My testing of Salt mixes

[SPStoner]

Originally posted by Billybeau1
Some of them did, but again, they base their results on 1.024 . Don't understand why they want to use this standard when most of us mix to 1.026. As you all know, there is quite a difference in Ca++ and Mg levels between 1.024 and 1.026

When they say makes 200 gallons, they mean 200 gallons at 1.024. At least most of them do.

Sadly, I think this goes back to the early 90's and the birth of Reef Crystals. At the time, most of the "experts" recommended a specific gravity slightly below NSW, to avoid the possibility of dangerously high salinity due to evaporation. Many of the gadgets available to us today to maintain constant water levels in our displays and/or sumps did not exist, or at the least were not readily available to the hobbyist back then. I believe this standard goes back to the creation of Reef Crystals at that time, and has been mimicked by the newer salts through the years. For one thing, it allows them to make apples to apples comparisons, and for another, it allows the manufacturers to sell a 200 gallon pail that only makes say 185 gallons at NSW versus 200 at 1.024. In other words, it is more profitable.
Anyhow, that is just a guess.
Happy New Year, all!

[RokleM]

Originally posted by oct2274
whoa.............tropic marin pro reef must have redid their formulation big time. I've never seen people get much more then 1200 mag from it. I went through 3 buckets and was always 1200 or less with two different test kits. good to see there. Have you tested red sea coral pro?

I would tend to agree. I just switched to it, and both of my buckets have been in the lower range. Although, I have little reason to doubt Billybeau1's results, as a couple of the other salts mixed right in where I've tested them myself in the past. I'll re-test my most recent bucket. My LFS gets new shipments frequently, so I'll be picking up another one soon as well.

[rigleautomotive]

i use red sea pro,which tests out about the same as your results on regular red sea.i will check it again and post my findings with salifert kits.thanks billy for the info,it is interesting

[Bri Guy]

Just wanted to say thankx for doing this test, its nice to see an outside source giving the #'s for once and at a normal salinity level, and using the same equipment I have access to!!

[rigleautomotive]

billy this is what i come up with using salifert on red sea pro.its actually lower than your readings for the regular red sea.alk 7.8--cal 380--mg 1180.i think i may look into a different mix or just go back to regular red sea.thanks Dan

[black_majik]

I have one question for you ( author) the salts you tested were they the "reef" salts or "marine" salts. Most companies carry one for each of those catergories( Seachem's Marine Salt , or Reef salt
Thank you

[Jimbob]

Originally posted by black_majik
I have one question for you ( author) the salts you tested were they the "reef" salts or "marine" salts. Most companies carry one for each of those catergories( Seachem's Marine Salt , or Reef salt
Thank you

If you look at the name for each of the salts, it should relativey apparent which salt is a "reef" salt vs. standard "marine" salts. Additionally, if you do even the smallest amount of research on this forum or most any retailer website, this question should be relatively self explanatory.

[Billybeau1]

Originally posted by black_majik
I have one question for you ( author) the salts you tested were they the "reef" salts or "marine" salts. Most companies carry one for each of those catergories( Seachem's Marine Salt , or Reef salt
Thank you

I haven't tested Seachems marine salt yet. I haven't seen many reefers talking about it so I figured it wasn't selling very well. Their reef salt, on the other hand, has pretty good numbers and I suspect it will gain in popularity.

They supposedly changed their formula to fix the borate issue so I suspect it's going to do the job for a lot of reefers.

[shibumi]

I use RC and my calcium is always very low and my alk high. Maybe I have to change

[Ty1e]

i just switched to RC from Oceanpure pro and it does seem to be low in Cal.

[NewSchool04]

I remember reading a year or more ago about people mixing a high Ca salt like Oceanic with a lower Ca salt like IO or Reef Crystals.

Has anyone tried this and what did you think?

[mksalt]

(Disclaimer: I’m new at this.)

I just switched one month ago from Oceanic to IO because of some crazy high CA numbers in my tank. I also seemed to always have low Alk numbers. I did this after reading another thread that claimed strange things happen with Oceanic at higher SG levels.

After seeing Billy’s test numbers, I now see why.

Guess what. Now I am trying to bring up my CA numbers because they are low.

Last night I had SG = 1.0245, Temp = 78, CA = 365, Alk = 7.7. Just F.Y.I., do not run a skimmer yet.

So starting with my next WC, I am going to use 1/3 Oceanic and 2/3 IO and see how that goes. I’m changing 10% every week.

[rigleautomotive]

i retested red sea pro after my first readings and calibated my refractometer.it came in a little better.please let me know if these numbers coinside with others that are testing.sg 1.026--cal440 alk 9.0 mg 1140.i ran each test 3 times and aged the mix 48 hours before testing.all tests were done with salifert kits.thanks Dan

[tbone28]

This is a great post. Thanks for putting in your time for the rest of us!

I use Kent, and my Calcium is much lower than your findings of:

Kent 540 11 1200

I have a 180g which I'm setting up. Before even placing any coral in the system, my calcium was much lower. I dose B-Ionic daily, about 100ml (approximately 240g total tank volume), and my numbers are:

Ca 386
Alk 11
Mg 1280
NH4,NO2, NO3, PO4 = 0
pH =8.4
temp = 78-79
salinity = 1.025 via refractometer calibrated with pinpoint soln

All values tested with Tropic marin test kits

Is there a reason why I dose so much B-ionic, yet my Ca is so much lower than Billy's findings?

[SPStoner]

Right off, the first two things I would guess are either you are using more calcium than you are adding ( coralline growth maybe...) or perhaps your salinity is lower than NSW. How are you measuring salinity?

[tbone28]

SPStoner - Perhaps that (coralline growth) is the reason! My tank has been running now for a little over 4 months now and coralline is still growing.

I didn't dose B-ionic from the start. I started perhaps 1 month into my cyle. Following the bottles directions, I added 1ml per 4g of water, so I was adding 60ml of each component daily. My Calcium levels at that time were 350 (Red Sea kit, so it could be higher or lower than that - but that was my titration point).

So I bumped it up to 100ml of each component daily and my values are as mentioned in my previous post.

I measure salinity via a marine depot refractometer. It's calibrated with the pinpoint 53ms calibration solution

[Billybeau1]

tbone, with a tank your size, I would consider a calcium reactor. Your tank is consuming lots of Ca++ and you'll either need to supplement alot or my first choice.

[Billybeau1]

Originally posted by EmDy
Ok, tag along and my Ocean Pure parameter at 1.026, 79 degree.

420, 10.6 and 1260.

Those are good numbers Emdy. I'll look for some to verify your results.

[Billybeau1]

Originally posted by Ty1e
hey billy, I finally got around to testing the OCEAN PURE PRO salt.
here's some more numbers to add to your list.

mixed at 35ppt.

CA 400PPM
KH 10
MAG 2100PPM
PH 8.2
K+(Potassium) 380+mg/L
Temp 78.0F

all test where done with ether ELOS or API test kits, the mix was left to airate for 24hours.

after that eye opener, I went out and bought a bag of reef crystal salt. It was ether this or Instant ocean, my LFS told me reef crystal was better, I was also told that they stop carrying the ocean pure line of salt because in a report they had read this salt mix has a high amount of bad metals in it.

the high mag was not to much of an issue untill I started running ZEOVIT in my tank the water quallity became better, then i began loseing more color in the corals, which was on a steady decline before zeo. since adding the new salt mix (reefcrystal) to the tank friday i have noticed more PE and a slight return to normal colors (still early).

I'll test tonight and see what the tank parameters are at.

Ty1e, I suspect the magnesium reading is wrong. The highest I've tested in any salt mix is 1650 ppm. Otherwise, your numbers are close.

[Billybeau1]

Originally posted by snorvich
I hope this question is appropriate to this thread but if not, I will ask it separately. What are the consequences of changing salt type? Is there any shock possible to the animals?

This is a wonderful set of tests. Thanks for doing it!!

Steve, not in my experience. Change away. But slowly.

[Billybeau1]

Originally posted by rigleautomotive
i use red sea pro,which tests out about the same as your results on regular red sea.i will check it again and post my findings with salifert kits.thanks billy for the info,it is interesting

Make sure your are mixing at 35 ppt or 1.0264

Many reefers mix too low without realizing it.

[Billybeau1]

Originally posted by mksalt
(Disclaimer: I’m new at this.)

I just switched one month ago from Oceanic to IO because of some crazy high CA numbers in my tank. I also seemed to always have low Alk numbers. I did this after reading another thread that claimed strange things happen with Oceanic at higher SG levels.

After seeing Billy’s test numbers, I now see why.

Guess what. Now I am trying to bring up my CA numbers because they are low.

Last night I had SG = 1.0245, Temp = 78, CA = 365, Alk = 7.7. Just F.Y.I., do not run a skimmer yet.

So starting with my next WC, I am going to use 1/3 Oceanic and 2/3 IO and see how that goes. I’m changing 10% every week.

Might as well give it a shot. Won't hurt nothing and I hate to waste salt.

[tbone28]

Originally posted by Billybeau1
tbone, with a tank your size, I would consider a calcium reactor. Your tank is consuming lots of Ca++ and you'll either need to supplement alot or my first choice.

I have a GEO calcium reactor on order. I wasn't sure if my low Ca levels were due to the salt or to usage. I didn't think (probably incorrectly) that a tank without coral could use so much calcium. But as SPStoner pointed out, it is probably being used by the coralline algae, as my tank is 4 months young.

I agree that the reactor is the way to go for my sized tank. I'm spending $40 every 6 weeks on B-ionic right now, and I have to do this daily, which is getting tiring.

[SPStoner]

Hey TBOne. A reactor is probably a good idea. There are probably several things utilizing calcium besides just coralline. Growing snails, for instance. A healthy amount of coralline can rapidly deplete calcium levels though, IME. I have actually just somewhat proven this in reverse. I did a complete re-scape of my 120 and removed 3 walls worth of thick coralline. I had to readjust my reactor and my dosing regime as without the coralline, the old adjustments were too much causing calcium to rise over 500ppm.

[tbone28]

SPStoner, I do have a lot of snails, and they blend in quite nicely with the rock . Well, I'm glad to hear that my low-normal calcium levels are not due to my salt, but rather due to setting up a new tank.