BIO-SEA® Marinemix: THe untold story

Randy Holmes-Farley

Reef Chemist
Premium Member
With all of the hoopla about BIO-SEAÃ"šÃ‚® Marinemix, it seems as if some folks have neglected some critical issues with this salt.

Primarily, from my perspective, it does not do a very good job of matching natural seawater of several ions (based on the manufacturers own data):

Lithium is 1700% of seawater (they claim that is good because it is a "metabolic stimulator")

Boron is only 5% of natural seawater levels (why the heck leave it out? It is an important pH buffer; they claim it to be a toxicity concern even at natural levels, so they leave it out on purpose: http://www.aquacraft.net/sf9908.html )

Iodide is about 1000% of seawater iodide

Sulfate (a major ion) is a whopping 24% above seawater (they claim higher sulfate is good, but give no justification:
http://www.aquacraft.net/s9910.html

Copper is much above NSW (as are many metals), and higher than my tests of IO


all data from: http://www.aquacraft.net/w0002.html
 
Thanks for the info.
I was thinking of changing but have been hesitant to depart from good ol' IO.
 
FWIW, I'm not claiming that any particular salt is best, only that they all have their oddities, and that they don't do a very good job of reproducing NSW. BUT, people should not infer from some comments about certain metals that these salt mixes do a better job of fully reproducing NSW than any other mix.
 
I dig what you're saying.
I am from the school of 'If it ain't broke...tinker with it." :)

But if IO is perfectly fine then why change?

As soon as it warms up a bit more I will be using NSW for awhile anyway. Got to see if it 'perks' things up.
 
Mako said:
Your using data from the S-15 report to tell this story. :confused:

S-15 is put out by Aquacraft isn't it? I'd think if you pull negatives from their own marketing material they'd be correct. It's the positives you'd have to worry about.
 
i made the switch to BIO-SEAÃ"šÃ‚® Marinemix about a month ago nothing bleached everything seems happy and my red slime problem went away but that could be due to many other factors. All in all I'm very happy with it
 
Re: BIO-SEA® Marinemix: THe untold story

Re: BIO-SEAÃ"šÃ‚® Marinemix: THe untold story

Randy Holmes-Farley said:
With all of the hoopla about BIO-SEAÃ"šÃ‚® Marinemix

I though Crystal Seas Marinemix was the one getting all of the hoopla...ya know the bleaching one. ;)
 
Oops...my bad. I just realized from JB's comments that Randy is talking about Aquacraft marinemix and not ME marinemix. doh I was thinking ME's salt when I read "all the hoopla".

Clear as mud, right?
 
Re: BIO-SEA® Marinemix: THe untold story

Re: BIO-SEAÃ"šÃ‚® Marinemix: THe untold story

Randy Holmes-Farley said:
With all of the hoopla about BIO-SEAÃ"šÃ‚® Marinemix, it seems as if some folks have neglected some critical issues with this salt.

I don't know what "hoopla" you are talking about :)

There are two approaches to analyzing salt mixes. The first is a chemical makeup analysis, the second is a biological impact analysis. Each has its own importance, and neither should probably stand on its own. Chemical analysis is easier, and more people refer to it, but not a single chemical analysis will answer the important question of "yes, but does it work?".

Personally, I don't care if my salt mix contains cow dung as long as it offers survivability in line with NSW :) As far as the "critical issues" you refer to, I'm not sure how you have proven that they are critical at all :)

I am using a lot of smiley faces because I don't want you to feel like I am attacking you personally. I just don't think chemical analysis (by itself) gets us anywhere. As such, I tend to ignore chemical "salt mix" threads since I have yet to read one that tells me anything useful. They all dance around the question of survivability because they cannot answer it.
 
If this salt mix thing doesn't straighten itself out pretty soon, I think I am the one that is going to need some Lithium!
crazy.gif
 
Randy Holmes-Farley said:
FWIW, I'm not claiming that any particular salt is best, only that they all have their oddities, and that they don't do a very good job of reproducing NSW. BUT, people should not infer from some comments about certain metals that these salt mixes do a better job of fully reproducing NSW than any other mix.

I am curious about this seemingly universal concept that salt mixes should reproduce NSW. Isn't it possible that marine life
adapts to NSW DESPITE components that it might be better off without?
 
BonsaiNut:

I am using a lot of smiley faces because I don't want you to feel like I am attacking you personally.

An attack? I agree 100%. I've fought thousand post battles claiming that chemical analysis of water doesn't prove the case for toxicity.

You'll note that I didn't claim any salt mix to be better than any other. I simply pointed out that this particulr mix does not reproduce NSW as well as might be desired, nor as well as many might think

Personally, I don't care if my salt mix contains cow dung as long as it offers survivability in line with NSW

So have you tested your salt mix or tank water using any creature that you actually keep in your tank?

Do you know that your tank water can support urchin embryos?

What salt mix do you use and why?

I'm not sure how you have proven that they are critical at all

I agree. I do make a case for natural levels of boron in one of my boron articles:

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/dec2002/chem.htm
 
I am curious about this seemingly universal concept that salt mixes should reproduce NSW. Isn't it possible that marine life
adapts to NSW DESPITE components that it might be better off without?


I agree. It almost certainly is true that some or maybe all organisms might be better off with different levels of something. But without any detailed studies of what might be better, how is one to go about deciding what is "better"?

Even if one had a study that showed one organsim is better of at say 460 ppm calcium instead of 420 ppm calcium, would that be a reason to subject everything in the tank to that level?
 
Randy Holmes-Farley said:
I am curious about this seemingly universal concept that salt mixes should reproduce NSW. Isn't it possible that marine life
adapts to NSW DESPITE components that it might be better off without?


I agree. It almost certainly is true that some or maybe all organisms might be better off with different levels of something. But without any detailed studies of what might be better, how is one to go about deciding what is "better"?

Well, by testing salt formulations that do NOT approximate NSW.
 
I just realized from JB's comments that Randy is talking about Aquacraft marinemix and not ME marinemix. doh I was thinking ME's salt when I read "all the hoopla".

And the reason that more folks are hooping over the Crystal Sea Marinemix-Bioassay Formula rather than the BioSea Marinemix is because of the statistically insignificant difference in larval survivability?????:(
 
Randy Holmes-Farley said:
What salt mix do you use and why?

I use NSW :)

Of course, that doesn't mean that all NSW is equal, especially stuff that is collected off the coast. I buy my NSW from a West Coast outfit called Catalina Seawater (or something similar). From what I hear, they don't pull their NSW from Catalina, but from the Long Beach pier. That is pretty close to the coastline, and I try to avoid buying NSW after a rain (with all the nasty California run-off), but most stores keep the water in big storage tanks, so you never really know what you are getting (or how long the water has been in the store). I had one near-bad experience when I bought the water from a store and the salinity was only 1.019 (via refractometer). Normally it is 1.0235 dead-on.

I have never tested the water for any trace chemicals aside from the classic NHO3, NO2, NO3. I have to say I have had great results.
 
Randy,

You ask why.
May be its because Crystal Sea Marinemix is closest to NSW and has nothing to do with larval survivability.
 
Back
Top