Saltwater- poll
- Thread starter KidNano
- Start date
Scripps all the way. IO hasnt done to well in recent evaluations and Catalina water is drawn from Long Beach harbor from what I understand. Scripps has scientifically devolped a specialized synthetic salt mixed with RO/DI water. I get my Scripps water from Window to the Sea in Tustin for $65/gallon.
Do you know of anywhere else that sells it?
Jesse
Do you know of anywhere else that sells it?
Jesse
NO. I'm just asking becuase you've mentioned it a few times and I want to get a few other opinions. I really don't know much about it. For me it seems as though organic would be better than synthetic. At least that's what my hippy sister is always telling me. Danny @ Coral Oasis swears to me their Catalina water comes from Catalina.reefman23 said:
Please tell me you do not spend $65 for a @#$@#%^@ gallon of Saltwater. :???:
OC Aquatics on huntington beach will be one of the best places to get frags. A couple guys from n-r.com took over the store not too long ago and they are just about done revamping it. They are already a great place but will be even better soon. They have 3-4 large frag tanks, great specimens, and VERY competitive prices. Plus they are all truly nice, considerate people which is very uncommon in this hobby. www.ocaquatic.comKidNano said:
Tong's is also a great place. Gotta stress that you quarantine ALL frags and dip them too for nudis and FW just to be extra safe.
I have bought a frag or two from Coral Oasis too.
There are a few others around too.
We should meet up some time... Me, you, Eddy when he gets time away from his TWO jobs!
Jesse
they dont seel either one of those brands here in NY either that I have seen around so IO for me I guess I have been using it since I started and havent seen any ill effects and I even use tap water :roll: yes I know not the best but since my tanks have been up and running really havent had trouble with anything just a little bubble algae but that came in on another rock from the LFS and nothing my big ol' emerald crab didnt take care of for me. send me the link with the reviews for the IO jesse I would be interested in reading them maybe I should consider switching brands or something.
Aaron
Aaron
PS
oh and send me some zoo frags from out your way you guys are hogging all the nice brightly colored ones and sending all the dull and brownish ones are way its not far I need some color in my tank and I have seen pics of your tank jesse and I know you have color in there lol
Aaron
oh and send me some zoo frags from out your way you guys are hogging all the nice brightly colored ones and sending all the dull and brownish ones are way its not far I need some color in my tank and I have seen pics of your tank jesse and I know you have color in there lol
Aaron
Yes, we definitely have a great assortment of colors out here!amf82380 said:
It's not that IO isnt good or anything... every salt has it's sttrengths and weaknesses. It's just that IO is looked at by some to be a great salt for FO or FOWLR tanks and a better choice for reef tanks would be Reef Crystals or something similar. I cant find the linky to the salt study... Eric Bornemann is the one doing it and I think he is just about done writing up the report.amf82380 said:
Jesse
Jesse... I got the DL on the water.
Scripps as described by the nutty owner of "Window to the Sea"
Scripps has an area of the ocean that is blocked off to ships and what not to keep polutants away. In this area they pull the water from 200 feet below the ocean floor. Then they bring it up and run it through three different sand filters.... and..... wahlah. the most pure ocean water you can get.
This sounds a lot different then what you were telling me. where did you here that it's scientifically engineered? Or did I misunderstand you. either way he said that switching to scripps has totally changed around a lot of his customers tanks and they're all thriving and over flowing with beauty.
He said a lot of other things too. Like protein skimmers are a waiste of money. yada yada yada. Every question I asked he answered with a question. example?
my question- What kind of skimmer would you recomend for my 12 gallon?
his answer- do you see skimmers on any of my tanks?
Anyway.... I'd like to meet up sometime and go to some LFS's. I almost have two jobs. A pregnant wife is pretty close.
I bought a rock from him with some shrooms on it.
Scripps as described by the nutty owner of "Window to the Sea"
Scripps has an area of the ocean that is blocked off to ships and what not to keep polutants away. In this area they pull the water from 200 feet below the ocean floor. Then they bring it up and run it through three different sand filters.... and..... wahlah. the most pure ocean water you can get.
This sounds a lot different then what you were telling me. where did you here that it's scientifically engineered? Or did I misunderstand you. either way he said that switching to scripps has totally changed around a lot of his customers tanks and they're all thriving and over flowing with beauty.
He said a lot of other things too. Like protein skimmers are a waiste of money. yada yada yada. Every question I asked he answered with a question. example?
my question- What kind of skimmer would you recomend for my 12 gallon?
his answer- do you see skimmers on any of my tanks?
Anyway.... I'd like to meet up sometime and go to some LFS's. I almost have two jobs. A pregnant wife is pretty close.
I bought a rock from him with some shrooms on it.
I have had best luck with a 50/50 mix using regular Instant ocean with oceanic. A mixture of these give me best magnesium, calcium and alk. levels. Of course...Mix the two with ro water...Of course it alittle expensive having to buy 2 types of salt. Keep your salt sealed very well cause moisture will dilute some of the nutrients in the salt..IMO..
I have no idea what those other options were...I am assuming they are just saltwater premixed?...
I have no idea what those other options were...I am assuming they are just saltwater premixed?...
Jesse,
Not to intrude, but I have tested both IO and IOreef crystals...the numbers aren't much diff. Only thing about IO is its low on mag. Crystals is just the same...low on mag..I mix it with oceanic which is high in Mag...without mag..the calcium levels and corraline will suffer..
Not to intrude, but I have tested both IO and IOreef crystals...the numbers aren't much diff. Only thing about IO is its low on mag. Crystals is just the same...low on mag..I mix it with oceanic which is high in Mag...without mag..the calcium levels and corraline will suffer..
Ok...here are my notes with oceanic and IO...this is ocanic numbers on left and io on right...then the total on far right with the two mixed..
Calc 500+ 350 435
Alk 7.0kh 11.5kh 9.6kh
Mg 1350 1020 1170
IMO...I like these numbers and I will be trying this combo for a while...Its a new combination, but still...good numbers..
Calc 500+ 350 435
Alk 7.0kh 11.5kh 9.6kh
Mg 1350 1020 1170
IMO...I like these numbers and I will be trying this combo for a while...Its a new combination, but still...good numbers..
Nw I dont know what to believe. I *thought* I had read that on a Scripps site, but know I cant find the data. What you were told by that guy sounds good because that is the same way UCSB does it too.KidNano said:
As far as the various tests, because I dont use synthetic salts nor have I personally tested any of them, all I can base my info on is people who have. And according to Bornemann, while there arent major differences in the various salts, there are some that are better suited for reefs and some that are better suited for FO tanks. I will have to wait for his results to be formally posted and I will let you all know.
Semo, thanks for sharing your data. I have heard of others mixing two different salt brands in order to obtain better results. Sounds like you have found a good combo.
Jesse
This may help contribute to this topic:
Eric Borneman: "Yes, I am very sorry for the rush at the end, and I really would have liked some more time for both of us to describe what we observed.
Long and short of it is that at this point we have data but we have not done any analyses to see if there is any significant differences in the growth, reproduction or mortality of the corals, fish, echinoderms, gastropods, sponges, octocorals, zoanthids, corallimorphs, algae or other species compared to the control.
What we presented were some interesting things - such as what Frank mentioned... finding various micro and turf-algae, copepods, and other microbes in tanks triple washed with autoclaved substrate, purified water and salt. We saw clear trends in some of the salt brands in terms of turf and cyanobacteria continuing to thrive in some salts and not in others. We saw very clear differences in coralline coverage and foraminiferan growth and variations in successional species. I mistakenly kept saying bryozoan rather than foraminiferan in the talk...my bad. We also saw, in some cases, very heavy undeisrable algal growth month after month even after removing it after each water change despite very low measurable inorganic nutrients, and very little undesirable algae growth in some cases where inorganic nutrients were quite measurable. The difference, as Habib Sekha rightfully pointed out, is probably the unmeasurable organic components, but then the question is why the difference in the dynamics of nutrients varied given the same treatments.
Because the study literally ended the day before the conference, there was no way to analyze the results. I will say that, at least from being familiar with the data and the appearance of the tanks and the survival and appearance of the species that there are certainly some salts I would prefer to use in my tank and some that I probably wouldn't use again, even though I have used them for many years without any obvious negative effects. I have a feeling that the reason these differences are not observed by those using these salts, myself included, is that the complexity of the reef tank community is able to mitigate the good and bad aspects of the salts that became apparent in a more controlled environment.
BUT, and I STRESS BUT, the results once analyzed might very well show there are no significant differences between the salts and the control. It appears from a cursory look at the data that at least for some species there will be a significant difference. If there is, then I think it will be interesting to go back and run replicates of those tanks and species and look more carefully at what factors might be at work to cause the differences, either better or worse.
Anecdotally from our observations and the overall appearance and experience with the nine salts tested - in other words, if the average person came into the lab and had to pick a tank they would want to take home - they would probably throw Tank J (Instant Ocean) away because of the continuous heavy cyanobacterial growth with every batch, and would probably choose Tank F (Red Sea) because of the heavy coralline growth, booming amphipod population (I still have to count all of them!!!), tight ball of Chaetomorpha, and overall apparent health of the species. Yet, some of the other tanks had reproduction that exceeded Tank F in some species, and concurrently had less that other salts, too. The control was not without mortality, either, and had relatively low algal growth (corallines and turfs/cyano) but was the first to show strong foram growth.
Basically, there are a lot of things that happened, lots of data, pluses and minuses in each tank, and until we do the analyses, there really can't be an informed answer as to what salts are great or not so great.
Frank, I appreciate your offer. Rob Toonen and I spoke quite a bit last night as to how to approch the statstics, and I would like to talk with you about it as well. There are likely limitations to how much we can actually say and I need to think about how best to approach and get as much information out of what we did as possible. Some things are straightforward, others not so easy, and some may indicate something significant that will require more testing and replication.
The good thing is we have samples for further analyses and I would finally end this post by saying this is far from the definitive study. I hope it will be a platform that can be used for further work, comparison and discussion."
Jesse
Eric Borneman: "Yes, I am very sorry for the rush at the end, and I really would have liked some more time for both of us to describe what we observed.
Long and short of it is that at this point we have data but we have not done any analyses to see if there is any significant differences in the growth, reproduction or mortality of the corals, fish, echinoderms, gastropods, sponges, octocorals, zoanthids, corallimorphs, algae or other species compared to the control.
What we presented were some interesting things - such as what Frank mentioned... finding various micro and turf-algae, copepods, and other microbes in tanks triple washed with autoclaved substrate, purified water and salt. We saw clear trends in some of the salt brands in terms of turf and cyanobacteria continuing to thrive in some salts and not in others. We saw very clear differences in coralline coverage and foraminiferan growth and variations in successional species. I mistakenly kept saying bryozoan rather than foraminiferan in the talk...my bad. We also saw, in some cases, very heavy undeisrable algal growth month after month even after removing it after each water change despite very low measurable inorganic nutrients, and very little undesirable algae growth in some cases where inorganic nutrients were quite measurable. The difference, as Habib Sekha rightfully pointed out, is probably the unmeasurable organic components, but then the question is why the difference in the dynamics of nutrients varied given the same treatments.
Because the study literally ended the day before the conference, there was no way to analyze the results. I will say that, at least from being familiar with the data and the appearance of the tanks and the survival and appearance of the species that there are certainly some salts I would prefer to use in my tank and some that I probably wouldn't use again, even though I have used them for many years without any obvious negative effects. I have a feeling that the reason these differences are not observed by those using these salts, myself included, is that the complexity of the reef tank community is able to mitigate the good and bad aspects of the salts that became apparent in a more controlled environment.
BUT, and I STRESS BUT, the results once analyzed might very well show there are no significant differences between the salts and the control. It appears from a cursory look at the data that at least for some species there will be a significant difference. If there is, then I think it will be interesting to go back and run replicates of those tanks and species and look more carefully at what factors might be at work to cause the differences, either better or worse.
Anecdotally from our observations and the overall appearance and experience with the nine salts tested - in other words, if the average person came into the lab and had to pick a tank they would want to take home - they would probably throw Tank J (Instant Ocean) away because of the continuous heavy cyanobacterial growth with every batch, and would probably choose Tank F (Red Sea) because of the heavy coralline growth, booming amphipod population (I still have to count all of them!!!), tight ball of Chaetomorpha, and overall apparent health of the species. Yet, some of the other tanks had reproduction that exceeded Tank F in some species, and concurrently had less that other salts, too. The control was not without mortality, either, and had relatively low algal growth (corallines and turfs/cyano) but was the first to show strong foram growth.
Basically, there are a lot of things that happened, lots of data, pluses and minuses in each tank, and until we do the analyses, there really can't be an informed answer as to what salts are great or not so great.
Frank, I appreciate your offer. Rob Toonen and I spoke quite a bit last night as to how to approch the statstics, and I would like to talk with you about it as well. There are likely limitations to how much we can actually say and I need to think about how best to approach and get as much information out of what we did as possible. Some things are straightforward, others not so easy, and some may indicate something significant that will require more testing and replication.
The good thing is we have samples for further analyses and I would finally end this post by saying this is far from the definitive study. I hope it will be a platform that can be used for further work, comparison and discussion."
Jesse