Scuba Josh
New member
How is Redsea or Seachem?
best salt?
- Thread starter Scuba Josh
- Start date
Henry Bowman
Reefing since '87
Never used either. The most popular salt is Instant Ocean. I have seen polls here on RC as well as talked to many other hobbyists. I use IO with no problems at all in a SPS dominant tank. I have also heard good things about Reef Crystals. Reef Crystals is a product made by Instant Ocean that has a higher Calcium level and better (higher) trace elements that most reef hobbyists look for in thir coral tanks. I am considering a switch to Reef Crystals when I run through the last bucket of IO that I have.
FWIW
FWIW
Scuba Josh
New member
thanks...anyone else
Jeff
Premium Member
I have used most of the popular salt mixes in my time but Tropic Marin Pro Reef is the best in my opinion. It seems to buffer the best and the calcium/alk levels are perfect without adding supplimentation. It has all 70 essential trace elements.
Polyp extension is increased with it as well.
It is expensive but worth it IMO.
Jeff
Polyp extension is increased with it as well.
It is expensive but worth it IMO.
Jeff
drummereef
Team RC
IO for me. 
Billybeau1
Premium Member
Reef Crystals is my choice
Scuba Josh
New member
thanks guys, I think I will go with the reef crystals
Rhodesholar
New member
For the money Reef Crystals IMO can't be beat. Mixes to 450 Ca++ and 12 DKH with all the neccessary trace elements. Drs Foster and Smith had it on sale for $31.99 for 160gallon bucket.
Scuba you can decide for yourself kinda.
The Composition Of Several Synthetic Seawater Mixes
http://web.archive.org/web/20001215...s/1/default.asp
Feature Article: Inland Reef Aquaria Salt Study, Part I
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2005/11/aafeature1
Feature Article: Inland Reef Aquaria Salt Study Part II
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2005/12/aafeature1
A Chemical Analysis of Select Trace Elements in Synthetic Sea Salts and Natural Seawater
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/sept2004/feature.htm
TOXICITY OF TRACE ELEMENTS: TRUTH OR MYTH?
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/may2003/feature.htm
The Composition Of Several Synthetic Seawater Mixes
http://web.archive.org/web/20001215...s/1/default.asp
Feature Article: Inland Reef Aquaria Salt Study, Part I
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2005/11/aafeature1
Feature Article: Inland Reef Aquaria Salt Study Part II
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2005/12/aafeature1
A Chemical Analysis of Select Trace Elements in Synthetic Sea Salts and Natural Seawater
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/sept2004/feature.htm
TOXICITY OF TRACE ELEMENTS: TRUTH OR MYTH?
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/may2003/feature.htm
Rhodesholar
New member
Boomer,
I can't believe you didn't inclue the S-15 report since it is the only definitive/accurate research on the matter. :lmao:
I can't believe you didn't inclue the S-15 report since it is the only definitive/accurate research on the matter. :lmao:
Boomer,
If you refer to the article "A Chemical Analysis of Select Trace Elements in Synthetic Sea Salts and Natural Seawater" you will see that Catalina Water was one of the brands tested and showed very high levels of lead and zinc when compared with NSW.
I was told this may be due to the engine emissions from the boat used to collect the water, would that make sense to you?
If you refer to the article "A Chemical Analysis of Select Trace Elements in Synthetic Sea Salts and Natural Seawater" you will see that Catalina Water was one of the brands tested and showed very high levels of lead and zinc when compared with NSW.
I was told this may be due to the engine emissions from the boat used to collect the water, would that make sense to you?
<<< For the money Reef Crystals IMO can't be beat. Mixes to 450 Ca++ and 12 DKH with all the neccessary trace elements. >>>
Assuming that the 'best' salt would be one that mixed up closest to NSW parameters at 1.0264, why would RC mix up to a DKH of about 72% higher than NSW? And how would the average reefer know if RC does in fact contain all necessary trace elements and if they were included in line with NSW levels or deficient or horribly excessive, and relatively consistent from batch to batch?
Assuming that the 'best' salt would be one that mixed up closest to NSW parameters at 1.0264, why would RC mix up to a DKH of about 72% higher than NSW? And how would the average reefer know if RC does in fact contain all necessary trace elements and if they were included in line with NSW levels or deficient or horribly excessive, and relatively consistent from batch to batch?
Yah sure Rhode, I how did I forget that one :lol:
Howard, that may be the reason, as least it makes sense. You will not have that much in NSW that far out. Or maybe the equipment they use to pump it out with or even store. That looks like the stuff one would expect from pipes, i.e., plumbing exhaust pipes etc.. Engine emissions themselves contain no copper or zinc.
Howard, that may be the reason, as least it makes sense. You will not have that much in NSW that far out. Or maybe the equipment they use to pump it out with or even store. That looks like the stuff one would expect from pipes, i.e., plumbing exhaust pipes etc.. Engine emissions themselves contain no copper or zinc.
Scuba Josh
New member
Boomer....thanks a lot. This is great! Just what I was looking for.
Rhodesholar
New member
Howard,
I think the first place I have to disagree is the assumption of best salt mixing close to NSW.
First this is where I got the info on traces:
http://saltaquarium.about.com/cs/seasaltmixes/l/aa090503b.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20010303...om/fish2/aqfm/1999/mar/features/1/default.asp
Also if you prefer to run your tank at NSW levels, bless you and by no means am I saying it is not right or detrimental. I prefer not and many experts also recommend parameters outside of NSW. There is also now evidence that higher ALK levels promote growth, color and overall vibrance of SPS.
Here is one such article:
http://www.reefcorner.com/Manual/sps_coloration.htm
I have another article by Eric Borneman where he clearly states that NSW levels are not optimal in a closed environement but it is on my computer at home and I will paste it later. Julian Sprung also has advocated elevated ALK levels.
Personally for me at NSW levels there is not enough margin of error in such a small closed environment. I like a higer DKH and Ca++ level for reasons previously mentioned (Boomer don't get on me about the Ca++ I know above 380 matters not but if I don't supplement I will drop below 380 rapidly thus why I shoot for 450)so RC is perfect for me at it's price point.
I would agree that the best approach would be to mix a couple different brands of salt together but for the money RC is the winner "for me".
I think the first place I have to disagree is the assumption of best salt mixing close to NSW.
First this is where I got the info on traces:
http://saltaquarium.about.com/cs/seasaltmixes/l/aa090503b.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20010303...om/fish2/aqfm/1999/mar/features/1/default.asp
Also if you prefer to run your tank at NSW levels, bless you and by no means am I saying it is not right or detrimental. I prefer not and many experts also recommend parameters outside of NSW. There is also now evidence that higher ALK levels promote growth, color and overall vibrance of SPS.
Here is one such article:
http://www.reefcorner.com/Manual/sps_coloration.htm
I have another article by Eric Borneman where he clearly states that NSW levels are not optimal in a closed environement but it is on my computer at home and I will paste it later. Julian Sprung also has advocated elevated ALK levels.
Personally for me at NSW levels there is not enough margin of error in such a small closed environment. I like a higer DKH and Ca++ level for reasons previously mentioned (Boomer don't get on me about the Ca++ I know above 380 matters not but if I don't supplement I will drop below 380 rapidly thus why I shoot for 450)so RC is perfect for me at it's price point.
I would agree that the best approach would be to mix a couple different brands of salt together but for the money RC is the winner "for me".
Last edited:
No Rhodes that is fine for you to that. It understand your reasoning.
I posted most of those same links above
Eric Borneman where he clearly states that NSW levels are not optimal in a closed environement
Yah, so much for Eric's so called theories and all his crashed tanks
There is also now evidence that higher ALK levels promote growth, color and overall vibrance of SPS.
But that does not mean in the end it is a good thing. That is a unnatural thing. Same can be said for certain K's. Again, it is the reefer trying to out do mother nature She always wins
I posted most of those same links above
Eric Borneman where he clearly states that NSW levels are not optimal in a closed environement
Yah, so much for Eric's so called theories and all his crashed tanks
There is also now evidence that higher ALK levels promote growth, color and overall vibrance of SPS.
But that does not mean in the end it is a good thing. That is a unnatural thing. Same can be said for certain K's. Again, it is the reefer trying to out do mother nature
She always wins I was just playing devils advocate Rhode I'm sure RC works just fine for an awful lot of people and it's been around for a long time.
I do have a question on this statement though...
" Eric Borneman where he clearly states that NSW levels are not optimal in a closed environement "
Does he really mean that NSW levels are not optimal for a closed system, or just that NSW levels are not reasonably practical to maintain in a closed system and therefore not optimal in his opinion?
How can NSW levels not be ultimately optimal since that is where the specimens we keep come from to begin with?
I'm sure RC works just fine for an awful lot of people and it's been around for a long time.I do have a question on this statement though...
" Eric Borneman where he clearly states that NSW levels are not optimal in a closed environement "
Does he really mean that NSW levels are not optimal for a closed system, or just that NSW levels are not reasonably practical to maintain in a closed system and therefore not optimal in his opinion?
How can NSW levels not be ultimately optimal since that is where the specimens we keep come from to begin with?
Rhodesholar
New member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9908340#post9908340 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HowardW
I was just playing devils advocate Rhode
I do have a question on this statement though...
" Eric Borneman where he clearly states that NSW levels are not optimal in a closed environement "
Does he really mean that NSW levels are not optimal for a closed system, or just that NSW levels are not reasonably practical to maintain in a closed system and therefore not optimal in his opinion?
How can NSW levels not be ultimately optimal since that is where the specimens we keep come from to begin with?
He specifically says NSW levels are not optimum and explains why and he goes into detail on calcification and how eleveted ALK helps and so forth. I am going to forget even trying to explain since I don't want to call down the rath of Boomer.
. I will let him disagree with Eric Borneman and the info provided in the article.Similar threads
