I would like to chime in on this situation, being an analytical chemist and the quality director for a company that has supply chains all over the world (including Germany). I exclusively use TM Pro on my 220 system as I'm aiming for a high end SPS tank. Over the past year (first year of tank life, bare bottom, dry rock) I experienced much random coral death and invert death. I chalked it up to my own inexperience, bacterial fluctuations due to dry rock, and other things. After my fish died, I sent samples out for both ICP and Micro testing to find the cause, which I could not. My system is on an AWC of 2% daily, and I make about 55gal of saltwater monthly only ever using TM. After reading this thread, I checked a few of the buckets of TM I still have in the garage, one is from Germany, the other is from Turkey. I did not record which batch was used for which NSW mix, something that I will now start doing. This hobby/industry is terribly under regulated with lots of bad actors, which is why TM has for so long, in my opinion, been the gold standard of quality. I think TMs reputation has been tarnished here, and unfortunately most of the people who use the salt don't understand the complex logistics of running a global supply chain, especially over the past couple of years. That said, I would like to do 2 things with this post: 1) put a little pressure of TM by asking specific questions that they can choose to answer in detail, or not, and 2) give TM a chance to regain their gold standard with how they respond to the following questions. These are questions that I ask of my quality department and contract organizations all the time, and should be an easy answer for anyone in charge of a quality system. The challenge here is that most companies do not desire to release internal documents. This is what I will request.
@Lou Ekus
1) Regarding the investigation, when was it started, by whom, and how was the issue identified? Can you share the documentation or the aggregation of records (redacted for privacy of course) that reached the threshold such that the TM quality team decided that a full and proper investigation was necessary? In layman's terms, did it just take enough people ******** on R2R for you guys to decide to look into this?
2) Once the investigation was underway, was batch/lot tracking possible and performed such that the exact lots/batches affected could be uniquely identified and tracked all the way through the supply chain and to the end user? If this was possible, was this tracking performed and documented? Would you be willing to share those records so that end users have a very high probability of identifying IF their particular bucket was affected or not? If it is not possible due to lack of proper traceability, what steps are being put in place to be able to perform this analysis in the future, should it arise?
3) Would you be willing to share any and all Corrective Actions, Risk Assessments, and Root Cause Analyses performed related to both the identification of the issue, determination of the intensity and frequency of the issue, and resolution of the issue. I completely understand that these types of assessments and documentation takes time and so may not yet be complete, but a mere willingness to show the completed documents once complete would be a good step forward in the transparency and trust area of the company and with the product. If you desire to summarize the CA, RA, and RCAs instead of posting actual internal documents that would probably be acceptable as long as they are complete.
4) Since these products have long cycle times and physically long supply chains (i.e. a product can be made many months or even years before it ends up in the customers hands), what kind of documentation scheme exists at TM to ensure that long term traceability is in place, and what kind of agreements are in place with places like BRS and other distributors so that IF you do desire to do a sales pause, recall, or other communication event, you are able to successfully do so? For example, a recall on my Ford shows up in my Ford app, and I get an email. I don't recall getting an email from BRS or TM about this potential issue. I realize, of course, that this is an incredibly sensitive topic (because sales are at stake), and that non-disclosure agreements and other legal documents MAY be in place already that could prevent the proper answer to this question, but surely there is NOT a gag order on the existence of an NDA itself. Would you and Ryan
@Bulk Reef Supply be willing to sit down together and discuss this in a stream to address this issue?
Ok, those are my initial, document-less questions. I realize I'm just some random no-name guy on the internet who has only lost a few hundred dollars on SPS, but the community has lost our high quality salt flag bearer. I hope that by asking these questions for those who don't understand the complexities involved that it will at least be willing to give TM another shot. I will probably continue purchasing (and lot tracking) TM for the time being, but I am certain that others in this thread have already walked away. This is an opportunity to regain them, and the community's trust. I would be willing to volunteer some of my brain power and time to 3rd party evaluate some of the quality system metrics mentioned above if desired (even under NDA if necessary). I WANT to be able to buy perfectly pure, pharmaceutical grade materials for my reef. I do NOT want to have to question what I consider fickle questions like "is my DOS losing calibration over time" or "is my salt randomly contaminated with ion X". This hobby is hard enough, we don't need to make it harder by NOT having high quality companies and products around like TM. I hope I am heard.
