in-law working in any capacity at Anresco Lab.

You must support this statement before we (RC) can move on with the many other falsehoods you posted.

If you cannot provide documents or evidence to this claim, it can be simply regarded as one more of your posts without base and with malice. Therefore, it is highly possible a great number of other things you post on this and other threads (as well as other web sites) cannot be believed.

Just respond to #1 and #2. No more posting the same nonsense and personal attacks over and over.

 

[Ninong]

ezcompany,

There are several other "comparison" studies posted online that provide analyses of various salt mixes. Here is one published in September 2004 by Dr. Timothy A. Hovanec. (Dr. Hovanec is an employee of the company that manufacturers Instant Ocean and Reef Crystals.)

You will notice that Dr. Hovanec's 2004 study shows much, much higher levels of certain metals in BioSea Marine Mix compared to the levels claimed by AquaCraft in the S-15 report from 1993.

For example: Dr. Hovanec shows BioSea Marine Mix with more than six times the total of 10 dangerous toxic metals as the next highest salt mix tested. In particular, Dr. Hovanec found extremely high levels of chromium, manganese, molybdenum and nickel in BioSea Marine Mix. The values found by Dr. Hovanec are much, much higher than those reported in the 1993 S-15 report.

P.S. -- Here is what the S-15 report (published in 1993) claims for Instant Ocean. You might want to compare this against what Dr. Hovanec claimed for Instant Ocean in 2004. (Note that the S-15 report unit of measurement is ppm and Dr. Hovanec's figures are sometimes given as ppm and other times as ppb. The comparison chart on the 10 toxic metals is in ppb, so adjust three decimal places.)

 

[GTR]

What does "this amount or less" mean. Is that a maybe number?

SteveU

 

[Ninong]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10552182#post10552182 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by gtrestoration
What does "this amount or less" mean. Is that a maybe number?

SteveU

That usually means that it is below the detection limit of the testing equipment.

< means "less than."

> means "greater than."

 

[GTR]

So how can you state that the levels are high?

In the tests you offer above did Marineland test the NSW samples or pull them from reference books?

SteveU