Could a mixture be made in 2 parts where you could raise the salinity separately to your requirements without adding more of the other products that go into the making of the salt, it made be more work (1minute).
-
Folks, if you've recently upgraded or renewed your annual club membership but it's still not active, please reach out to the BOD or a moderator. The PayPal system has a slight bug which it doesn't allow it to activate the account on it's own.
Info & Feedback wanted on Marine Salt Mixes
- Thread starter Carlo
- Start date
hey guys check out this link, I talked to him a couple of years ago and basically stated all of what Carlo has said!
http://www.gettankedaquariums.com/i...icia.Sea.Salt.2.Part.Gallon.Mix.Main.Page.htm
this guys claims to make the perfect salt he is in carlisle PA perhaps Carlo could try a bag and if its good I smell a group buy
http://www.gettankedaquariums.com/i...icia.Sea.Salt.2.Part.Gallon.Mix.Main.Page.htm
this guys claims to make the perfect salt he is in carlisle PA perhaps Carlo could try a bag and if its good I smell a group buy
Actually, there is a lot of problems with what the site says. I was concerned right off the bat when I read this:
"Saltwater Correct 2 Part Artificial Sea Salt System is truly the closest artificial sea salt mix to simulate natural seawater in all of the following top 6 element categories: ( Approximate Values) SG: 1.026, Magnesium: 1250 ppm, Calcium: 450 ppm, Alkalinity: 10 dKH, pH: 8.6 and Borate: 1.5 ppm and all major and minor trace elements."
Anybody catch what's wrong here? Top 6 "element categories":
SG: 1.026
Magnesium: 1250 ppm
Calcium: 450 ppm
Alkalinity: 10 dKH
pH: 8.6
Borate: 1.5 ppm
SG, Alkalinity, pH aren't element categories. SG will be anything you make it. Just add or remove water.
Magnesium: 1250 ppm
Calcium: 450 ppm
Borate: 1.5 ppm
These are more or less elements. I say more or less because Borate isn't an element but Boron is. Boron is what is measured in salt not Borate. They probably use Borate to get the Boron element there or they just don't know any better...
Also Boron should be about 4.5 ppm or a little higher not 1.5 ppm. NSW is 4.5 but since the alkalinity is driven higher then NSW (common among salt mixes and reefers) the Boron should also be higher proportionly. Boron helps form the buffer (carbonate, bicarbonate & Boron). Many people don't like Seachem's salt because they have a skyhigh level of boron which they use to help with pH. It's so bad it throws off normal Alk test kits and you need to use a Seachem test kit to get proper levels. This salt will have the opposite effect because it's way to low. As the alkalinity gets used up in the tank the pH will start having problems since we "typically" don't dose Boron to our tanks. We typically only add carbonates & bicarbonates and rely on our salt for the Boron. With this salt you would need to get a Boron test kit and dose some Borax (grocery store) to get the levels up.
Magnesium is only 1250 and is out of balance with the Calcium level of 450. They should roughly be a multiple of 3 to be ionically balanced. If the Calcium level is 450 then Magnesium should be 1350. To properly correct the Mg level a little more then 4oz of Kent's Tech M (ionically balanced Mg) would need to be dosed for each 25G bag. A 125G bucket is going to need 27.4oz of Tech M to balance correctly and that is expensive.
Probably even worse is the imbalance of Alkalinity to Calcium. With a calcium level of 450 the alkalinity should be 12.46dKH but it's only 10dKH. This of course would be to high, thus the calcium level is to high. Again another imbalance.
"truly the closest artificial sea salt mix to simulate natural seawater in all of the following top 6 element categories"
NOT EVEN CLOSE. It's horribly imbalanced. Nothing matches of the "6 elements" mentioned which of course aren't "elements". It's no wonder the calcium has to be added after the water is mixed into the tank. Otherwise it would precipitate out rather quickly!!! The same WILL happen in the tank if you used nothing but this salt without using any addivites to bring levels back to normal.
"The reason why Saltwater Correct 2 Part Artificial Sea Salt System is a two part artificial sea salt, is that if the calcium was blended with the rest of the dry salt mix and you mix with water, the water would get cloudy (precipitation of solids) in more cases then not. The precipitation of solids is caused from some of the levels of the top 6 element categories that simulates natural seawater. This is one of many reasons why commercial sea salts are LOW in one, two, three or more of the top 6 element categories, besides economics."
"In order to eliminate the precipitation of solids when mixing artificial sea salt and to achieve the levels of the top 6 element categories to simulate natural seawater, one of the top 6 element categories needs to be excluded from the salt mix."
Definately not true at all. You can have a mix with high levels of these things BUT the ionic balance needs to be correct. If the ionic balance is not right then the EASY way is to limit one of them. This is one of the hardest things of forumulating a salt mix.
"Did you know that artificial sea salt ingredients will absorb moisture from the air? This is why commercial sea salt manufactures have to use some type of anti-caking agent, also known as free flowing agent to keep their salt mix from clumping-up or getting moist in their machinery and in packaged containers. The most commonly used anti-caking agent is YPS (Yellow Prussiate of Soda) which has a side ingredient of a type of Cyanide."
"This is the reason that Saltwater Correct 2 Part Artificial Sea Salt System DOES NOT USE any type of anti-caking agent in our salt mix, we do not have too, because we hand weigh out all of our ingredients per any denomination we package."
Not really true but kind of. Let's this one slide. Actually many chemicals you/we/they buy as individual elements will have an anti-caking agent anyway. The side effect of "type of Cyanide" is a little off too but it sounds dramatic. Actually many of the really good trace elements in our salt are a "type of Cyanide".
"Here is another interesting thing that some commercial sea salt manufactures are doing. Some are adding EDTA (EthyleneDiamineTetraacetic Acid) chemical that makes your sea salt mix appear to dissolve quicker. High levels of EDTA can be toxic in the aquarium."
This is true. I choose also to not use any in my salt. Downside is the salt takes longer to mix properly but I'll take that trade off versus adding something toxic just to make the salt mix fast. Technically you should age the salt a day before you use it anyway so that makes the "takes longer to mix" a moot point.
SAVE YOUR MONEY.
Carlo
"Saltwater Correct 2 Part Artificial Sea Salt System is truly the closest artificial sea salt mix to simulate natural seawater in all of the following top 6 element categories: ( Approximate Values) SG: 1.026, Magnesium: 1250 ppm, Calcium: 450 ppm, Alkalinity: 10 dKH, pH: 8.6 and Borate: 1.5 ppm and all major and minor trace elements."
Anybody catch what's wrong here? Top 6 "element categories":
SG: 1.026
Magnesium: 1250 ppm
Calcium: 450 ppm
Alkalinity: 10 dKH
pH: 8.6
Borate: 1.5 ppm
SG, Alkalinity, pH aren't element categories. SG will be anything you make it. Just add or remove water.
Magnesium: 1250 ppm
Calcium: 450 ppm
Borate: 1.5 ppm
These are more or less elements. I say more or less because Borate isn't an element but Boron is. Boron is what is measured in salt not Borate. They probably use Borate to get the Boron element there or they just don't know any better...
Also Boron should be about 4.5 ppm or a little higher not 1.5 ppm. NSW is 4.5 but since the alkalinity is driven higher then NSW (common among salt mixes and reefers) the Boron should also be higher proportionly. Boron helps form the buffer (carbonate, bicarbonate & Boron). Many people don't like Seachem's salt because they have a skyhigh level of boron which they use to help with pH. It's so bad it throws off normal Alk test kits and you need to use a Seachem test kit to get proper levels. This salt will have the opposite effect because it's way to low. As the alkalinity gets used up in the tank the pH will start having problems since we "typically" don't dose Boron to our tanks. We typically only add carbonates & bicarbonates and rely on our salt for the Boron. With this salt you would need to get a Boron test kit and dose some Borax (grocery store) to get the levels up.
Magnesium is only 1250 and is out of balance with the Calcium level of 450. They should roughly be a multiple of 3 to be ionically balanced. If the Calcium level is 450 then Magnesium should be 1350. To properly correct the Mg level a little more then 4oz of Kent's Tech M (ionically balanced Mg) would need to be dosed for each 25G bag. A 125G bucket is going to need 27.4oz of Tech M to balance correctly and that is expensive.
Probably even worse is the imbalance of Alkalinity to Calcium. With a calcium level of 450 the alkalinity should be 12.46dKH but it's only 10dKH. This of course would be to high, thus the calcium level is to high. Again another imbalance.
"truly the closest artificial sea salt mix to simulate natural seawater in all of the following top 6 element categories"
NOT EVEN CLOSE. It's horribly imbalanced. Nothing matches of the "6 elements" mentioned which of course aren't "elements". It's no wonder the calcium has to be added after the water is mixed into the tank. Otherwise it would precipitate out rather quickly!!! The same WILL happen in the tank if you used nothing but this salt without using any addivites to bring levels back to normal.
"The reason why Saltwater Correct 2 Part Artificial Sea Salt System is a two part artificial sea salt, is that if the calcium was blended with the rest of the dry salt mix and you mix with water, the water would get cloudy (precipitation of solids) in more cases then not. The precipitation of solids is caused from some of the levels of the top 6 element categories that simulates natural seawater. This is one of many reasons why commercial sea salts are LOW in one, two, three or more of the top 6 element categories, besides economics."
"In order to eliminate the precipitation of solids when mixing artificial sea salt and to achieve the levels of the top 6 element categories to simulate natural seawater, one of the top 6 element categories needs to be excluded from the salt mix."
Definately not true at all. You can have a mix with high levels of these things BUT the ionic balance needs to be correct. If the ionic balance is not right then the EASY way is to limit one of them. This is one of the hardest things of forumulating a salt mix.
"Did you know that artificial sea salt ingredients will absorb moisture from the air? This is why commercial sea salt manufactures have to use some type of anti-caking agent, also known as free flowing agent to keep their salt mix from clumping-up or getting moist in their machinery and in packaged containers. The most commonly used anti-caking agent is YPS (Yellow Prussiate of Soda) which has a side ingredient of a type of Cyanide."
"This is the reason that Saltwater Correct 2 Part Artificial Sea Salt System DOES NOT USE any type of anti-caking agent in our salt mix, we do not have too, because we hand weigh out all of our ingredients per any denomination we package."
Not really true but kind of. Let's this one slide. Actually many chemicals you/we/they buy as individual elements will have an anti-caking agent anyway. The side effect of "type of Cyanide" is a little off too but it sounds dramatic. Actually many of the really good trace elements in our salt are a "type of Cyanide".
"Here is another interesting thing that some commercial sea salt manufactures are doing. Some are adding EDTA (EthyleneDiamineTetraacetic Acid) chemical that makes your sea salt mix appear to dissolve quicker. High levels of EDTA can be toxic in the aquarium."
This is true. I choose also to not use any in my salt. Downside is the salt takes longer to mix properly but I'll take that trade off versus adding something toxic just to make the salt mix fast. Technically you should age the salt a day before you use it anyway so that makes the "takes longer to mix" a moot point.
SAVE YOUR MONEY.
Carlo
Carlo said:...
DaveK, we normally generally agree on most things with only differences in "minute" details.
...
I've never used Marine Environment salt (never found it locally). I never liked their "marketing technique" however. They are probably one of the least known salts out on the market at the moment. It seems like they have a "cult following". You either love it or hate it. I think most of the "love" it people are ones who have used it while the "hate" it people are ones who don't like the marketing and never tried it. Like TM it's one of the more expensive salts. The 2 part salt mix of theirs is unique. I've almost had to do this myself too but I've tried to avoid it since I'd think it's a pain. BTW, ME has the de-chlorinator in it and uses clarifies in part 2.
Davek, what do you think of the 2 part mix? Pain or cool? Is it hard to "mix" if say you only want to mix up 30 gallons? Do you need to mix specific amounts at one time? I'd love to get a gallon of 35 salinity water from you one day to run through some tests.
...
DaveK, got a question for you. Next time you mix up a batch of ME water can you let me know what the Calcium, Alk, Mg, pH (Phosphate, Strontium & Iodine if you have test kits) are of the water when mixed to a perfect 35ppt salinity?
Carlo
Yes, I'd have to agree the Marine Environment salt does have something of a cult following. I started using it about 15 years ago when a small, run out of the basement, out in the middle of nowhere, mom and pop, but excellent LFS told me about it. I found I got much better results than I did from the other salts currently on the market. That LFS has been out of business for years, and from then on, Marine Environment salt has been almost impossible to find on the east coast. So if you want it, you have to order it via the net, or mail order.
"BTW, ME has the de-chlorinator in it and uses clarifies in part 2." This statement seems to be incorrect. The part 2 of ME salt is a small, about 2 oz bottle you add after mixing the other salt. At this point the water is already clear. The "little bottle" seems to add some of the addition trace elements, and dissolves almost on contact. It would also seem to be the incorrect place to add a dechlorinator, since the bulk of the salt is already dissolved.
Using the 2 part formula is no big deal. I like to add the second part a day later, and then wait another day before using. Generally it's recommended to mix an entire bag of salt at once, but if I only had to mix 1/2 a bag, I'd simply add about 1/2 of the "little bottle" contents. It doesn't make that much difference.
I'll post exact readings next time I mix a batch. I will say ME salt does give very low readings for alkalinity. Yet in use, I get very stable pH. I suspect the low readings are that the salt is formulated differently, and this is a limitation of the test kits generally in use, but I don't know of a wat to prove it. I will say I get a higher alkalinity reading using my LaMotte test kit, but it's still on the low side.
While we are on the subject, there was a book published, "Artificial Seawaters: Formulas and Methods" by Joseph Bidwell and Stephen Spotte. It's most likely a bit obsolete by now. I did see a copy on Amazon once, but they wanted over $200 for it.
Aquacraft.net's website says the product has de-chlorinator in it. That's where I got that from.
Although I've never tested this salt I've went back and looked at there chemical compositions. Here's a few observations:
Potassium is shown as 382 but independent tests show it around 250 (very big difference). Sodium is shown as 10,278 but independent tests put it at 9,400 ppm (to low). These 2 are a large part of salt mixes and should be much closer to NSW!
Bromine is what is tested for in SW not Bromide. Comparing results from other independent results Aquacraft salts are real high in Bromine (IE 475) compared to NSW of about 65.
Lithium (metal) is listed at 3.11 where NSW is 0.17. This is EXTREMELY HIGH but yet they don't have this listed as RED as they would other salt mixes that deviate from NSW.
Boron is EXTREMELY low at 0.24 and NSW of 4.5. Boron makes up part of the buffer system along with carbonates and bicarbonates. I've commented on Boron before in this post. This low level will throw off normal Alkalinity test kits unless you also do a Boron test and manipulate the numbers properly. IE if using a typical test kit (API/Salifert) and you get "normal" alk levels your real carbonate/bicarbonate levels are higher. Boron is something that should have a perfect ionic balance to the carb/bicarbs IMHO.
Strontium is high and out of balance with calcium.
Molybdenum is low by there testing but other independent testing shows results of about 1 ppb where NSW runs 9 to 10 ppb.
Manganese is high.
Aluminum from independent tests show their salt mixes to be about the highest of any salt at 52 ppb not < 2 ppb. 52 ppb is extremely high. Aluminum is one element you need to be concerned with toxicity levels over time. NSW runs from 0.4 to 5 ppb.
Chromium is another where independent tests show it to be far higher then the manufacture suggests. Levels of 10 ppb where tested while NSW runs at 0.2-0.6. Most salt mixes run in the 4 to 14 range so this isn't unusual but definitely different then claimed amounts.
Cobalt tests at 3 ppb and is the highest salt mix for Cobalt. NSW is 0.004 to 0.4. Cobalt is a potential toxic metal.
Copper shows 4.2 ppb but independent tests show it about 7. NSW is 0.1 to a high of 3. Normally < 0.5. Again this is high but not unusual in some salt mixes.
Iron is almost 3 times higher then normal but many people dose iron so probably not a big deal.
Lead is claimed at 0.4 ppb but independent tests show it at 0.8 ppb which is par for normal salt mixes.
Nickel is claimed at <0.2 ppb but independent tests show it at 8 ppb which is on the higher side of most salt mixes.
Selenium shows under < 100 ppb but independent tests show it at 190 ppb which among the highest of salts tested. It a potential heavy metal toxin.
Zinc is shown as 1.1 ppb but independent tests show it as 4 ppb. NSW is 0.5-5. No big deal but not what is claimed.
They don't show results on their website for the following (some heavy metals): Antimony, Barium, Bismuth, Haligens: Bromine, Palladium, Titanium, Arsenic, Rubidium, Sulfur & Vanadium. I'll tell you this. Most of the independent tests show them to be the highest or lowest of salt mixes tested. No surprise they left these out of their published information.
Overall, this salt doesn't appear to be any better or worse then other salts. It has very high levels of many toxic metals but it would take a while for the levels to get toxic. It DOES HAVE a better ionic balance then many salts but it's out of which in many ways especially the major elements of NSW.
http://www.aquacraft.net/s9910.html
It definitely should not earn a 100 score as they do on their website compared to other salts. If you read this and go back and score it with what you know now it won't do better then IO.
1) 0 points
2) 0 points
3) 4 points
4) 0 points
5) 4 points
6) 3 points
7) 0 points (not even close to being low in toxic metals)
8) 7 points (don't think many people care how dry the powder is - only how it mixes and doesn't clump)
9) 10 points (again don't think many people care)
10) 0 points (doesn't match what product claims or manufacture leaves out many critical pieces of data needed when comparing salts)
11) 10 points
12) 0 points (boron out of balance and will effect pH over time)
13) 0 points (out of balance)
Total 38 points. Middle of the pact salt.
He it was fun doing to the manufacture what they did to other salts with the scoring. That was me mostly poking fun at some of their claims.
Overall, I'd rather use Reef Crystals with a little shot of two-part (if needed) then this salt based on the chemistry and toxic metal contents. I wasn't impressed with it's formulation at all. It's pretty funny how they "market" it as the "best salt" when it's no better and worse in many respects to the average salt. Got to love Marketing.
Carlo
PS wasn't trying to rag on the salt in an effort to make my own look better. I'll post the lab results of my salt and let you guys rag on mine! Heck I'll point out what I don't like about my own as there are 2 or 3 things I don't like right now.
Carlo
Although I've never tested this salt I've went back and looked at there chemical compositions. Here's a few observations:
Potassium is shown as 382 but independent tests show it around 250 (very big difference). Sodium is shown as 10,278 but independent tests put it at 9,400 ppm (to low). These 2 are a large part of salt mixes and should be much closer to NSW!
Bromine is what is tested for in SW not Bromide. Comparing results from other independent results Aquacraft salts are real high in Bromine (IE 475) compared to NSW of about 65.
Lithium (metal) is listed at 3.11 where NSW is 0.17. This is EXTREMELY HIGH but yet they don't have this listed as RED as they would other salt mixes that deviate from NSW.
Boron is EXTREMELY low at 0.24 and NSW of 4.5. Boron makes up part of the buffer system along with carbonates and bicarbonates. I've commented on Boron before in this post. This low level will throw off normal Alkalinity test kits unless you also do a Boron test and manipulate the numbers properly. IE if using a typical test kit (API/Salifert) and you get "normal" alk levels your real carbonate/bicarbonate levels are higher. Boron is something that should have a perfect ionic balance to the carb/bicarbs IMHO.
Strontium is high and out of balance with calcium.
Molybdenum is low by there testing but other independent testing shows results of about 1 ppb where NSW runs 9 to 10 ppb.
Manganese is high.
Aluminum from independent tests show their salt mixes to be about the highest of any salt at 52 ppb not < 2 ppb. 52 ppb is extremely high. Aluminum is one element you need to be concerned with toxicity levels over time. NSW runs from 0.4 to 5 ppb.
Chromium is another where independent tests show it to be far higher then the manufacture suggests. Levels of 10 ppb where tested while NSW runs at 0.2-0.6. Most salt mixes run in the 4 to 14 range so this isn't unusual but definitely different then claimed amounts.
Cobalt tests at 3 ppb and is the highest salt mix for Cobalt. NSW is 0.004 to 0.4. Cobalt is a potential toxic metal.
Copper shows 4.2 ppb but independent tests show it about 7. NSW is 0.1 to a high of 3. Normally < 0.5. Again this is high but not unusual in some salt mixes.
Iron is almost 3 times higher then normal but many people dose iron so probably not a big deal.
Lead is claimed at 0.4 ppb but independent tests show it at 0.8 ppb which is par for normal salt mixes.
Nickel is claimed at <0.2 ppb but independent tests show it at 8 ppb which is on the higher side of most salt mixes.
Selenium shows under < 100 ppb but independent tests show it at 190 ppb which among the highest of salts tested. It a potential heavy metal toxin.
Zinc is shown as 1.1 ppb but independent tests show it as 4 ppb. NSW is 0.5-5. No big deal but not what is claimed.
They don't show results on their website for the following (some heavy metals): Antimony, Barium, Bismuth, Haligens: Bromine, Palladium, Titanium, Arsenic, Rubidium, Sulfur & Vanadium. I'll tell you this. Most of the independent tests show them to be the highest or lowest of salt mixes tested. No surprise they left these out of their published information.
Overall, this salt doesn't appear to be any better or worse then other salts. It has very high levels of many toxic metals but it would take a while for the levels to get toxic. It DOES HAVE a better ionic balance then many salts but it's out of which in many ways especially the major elements of NSW.
http://www.aquacraft.net/s9910.html
It definitely should not earn a 100 score as they do on their website compared to other salts. If you read this and go back and score it with what you know now it won't do better then IO.
1) 0 points
2) 0 points
3) 4 points
4) 0 points
5) 4 points
6) 3 points
7) 0 points (not even close to being low in toxic metals)
8) 7 points (don't think many people care how dry the powder is - only how it mixes and doesn't clump)
9) 10 points (again don't think many people care)
10) 0 points (doesn't match what product claims or manufacture leaves out many critical pieces of data needed when comparing salts)
11) 10 points
12) 0 points (boron out of balance and will effect pH over time)
13) 0 points (out of balance)
Total 38 points. Middle of the pact salt.
He it was fun doing to the manufacture what they did to other salts with the scoring. That was me mostly poking fun at some of their claims.
Overall, I'd rather use Reef Crystals with a little shot of two-part (if needed) then this salt based on the chemistry and toxic metal contents. I wasn't impressed with it's formulation at all. It's pretty funny how they "market" it as the "best salt" when it's no better and worse in many respects to the average salt. Got to love Marketing.
Carlo
PS wasn't trying to rag on the salt in an effort to make my own look better. I'll post the lab results of my salt and let you guys rag on mine! Heck I'll point out what I don't like about my own as there are 2 or 3 things I don't like right now.
Carlo
Having used Reef Crystals and plain old IO, I can state that I got much worse results with them then I do with Marine Environment, even after I added various stuff to it. Also, both reef crystals and IO do not completely dissolve, and leave a messy residue behind.
I think all the numbers you were quoting were from the now infamous "S-15 report". It's been debated quite a bit over the years. Note that this information is over 12 years old. (see this link - http://www.aquacraft.net/sp0003.html ) Note that many of the documents shown start out about 1995. A lot happens in 12 years, so I wouldn't depend on that information for more than a general guide. A lot of things we know about today were not even considered 12 years ago.
I wouldn't mind seeing some similar studies done on the existing salts, but every other one I have seen seems to contain some major flaws. I'd also like to see some long term salt tests done with actual livestock, and see how well the stuff does compared to NSW.
I think all the numbers you were quoting were from the now infamous "S-15 report". It's been debated quite a bit over the years. Note that this information is over 12 years old. (see this link - http://www.aquacraft.net/sp0003.html ) Note that many of the documents shown start out about 1995. A lot happens in 12 years, so I wouldn't depend on that information for more than a general guide. A lot of things we know about today were not even considered 12 years ago.
I wouldn't mind seeing some similar studies done on the existing salts, but every other one I have seen seems to contain some major flaws. I'd also like to see some long term salt tests done with actual livestock, and see how well the stuff does compared to NSW.
I've never put much faith in the S10 or S15 reports. Besides they date back to the late 80s. Way too much has changed in forumulation of the salts theses days.
I had emailed the company and asked for a breakdown on the salt and got back the same info that they still have on the S-15 report for their salt. So either the salt hasn't changed in 15 years OR they have updated the site records to match but I doubt that they paid to have the test done again which in either case is kind of bogus.
Carlo
I had emailed the company and asked for a breakdown on the salt and got back the same info that they still have on the S-15 report for their salt. So either the salt hasn't changed in 15 years OR they have updated the site records to match but I doubt that they paid to have the test done again which in either case is kind of bogus.
Carlo
I use CoralLife(I know I'm going to get grief for this) for my FO 55 gal. I have had the tank for 12 years now and keep it at salininty of 1.021. Most of the time I buy the 150 gal buckets with the three bags inside unless I see a sale of another brand (hence price -a factor). Since I don't use large quantities of salt at once as frequently as the reef tanks, I feel the separate bags keep the salt "fresher". Would the separate bags make or break my decision, no but I do like the buckets. Plus with the bucket, I get a free tshirt and my family uses the bucket. It's worth the little extra.
I have tried other brands such as reef crystals but i noticed with reef crystals I needed more salt to make the 18 gal water change. I perform an 18 water change about every six weeks. IMO most people don't have large tanks but the large tank users I would assume consume more salt. Consider also that when setting up a marine tank, we are usually advised by LFS to start with 55 gal or larger. Also note, I am planning to add LR and reef within the next two months. Hope this helps and good luck!
I have tried other brands such as reef crystals but i noticed with reef crystals I needed more salt to make the 18 gal water change. I perform an 18 water change about every six weeks. IMO most people don't have large tanks but the large tank users I would assume consume more salt. Consider also that when setting up a marine tank, we are usually advised by LFS to start with 55 gal or larger. Also note, I am planning to add LR and reef within the next two months. Hope this helps and good luck!
Carlo said:
Yes, the S-15 is about achient history by now.
As for asking a manufacturer about a breakdown of the salt they produce, want sort of response do you expect? No one is going to give away the exact formulations. You got the "standard form letter".
As I seem to recall, and I'm digging up 25 year old memories here, so I may be faulty, Aquacraft didn't have the original studies done. They were studies done for publication in one of the aquarium magazines, but never published, because most of the salt manufactures threatened to pull their advertising.
While we are on the subject of salts and SW systems in general, it should be pointed out that most of the salt being made for aquarium use is made by only a few companies. Like other industries, the big companies bought up the little one, so while the brands still exist, they are all owned by a few large players in the game.
I would think Carlo is aware of this, but for others that are not, see these web pages - (Somewhat off topic)
http://www.central.com/brands/pet-aquatics.htm
Central Pet and Garden is a company you may not have heard of, but look at the companies they bought up, or own.
http://www.marineland.com/about_us/about_profile.asp
Here is Marineland, and note all the companies they bought up, or own.
Those along with a few others, is why you see similar stuff, at least in the low to midrange in just about every LFS store out there.
Queenie,
Good input
DaveK,
Ya know what's pretty funny about those are that Central Pet and Garden owns Kent. However Kent salt is made by Aquarium Systems which is a Marineland company.
I didn't ask for the formulations of the salt. I'm sure they wouldn't answer that question or just say it's propriatary. I know I would! What I got was the list of elements along with the tested results. Ended up being the same as the S15 "report card" info for their product.
Good input
DaveK,
Ya know what's pretty funny about those are that Central Pet and Garden owns Kent. However Kent salt is made by Aquarium Systems which is a Marineland company.
I didn't ask for the formulations of the salt. I'm sure they wouldn't answer that question or just say it's propriatary. I know I would! What I got was the list of elements along with the tested results. Ended up being the same as the S15 "report card" info for their product.
Carlo said:Queenie,
Good input
DaveK,
Ya know what's pretty funny about those are that Central Pet and Garden owns Kent. However Kent salt is made by Aquarium Systems which is a Marineland company.
I didn't ask for the formulations of the salt. I'm sure they wouldn't answer that question or just say it's propriatary. I know I would! What I got was the list of elements along with the tested results. Ended up being the same as the S15 "report card" info for their product.
I'm not sure what the relationship between Central Pet and Garden, and Marineland, and Kent is. It could all be owned by the same group. I was only pointing out how much of the industry is now controlled by one or two large companies. I am glad to see that there are still a lot of independent manufactures out there, but they mostly cater to the high end.
The effect of this is that we are left with less and less alternatives. Luckily a lot of equipment can be a DIY project.