Anybody ever?

[CaptainAhab]

Even just as a sanity check against your own tests? Cost-wise it seems reasonable.

Aquarium Water Testing

 

[Kurt_Nelson]

I wasn't overly impressed with how they presented the results of a salt-test they did, so I'd wonder if it was money well spent. Don't think I'd assume the results were not refutable, but just another data point.

Here's a link to a little discussion here about their salt test...

http://www.aquariumadvice.com/forums/f11/salt-study-100570.html

 

[Innovator]

I feel the same as Kurt. In addition, if you purchase quality test kits you shouldn't feel the need to have an outside source, who too can make human errors, which leads to wonder why you would purchase test kits in the first place if you do not trust your results. Otherwise, you can purchase a lab grade Hach Spectrophotometer for about $3000.00

 

[CaptainAhab]

Well I would just offer this. I can't count the number of times it's been recommended that someone get a new test kit, check the date on their old one, run to the lfs to verify numbers. So the 'if you buy one you are golden' logic rings a bit hollow.

For $2 a month as a sanity check and considering the cost of gas not to mention wondering if my kit has gone bad I think I'll give it a try.

Kurt, why not impressed? Didn't like the results or the methodology?

 

[cmor1701d]

I'm saving my pennies for one of those (Hach Spectrophotometer).

 

[CaptainAhab]

Misread the fee schedule. It's (as it clearly says) $1.00+ per test not per sample submission. That blows the cost benefit projections out the window not withstanding the general comments made about the value of secondary testing.

To that to each his/her own

 

[Kurt_Nelson]

Kurt, why not impressed? Didn't like the results or the methodology?

More the presentation. Everyone (rightfully) originally latched on to the fact that it didn't appear that the salinities were equal across the charts. The way it was presented, it appeared that the same samples used to assess how much moisture was in the sample was used for the charts. After a few folks on some other boards talked to the testers, it came out that it wasn't the case... the charts all do reflect the same salinities. But even with that confusion, has their test writeup been postscripted to note that? No. Comes across pretty sloppy to me.

Methodology was a little lacking also with such a small sample size and other issues. (Super high Ca levels for IO? Give me a break!) But hey... it was pure advertising and nowhere is it claiming to be a scientific study, so I can't blame 'em there.

In my opinion, it's a pretty nifty little business plan. They found a niche that definitely existed and I'm sure they're doing OK. I honestly thought about giving it a shot myself when I first heard about it, just to double check my numbers. But then I went through the thought process of "what if all the numbers come back totally different from what I'm reading?" With a tank that's doing pretty good in my opinion, I'm not in the mood to really change anything I'm doing. So what would be the point?

Probably more info than you were looking for, but there you have it!

 

[MarineFlake]

Bet its some dude in his mom's basement with Salifert kits. Now thats a million dollar idea...As for the salt tests, most peeps missed the point of the test anyway.

 

[Kurt_Nelson]

And the point was...?

 

[MarineFlake]

And the point was...?

http://reefsaltanalysis.googlepages.com/AWT_Salt_Analysis_0208.pdf

 

[Kurt_Nelson]

Yeah... I've read the salt study. You just made it sound like there was something all of us were missing and I was hoping you'd share.

In my opinion, the point of the survey was to (1) advertise their services, and (2) give people some hard numbers on various salts using more or less consistent testing methods.

 

[Innovator]

Either way there were "loop-holes" in the study and, as usual, more questions than answers. Bottom line is that the debate ends up from where it started: Choose a brand that works best for you and stick with it. There is no perfect salt.

 

[roka64]

I agree, salt mix seems to vary for different folks and at different locations. I used to use IO (I'm on well-water) and had consistent problems with cyano and algae. I decided to switch to RC and haven't had any problems. I have a friend that uses IO on city water, and doesn't have any issues.

 

[MarineFlake]

...Everyone (rightfully) originally latched on to the fact that it didn't appear that the salinities were equal across the charts. The way it was presented, it appeared that the same samples used to assess how much moisture was in the sample was used for the charts. After a few folks on some other boards talked to the testers, it came out that it wasn't the case... the charts all do reflect the same salinities...

This was my point in my orginal post (From the original thread) and it still stands, I believe. The test was *never* intended to test salt vs salt using a SG as a control point. That is, they measured out a specific *quantity* of each salt placing the brands head to head, toe to toe based on what the reef keeper should expect on average in each vendors salt mix. Most folks quickly jumped on the equal SG/salinty bus because they did not read the paper, they simply looked at the pictures. If you take x amount of each salt brand then you measure for each element and other paramaters of interest, you then have an idea of what to expect, on average, for that salt vendors product. If you mixed to a SG, then you are not measuring for a specific quanitified amount, equal across the brands anymore, instead, you are skewing the results of the various tests. For example, if I have to add 2 and half cups of IO to get 1.025 SG and 3 cups of Oceanic to achieve the same SG (At equal temp), we can assume we have already given Oceanic more mix from which to derive higher numbers. That is to say, the more mix I add to achieve some given SG, the more trace elements, etc I also introduce into that vendors test. Thats no way to test anything side by side. In fact, what SG does one mix to? 1.024? 1.026? What temp? As temp goes up SG goes down, so its like chasing a rainbow. Using equal amounts of all salts (And if everyone reads, you can see how they derived using some basic math, what amounts to use) allows you to get an *idea* of what you should expect *on average* through out an entire batch of a given vendors salt mix. As pointed out in the paper, there was noted concern that some numbers could be skewed due to the mix settling, etc, however, if folks read, they are quick to see why the Co chose not to re-mix the salts. Nothing beats reading the study for one's self and making sure to get clarification on each point we do not understand, else we may find ourselves the victim of mis-information...Or worse yet the perpetuator.

The reason I posted the link directly to the PDF is that the facts are clearly stated and charted for everyone to see (You need both to get the whole story). Of course we can be skeptical, that makes for great discussion and potentially more refined tests in the future. Could most of us do better with our Salifert or Red Sea test kits in hand? Doubtful. I can't remember the last time I purchased a good set of beakers, much less submitted them to a good acid wash for contaminations sake. However, I believe like any other business that shows some gracious act of good will, there is always some hope of collecting on it.

Peace!

 

[Kurt_Nelson]

This was my point in my orginal post (From the original thread) and it still stands, I believe. The test was *never* intended to test salt vs salt using a SG as a control point. ....

....Nothing beats reading the study for one's self and making sure to get clarification on each point we do not understand, else we may find ourselves the victim of mis-information...Or worse yet the perpetuator.

I'm pretty sure the horse is dead, but I'll give it another whack anyway!

You made my point perfectly about mis-information. From the conversation I've had with other folks (quoted in that other thread I linked to), indeed the samples that were graphed WERE mixed to the same SG. It WAS used as a control point. And you're right... it doesn't say that anywhere in the report. That's why everyone rightly assumed they were mixed to the same volumes of mix.

The fact that they didn't convey that point well (if at all) in the report was the reason for my response to CaptainAhab in this thread.

 

[ccCapt]

This is deja vu from the thread I started 6 months ago...lol.

From the RC thread.
FYI, from AWT:
... We believe there is some misunderstanding pertaining to the actual salts that were tested. The salt that we mixed up for the "yield" test was discarded after the data was collected. The salts that were tested by parameter were all mixed up to 53mS, and double checked with a temp-compensated refractometer.