To highlight something from ASI that I quoted in my last post, having a reliable standard is very important. It's not enough to say that one just bought a fresh kit or is using one that everyone says is accurate, before anyone gives much weight to one side or the other, results should be compared to a known standard. I don't think making a standard is as simple as ASI made it sound and depending on the kit, testing SSW is not always straight forward (http://www.athiel.com/lib6/cal.htm), but unless one is comparing like method of analysis and has a reliable standard, they can never be sure who is right. For someone who is really serious about this, Hach sells a 1000 ppm Ca standard. Its a lot easier to precisely dilute a standard than it would be to make a good one from scratch.
Why does reef crystals only have 320 Ca?
- Thread starter StrategicReef
- Start date
Mike O'Brien
New member
gnikoli,
The discrepency here is far greater than the test kit error. Our kit's are not all off by 100 ppm. Our refractometers are not all off by 25%. We've been through this already.
The discrepency here is far greater than the test kit error. Our kit's are not all off by 100 ppm. Our refractometers are not all off by 25%. We've been through this already.
Mike O'Brien
New member
To the best we can ask for. In reality, if we had this triple checked at different labs around the world, people would still not believe it. We test with hobby kits, the same ones we rely on to keep our tanks healthy. If my kit reads 420 on my tank, and my corals are happy, all I ask is that my new salt reads the same before I put it into my tank. I dont care if it is really 400 or 440. We know that going in with these kits.
I completely agree, consistency is the key and the best judge is direct results. Now if someone is using the exact same test kit and they open a new bucket and get significantly different results and then they test the old bucket with that kit and get a greater value, yup, the two containers are probably different by about that much. If that is what we are talking about here, then my bad, I didn't think that was the case. I have only been in the hobby for close to five years so I am no expert, but I can't tell you how many times I have seen people waste their time arguing a point based on inaccurate or invalid data. Common sense is great, and there is not enough of it to go around, but it never hurts to question one's assumptions. As for me, I went through this with RC almost 3 years ago. ASI tested a sample from the same bucket I tested with two Salifert and one SeaChem test kits and ASI came up with a result significantly greater than I did, more than I would have attributed to test kit error. Rather than calling them liars, I accepted the fact that it was possible for such a difference to be a result of testing methods and moved on. Now, I test every bucket and as long as it is as same as the last one, I fortify with the same amount of Ca and Mg I always do. So far, it works for me and every bucket of IO or RC I have ever tested was close to what I expected it to be, just not what ASI claims that it should be. In terms of absolute numbers, I have never produced results in line with ASI claims.
Billybeau1
Premium Member
gnik, yes, that is what we are talking here.
I have a bag of RC that measures 420 ppm calcium, as did all of my previous buckets @1.026
I just bought a new bucket and it is substantially lower.
And I do a lot of testing.
I consider remarks quoted from different salt manufacturers as being nothing more than protecting their products. I don't put much stock in these replies.
Reef Crystals appears to have had a hiccup, plain and simple. I'm sure it will be corrected soon. They are currently America's #1 selling salt to the hobbyist. Of course, Instant Ocean takes that claim if you consider the thousands of pounds sold to big city aquariums.
I don't expect that to change anytime soon.
I have a bag of RC that measures 420 ppm calcium, as did all of my previous buckets @1.026
I just bought a new bucket and it is substantially lower.
And I do a lot of testing.
I consider remarks quoted from different salt manufacturers as being nothing more than protecting their products. I don't put much stock in these replies.
Reef Crystals appears to have had a hiccup, plain and simple. I'm sure it will be corrected soon. They are currently America's #1 selling salt to the hobbyist. Of course, Instant Ocean takes that claim if you consider the thousands of pounds sold to big city aquariums.
I don't expect that to change anytime soon.
Seachem calicum is inconsistent
Seachem calicum is inconsistent
I had a problem with IO coming out about 100ppm Ca++ (Seachem kit)less off on a bucket yet after further testing and the purchase of a saifert (and new seachem). And after numerous tests (and talking with this bob studt from ASI)Saifert was coming out 370 and the seachem was testing at 250ppm. I found out my first seachem kit the referance solution was way off (which i found with the brand new one i just bought). Why have a referance if it is way off, im glad i didnt jump on the band wagon and switch because of it. Reminds me when oceanic came out and everyone bashed IO and went straight for Oceanic. I knew alot of snowy tanks after that. I found in both references the claimed standard is 80-100 ppm off what seachem claims it should be.
Seachem calicum is inconsistent
I had a problem with IO coming out about 100ppm Ca++ (Seachem kit)less off on a bucket yet after further testing and the purchase of a saifert (and new seachem). And after numerous tests (and talking with this bob studt from ASI)Saifert was coming out 370 and the seachem was testing at 250ppm. I found out my first seachem kit the referance solution was way off (which i found with the brand new one i just bought). Why have a referance if it is way off, im glad i didnt jump on the band wagon and switch because of it. Reminds me when oceanic came out and everyone bashed IO and went straight for Oceanic. I knew alot of snowy tanks after that. I found in both references the claimed standard is 80-100 ppm off what seachem claims it should be.
Bob Studt: "...I learned that the calcium standard they [SeaChem] supply is simply seawater made from their Reef Salt sea salt product. The seawater is prepared to the predicted salinity that should have 400mg/l Ca++. This is not a very reliable way to make a standard."
I wonder if they are still doing it the same way. As Bob said, if so, that's not a very reliable way to make a standard. In fact, I think it is a ridiculous way to make a standard. Poor lab methods = lots of wasted time and unfounded accusations.
I wonder if they are still doing it the same way. As Bob said, if so, that's not a very reliable way to make a standard. In fact, I think it is a ridiculous way to make a standard. Poor lab methods = lots of wasted time and unfounded accusations.
Making a suitable seawater standard is actually not that easy. I do not agree that using calcium chloride alone is suitable since it presumes a kit designed for seawater will be properly checked by a calcium in fresh water standard.
Just learned of this Tuesday 1-9-08, I have been using RC from DFS in 160gal buckets, started to notice 325 Ca last summer, thought it was me, I bought 3 buckets in Oct from them when I took a road trip up to there store. Just got into the first one, Ca325, sent samples to ASI yesterday, disapointing.
Bob
Bob
Randy,
So how do we go about determining the accuracy of our analysis? I understand that seawater complicates things but a reliable standard sure would be helpful to this discussion. As a practical matter, is that possible for the hobbyist?
I'm comfortable with what I am doing. When my test kit indicates Ca concentrations around 350 ppm or less, my corals don't grow much. When the test kit says 425-450 ppm, they look good and grow well. I guess I really don't have a precise measurement of my actual Ca concentration, but as long as IO and test kits are consistent, I suppose I don't really need to know. Just makes it hard to compare with others.
So how do we go about determining the accuracy of our analysis? I understand that seawater complicates things but a reliable standard sure would be helpful to this discussion. As a practical matter, is that possible for the hobbyist?
I'm comfortable with what I am doing. When my test kit indicates Ca concentrations around 350 ppm or less, my corals don't grow much. When the test kit says 425-450 ppm, they look good and grow well. I guess I really don't have a precise measurement of my actual Ca concentration, but as long as IO and test kits are consistent, I suppose I don't really need to know. Just makes it hard to compare with others.
Billybeau1
Premium Member
I still use Saliferts for Cal Alk and Mag. Reasonably priced and easy to use. I'm not having any problems with accuracy. Still the best of the hobby grades IMO.
API has also given me good numbers but they don't make a magnesium kit and the results are a little more general.
Randy will probably tell you he doesn't test much anymore because he hates testing. :lol:
I'm glad to see the good Drs carrying Saliferts now.
API has also given me good numbers but they don't make a magnesium kit and the results are a little more general.
Randy will probably tell you he doesn't test much anymore because he hates testing. :lol:
I'm glad to see the good Drs carrying Saliferts now.
Billybeau1
Premium Member
Probably a promotional thing. I buy from both companies and have always gotten good service from both.
