All the data on salt mixes you ever wanted...

[Reef55]

I took the testing that was done on reef central and compiled it into an excel file, the salts were tested multiple times, the salinity reading is just to show at the same volume of salt, what each mixed to. The readings for everything else were all batches mixed at 78 degrees and 35ppt:

http://www.mspreef.com/files/salts.xls

The coloring was done for the zeovit system if anyone cares on the colors:

Alk between 6.5 and 7.5 = light green
Alk under 6.5 = dark green

Calcium between 410 and 430 = light green
Calcium under 410 = dark green

Mag between 1250 and 1300 = light green
Mag under 1250 = dark green

Potassium between 380 and 400 = light green
Potassium under 380 = dark green


I chose to color it that way because I can always add what is missing, but I cannot take away something that is in excess.

So my winner from the above?? Kent. Why?

1) Alk and Mag are low but easy to correct for.
2) Calcium and Potassium are dead on.
3) Phosphates are low.
4) It's relatively cheap.

 

[APISTOBORELLI]

Nice work Mark. Thanks!

 

[besl]

If I am reading the excel file correctly it indicates that RC is the same Alk with higher Ca than IO. It also shows RC having lower Mg than IO. My personal experience has been so different than this. I used IO for years always needing to supplement Mg, Ca and buffer (on top of what my Ca Rx compensates for). After re-researching salts, I came to understand that RC was higher in all three (Alk, Ca and Mg) so I switched about a year ago and have not needed to supplement any of these since (beyond that which my Ca Rx is adding). Am I reading the file correctly?

 

[stingythingy45]

I.O. has more Calcium than Reef Crystals and Tropic Marin Pro Reef?

 

[Moe_K]

Nice. We may have to make this a Useful Thread!
Thanks for the hard work, Mark.

 

[RayD]

I didn't realize the IO was so high in phosphate.

 

[saltwaterB]

I would really have to question the results that they have gotten. I know that salts may be different from batch to batch, but I have come up with complete different results when I have tested at least 5 of the salt mixes they listed?????

-B-

 

[Cardiak]

It seems to be a complete crap shoot as every one of these published graphs show completely different results. Thats probably the main reason I will always stick to IO...

$30 buys a 160 gallon mix
I change a maximum of 10 gallons a month which comes out to around 120 gallons in a year which = $22.50 worth of salt each year to keep my 75 running

 

[JayM]

I change more like 120g/mth, so let's not talk about what the salt costs please!

 

[Reef55]

without getting into the whole argument again, we previously discussed this here:

http://www.bostonreefers.org/forums/showthread.php?t=59528&highlight=salt+study


I was just providing an easy to way look at the results. If you believe the results or not that is entirely up to you

 

[kotu100]

what do you look for in salts? i use oceanic and have heard mixed feelings about it. doesnt look too far off (except the highest alk) from some other ones like IO.

 

[maurod]

Josh and I tested my fresh mixed IO a while ago, and got .08 phospates! I would not be surprised to find out that's accurate.

M.

 

[Arthur1]

The problem is, consistency. Every time I test a new box of salt the readings are different. Remember the S-15 report? I would not take any of those numbers to heart. One of the few reasons people blend different salts together.

 

[Moe_K]

Oceanic does look pretty good in that spreadsheet.

 

[pantinor]

I have never tested for potassium. Is this something to keep an eye on? I only monitor calc, alk, mag, salin, phos, and ph.

 

[Aquadiva]

Oceanic does look pretty good in that spreadsheet.

I used Oceanic years ago, and I don't remember the ALK being that high. I know the Calcium was, but I think I remember always having to buffer. I switced due to the "funky" algae issue many were having -- myself included. Was it the salt? who knows, but it went away after I changed salts.

In the FWIW category, I just filled a new seagrass/refugium tank with 90 gallons of water, some LR and a 6 in deep southdown sandbed. I mixed two 30 gallon batches of ReefCrystals and 1 thirty gallon IO.

I tested: 1240 MAG -- salifert
400 CA -- salifert (and double checked with Elos)
10 DKH -- Lamotte

I was pretty surprised at these numbers. Did the southdown have anything to do with it? I don't know -- tank is still a bit cloudy, though. I think a lot has to do with testing technique. I'm sure mine isn't the best.

 

[Reef55]

I have never tested for potassium. Is this something to keep an eye on? I only monitor calc, alk, mag, salin, phos, and ph.

In the zeovit world you test for potassium... still a large debate as to whether not you need to though.

 

[Aquaman_68]

Nice Job Mark...

 

[Aquaman_68]

The problem is, consistency. Every time I test a new box of salt the readings are different. Remember the S-15 report? I would not take any of those numbers to heart. One of the few reasons people blend different salts together.

Here here...That is a given....The one I found to be the most consistent was TM reg mix..... (that was after a year & a half of testing & numerous lots of the same MFG salt....)Tm, IO, RC, Oc, CS (from different sources LFS to reefers) TM is what I've been using since......over 7 years now!!!

 

[Ifferfish]

Thanks Mark! As with all things, you must take in all the data and then go with what you feel works for you. I find that for me, TM is the most consistent. Knowing that they all seem to vary to some degree, some sort of consistency is all one can hope for...