Why does reef crystals only have 320 Ca?

[SPStoner]

Originally posted by USC-fan
SPStoner- I don't care if they don't want to post here because they are not directly selling to us. They make the salt and they should post some kind of feedback that they are looking into our issues. I don't care about getting my salt replace I just want to have to deal with it in the future with RC. I still have a 4 month supply of salt so i don't need any new salt but if marineland doesn't have some solution i will look into other salts.

Also I find it hard to believe they will ignore the biggest reef forum seeing that close to 50% of people here use IO/RC.

Not saying they are, or should ignore it. Just saying I have never seen anyone from that company post on this or any other board. Also, as big as Rc is, we represent probably 1% of 1% of Marinelands global business.

Mike OBrien- I think it was Eb's talk at MACNA that I was thinking of.

Mixed_Reefer- I understand, just trying to see it from an objective viewpoint. Regardless, I'm sure that DFS will take care of you. They always do.

[SPStoner]

Originally posted by Mike O'Brien
SPStoner
I have to agree. Look at E.B.'s salt study. I've heard more than a few times lately of people switching to RC to get rid of cyano. The study was basically worthless, yet people do things because he says so. I learned years ago that making rash decisions in this hobby often leads to failure. I was one of them that switched to CSMM from IO. Why, because urchin larva lived in it better for some guy ? Killed my tank fast.

LOL! Mike, I remember in the early 90's it was Julian Sprung that everyone listened to. He had a monthly column in one of the fish mags, FAMA I think. I was working at an LFS at the time, and everytime he said saomthing was "the" way to go, half my customers would change their systems I vividly recall one 18 month period where his columns mentioned shallow sand beds, bare bottom, then the Jaubert method of DSB and fuge. There were people spending hundreds of dollars changing their systems. It was almost comical. Unfortunately, it was also enough to cause many of them to fail from trying to hybridize their systems, and ultimately drop out of the hobby.

[speeddemonlsr]

Now what I have been told on this subject is that RC and IO are not made in Mentor,Ohio like they have in the past. Now they are made somewhere in Cali.? Does anyone know any truth to this. I was having a long conversation with the owner at Aquatic Tech. about this.

[SPStoner]

Originally posted by speeddemonlsr
Now what I have been told on this subject is that RC and IO are not made in Mentor,Ohio like they have in the past. Now they are made somewhere in Cali.? Does anyone know any truth to this. I was having a long conversation with the owner at Aquatic Tech. about this.

Greg is full of beans. The salt is still made in Mentor, OH. You can call them and ask if you like. He may have been referring to the Kent Marine salt, which used to be made by Aquarium Systems in Mentor until kent was acquired by Central Pet. Now the Kent salt is made at the same plant as the Coralife Salt that Central also owns, I assume in California where ESU/Coralife is/was.

[gnikoli]

From a few posts ago...

If I didn't have to add more Ca and Mg to RC too, one could argue that the little extra cost is worth it, but the fact is, since I have to add Ca and Mg to both RC and IO, I buy IO because RC is not saving me the trouble of adding more stuff, just needs a little less. At least that has been my experience. I used adjusted RC for several months and my corals never looked any better than they did with IO. $2.50 is insignificant, but I'm a believer in not adding anything to my system that it does'nt need, especially mysterious unidentified enrichment as in RC.

I have absolutely no complaints about IO, it is what it is and I know what to expect. I also agree with those who praise DFS, they're great.

[Sacredcow]

CHEMISTRY AND THE AQUARIUM by RANDY HOLMES-FARLEY








Solving Calcium Problems


For many reefkeepers, correcting undesirable calcium1 and alkalinity2 values can be among the most vexing of the chemical problems encountered in maintaining a reef tank. Most reefkeepers know that if these parameters are not maintained appropriately, corals and other organisms may have difficulty3 in depositing calcium carbonate skeletons. Understanding how to solve such problems, however, proves more elusive. Unfortunately, it is often not as simple as adding more of whatever is depleted.

Here, for example, is a real question that typifies the problem:

I'm having problems raising my calcium levels above 200 ppm. I have been using kalk for about two weeks for all top off water, about 3/4 gal a day. The level has never gone above 250 ppm and drops back to under 200 ppm. I bought some Turbo Calcium and tried it as the product label recommended but am having no real success. I have never used Turbo Calcium before and was wondering how much of it I could dose safe. I only have 2 mushrooms and 2 damsels. Any advice?

Unfortunately, calcium and alkalinity are linked4,5 in many ways in reef tanks, and these links can lead to serious problems if they are not fully understood. If, for example, you add too much of a calcium supplement, you will drive down alkalinity as you get precipitation of calcium carbonate in the tank. Likewise, adding too much of an alkalinity supplement can result in reduction of calcium. Consequently, trying to correct one problem can cause another. Moreover, if you try to correct a calcium or alkalinity “problem” with the wrong type of additive, you might accomplish nothing more than creating limestone in your tank.

This article will clarify the different types of calcium and alkalinity problems encountered in typical reef tanks, and will describe in detail how to “solve” each of them. In reading through the article, you may feel that I am making it unduly complicated. Remember, however, that this article describes how to solve many different problems, while any given tank can only have one of them, so only a small section will apply.

Unlike most of my articles, this one is not written to provide a deep understanding of the science behind calcium and alkalinity in reef tanks. Those topics have been dealt with in several of my prior articles. This one reads more like a recipe. Nevertheless, this is the procedure that I go through (in my mind) when giving advice about correcting calcium and alkalinity additions, and there really is no shortcut that will ensure success (and plenty that ensure failure).

At the end of the article, I’ll also emphasize the best way to avoid these problems: using balanced calcium and alkalinity additions. I believe that using such additives would eliminate the majority of problems that people have with calcium and alkalinity, and I very strongly recommend their use.

One caution: many people get faulty readings from aquarium test kits. Some of these problems are the fault of the kit, and some the fault of the user. Regardless, if an aquarist were to “correct” a problem that was really only due to a faulty measurement, then the tank may go from fine to disaster. So please, before making any big corrections to water chemistry, confirm the reading with a different kit, preferably a different brand. This caution should especially apply if the measurement does not seem to make sense based on what you have previously added to the tank.

[bdare]

I've read that article many times. Perhaps I've missed something, but what are you trying to say with that quote??

[Sacredcow]

Just putting the info out there

[speeddemonlsr]

What does this have to do with RC with low CA?

[Mike O'Brien]

[gnikoli]

For what its worth, here is an exchange I had with Bob Studt of ASI back in the spring of 2005. He provided excellent customer service and I cannot fault anything he said or did. The only issue was that my readings never matched up with what ASI said they were supposed to be. I finally gave up trying and figured as long as the product was consistent, I could make up the difference myself. For all I know, its my test kits that read consistently low, although I kind of doubt that since I have never had one read high and I have probably gone through a dozen kits.
______

Me: Changed to Reef Crystals after using Instant Ocean for over a year and was still disappointed in Ca concentration. I over-did the first batch of RC and wound up with a SG of 1.027 (calibrated refractometer, double-checked with hydrometer). Calcium was still lower than desired: 325ppm with Seachem kit and 350ppm with Salifert kit. Testing was done 3 days after mixing, solution was clear, looked normal, no unusual sedimentation. Results from the standard that came with the Seachem kit were exactly what they should be, so I doubt the test kits are far off. Over the past year, Instant Ocean was always around 325ppm Ca at SG 1.024 with Salifert kits (more than one kit has been used and the results have been consistent, they always read a little higher than the Seachem kits). At best, Reef Crystals calcium concentration is only marginally higher than Instant Ocean, not what I had hoped.

ASI: At 1.027spgr Reef Crystals should have a calcium concentration of ~460mg/l as Ca++. Instant Ocean at 1.024spgr should be at ~370mg/l Ca++. (levels at natural seawater spgr of 1.026 should be ~440mg/l for RC and ~400 for IO) I have been testing both of these products daily for over 10yrs and I find the levels to be consistently within the expected ranges.

ASI: Mr. ###, I apologize for the delay. I did receive and test the sample a couple weeks ago. At a specific gravity of 1.024 (32ppt salinity) I found calcium at 392mg/l Ca++. This is actually at the low end of our acceptable range for this spgr but it is within specs. This level would be at 429mg/l Ca++ if the spgr were raised to natural seawater level of 1.026. Our target is 440mg/l Ca++ at 1.026spgr (35ppt). I will be happy to send you a bucket of Reef Crystals as well as one of our SeaTesT calcium test kits for your troubles.

ASI: From a Seachem reps response on an online bulletin board I learned that the calcium standard they 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. If their Reef Advantage Calcium is a dry product it is probably calcium chloride, either anhydrous or dihydrate, and would be a better source for making a standard. If it's anhydrous CaCl2 then you could dissolve exactly 0.75g of the dry product to exactly 1.0L in purified water and you then have a reasonable 400mg/l Ca++ std. If it's CaCl2 dihydrate then you could dissolve 1.1g to 1L for the same 400mg/l std.

[bdare]

I wonder if this thread will get "Thread of the Month"?

[mksalt]

Does anyone have the link to the article that Sacredcow quotes?

Thanks.

[bdare]

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/nov2002/chem.htm

[trapper01]

Hi guys same here I cant use RC None of readings come out right But I do use Instant Ocean The calcium is a little low but it mixes fast crystal clear ph is 8.1 everything just seemes to go smoothly

[gnikoli]

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.

[USC-fan]

DRF&S will paid for shipping of samples if you ordered from them.

Please send in sample so we can get the problem worked out!

[Mike O'Brien]

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.

[gnikoli]

Gee, sorry I covered old territory, guess I didn't read every post. Still, if one doesn't have a reliable standard, they really can't say what test kit error is. I missed the part where the results had been verified without assumption.

[Mike O'Brien]

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.

[gnikoli]

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]

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.

[bdare]

Keep in mind... I mailed salt to Gershwin at RC on Monday... I expect to hear from him in the not to distant future...

[Sacredcow]

Originally posted by Mike O'Brien
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.

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.

[gnikoli]

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.