Salt Mixes

[ccCapt]

I use Red Sea and have been using it for about 10 yrs. with no problems at all. I go by the old saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". I don't know if it's any better or any worse than anything else, but it works for me.

 

[mjvincent]

You will find an abundance of opinions about salt and frequently they will cite anecdotal evidence to support their claims. There are many articles that will show the chemical make up of the mixes and you will find they are all very similar. By the way I use IO and haven't had any problems with mixing it in my store bought RO water. The most important thing in saltwater imho is consistancy at what you are doing...

 

[Hara]

any report of a salt mix causing tank crash tells me we are not getting the full story

oh, that is the full story. within 20 minutes of completion of the water change, my fish were floating, within 24 hours, all inverts were dead. I am not an inexperienced hobbiest either. If you care to see the full story, look at posts from the last week in May to the first week in June of the year 2003. I won't rehash details now.

 

[MT79]

You'll find article after article where alk for example in tons of *very* successful tanks (Large tanks, typically large investments..) is elevtated to about 11 dkh. nsw is about 8.

AFAIK, there is no substantial proof that running elevated Ca/Alk numbers benefits corals or inverts. IME, most people now are running close to NSW levels-in part b/c all that Ca/Alk was building up on tank equipment and hindering performance.

So the idea that you may somehow get away from dosing by finding some 'magic bullet' salt mix, well none of us have found it.
Best of Luck!

FWIW, I would expect the salt mix to be balanced before using it. Dosing is generally done only to keep up w/ the tank inhabitants demands for various elements, not any salt mix deficiency. When you have to alter freshly made SW, like I do, there is a problem IMO.

 

[SirLight1337]

Ive been using oceanic in my main 150 gallon tank at home, and IO in my 100 gallon at work.

The Oceanic is powderlike and as soon as it touches water its mixed. The IO appears to be larger grains, like table salt almost. When added to water and after a few hours of it being mixed with a powerhead, the IO is still clearly visable if you were to put it in a glass or clear hydrometer, where the oceanic is not.

I personally prefer the oceanic. All my numbers appear good, its readily available at my home location. IO is the only thing i can get close to work, so we use that. ( plus my pops has some strange devotion to it. He used it over 20 yrs ago and liked it so he wants to use it again. Its like how smokers like the 1 brand they smoke. )

 

[steve-s]

You'll find article after article where alk for example in tons of *very* successful tanks (Large tanks, typically large investments..) is elevtated to about 11 dkh. nsw is about 8.

AFAIK, there is no substantial proof that running elevated Ca/Alk numbers benefits corals or inverts. IME, most people now are running close to NSW levels-in part b/c all that Ca/Alk was building up on tank equipment and hindering performance.

Running higher than NSW chemistry does not aid corals in any way whatsoever. It actuallyworks against scleratinians in the long run. There is absolutely no proof to the contrary. No professional reef keeper would ever advise the keeping of higher chemistry values in terms of better tank health. Higher levels within NSW yes, above that no. Advising otherwise is irresponsible IMO/IME.

Cheers
Steve

 

[schoeplein]

There's typically a reason why people do the things they do with their tanks. IE. running at elevated levels. Why? So they can maintain some sort of consistency and keep the levels at or about NSW. Not necessarilly to aid in the growth of anything (well, I guess in a way, yeah). SG most reefers keep elevated as it has shown to improve growth, decreased levels for decreased infection risks... different things grow differently in different areas because the ocean itself has different SG -- for example, the Gulf Coast has a much much greater concentration of salt in comparison to beaches on the west-coast (when I say Gulf, not really including the Caribbean -- just the Texas coast line).

Keeping things as natural (with unnatural methodology, save for LR and bio filtration) has worked for me.

 

[steve-s]

There's typically a reason why people do the things they do with their tanks. IE. running at elevated levels. Why? So they can maintain some sort of consistency and keep the levels at or about NSW.

Please enlighten me. How does maintaining higher than NSW chemistry help maintain NSW chemistry

If you are dealing with heavy CaCO3 use, the best way of maintaining consistancey is regular monitoring and properly proportioned daily dosing. Anything else is laziness and is not something to be endorsed.

SG most reefers keep elevated as it has shown to improve growth, decreased levels for decreased infection risks...

Does nothing of the kind in either circumstance, nor do most reeferes keep such chemistry my friend. Elevated chemistry gives the false appearance that corals are growing at an increased rate when in fact they are only growing at an increased height. Many mistakenly take this is a good thing when in fact it is not. Scleractinians will have very thin skelatal structures, often malformed. They end up being reedy and quite brittle. There is no relationship to higher chemistry and infection, it is simpley a degree of organics. Higher chemistry does more to stress a coral and increase the chances of coral health problems, not alleviate them.

Cheers
Steve

 

[MT79]

Running higher than NSW chemistry does not aid corals in any way whatsoever. It actuallyworks against scleratinians in the long run. There is absolutely no proof to the contrary.

I love a definitive answer-Thanks Steve.

 

[Hara]

FWIW I just saw that Petco has the 200 gallon bucket of red sea salt for 59.99 with free shipping. I think I may try a bucket. Sale runs until 7/10

 

[MarineFlake]

I guess these folks are irresponsible..

http://www.wetwebmedia.com/calcalkmar.htm

Honestly, Im sure I am not the only one who reads the salt water magazines and web sites with amazing tanks that are profiled. There are some very common threads among the beautiful tanks we drool over. Not the least of which is typically ca reactors, complex filtration and feeding techniques, experienced reefers and yes, *gasp* higher then nsw conditions . It is easy to forget we are not keeping corals in the natural sea. Indeed we are keeping corals in a very un natural environment. (Our homes?) Certainly there are many who are minimalists or naturalists who believe and will never be detoured from the idea that what is in their tank deserves nothing more than if it were in the natural sea. Were this true of course, I suppose the bulk of additives, gizmos and other modern techniques for reef keeping could simply be tossed out the window.
I offer no specific 'evidence' that running your reef in a way that yields the best results is either good or bad. I *do* however point to the *many* documented tanks (2 that I run!) which are very successful using these techniques (elevated alk, etc) for healthier looking reefs. Either way the topic is completely subjective as a couple of you pointed out, there is no evidence..Only facts presented by other folks who have some very amazing tanks! 8O

GL!