Salt study results from MACNA conference

But isnt red sea cheaper than IO. If its just as good as RC why not use it? Ive always been meaning to try it because I heard it was derived from natural seawater. I just started a new tank and went with Oceanic, I figured it was cheeper to add baking soda to increase alk than to buy calcium supplements. Cant wait to see the results.
 
I've been using IO from day one and have had one inch frags grow into 12 inch colonies, huh. Also never lost a single sps, wild or cultured. Guess I also use a **** load of C- Balance. I have always thought go with what works, maybe i'll try RC
 
I am waiting for the results too. I use Tropic Marin Pro.

I bet that IO will be re-named and repackaged to hide the results. If you read Consumer Reports you'll notice that. As soon as a product gets bad ratings the manufacturers re-name it and confuse the consumer.
 
I also use just regular IO. But i have a FOWLR tank so i dont really worry bout' getting all the extra calcium, magneesium, etc.
 
Re: Salt study results from MACNA conference

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8212896#post8212896 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Angel*Fish
The preliminary results are out - Red Sea & Reef Crystal are sort of tied for best and Instant Ocean was the worst out of the 10 tested....


Other than best and worst do you have the rest of the order? Or is that the part that needs compiling?
Ive, been waiting for this too :)

-Justin
 
i was there.

i was there.

this was the biggest seminar for me at the entire three day thing and man oh man was i surprised. i will be going back to red sea esp. now since they have an RO version that just came out. i have never heard borneman speak in person but was very pleased how detailed his preliminary results were presented.

i took what seemed like 20 or 30 pics of the slide show showing the progression of the tanks over the ten month period and detailed notes. even though none of this is scientific if you guys saw the pics it was pretty obvious what salt was consistent. good job red sea.

i am happy that months ago on one of the plentifull salt threads on here i was one of just a few that said they liked red sea and used it often. i am now on a mission to bring it back to our LFS so i can once again be a red sea user.

i do not know if anybody else mentioned this but both speakers said they used what ever salt was on sale (except 40 fathoms for phosphate reasons) kinda interesting.
 
Do it. I just went back to red sea last month. I had been using IO but my mag levels dropped badly and lost some corals before I figured it out. My theory always was everything is more colorful in the Red Sea. There must be a reason why not use salt that is mostly natural from the red sea
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8214650#post8214650 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mummra100769
do you think its ok to post pics? i have all but one slide of the presentation.

Yes, it is okay to post pictures and share what you heard. I'd love to hear it myself because I missed that talk today.
 
Re: Salt study results from MACNA conference

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8212896#post8212896 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Angel*Fish
The preliminary results are out - Red Sea & Reef Crystal are sort of tied for best and Instant Ocean was the worst out of the 10 tested...

Yes, but then Marinemix Bioassay turned out to be one of the better ones and many of us recall the collateral damage caused when THAT bandwagon crashed a few years back. Even Kim and Eric repeatedly said all of the data wasn't in. so before we all start shipping our buckets of IO to the landfill (again), let's take a collective deep breath, look at the health of our OWN tanks, and wait for the rest of the information to come in.
 
Re: Re: Salt study results from MACNA conference

Re: Re: Salt study results from MACNA conference

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8215600#post8215600 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by 64Ivy
Yes, but then Marinemix Bioassay turned out to be one of the better ones and many of us recall the collateral damage caused when THAT bandwagon crashed a few years back. Even Kim and Eric repeatedly said all of the data wasn't in. so before we all start shipping our buckets of IO to the landfill (again), let's take a collective deep breath, look at the health of our OWN tanks, and wait for the rest of the information to come in.

Yeah I would wait till the data is more formal as well. I got burned real bad from the Crystal Seas salt a few years ago. Even though is was not good news, I was happy with some of their findings. Mainly the cyano with using IO. When I used IO, I just could not get rid of the cyano no matter what I did. Eventually I just felt that no matter what someone did a little cyano was always going to be present. So I find it very interesting that the IO tank was plagued with cyano.

Also it was good to see that the two tanks that seemed to fair well were using salts that many, many reefers use and has been on the market for some time. So I'm not a worried that those salts might cause any problems in our tanks.

Oceanic is what I had used for the last two years on my tank. That tank didn't seem to fair too bad, in the end it has slightly more algae than the best tanks but I think that it showed good growth with corals.
 
While the test offers interesting information & additional pressure on manufacturers to maintain high standards it is far from conclusive. My Salifert test for Mg turned out above standard. In fact all my chemical parameters are rock solid with everything thriving. Cyano was never a problem here. If anything I found coraline a bit too slow to catch on but it's growing now. I am not going to fix something that's not broken :p
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8215868#post8215868 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by plandy
Cyano was never a problem here.

I think it's important to note that in this test they did nothing to control phosphates, which most reefers do. Also I believe that there were no skimmers used on the tanks, just water changes. So it is entirely possible that a tank that shows algae problems in their test might not in someone home as they are actively doing things to remove N and P from the water. I think one way of looking at the results is that you might be successful with one salt, but maybe another might make things a little easier on you.
 
Guys and Marie-
your jumping the gun here. Eric & Kim did NOT say what was worst or best. Eric showed qualatative data(pictures) they used their eyes and a camera. They made statements based on a picture. Please wait until they crunch the numbers and let the real non-subjective data allow for a decision.

I too was in attendence and saw the pictures and while it was clear some salts facilitated nuscience algae growth and others didn't, however the end result was which salt was better for the growth and survival of our tank organisms -their hypothesis-remember.

So I'll hold my judgement til I see the compiled data. Thats science.

However I will say that I was surprised to see that a couple of the salt mixes had resting algae spores and copepod cysts in them, that was crazy
 
I've always used IO. I find, when mixed to a S.G. of 0.124, Ca., Alk., and Mg. are all right where I want them. If they're not, a little Randy's homebrew can fix that.

I also love being able to print up the petsmart online price and walk out of the local store with a bucket for $35. ;) Which allows me to do more water changs = healthier system. :)
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8214827#post8214827 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by tylorarm
Did they test Tropic Marin or Tropic Marin Pro?

I am wondering the same thing, I believe it was regular Tropic Marin from the very limited research I looked at.
 
Back
Top