Is Instant Ocean no good?

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

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

Those studies (with the original articles linked below) provide some clues and concerns for some brands, while some newer brands are not listed and some older ones may have changed.

A Chemical Analysis of Select Trace Elements in Synthetic Sea Salts and Natural Seawater
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/sept2004/feature.htm

The Composition Of Several Synthetic Seawater Mixes
http://web.archive.org/web/20001215...om/fish2/aqfm/1999/mar/features/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

Between these sorts of studies, and a long track record of success by huge numbers of reef aquarists, I think that Instant Ocean is a fine choice.

 

[Boomer]

Pat

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.

That was the S-15 Report and if you new all the details you have a different opinion as to why some companies freaked out.

Mark

Yah but it is Eric so he must be right :lol:

 

[RobbyG]

Yes but if Global warming controversy is any example, I don't think any amount of tests under any conditions are going to satisfy people who already use IO and feel comfortable with it.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8296975#post8296975 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BeanAnimal
That still does not deal with the problem of a single "tank" sample and the myriad of variables that were left unchecked.

 

[PatrickJ]

Boomer,

What were the details in a nutshell?

 

[Boomer]

A bogus line of BS by the owner of Aquacraft. I have challenged him before and he wont' reply

Go look for you self. There are many links scattered so it takes allot of time to sift through all the BS

http://www.aquacraft.net/s9911.html

He is a good one

1. It was commissioned and paid for by Global Scientific Publications

He owns this company

2. Factory sealed packages of marine salts were forwarded to Anresco Inc.

Collected by the owner of Aquacraft.

3. Anresco Inc. His bother-in-laws company

4. University of Missouri, a US. Government prime contract testing laboratory

I guess they were not good enough to collect, hydrate and do ALL the tests :lol:

Once I challenged him on another forum he said nothing. He tried to sneak onto that forum as if he was a reefer, trying to people, until I blew the whistle on him The Admin's were just ****ed. Now that he owns that forum he had all of my remarks on the subject deleted, even my name, so I'm told.

 

[PatrickJ]

Wow.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

The S-15 also had a contrived list of "good attributes" of a salt mix designed to make theirs best. Some of the things I wouldn't have wanted or wouldn't care about. One criteria, for example, is

http://www.aquacraft.net/s9910.html

"Enhanced amounts of calcium and strontium"

So pure natural seawater would not have scored 100%.
then another category was:

"Contains strontium similar to NSW. "

Apparently, their mix got points for this and enhanced strontium. Not sure how that worked out. :lol:

 

[RicksReefs]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8302459#post8302459 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Boomer
Now that he owns that forum he had all of my remarks on the subject deleted, even my name, so I'm told. [/B]

ya, that place became an immediate joke to me when the 'sponsorship' changed. haven't been back since.
I'm surprised they haven't joined forces with aquacon and ecoaqualizer for the reefing trifecta...

 

[BeanAnimal]

even better... try to find the "whole" study. Only the parts that look good are available. There is no way to compare all of the salts, just what he wants you to see.

 

[Boomer]

Right Bean. If you want to do that you have to go copy all the data sheets from each salt and make up a sheet with all them on one sheet in order to make a real comparison, which takes about an hr of your time. That was what I did on the forum.

 

[MiddletonMark]

Thankfully, I've forgotten just about all of those days, Boomer. Can't search my name up, so I guess it never happened :lmao:

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8297565#post8297565 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by PatrickJ
I do see alot of error in it, but can some good come of this study or is it a failed expirement?

I know personally, I'm always interested to read what people encounter with different products. When they go into detail, the better. I'll find it interesting, and of use, once the detailed writeup is out.

But ... there's a big difference between using it as a learning tool and using it to change my methods, right now. While they're fine creatures, I personally don't wish to be a guinea pig

Salt has proven problematic in the past, and thus while I highly value another dataset to argue about ... I don't think this is the last study there will be.

[When did they buy their salt, and has there been any formula changes since? Wouldn't suprise me if at least one has in the lapsed period ... there's always an issue with most studies in this hobby, but that's 1000% better than no studies]

There's issues, but it's better than none at all, IMO.
[excepting all the folks who change their current successful methods, have problems, and aren't happy about it]