Chris Adams
Valuable Member
Bingo!
Do the math, dosing vs salt quality
- Thread starter basile
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Bingo!
I think you'll find the price people pay for their salt mix is directly proportional to their experience. Beginners are more likely to use an overpriced salt whereas a more experienced reefer will opt for the lower priced salt.
mckinleyw
AIRBORNE REEFER
Yes and no imo. If you know what ur doing and on a budget then yes the more experienced will prosper due to knowledge. But i would think if you have experience then you would know to use a good salt mix that you can trust results. Presonally im an RC guy. Due to cost and availability. I use brs to keep cal. Alk. And mag. And no i dont feed corals persay. I am mostly softies and a couple lps which i do target some of my reef frenzy to. I mix with frozen mysis as well for the fish and anemones.
Devaji
7500 Club Member
you know I was just thinking about this the other day...
glad you posted. lets keep the thread going.
I use RC and do monthly water change of around 15+ % but as I stock with more LPS I was thinking maybe I should start to dose.
or should I just to bi weekly WC and call it good?
also in this equation one must factor in the coast of WC. the actual H20 and the filters carbon, DI ect.
I have yet to price things out. but I like where this tread is going.
glad you posted. lets keep the thread going.
I use RC and do monthly water change of around 15+ % but as I stock with more LPS I was thinking maybe I should start to dose.
or should I just to bi weekly WC and call it good?
also in this equation one must factor in the coast of WC. the actual H20 and the filters carbon, DI ect.
I have yet to price things out. but I like where this tread is going.
I will hope my brand affiliation will not negate the validity of my post on this thread. I will make every effort to keep this post as brand neutral as possible. But I do feel compelled to add a few important insights that have escaped the information given so far.
The cost of any given salt brand is less related to "how much stuff" is in the salt mix and correlates much more with the relative cost of the grade of raw materials used in the manufacturing process. What that means in that, in general, inexpensive salt mixes are made with lesser grade/less expensive raw materials. The reason that is important to the hobbyist is that, in general, the difference is that higher grade/higher cost raw materials are more refined than lower grade/lower cost raw materials. That often translates to lower grade/lower cost/less refined/higher, more variable levels of unwanted contaminants, as opposed to higher grade/higher cost/more refined/lower, less variable levels of unwanted contaminants. When I say contaminants here, I am mostly referring to phosphates, nitrates, silicates and heavy metals.
What this means is that when you purchase, what is seen as a higher priced salt mix, you are, in some part, paying more for what's NOT in the mix than what has been intentionally included. I think it would be fair to say that you can keep a successful reef tank with the formulas of ANY of the salt mixes on the market. That being said, if it costs the raw material company more money to refine the raw material to a more pure state, taking out most of the contaminants, then the salt company purchasing that raw material has to pay more for it. If the raw materials cost the salt company more, then the consumer price of the salt will be higher.
The other thing to consider is that not all sodium chloride or calcium chloride is created equal. When you test for Ca, for instance, your test kit is only looking for the Ca ion, not taking into consideration what it is bonded to. So a good Ca level of say 420 can mean a few different things depending on exactly what form the Ca is in.
This does NOT mean that all lower cost salt mixes are BAD. Or that all higher priced salt mixes are GOOD. It just means that looking at what the levels of certain parameters are, after you mix up your salt mix, is only part of the story.
By the way, I will STRONGLY disagree with the statement that:
In my experience the facts are quite to the contrary.
Oh, one more thing...unless you are running a Nano tank and doing 50%-75% water changes, there is a good chance that you will have to dose, in a reef tank, no matter what salt mix you are using. The amount of supplementation you will get with a 10% or 20% water change, once every week or two, will usually NOT keep up with the Ca and alkalinity usage in a healthy reef. In fact, if it does, the reef is probably not growing at the optimal rate.
The cost of any given salt brand is less related to "how much stuff" is in the salt mix and correlates much more with the relative cost of the grade of raw materials used in the manufacturing process. What that means in that, in general, inexpensive salt mixes are made with lesser grade/less expensive raw materials. The reason that is important to the hobbyist is that, in general, the difference is that higher grade/higher cost raw materials are more refined than lower grade/lower cost raw materials. That often translates to lower grade/lower cost/less refined/higher, more variable levels of unwanted contaminants, as opposed to higher grade/higher cost/more refined/lower, less variable levels of unwanted contaminants. When I say contaminants here, I am mostly referring to phosphates, nitrates, silicates and heavy metals.
What this means is that when you purchase, what is seen as a higher priced salt mix, you are, in some part, paying more for what's NOT in the mix than what has been intentionally included. I think it would be fair to say that you can keep a successful reef tank with the formulas of ANY of the salt mixes on the market. That being said, if it costs the raw material company more money to refine the raw material to a more pure state, taking out most of the contaminants, then the salt company purchasing that raw material has to pay more for it. If the raw materials cost the salt company more, then the consumer price of the salt will be higher.
The other thing to consider is that not all sodium chloride or calcium chloride is created equal. When you test for Ca, for instance, your test kit is only looking for the Ca ion, not taking into consideration what it is bonded to. So a good Ca level of say 420 can mean a few different things depending on exactly what form the Ca is in.
This does NOT mean that all lower cost salt mixes are BAD. Or that all higher priced salt mixes are GOOD. It just means that looking at what the levels of certain parameters are, after you mix up your salt mix, is only part of the story.
By the way, I will STRONGLY disagree with the statement that:
In my experience the facts are quite to the contrary.
Oh, one more thing...unless you are running a Nano tank and doing 50%-75% water changes, there is a good chance that you will have to dose, in a reef tank, no matter what salt mix you are using. The amount of supplementation you will get with a 10% or 20% water change, once every week or two, will usually NOT keep up with the Ca and alkalinity usage in a healthy reef. In fact, if it does, the reef is probably not growing at the optimal rate.
Last edited:
Joshky
Well-Known Member
It's much easier for some people to choose the blue bucket versus the coral pro bucket because of the lower alkalinity in the blue bucket, those who keep their alkalinity around 8dkh will want a salt with a similar dkh for stability; in this context that would be the blue bucket. Of course you can purchase the coral pro bucket and lower the alkalinity with muriatic acid, but what's in the coral pro bucket to warrant the hassle of using muriatic acid in brand new saltwater? My point is that the salt you use should be similar to your tanks parameters, how much the salt costs doesn't (necessarily) mean anything at all in this regard.
hybridazn
Acro killer.....
Keeping the big 3 (alk, cal, mag) stable do more than just encourage growth, they are needed to survive. LPS are almost just as demanding on these as SPS are.
Corals are constantly consuming alk and cal and simple weekly water changes become inadequate quickly after a few frags. They need more than just the quick "splash" of alk and cal to sustain. These 3 need to be stable through out the week which is why dosing becomes very important.
Now the brand of salt you use, does it make economic sense to use a "cheaper" salt while dosing? It does to a point, now everyone and their grandmother who have had a saltwater tank have used IO and RC. They are good salts that get the job done. I use a slightly more expensive salt for how easy and quickly red sea mixes compared to IO. A 200 gallon box of RC costs around 2.50 a gallon if you break it down, a bag of my RSCP is around 3.12 a gallon.
Last edited:
Deaf clown
Active Member
I'm starting to use fritz salt and I hear good things about it. At $50 a box (where I get it from) I've got no problem doing a 10 gallon weekly water change on my 75 gallon tank.
Correct my math if it's wrong 200 gal at 35 ppt for $50= $2.50 each water change.
Total gallons in my tank I'd guess about 80-85 gallons with my sump.
Wouldn't say I have a "mature" tank with huge colonies yet-maybe in it's "preteens". Few frags of sps and some starting to be 3-4" across and my lps have multiple heads.
Correct my math if it's wrong 200 gal at 35 ppt for $50= $2.50 each water change.
Total gallons in my tank I'd guess about 80-85 gallons with my sump.
Wouldn't say I have a "mature" tank with huge colonies yet-maybe in it's "preteens". Few frags of sps and some starting to be 3-4" across and my lps have multiple heads.
"In general", you are paying higher shipping and handling costs for a salt like Tropical Marin. Where in Europe is TM manufactured? So I would strongly disagree that an overpriced imported salt is using more expensive raw materials than a quality, reasonably priced salt mix like Instant Ocean. It wouldn't make economic sense but is good fodder for a salesman.....
These are the "facts"
http://web.archive.org/web/20001215...om/fish2/aqfm/1999/mar/features/1/default.asp
These are the "facts"
http://web.archive.org/web/20001215...om/fish2/aqfm/1999/mar/features/1/default.asp
Last edited:
This is the way I run my tank. My salt was picked because it has the same range that I want to keep the tank at. Once everything is growing well you can't keep stability with weekly water changes (unless you have a really low demand tank), so I have to dose to keep my parameters stable. This means that if I do a water change the parameters should still be the same (ish) due to the salt but if I miss one it still keeps the parameters stable.
I think it's hard to conclude if water changes are cheaper than dosing because on one tank you might get away with a weekly water change but on another it may need a huge input of elements to keep it stable and in this case water changes wouldn't work unless they were near constant.
You also need to consider what you are dosing. If you use pretty bottled solutions with a pretty picture on the front then you will be paying far more than you need to. Make your own or powders and it's much more economical.
@Randy Holmes-Farley I've been told that the levels we test for when making, say, a 5 gallon bucket of new saltwater will not stabilize while it is in the bucket, and to just add the water once it's clear (and the temperature are salinity are correct of course). In fact I've been told it's far worse to leave the stuff mixing for more than a few hours because the macro elements we want will often fall out of solution if kept in the bucket too long.
I have tested this in a very unscientific fashion, i.e. sporadically and it seems to be true. I've tested a newly mixed batch (once clear) and got alk of 14 and magnesium off the charts. Then an hour later I tested the same water with zero changes and got alk of 8 and mag of 1200.
So a few questions:
1) Why would this happen and am I just crazy?
2) Is it bad to leave water mixing for too long?
3) Will the levels, in fact stabilize in the mixing container?
4) Given that most water changes are 5-10%, do the levels matching even matter (within reason)?
I very rarely test newly mixed water for anything except temp and salinity and I have never had an issue with a water change screwing up the levels in my display.
I have tested this in a very unscientific fashion, i.e. sporadically and it seems to be true. I've tested a newly mixed batch (once clear) and got alk of 14 and magnesium off the charts. Then an hour later I tested the same water with zero changes and got alk of 8 and mag of 1200.
So a few questions:
1) Why would this happen and am I just crazy?
2) Is it bad to leave water mixing for too long?
3) Will the levels, in fact stabilize in the mixing container?
4) Given that most water changes are 5-10%, do the levels matching even matter (within reason)?
I very rarely test newly mixed water for anything except temp and salinity and I have never had an issue with a water change screwing up the levels in my display.
MaiReef
Valuable Member
Stability starts with salt that is close to where you want your tank levels. I do not like to wait on Instant Ocean and then take my time which is more valuable than saving $o.50 and an extra 30 minutes to make Instant Ocean to the levels I want in my tank. I do not dose very often as my levels are maintained with kalkwasser and once a month water changes with AquaForest Reef.
Robthorn
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately they didn't mix the salt even to the proper salinity. I remember this study and several before it. Always funny how they find a way to fudge the numbers into facts.
Not fair to mix any of them differently. Should be 35ppt across the board so we could see some real facts.
To answer your Tropic Marin products are all manufactured in Germany.
There are many factors that influence the ultimate consumer price of a salt mix. Shipping and handling costs are certainly factored into it. But also things like profit margins, advertisement budgets, marketing budgets, sales force size, packaging, distribution channels, total volume, total world market distribution, currency exchange rates, plus a myriad of other factors are as well. The formula is a complex one, and raw materials costs is only one very influential component.
I am not saying that one salt is better or worse than another. I am merely adding some additional information into this thread to reinforce that the assumption of lower priced salts having less stuff in them and requiring more supplementation being the difference between higher priced salts having more stuff and consequently requiring less supplementation, is totally incorrect! And, that there are many factors that often get ignored in that discussion, quality of raw materials used as one very important one. Smart cars and Volkswagens are not crafted in the same way, with the same materials as Maseratis and Rolls Royces.
While I value the science and intent of the Atikinson/Bingman salt study, it is important to note that it was done with a small sampling of salt and is over 18 years old. Again, I'm not putting it down or saying it is wrong. Just that a lot changes in 18 years and large samplings across a wide range are necessary to make wide sweeping conclusions.
In my attempt at always trying to keep this forum helpful and informative, I will do my usual "bowing out" at this point. I always feel that my company affiliation makes my input viewed as to "commercial" to be as impartial. Truth be told, after being the North American office for Tropic Marin for the last 20 years, I am not totally impartial. That being said, please consider the impact of the information I have offered in these two posts. I do believe it to be an important addition to the conversation, in spite of it's source.
To answer your Tropic Marin products are all manufactured in Germany.
There are many factors that influence the ultimate consumer price of a salt mix. Shipping and handling costs are certainly factored into it. But also things like profit margins, advertisement budgets, marketing budgets, sales force size, packaging, distribution channels, total volume, total world market distribution, currency exchange rates, plus a myriad of other factors are as well. The formula is a complex one, and raw materials costs is only one very influential component.
I am not saying that one salt is better or worse than another. I am merely adding some additional information into this thread to reinforce that the assumption of lower priced salts having less stuff in them and requiring more supplementation being the difference between higher priced salts having more stuff and consequently requiring less supplementation, is totally incorrect! And, that there are many factors that often get ignored in that discussion, quality of raw materials used as one very important one. Smart cars and Volkswagens are not crafted in the same way, with the same materials as Maseratis and Rolls Royces.
While I value the science and intent of the Atikinson/Bingman salt study, it is important to note that it was done with a small sampling of salt and is over 18 years old. Again, I'm not putting it down or saying it is wrong. Just that a lot changes in 18 years and large samplings across a wide range are necessary to make wide sweeping conclusions.
In my attempt at always trying to keep this forum helpful and informative, I will do my usual "bowing out" at this point. I always feel that my company affiliation makes my input viewed as to "commercial" to be as impartial. Truth be told, after being the North American office for Tropic Marin for the last 20 years, I am not totally impartial. That being said, please consider the impact of the information I have offered in these two posts. I do believe it to be an important addition to the conversation, in spite of it's source.
For me and my system I have learned that I get far better results from changing 20% with IO every two weeks or more than adding anything other than food and Kalk. Better stability, better water quality, better balance, and much much lower costs. There is a LFS here that offer sales IO (200g) for 38.88$, no shipping. I change 50-55 per water change so a box lasts about 3 changes. I use more with fish in QT.
Doing frequent adequate sized water changes is like dosing everything in a perfect amount more or less. I see no downsides nor anything else that has more upside to this method.
Randy Holmes-Farley
Reef Chemist
Staff member
Super Moderator
Excellence Award
Expert Contributor
Article Contributor
R2R Research
My Tank Thread
Water changes are rarely enough to supply adequate alkalinity. The demand needs to be VERY low, or the changes high (like 20-50% daily).
I show that here:
Water Changes in Reef Aquaria by Randy Holmes-Farley - Reefkeeping.com
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-10/rhf/index.php
from it:
Figure 22. Alkalinity as a function of time when performing daily water changes equivalent to 0% (no changes), 15% and 30% of the total volume each month (in other words, 0%, 0.5% and 1% per day). In this example, alkalinity is present at 4 meq/L (11 dKH) at the start and is depleted at a low rate of 0.2 meq/L per day.
Randy Holmes-Farley
Reef Chemist
Staff member
Super Moderator
Excellence Award
Expert Contributor
Article Contributor
R2R Research
My Tank Thread
The magnesium is testing error.
Some mixes might slowly precipitate some calcium carbonate, which you'd notice first in an alk decline.
In general, I don't think this is a concern and I typically have kept salt water for a month or more.
Over the last 10 years or so of reef keeping I've primarily stuck with RC and then supplemented Alk, Mag, Ca. However, the last couple months I stopped doing water changes and simply dose Triton Core. So far things are doing great. I know that is a little off topic but from my math it does seem to be more economical and somewhat more stable. Thus far I've noticed my PH to be pretty rock steady as opposed to how I was running previously changing water 10-15 gallons and dosing manually
