Is Instant Ocean no good?

[speckled trout]

I'm sure somebody already asked this question, but what is the best salt to use? I've heard that Instant Ocean was supposed to be rated the lowest recently, is that true? I also heard that the same company produces the highest rated "Reef Crystals". Is there any truth to these statements?

If this is true, should I be worried and change from Instant Ocean?

Please help-Mike

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I'm not convinced that Eric's test means anything at all.

I've used Instant Ocean for more than 10 years, but would buy any other salt that was convincingly the best. I've seen no reason to switch.

 

[JamesJR]

Instant ocean works fine for me. I am satisfied with it and am too cheap to switch to TM or anything else.

 

[speckled trout]

I've used it for 5 years now and haven't been having any problems.

What exactly did Eric think was wrong with it? All I've heard are rumors concerning the issue.

 

[papagimp]

I've just started using IO, I was using Seachem and then some other brand but after viewing a poll on reef central and saw that the majority of people were using IO, I'm sure this is to it's awesome availability everywhere, but obviously it's working or that many people wouldn't be using it.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I'm waiting to see the results posted somewhere, but he apparently showed, among others things, that raw Instant Ocean allowed some algae growth while other mixes did not. Apparently it was a single test "tank" for each mix.

 

[Boomer]

Apparently it was a single test "tank".

It was only 1 tank of each salt and control of NSW

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Thanks Boomer. I meant that but it may have been misinterpreted so I edited my post.

And for public consumption, your take on the test is what?

 

[Boomer]

I do not buy the results. Salt mix X taking much longer to produce algae/cyano does not mean is is better than salt mix Y where algae/cyano grew rather quickly, which was his point. IO showed the growth of algae/cyano much quicker than other salts. RC and Red Sea showed the least. So, IO = worst and RC and RS= best. There were other parameters that played in but they followed the same rules.

All water and salts should have been sterilized and the room keep contaminate free. There are to many possibilities for things to wrong it is is not free of contaminates. An algae spore my get into the room my end up in tank Z and not the others. Some salts may have picked up things during manufacturing, algae spores, that does not make it a worse salt. And this is just one issue. Then there is the issue of possible cross-contamination. All of the tanks had various problems. It was a crude study.

Any person in this hobby should know that if you took some RO/DI water and a ANY salt mix and stuck it in a window it will end up growing algae and even go through a Nitrogen cycle.

It reminded me of my old Otter study which I have brought up before and how some misinterpreting data.

 

[scott0615]

Not really up to speed on yet another unbiased "test" of the prevelant salts on the market....how would one do a "test" in this hobby with a control?

Seems to me there are a lot of salts out there that work for some and not for others - it all depends on just a couple of silly factors like - filtration, maintenance, source water, bio load, individual animals, light, temp, feeding habits, etc., etc. This could be an awesomely long list!

 

[DrBegalke]

Although I applaud the attempt to research different salt mixs, IMO the latest study seems to have many sources of error, not the least of which is a sample size of n=1.

Further, who does 100 percent water changes every month? Even if the study had statistically significant results, I am not sure it would be very applicable to reef keeping as most of us practice it (i.e. smaller water changes, adding Ca/alk. supplements, etc.).

 

[DrBegalke]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8292864#post8292864 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by scott0615
Not really up to speed on yet another unbiased "test" of the prevelant salts on the market....how would one do a "test" in this hobby with a control?

Seems to me there are a lot of salts out there that work for some and not for others - it all depends on just a couple of silly factors like - filtration, maintenance, source water, bio load, individual animals, light, temp, feeding habits, etc., etc. This could be an awesomely long list!

Here is more information on how the study was conducted:
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-09/eb/index.php
http://www.marshreef.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=20

 

[RichardS]

I do not buy the results

There are no results yet, they are still analyzing the data. They hope to be finished by the end of the year or early 2007. They have said the IO tank visually showed the most algae growth, but they have not said it was the worst salt or that Red Sea was the best salt. Sounds like they were measuring things coral growth, coralline growth, microfauna, etc.

Kim Lowe has said that this study was just a first step. They have saved samples of the various batches of salt they used and hope to do chemistry analysis of them sometime in the future.

Personally, I don't think this study will impact which salt brand I choose to use because I don't think it will answer the question of why they might have seen different results. I think it could be a very useful study when combined with the chemistry analysis of the salts they used.

 

[PatMayo]

I have only used IO and never had a problem at all. Total time using it is about 6 years.

Regards,

Pat

 

[PatrickJ]

Well if the people who disagree with his results, what would you have done to make this a better study?

My official position is neutral. I am not trying to poke anybody's sores about this study, just interested in what you as disagreeing intellegent people think and what would you done differntly to prove or disprove salt quality claims.

 

[Ryanqk]

I use instant ocean and have for 4 years. Dont see any reason to switch but i buy my saltwater premade most of the time anyways

 

[DrBegalke]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8293269#post8293269 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by PatrickJ
Well if the people who disagree with his results, what would you have done to make this a better study?

I don't disagree with the results, but I don't think they will be useful.

However, things to do to improve the study:

1) Increase n. A sample size of one is very hit or miss. Would you trust a drug from Pfizer that was tested on just one person?

2) If n could not be increased (due to financial reasons), make the study cross control. i.e. Tank A is given instant ocean for 10 months, Tank B natural saltwater. Tank B's corals are doing great, Tank A not so great. Now, switch which tank gets what and see what happens. If Tank A suddenly improves on the natural saltwater and Tank B takes a dose dive, its much more likely to be due to the salt mix....

3) Conduct the study in a manner similar to the husbandry that most reefkeepers practice. Who does a 100% water change monthly? A protocol of ~10 to 20% once or twice a month is more in line with standard practice. Consider balancing Ca/alk since most of us (try) do that regardless of what brand salt we use.

4) Limit the diversity of the tank, i.e. simplify the number of variables and hence sources of error.

 

[RicksReefs]

I prefer to use raw NSW when conditions permit, but I've used nothing but IO for ASW for over 30 years.

if it ain't broke, I ain't about to 'fix' it...

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I agree with Jason that the results are for inadequate test tanks, and importantly, don't reflect any real ways that reefers use salt.


I just fail to see the importance or relevance of this to the way that reefers use salt. No one does 100% water changes as the only nutrient export. In fact, almost no one ever does them. Even if the result was duplicated out the wazoo, it wouldn't indicate to me that I should change from IO because it doesn't seem relevant to the way that I use a salt mix.

If someone gets overweight eating 23 Lean Cuisine entrees each day, does that mean that one using it in a normal fashion will gain weight? The test really needs to somehow be connected to real life usage.

Suppose that there is enough ammonia in a salt mix to cause a problem at 100% change. Say 0.2 ppm. Would that cause any problem in more typical usage, at 10% or less changes (being, now 0.02 ppm)? Same for toxic metals or whatever.

Suppose that there are algae spores in some salt mixes. IMO, those spores likely are vanishingly small in number compared to spores coming in NSW, oceanic foods (think dried algae sheets), fish and corals bought from an LFS, live rock, live sand etc. So why is it important that a tiny bit comes from a salt?

It's hard to imagine how a little nutrient of any type in a salt mix could dominate over that coming in with foods. So what if there is just enough phosphorus or nitrogen to support algal life. The first feeding of fish food will swamp that out.

Perhaps I'd feel differently if I saw the talk , but I presently have a hard time getting excited or concerned about this observation.

 

[DrBDC]

One think I noticed is how the tanks are set up. I think they should have been individual tanks not touching on the sides and having air circulate between. The inside tanks would have a thermal barrier of the water in the outer tanks.

I also wish they would have had one using IO that had been bumped up to normal ca and mag to see how it did under normal reef levels.