Synthetic Sea Salt formula

[maplichen]

I was curious as to what salt formulas people are using safely with cephalopods. I have seen examples of instant ocean, red sea, and kent and have been comparing those and a number of other formulas to NSW element concentrations.

I take care of several tanks where I raise S. officianalis and S. pharonis and have always used Kent without issue. However, there recent formula change increases several minerals, which along with the kent marine vitamin supplement I soak their food in weekly, I feel may be resulting in ill health among the animals. For me price is going to be far secondary to making these cuttlefish happy, so what are formulas any of you have had success with?

[SabrinaR]

I use a combo of natural sea water and Seachem Reef salt. I read a review (that wasnt published) and emailed the phd that did the study. Basically he said that instant ocean was so poor that he would NEVER use it again (and he was VERY clear about it) From his research (cant find it right now) seachem reef had some of the better results but I have also heard great things about hW Marinemix Plus BioElements (though it was a long time ago and formulas change so who knows) Unfortunately unless you get your water straight from where they live it will always be second best.

[maplichen]

Thank you so much Sabrina. I had a single anecdote on disappointing results with instant ocean from a friend but with your evidence I'll definitely steer away from it. I have no way to get the true sea water unfortunately but I haven't seen any red flags against Seachem salt so I may go with that. Hadn't even heard of the hW Marinemix but I will be sure to look it up. Again, thanks a lot.

[CaptFish]

Interesting, I swear by instant ocean and would never use anything else, as do both of my LFS's and my fellow reefers. We all also use natural seawater as well.
:roflmao:

I tried Sechem, once but It took forever to dissolve.

[SabrinaR]

Interesting, I swear by instant ocean and would never use anything else, as do both of my LFS's and my fellow reefers. We all also use natural seawater as well.
:roflmao:

I tried Sechem, once but It took forever to dissolve.

Did you use the reef or marine version? I have only ever used the reef so maybe its different IDK?? It might also be something in our water that brakes it down differently. The reef formula completely dissolved in about 30 min and I have no left over crud at the bottom. I tried a few other salts but was disappointed with the quality. Seachem reef had the best results for me.

[CaptFish]

Did you use the reef or marine version?
it was soooo long ago I dont remember.

I have used Instant Ocean for over 20 years now and I learned to use it from my Dad, who has had tanks at least as long as I was alive. I have no idea how long he has used it. To me I guess its just what i learned with and like so it's what I use.

I always figured it was like cars, its all a matter of opinion. Some people like Ford, some Like Chevy. Some people like Mercedes, some BWM, and some Audi. Some people like Ferrari some like Porche and some like Lamborghini.
Ford, Audi, Porche, and instant ocean for me.8-)

[SabrinaR]

:grin: Well if it aint broke dont fix it right.

[Joe-Ceph]

Unfortunately unless you get your water straight from where they live it will always be second best.

Here in San Diego, free filtered sea water is available through Scripps Institute of Oceanography (part of the State funded Univ. of Ca). it is taken from a couple hundred feet off shore, in a heavily populated area, but it's the same area where I catch bimacs, so I think it must be fine. One of the local fish stores tells people that it's dirty, and that they would be much better off using (buying) mixed RO/DI water. That may well be true, but it at least makes it clear that there are strong opinions on both sides. For me, my cheapness and laziness are persuasive lobbyists for using the free Scripps water, and since bimacs are living in it already, I wonder how bad could it be?

[DWhatley]

LOL, there are different kinds of "dirty". My water is filthy and my RO unit get covered in fine red mud even after 3 RO prefilters two larger prefilters (larger as in holes since the RO prefilters would devistate my already poor water pressure) as it enters the house. However, chemically, it is relatively clean.

I too use Instant Ocean. I like the Red Sea mix slightly better but have switched back to IO (for several years now) because of cost. I have not tried the Tropic Marin that Nancy has mentioned liking (http://www.tonmo.com/forums/showthread.php?6913-Salt-Mixes/page2) and is a favorite in Europe.

Mazda RX7, Mercedes SLK230 :wink:

[skywindsurfer]

I think instant ocean is an overall acceptef salt mix. The aquarium I work at uses it as well.

[SueAndHerZoo]

Interesting, I swear by instant ocean and would never use anything else, as do both of my LFS's and my fellow reefers. We all also use natural seawater as well.

Me, too.

[maplichen]

Ok, I guess instant ocean isn't that bad after all. Thanks so much for the help. I was leaning toward seachem but I'll think about it now.

[Thales]

I use a combo of natural sea water and Seachem Reef salt. I read a review (that wasnt published) and emailed the phd that did the study. Basically he said that instant ocean was so poor that he would NEVER use it again (and he was VERY clear about it) From his research (cant find it right now) seachem reef had some of the better results but I have also heard great things about hW Marinemix Plus BioElements (though it was a long time ago and formulas change so who knows) Unfortunately unless you get your water straight from where they live it will always be second best.

That sounds like the S-15 study, or Shimek's urchin study. Both had SERIOUS problems and are widely thought of as essentially useless. If its a different study, please let me know about it.

Most salts are just fine, and generally the people who recommend expensive salts seem to do it to justify spending the money. :D

I like IO and RC, cheap, readily available and generally not tweaked that often by the companies. I also like the ESV salt and Tropic Marin, but cant see a reason to justify the expense besides 'I like it for some reason' :D

At work we currently use IO, but are switching to our own formula. At home I use RC - IO with a little more Mg and Ca.

It looks to me like most people have problems with salts when they change brands or start experimenting because they read somewhere that someone said it made their animals 'look better', so my advice is find something you know you can get and stick with it.

[esquid]

I read a review (that wasnt published)

Was this an actual experiment that had compared salt mixes or just observations on a single type of salt? Generally, it is not a good idea to work off unpublished information as it has not been peer reviewed.

[SabrinaR]

It was an actual experiment. I asked him why it wasnt published and he said because key members of the research group had gone different ways and information was never brought back together. I am looking for the info that I read trying to fined the link.

[esquid]

With all the forms of technology available today I can't imagine how the "information was never brought back together" if the data collected was worth publishing. The scientists I work with regularly collaborate and publish with people located all over the world.

[Lmecher]

Hmmm...interesting thread. For the record, I use Seachem reef salt. I switched from Oceanic because I couldn't keep my PH up. I have been happy with it.

[SabrinaR]

Hmmm...interesting thread. For the record, I use Seachem reef salt. I switched from Oceanic because I couldn't keep my PH up. I have been happy with it.

This was my problem as well. The ph would stay around 7.8 and wouldnt get any higher. I was dosing almost everyday and decided to make a change.

[SabrinaR]

With all the forms of technology available today I can't imagine how the "information was never brought back together" if the data collected was worth publishing. The scientists I work with regularly collaborate and publish with people located all over the world.

I dont believe it was a problem getting the info so much as getting people to give him the other information. I am still looking for the post. I unfortunately no longer have the email but I will find the study.

[SabrinaR]

Here is part two of where he was begining to publish is findings.

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-09/eb/index.php

There was no third part that I could find though there was a thread conversation on one of the forums regarding the talk he gave on this point.

I contacted Eric via email to ask what his finding were and to ask which salt he found worked best. While he stated (and I agree) that it is a complex matter of which salt works best the over all opinion after using Instant Ocean in the study, he found it to a very bad salt with very bad and surprising (his words) results.

I will be the first to admit that I dont know much about the different salts. I know what works for me and what doesnt. Instant ocean didnt work so I went looking for something that would.

[Thales]

I forgot about that one because the data/analysis never got shared. I find it hard to believe that the hobbyists involved didn't give him the data, and he sure made it sound like he had the data, but just hadn't yet analyzed it.

Each salt was put in one tank against a NSW control, each salt in different location, run by a different person, so many saw problems with the study even when it was first announced - the major issue being only one data point per salt. There are others. I am surprised that Eric said that IO was very bad given it was only to be put in one tank and tested once - its just the kind of thing he has argued against others doing in the past.

Here is an interesting review of the proposed methodology:
https://sites.google.com/a/asira.org/www2/borneman-lowesaltstudycritique

Here is something that Eric said:

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.

http://forum.marinedepot.com/Topic45946-9-1.aspx

No real data and apparently the analysis was never done. I wouldn't change salt mix based on one 10 gallon tank 'test'.

In many peoples opinion, the entire effort was done a disservice by them talking about results prematurely. I really appreciated the effort, but there are problems with the methodology and we never got results. What we did get was people changing salt brands based on hearsay and incomplete information (most notably missing was the analysis of the mortalities in the 'controls' as compared to the 'results' from the single test tanks).

I saw it summed it up this way:


Borneman puts himself out there as a scientist. He publicly tore into those guys who did the vodka experiments when they submitted an article to reefkeeping. He didn't allow it to be published but bashed it in a response piece. I think he should be held up to the same scrutiny he's shown others in this hobby over the years. Any experiment can be explained in a digestible manner. Presenters do it all the time, they talk to their audience. You make it more basic for those not familiar with the work and more complicated for those who are but that doesn't change the value of the work you've done. I haven't seen the study yet but the fact that he's saying there were mistakes doesn't sound good especially since hobbyist are making changes based on it.


Many people and institutions did and do use IO without problems and with fantastic results. Making a change based on any of the salt studies is generally regarded as a bad idea, making a change based on this one, given the lack of actual information, seems like a bigger mistake.

[Thales]

This was my problem as well. The ph would stay around 7.8 and wouldnt get any higher. I was dosing almost everyday and decided to make a change.

I wouldn't worry about a pH of 7.8 - http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-09/rhf/index.php
You cant really control pH well in saltwater, and IME 7.8 is fine and over time will eventually creep up. I generally advise against chasing numbers in a reef tank because of the inaccuracies in testing and because the animals will adapt to a very wide range of parameters. I am much happier using the test numbers for overall trending, not for dialing in a parameter. I have seen people cause more issues in their tanks by trying to adjust the pH rather than just leaving it alone.

[SabrinaR]

I wouldn't worry about a pH of 7.8 - http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-09/rhf/index.php
You cant really control pH well in saltwater, and IME 7.8 is fine and over time will eventually creep up. I generally advise against chasing numbers in a reef tank because of the inaccuracies in testing and because the animals will adapt to a very wide range of parameters. I am much happier using the test numbers for overall trending, not for dialing in a parameter. I have seen people cause more issues in their tanks by trying to adjust the pH rather than just leaving it alone.

So you would say that 7.8 is ok for an octopus? What about the day to night time swing? I leave my sump light on 24/7 to help with this but still worry that its to much. Though it is more stable now, I have seen it as high as 8.2 during the day and 7.8 at night. Would this swing be considered ok?

[Thales]

Those numbers wouldn't bother me at all.

If they did, I would start with the stuff in the article I linked - have you done an aeration test?

[SabrinaR]

I have not but I probably will tomorrow at some point. My 8 year old is having a slumber party so I am busy busy getting everything ready.

[Thales]

Just cause it would be interesting. :D
Happy slumber party!

[Joe-Ceph]

If the low PH is caused by an excess of dissolved C02, you should be concerned because that suggests possibly low 02, which is especially bad for an octopus. To test that, check the PH, and then run an air-stone in a cup of tank water for a few minutes, and then check the PH of the water in the cup. If it is significantly higher then the tank was it means your low PH is due to insufficient aeration / gas exchange.