Salts, which 1 to use...This is a must read!

Go to this link and read away....you will be suprised!
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-03/rs/feature/index.htm

 

Wow, I read that article and wish they had tested Kent Sea salt as that's what I use. When you use the letters RO/DI what does that mean? A type of distilled?

 

Close Vicki. RO/DI is a Reverse Osmosis filter with a deionizer option on it. Basically a filter for your tap water that can remove up to 98% of the contaminates! I HIGHLY recommend one. Do some shopping - some are not as good as others. I have a Spectrapure model which is one of the best (they wet-test their filters prior to shipping for quality control) but they are also one of the most expensive.

ANYWAY, back to the topic at hand. Macnreef I have been meaning to read Ron's latest, but haven't gotten around to it. I will this weekend and report back.

[smiley=2thumbsup.gif]

 

Hey Matt,

I must be a cynic, but I think this is just another way of Dr Shmuck saying "it's not my fault".

The problem with the study is that it is so specific. It only addresses the effect on Urchin spawn. So OK, if you are only interest in spawning and raising sea urchins then it is valid, but for @#@$#% sake it is nothing more that that

The important article is this one

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-12/rs/feature/index.htm

where he finally, ( well sort of ) admits he was wrong about DSB's. I suggest you all read it carefully and with an open mind.


Have fun

;D ;D

John

 

'Dr Smuck?' Well, I guess we all know what you think of Ron now! Myself, I don't mind him so much as some of the fanatic followers of his out there that seem to take his approach to reef-keeping as THE approach. I have been in and out of this hobby long enough to know there are other approaches that seem to work well, but these are quickly discounted by the Shimek fanatics as 'outdated' or just plain wrong.

ANYWAY, back to the topic.

That was an interesting read. A couple things come to mind. First, the fact that artificial sea salts don't compare well to the real thing should not be a big shock to everybody. If it were easy, there would be dinosaur fights available on pay-per-view.

However, his point is that some artificial salts are more benign by not having metals in ratios several times higher than NSW is worth making.

Yet, as it was pointed out to me, these salt manufactures are certainly motivated by economics if not more so than they are about quality control. What I am getting at is that they may get certain ingredients for their mix from different providers month to month depending on the cost. Do they all follow some standard quidelines for purity of these ingredients? I DON'T KNOW. But it is possible that they don't and, although Ron didn't touch on this, it's worth mentioning because a bag of salt you bought 3 months ago may not be exactly the same as the one you buy today even though it has the same label on it.

In addition, something that Ron did touch on, is that how you take care of your tank - husbandry - plays a big part in all of this. Even though he had received to water samples from two people who used Instant Ocean, the makeup of their water was much different. One used well water, the other RO/DI, but also, as he points out, one may have had a type of algae in the tank that played a role in removing metals.

SO, there is a lot of variables here. That goes for NSW too. Where you collect it and when play a big part. You might find a great spot that has worked for you for years, but one batch could be bad because of illegal dumping in the area, underwater volcanic activity, you name it.

I don't think you should read his study and conclude that you necessarily have to change anything if you think it's working for you.

What I get from all this is duplicating mother nature and getting your fish to spawn is not easy and never will be. Would certain salts help your chances? Maybe, but you could shoot yourself in the foot many other ways a lot faster than the long term affects of metals or other elements found in common salt mixes.

There is a lot to learn and a lot that could go wrong.

matt

 

Matt,

Everything you wrote is correct and well considered.

My spin on the articles in a little more cynical than yours however

I think that the good Doctor has been covering up his staunch advocacy of DSB's. All those good people who followed him down the DSB path 5-6 years ago are now experiencing sudden and dramatic tank crashes.

So the call on Dr Shmuck.

Doctor, Doctor, give me the news, I've got a bad case of fishtank blues

Not once has he outright admitted he was wrong, he has done so in a roundabout way if you read the Down the Drain article, but never stated his initial assumptions were incorrect. So now we have the particle size at fault, the salt at fault, but nothing about the fact that if you did'nt have a DSB in the first place then there would be no problem.

Just one more thing, his book "DSB Secrets" boasts 1.5 million copies sold on the over. At only a couple of dollars per copy in his bank account there is no wonder why he wants to perpetuate the myth of DSB's

Enough of a rant from me tonight ;D ;D

Have fun

John

 

[quote author=JohnO link=board=General;num=1046983947;start=0#5 date=03/10/03 at 22:42:11]
Doctor, Doctor, give me the news, I've got a bad case of fishtank blues  [/quote]

[smiley=laugh.gif]

I don't want to derail this thread going off about Ron, but that was funny.

 

Dr. Rons study was specific, direct to the point and easy to understand.

Sea urchin bioassay is the basic test utilized to determine if a salt water solution is capable of cell division with larvare.. or it is toxic.

Cell division is the begining of life.

It would appear that some marine salts are capable of allowing life forms to reproduce and/or allow natural cell division... while other salts will not /cannot not/ do not allow this natural occuring process to develop.

There are a few things at the bottom of Dr. Ron's article that few recogonize. The package of "bioassay marine salts" from Marine Enterprises that scored high is believed to be a "hand made" sample sent directly to Dr. Ron for use in this specific study.

The claim of "bioassay marine mix" being identical to Crystal Sea, except for CS having a dechlorinator is simply laughable.

The samples of BIO-SEA Marinemix (similar in name to bioassay marinemix, but made 3000 miles apart by two different companies), as well as the samples of IO and Coralife were "off the shelf" packages.

Years ago claims were made by one marine salt manufacturer re: their breeding clownfish through several generations, using their salts. However in the Oct. 1976 issue of Aquarium News, it was revealed by the director of that marine fish breeding facility that their salt was fortified with hormones to "induce" spawning. -- The off the shelf package of that brand then as to day does not have "hormones". And--- That is the very brand that do not do well in Dr. Rons study.

When ever someone performs independent tests and offers originally generated work/results, I find it perplexing that some individuals that did not contribute to, or basically understand the relivance of the stury are some of the first to come forward and offer their conflicting "opinions".

MDP CEO Aqua Craft, Inc.

 

This is by no way intended to be a flame or attack on anyone here. I can certainly understand the frustration we all feel as we try to sift through the mountains of information and studies. If it itsn't a diffucult enough task, recreating the perfection of nature, you have to deal with sometimes conflicting information.

What I have a challenge with is that if exception is taken with a particular study we should first endeavor to offer constructive criticism and suggestion in addition to the ranting and raving. Secondly I believe that if we have a better idea, pony up and "put your money where your mouth is" as it were.

I heard a lot of criticism regarding the urchin larvae test on other forums as well, but I asked a chemist friend of mine and his opinion was that the hypothesis was plausible and that there was a measurable result with fair inferences given. The conclusion was not didactic.

If cell division in larvae is more sensitive than a fully developed organism, how much better environment does the salt provide to the aquarium in general? My instincts tell me it is pretty significant.

I would certainly like to see Dr. Ron have a chance to address the issues raised here

 

Can't one just repalce say 5 % of the sand every year?