Is Instant Ocean no good?

[Boomer]

There are no results yet, they are still analyzing the data........but they have not said it was the worst salt or that Red Sea was the best salt

Eric gave a presentation at MACNA with slides for almost an hr. He mentions this in the link above by Jason. Were you there ? I was. He said flat out the worst salt in the test was IO and the best two where RS and RC. He also said he buys salts based on the lowest price of the day and does not care who's it is.

And I would also agree with Randy and Jason.


Jason
Who does a 100% water change monthly?

His reason behind this is that marine life could withstand a 100 % WC if NSW was used at the same salinity, pH and temp, thus said marine live should be able to fare the the same in ASW if it was a good salt.

Dr

Yes, that is all true

 

[gman0526]

One thing that really bothers me about this study is, why would you even make a presentation at MACNA w/o having the final results and "conclusions"?

All this has done is add more to the confusion and debate and has not povided any real conclusive data. IMO the best study would be to have a complete list of the ingredients in the salt mixes and from that make your own judgement.

 

[squiddly]

Thanks for the clearer information, guys. Lots of us newbies would look at the headline and start to wonder whether or not we were doing damage to our tanks by using the product. Thanks for clearing it up in an easy to understand way.

 

[RichardS]

Were you there ?

No I didn't go even though it was only a few hours drive from me. Having lived in Houston, I try not to go back there if I can avoid it.

He said flat out the worst salt in the test was IO and the best two where RS and RC.

I find that dissapointing then. How could he make those kind statements without having analyzed the data. That was not the impression I was getting from his statements in the threads I have seen. Like this one...
http://forum.marinedepot.com/Topic45946-9-1.aspx

 

[barrierreefcf]

I saw the presentation as well. The one thing I think may have affected the results was the way they used lighting. He didn't show a clear diagram but based on his description of the T-5 lighting setup used it would seem that the tanks were lined up side to side with four tanks under a span of 4 foot T-5's. We all saw earlier in Sanjay Joshi's presentation that there is a higher amount of PAR produced in the center of these bulbs. So...wouldn't the tanks centered under the lights get more light energy and therefore grow more algae?? It all was presented in a rush, but I tried to pay attention and if I remember correctly the IO tank was centered under the lights and the salts that "performed better" were on the edges of the lights. I would love to be corrected on anything I misrepresented here but this was how I saw the test as being done and I immediately believed this to be a flaw.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

FWIW, I also saw greater growth in macroalgae samples under the center of fluorescent tubes than at the ends. It impacted my iodine effects testing:

Iodine in Reef Tanks 2: Effects on Macroalgae Growth
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/april2003/chem.htm

from it:

"Interestingly, the growth seems to be a function of placement along the fluorescent tubes. Samples at the ends of the rows apparently grew more slowly. This data is shown in Figure 2, where the “Position under Lamps” refers to the side to side positioning, and each position has one that has added iodine and one that does not. The samples in the middle of the experiment had a higher growth rate than those near the sides of the water bath. This result is likely to have come from differences in lighting intensity as a function of position, since those at the ends were partially shielded from those portions of the lamps off to one side by the sides of the water bath (Figure 1). "

 

[t-bone2]

I use io in one tank and red sea in the other and the difference is huge:eek2: yeah one tank is 210gal and the other is 90gal:lol: my weekly test in both tanks are always great just so happens I buy salt from to different stores it just worked out that way im happy with both one day I might change one or the other so who cares apparently these salts are all good or they would be out of bussiness

 

[DrBegalke]

Good point about the lighting setup... I agree it could be/probably is a source of error.

 

[RobbyG]

I would have to agree with you Boomer, I think that anybody who even attempts these kind of tests should be commended not condemned! The thought of setting up multiple test tanks, checking that all the Variables, Salinity, pH, Temp, Light intensity & spectrum along with flow rates, are all the same across multiple Tanks and then add to that having to wait weeks or months for usable Data! That is just a lot of work. I am glad to hear that someone at least undertook this task and was able to furnish the results for us.

Are they accurate? If IO feels that the results are wrong it would seem to me that it would be in their best interest to sponsor some tests by another independent group.

In the mean time his tests stand as the only one's available so why would I disagree? Quality vs Price becomes the main issue for me, until some new tests are done.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8294237#post8294237 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Boomer
There are no results yet, they are still analyzing the data........but they have not said it was the worst salt or that Red Sea was the best salt

Eric gave a presentation at MACNA with slides for almost an hr. He mentions this in the link above by Jason. Were you there ? I was. He said flat out the worst salt in the test was IO and the best two where RS and RC. He also said he buys salts based on the lowest price of the day and does not care who's it is.

And I would also agree with Randy and Jason.


Jason
Who does a 100% water change monthly?

His reason behind this is that marine life could withstand a 100 % WC if NSW was used at the same salinity, pH and temp, thus said marine live should be able to fare the the same in ASW if it was a good salt.

Dr

Yes, that is all true

 

[RichardS]

If IO feels that the results are wrong it would seem to me that it would be in their best interest to sponsor some tests by another independent group.

On multiple threads, I've seen people make the assumption that Aquarium Systems is going to disagree with the results. I don't think so. On the back of a bag of IO it says for optimum coral and invert growth use reef crystals. So why would they disagree a study that shows their "reef" salt is better for a reef than their "non reef" salt.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Boomer Said.
I do not buy the results

RichardS replied...
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.

Richard the point (from my perpsective) is that the results are 100% meaningless. It is a useless study in terms of comparing salts. Tha sample size is a HUGE problem. Even a high school lab student could conclude that a study with n=1 samples and an utter lack of any control is laughable. I would assume the intentions were well founded and the amount of work was substantial but that does not make the results meaningful.

I was eagerly awaiting the results to be published, but now that I have read about the procedure... well the published results don't matter. They [the results] may be interesting but I don't see how any honest data can be obtained.

 

[RichardS]

Oh, I agree that the results from just this study are meaningless. That's why I won't change my salt because of it.

As I said, if they do the chemistry analysis then that , along with the observed results from this study, could be of some use.

 

[DrBDC]

I pretty sure he had multiple samples of each salt from different parts of the country to compensate for batch errors.

 

[BeanAnimal]

That still does not deal with the problem of a single "tank" sample and the myriad of variables that were left unchecked.

 

[PatrickJ]

I do see alot of error in it, but can some good come of this study or is it a failed expirement?

Do you guys remeber recently Inland Reef?/Advanced Aquarist salt study or even before that, the TA-15 or something or another study back in 1999? I wasnt in the hobby at that time but it seems as this one company freaked out because he had the best test results and put it all over his site and rubbed everyones faces in the dirt.

What was unique about the past studies was, that the study was a chemical essay on various popular salt brands and its comparision to NSW's chemical essay specificly in concern with heavy metals. None were really too close, but one of the higher scoring brands was Instant Ocean.


This is the longest calm thread on RC on a controversial subject.

 

[Billybeau1]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8297565#post8297565 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by PatrickJ
This is the longest calm thread on RC on a controversial subject.

This IS the Reef Chemistry Forum.

 

[PatrickJ]

Illogical people need not reply.

 

[t-bone2]

http://saltaquarium.about.com/cs/seasaltmixes/l/aa090503b.htm do these charts give any good info or witch would be better??

 

[Billybeau1]

The problem with that study is it is 7 years old now and I am sure a number of those companies have changed their formulas since then.

 

[MiddletonMark]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8296471#post8296471 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichardS On multiple threads, I've seen people make the assumption that Aquarium Systems is going to disagree with the results. I don't think so. On the back of a bag of IO it says for optimum coral and invert growth use reef crystals. So why would they disagree a study that shows their "reef" salt is better for a reef than their "non reef" salt. [/B]

Good point.

Odd thing is that they also seem to claim they're the same salt, just with extra Ca/Alk/Mag. Funny having one on one end, one on the other - if that's so.

But, like the many who have responded, n=1 is a problematic sample size. In fact, I recall Eric himself having issues with the salt analysis of Tim of Aquarium Systems at an IMAC in the past ... part of the problem? N=1.

Frankly, IMO salt studies are the results of speculators in the salt market :lmao: